Trump impeachment will bring Pelosi and House Democrats condemnation by history

[dan_bgblue]

For the 4 thousandth time, Nancy stood in front of the cameras with left fist raised to the sky and said "the president has been impeached."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., seemed giddy Wednesday as she announced the impeachment managers who would go to the Senate and attempt to prosecute a case against President Trump.

“He’s been impeached forever,” Pelosi said. “They can never erase that.”

However, Pelosi has it exactly backward. The Senate is going to refuse to convict President Trump. He will be exonerated, and she and the Democrats will be condemned by history.

[Catfan73]

I think history will note the difference between acquittal and exoneration, especially if the Senate fails to call Bolton to testify.

[CitizenBBN]

They don't have time. The House didn't, why should they?

[dan_bgblue]

They don't have time. The House didn't, why should they?

There is a Constitutional crisis afoot and it needs to be taken care of immediately.

[dan_bgblue]

Nancy you and many in your constitutional protecting party really know nothing about the constitution/bill of rights or if you do you choose to ignore many of the principals contained with it's pages.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-...oyer-innocence

[CitizenBBN]

Nancy you and many in your constitutional protecting party really know nothing about the constitution/bill of rights or if you do you choose to ignore many of the principals contained with it's pages.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-...oyer-innocence

So a hearing where the GOP nor Trump were allowed to call witnesses or submit evidence without blessing of the chair was fair and Trump somehow failed to "prove his innocence" by not allowing them to subpoena only what they wanted.

As I've long said, the response to Trump is what is undermining democracy, not what Trump has done. Throwing out the book to "get him" in the name of his imminent danger is deeply dangerous, and many don't seem to see it.

[Catfan73]

They don't have time. The House didn't, why should they?

What I remember was Bolton threatening (under Trump’s orders to stonewall) to take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The story at the time was that the Democrats, knowing if that occurred that it would likely take months to to reach a decision, decided that it could wait until the Senate trial. What Trump is saying now that they were in too much of a rush and didn’t want him to testify is ridiculous. I think most people (and pretty much EVERY poll reflects this) want to hear from the witnesses. Mitch has to tread lightly; Pelosi has his balls in a vise right now.

[dan_bgblue]

I suspect that when the Senate gets done with the pile of crap that was delivered to them by the House, she will be handing Schiff and Nadler their family jewels in a paper cup.

[CitizenBBN]

What I remember was Bolton threatening (under Trump’s orders to stonewall) to take the House to court if they subpoenaed him. The story at the time was that the Democrats, knowing if that occurred that it would likely take months to to reach a decision, decided that it could wait until the Senate trial. What Trump is saying now that they were in too much of a rush and didn’t want him to testify is ridiculous. I think most people (and pretty much EVERY poll reflects this) want to hear from the witnesses. Mitch has to tread lightly; Pelosi has his balls in a vise right now.

No, she doesn't. that's just nonsense.

And yes, they would have had to go to court. That's what happens when two branches of government disagree. There is a LONG history of PResidents claiming one kind of privilege or another to Congress, and the process is pretty well established. Such cases generally go to the DC Court of Appeals and then appeal to SCOTUS.

They were in a super rush, and said so many times b/c Trump was an "imminent threat". They even withdrew or didn't issue some subpoenas, like with Bolton. They didn't even TRY to get a court ruling.

In fact, they amazingly then used this to claim an article of impeachment, the utterly nonexistent and absurd "obstruction of Congress."

here's a bit of news: The POTUS has been "obstructing" Congress since we had a POTUS and Congress.

Doing so is not a crime, and not impeachable. here's what happens:

1) Congress demands something,
2) POTUS refuses
3) Congress decides whether to to go the courts or not.

Even if the Congress goes to the court, and wins, the POTUS may still not cooperate. This is what happened with Obama and Fast and Furious. In the end Congress held Eric Holder in contempt, but it was essentially toothless.

This is par for the course, not a grounds for impeachment. To suggest otherwise is to simply bury one's head in the sand in order to avoid an absolute mountain of US history. There may not be a President in history that has not refused Congress in some subpoena or other request.

The House had a hill to climb, and yes that would likely involve going to court etc. so does about any investigation of an Administration of an opposing party.

But we were told they couldn't do that in this case b/c time was so much of the essence. Then they sat on the articles for about as long as it took them to investigate. lol.

[Catfan73]

But we were told they couldn't do that in this case b/c time was so much of the essence. Then they sat on the articles for about as long as it took them to investigate. lol.

They investigated informally for quite awhile. Some of the Democrat base was ready to toss Pelosi out.

[Doc]

Its an exostential threat to the constitiution!!

I will watch it ONLY so I can see how bad the democrats look during this.

[CitizenBBN]

Love this today from Nadler and Schiff. You know, the two guys who didn't allow the opposition or Trump to have witnesses, etc.:

The managers argued that during the 1999 impeachment, Clinton provided “more than 90,000 pages” of documents before the trial took place, “all of the witnesses had testified before the Senate trial began,” and the only issue was “whether they would be re-called to testify once more.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...ules-as-rigged

Yes, that's exactly right. The Clinton impeachment was based on the independent counsel work, and the whole process was nearly a year. Yes in that time the witnesses had testified, the evidence was collected, subpoenas pursued.

The Dems didn't do any of that here. The first step for the UKraine mess was probably to ask for another independent counsel to investigate. Barring that it would take a lengthy House investigation that would serve that role and call witnesses, etc.

What they did was rush to impeach him without really investigating whether he should be impeached, then they want to do that work of calling witnesses etc. in the Senate trial. A complete reversal of how every other such proceeding has been done.

Of course that's b/c it suits their political goals better, and likewise the GOP is having none of it b/c it doesn't suit their goals. Welcome to politics.

But this faux outrage at a "rigged" system is hysterical coming from the House, which was the most rigged investigation perhaps ever conducted even by that very political body. Hey, it's politics, I get it, but I do tire of the absurd hypocrisy of the claims of both sides. Right now the Left is outrunning the Right on that. In the 80s I think the New Right won the contest, but the Left's hypocrisy has grown nicely the last 20 years.

[CitizenBBN]

Its an exostential threat to the constitiution!!

I will watch it ONLY so I can see how bad the democrats look during this.

And to national security, b/c Trump delayed aid that Obama refused to even give them for 8 years.

[Doc]

Love this today from Nadler and Schiff. You know, the two guys who didn't allow the opposition or Trump to have witnesses, etc.:

The managers argued that during the 1999 impeachment, Clinton provided “more than 90,000 pages” of documents before the trial took place, “all of the witnesses had testified before the Senate trial began,” and the only issue was “whether they would be re-called to testify once more.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...ules-as-rigged

Yes, that's exactly right. The Clinton impeachment was based on the independent counsel work, and the whole process was nearly a year. Yes in that time the witnesses had testified, the evidence was collected, subpoenas pursued.

The Dems didn't do any of that here. The first step for the UKraine mess was probably to ask for another independent counsel to investigate. Barring that it would take a lengthy House investigation that would serve that role and call witnesses, etc.

What they did was rush to impeach him without really investigating whether he should be impeached, then they want to do that work of calling witnesses etc. in the Senate trial. A complete reversal of how every other such proceeding has been done.

Of course that's b/c it suits their political goals better, and likewise the GOP is having none of it b/c it doesn't suit their goals. Welcome to politics.

But this faux outrage at a "rigged" system is hysterical coming from the House, which was the most rigged investigation perhaps ever conducted even by that very political body. Hey, it's politics, I get it, but I do tire of the absurd hypocrisy of the claims of both sides. Right now the Left is outrunning the Right on that. In the 80s I think the New Right won the contest, but the Left's hypocrisy has grown nicely the last 20 years.

Now add on the day impeachment trial begins, they want Trumps lead council recused because he is a material witness. Apparently his attorney has evidence and inatructed the President to involke executive priviledge.

Of course Schiff walking the "Whistleblower" thru the process is fine

[CitizenBBN]

Now add on the day impeachment trial begins, they want Trumps lead council recused because he is a material witness. Apparently his attorney has evidence and inatructed the President to involke executive priviledge.

Of course Schiff walking the "Whistleblower" thru the process is fine

Every attorney is a "material witness" for a defendant potentially. You'd think a bunch of lawyers might know that already.

Imagine if we could call every defense attorney for the prosecution and get them to tell what their clients told them, etc. Would sure reduce the time and expense of trials.

of course then there is no right to representation.

Now, if the attorney is part of a criminal enterprise then privilege does not extend, so they have to be claiming Sekulow was part of the conspiracy, not just an attorney advising his client. It's a fine line, but Dems have no problem crossing any line in this process, fine or large.

When a POTUS attorney urging a POTUS to invoke privilege is now a "crime" of "obstruction", you know you've lost the script. The whole script, from the Constitution on down.

[CitizenBBN]

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin says it is "stunning admission" that the Democrats have shown up and said they need more time for evidence and subpoenas and discovery. He says if a litigant showed up in court on day of trial and said they needed more time to build a case, "they'd be thrown out of court and the lawyers would probably be sanctioned." He accuses the House managers of asking the Senate "to do their job for them."

Sums it up pretty well.

It's true the WH didn't hand over documents, but then the House takes those subpoenas to the DC Court of Appeals and tries to get them. That's how this works, and yes as I understand it the vast majority of the discovery phase is done BEFORE you seat a jury.

They want to seat a jury then start discovery, and they want to do it b/c it makes a better political show, not a more truthful outcome. And that's why they didn't do it when they had the opportunity and in fact the obligation.

[CitizenBBN]

But the Hypocrisy of the Day award goes to Adam Schiff (no surprises) for saying if the Democrats can't call witnesses then the trial isn't fair.

when the minority party in the House couldn't call witnesses it was fine, but now it's unfair?

"Heads I win, tails you lose" should be tattooed on Schiff. lol

[dan_bgblue]

I am sure that you recall Nancy's original reason for delaying sending the charges to the sanate.

Before we send the documents to the senate, we need to see how they are going to run the trial, and how they intend to proceed so we can know who to send as prosecutors and we have to get their promise that we can call additional witnesses so we can make sure it is a fair trial.

[CitizenBBN]

Alan Dershowitz with yet another insightful discussion of this issue.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-d...ent-is-forever

He's a defense attorney in his approach, but he's also a fairly liberal Democrat and about the last non-hypocritical civil liberties mind in the country. He really believes they apply to everyone, even Trump.

I'd like to read a full paper by him on his conclusions on the two articles not being impeachable. I hope he writes one at some point.

[dan_bgblue]

If John Bolton is dying to testify," he continued, "that's not his decision. That is the president's decision. If Congress did not like it, they go to the courts. The court decides and that is how the decision is resolved."

But, but, but, if Trump could get reelected before the court renders an opinion, and the nation is about to go down the tubes if you wait for the courts decision, then you have to do it our way and rush to judgement, concoct phony charges, and try to ram everything thru the Senate to Impeach Trump forever and keep him from getting reelected. Man talk about collusion to affect an election.

[Doc]

Tried a couple times to watch this cluster....and found it even more boring than the democratic debates

[CitizenBBN]

Tried a couple times to watch this cluster....and found it even more boring than the democratic debates

That's its biggest weakness. There's a reason CSPAN doesn't get a lot of viewers.

This is just more elitist DC naval gazing. Real issues go unaddressed while we go through these endless point scoring political exercises so the two sides can each claim the other "voted against seniors" or "are a threat to the Constitution" etc. in the next election cycle.

And that just won't connect with voters. Never does. Gingrich thought doing this with Clinton would pay off and it blew up his Speakership. It won't change anyone's mind about Trump either way, and it doesn't give anyone anything REAL to go into the election.

the media eats it up b/c they're part of the same elitist world. They were floored Trump won b/c they don't actually get out of their glass tower cities and talk to anyone else. They have no idea what the average American outside their bubble cares about or believes, and they absolutely don't get that the vast majority of those other people (i.e. us) are conservatives, libertarians, etc. They don't know any so they don't think there are very many.

So this absurd theater plays out like the royal courts of old, where the King and his court are obsessed with the latest opera by Mozart while the people starve. The 21st century version of "let them eat cake" when the people have no bread.

[CitizenBBN]

Strong running for the Hypocrisy of the Day:

Rep. Jason Crow says the withholding of aid from Ukraine put that country at substantial risk. "Vladimir Putin looks for vulnerability, he looks for hesitation, he looks for delay. Any sign of a hold on that aid would be a sign of weakness, a sign to pounce."

This is the same aid, lethal military aid, that Obama refused to give to Ukraine even after Russia annexed the Crimea.

So Trump and GOP Congress increasing level of aid to Ukraine, but holding it temporarily due to concerns over blatant corruption, is now proof he's a Russian proxy. Even though Obama didn't respond in any meaningful way to Russia seizing part of Ukraine outright.

Uh huh.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't know if it's a hypocrisy, but Schiff saying we are fighting Russia in the Ukraine so we don't fight them here surely has to get some kind of award.

Pulling out 1960s domino theory to act like he's long been behind aiding proxies to battle Russia and that Trump is somehow hurting national security by having actually INCREASED aid to Ukraine has to be some kind of special.

And yes, he said that.

[CitizenBBN]

Good piece that makes the point I've been making: if Trump, as CLEO of the land, had probable cause to ask for Biden to be investigated, there's no wrongdoing here even if there was a quid pro quo.

All that said, though, it makes a difference whether this president is asking the foreign power to manufacture a case against a political opponent, or whether the president is instead asking for an investigation into something that truly appears suspicious.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ess-testimony/


To my knowledge Trump only asked for an investigation. Now, he wanted it public, and that was to his benefit no doubt, but Administrations constantly leak things in investigations that benefit them politically.

it's "wrong", but if it sets the bar for impeachment then really no President or Congressman should serve a full term the way business is currently conducted.

Schiff lied about his contact with the whistleblower, clearly he and/or his staff was involved in helping construct the complaint, so he was tampering with a potential investigation for political purposes. Is he now to be removed?

There's a reason the IRS only focused on Tea party entities under Obama. It's wrong, it's politics, but you can't remove Obama from office for it. You can expose it and then vote him out, and if you have DOJ worth a damn they can prosecute those who implemented it.

Of course Barr still has his guy out there investigating. Hope he finds a way to punish some of these beltway bozos.