Jump to content

Impeach - the case against Donald Trump

Recommended Posts

As the House of Representatives moves ever closer to doing the Constitutionally correct act of approving Articles of Impeachment and forwarding them to the Senate, the rightwingnut retards who still support President Evil are getting even more insane with their deranged defenses of the Trumpster's many crimes against the people of America. They have come up with a whole new set of fraudulent myths and lies for rightwingnut retards to live by.


In the real world.....this explains the case against the Trumpster very clearly.....

A US supreme court lawyer, writing with Sam Koppelman, makes a highly persuasive case for Trump’s impeachment


The Guardian 

Sarah Churchwell

Fri 6 Dec 2019 02.30 EST


One of the most contentious issues during the 1787 debates about the US constitution was the subject of presidential impeachment. A Virginian named George Mason ultimately swayed the room: “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice?” It was precisely the extensive power of the presidency that necessitated impeachment as the final remedy against a corrupt executive. “Shall the man who has practised corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance,” Mason added, “be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?


Neal Katyal, a law professor and former acting US solicitor general, has set out “the case against Donald Trump” in his book Impeach. An experienced trial attorney who has argued before the US supreme court, Katyal knows how to present evidence and convince a jury. The result is essentially a primer for impeachment: first its basic rules and logic, and then why he considers the publicly available evidence to be so damning.


He begins with a brief history, extending back to the revolutionary arguments against monarchy and for an accountable executive. Some framers were less certain, arguing that a corrupt executive would be removed by democratic elections; Benjamin Franklin memorably retorted that before there was impeachment, there was assassination. Katyal then takes the reader on a brief tour of the previous three presidents against whom impeachment proceedings began, primarily in order to judge them against Trump, whose actions he considers to be considerably more egregious than those of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton – because Trump’s alleged offences are precisely those specified by the constitution as impeachable. And that in turn, presumably, is why Nancy Pelosi’s House decided to take action: because the constitution says the president should be impeached for bribery, and here was the president on the telephone appearing to solicit foreign bribes, a charge he has denied.


To make his case Katyal carefully takes the reader through the language of Article II, Section 4 of the constitution, which states that the president and other public officials should be removed from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” – arguably the most widely misunderstood aspect of impeachment. The concept of “high crimes” comes from English common law, widely understood at the time to mean not an especially severe crime, but rather a different category of wrongdoing: namely, abuse of public trust. 


Only a public official can be guilty of a “high crime” by definition – it has nothing to do with criminal statutes. Indeed, the original language of the clause was “high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the United States”, but the framers decided the last three words were redundant. In fact, Kaytal considers that Trump’s apparent offer to sell discounted weapons to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskiy in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden constitutes not merely an impeachable abuse of office, but arguably breaks criminal law: the Hobbs Act of 1946 prohibits actual or attempted extortion affecting foreign commerce “in any way or degree” – it’s a racketeering offence, often used in public corruption cases.



Katyal believes that the survival of American democracy depends on holding this president accountable


Finally Katyal provides an extremely useful synopsis of the evidence against Trump that has come to light since September 2019. The book covers events from the summer of 2019 to 8 October, meaning it was written and published very hastily indeed. That is one obvious reason for its brevity and simplicity, but it’s also the best way to make a case, breaking it down into the most basic possible terms. Katyal concludes, persuasively, that the House is likely to confirm three articles of impeachment: for soliciting foreign interference, bribery and obstruction of justice – the crime that brought down Nixon.


One of Katyal’s favourite techniques is to quote the words of Trump’s apologists against them. He takes a quotation from Mike Pence when he was a Congressman about putting public service above personal interests and turns it into the “Pence rule”; he quotes Senator Lindsey Graham urging impeachment against Bill Clinton in terms that thoroughly indict Trump; he notes that Trump’s former White House Counsel Don McGahn previously confirmed laws against a president receiving “things of value” from foreign nationals. The problem with this line of argument is obvious, however, and Katyal even quotes it later: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? Earlier he observes: “This Trump gambit – do it in public so no one cares – can be successful only for as long as our elected officials let it be.” But that also works the other way around: it will be successful for as long as they let it be.


Katyal believes that the survival of American democracy depends on holding this president accountable, ensuring that no American is above the law. He is not alone in this belief. Trump’s supporters, meanwhile, are reduced to insisting that impeachment is unconstitutional; Section II Article 4 says otherwise.


But this is where Katyal’s constitutional literacy hits the hard malice of political reality: a Senate controlled by Mitch McConnell’s majority. The constitution leaves the Senate with enormous latitude in how – or even whether – it should conduct the impeachment trial. Current Senate rules say McConnell must hold the trial, but he could change those rules; and even if he decided that was politically unwise, nothing stops him from running a kangaroo court. Katyal’s only remedy is to hope for the best. “For Senator McConnell to try to block the evidence from being carefully heard and considered would be a profound dereliction of his job,” he writes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

Impeach him for what? Something someone heard someone said or something they assumed? That isn't how law works. 


And another rightwingnut retard pops up who is too blinded by his own myths to actually read the OP.


Thanks, RedDouchebag, for so quickly demonstrating my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another good explanation of the very good reasons to Impeach The Trumpster - the worst President in American history.

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow on Tuesday briefed her viewers on the contents of the 300-page impeachment inquiry report released by the House Intelligence Committee.


In addition to her summary, Maddow said Americans seeking to educate themselves on the report could also check out the “short, readable executive summary.”


If the 22-page executive summary is too much, there’s also a four-page preface.


Maddow also noted that people could just read the sub-headlines from the executive summary and learn a great deal in only 78 words.


Here are the sub-headlines that Maddow put on on a graphic — and read in less than a minute:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:


And another rightwingnut retard pops up who is too blinded by his own myths to actually read the OP.


Thanks, RedDouchebag, for so quickly demonstrating my point.

STFU Dummy!!!

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ConConfounder said:


And another rightwingnut retard pops up who is too blinded by his own myths to actually read the OP.


Thanks, RedDouchebag, for so quickly demonstrating my point.


CON:  Let's try to uphold higher standards.  One has to be an idiot to not know Trump should be impeached because of criminal activities.

One has to be an idiot to NOT know the crimes he is accused of.

Disingenuous denial is just another form of lying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ConConfounder said:


And another rightwingnut retard pops up who is too blinded by his own myths to actually read the OP.


Thanks, RedDouchebag, for so quickly demonstrating my point.

There is one problem, I  HATE Trump and did not vote for him. I can just see the whole impeachment is BS.


I say if you crazy leftists want to impeach him and have a trial in the Senate, go for it. It will hurt the democrat party





David Brooks: Given Current Impeachment Poll Numbers, "I'm Not Sure What Will Have Been Achieved"




Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

There is one problem, I  HATE Trump and did not vote for him. I can just see the whole impeachment is BS.

RED is an obsessively dedicated supporter of Trump. 

He doesn't see anything; he doesn't appear to know anything about the impeachment - notice he can't state one single reason it is "BS". 

That means he doesn't know any reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

I can just see the whole impeachment is BS.


We can all see your obvious problem with being able to see the evidence that most people can see very clearly, RedDouchebag......




......if you ever manage to get over this crippling Cranial-Rectal Inversion Condition (jerk your head out, fool) you've got yourself into, try examining the overwhelming evidence for Impeachment again .......but that seems highly unlikely!


And besides.....President Evil may well be in prison by the time you could possibly manage to squeeze your head out of there and rub the poop out of your eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

we are still pushing the Russia farce?

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

During the course of 2016, Trump Campaign associates failed to report any of the Russian/WikiLeaks overtures to federal law enforcement, publicly denied any contacts with Russians/WikiLeaks, and actively encouraged the public to doubt that Russia was behind the hacking and distribution of stolen emails.

One qualification before proceeding to the analysis in Part II: a significant amount of relevant information was unavailable to Mueller due to four factors. First, as the Report states, “several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office,” and “those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Second, President Trump’s interference in the investigation also appears to have stymied the investigation. A key example is Paul Manafort’s failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel because he was apparently led to believe that President Trump would pardon him. Third, some individuals used encrypted communications or deleted their communications. Fourth, some of the individuals who “cooperated” with the investigation (e.g., Steve Bannon) appear to have been deceptive or not fully forthcoming in their dealings with the Special Counsel. Several individuals failed to recall the content of important conversations with Trump or other Campaign associates. The Report states, “Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.”



I will leave the listing of Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation as an exercise for RedOcotber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey pogorocks … I’ve asked you before … are you a member of Extinction Rebellion?




Emma Thompson foresees people eating pets for 'protein' due to 'climate crisis'

Fido and Sylvester could be in big trouble, according to Emma Thompson.

The actress issued a strong warning on Thursday of an impending "climate crisis" so dire that people will have no choice but to eat their own pets.

The actress, 60, attended an Extinction Rebellion protest outside of the BBC Broadcasting House in London on Thursday, where she claimed there is "extreme weather" ahead.


… snip …

"Better wrap up warm, stockpile food and remember there is a surprising amount of protein in the average household pet."


Wait!   I thought you alarmists were predicting we’re all going to boil?   Now you’re saying increasing carbon levels are going to cool the earth off to the point it will be freezing cold, all the crops will die and we'll have to eat our puppies, kittens and goldfish?   pogorocks … can you please explain this sudden change to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...