Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 17, 2019

"Let them impeach and be damned." Those words could have easily come from Donald Trump. They were, however, the words of another president who not only shares striking similarities to Trump but who went through an impeachment with chilling parallels to the current proceedings - its history repeating itself with a vengeance.

The closest impeachment case to the House effort today is the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson. This is certainly not a comparison that Democrats should relish as it is the very prototype of an abusive impeachment. The Trump impeachment is even weaker than the Johnson impeachment, which had an "accepted" criminal act as its foundation.

This will be the first presidential impeachment to go forward without such a recognized crime but, like the Johnson impeachment, it has a manufactured and artificial construct. The Trump impeachment also marks the fastest impeachment of all time, depending on how you count the days in the Johnson case.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

With half of the country opposing impeachment, the House is about to approve two articles of impeachment designed to play better among progressive activists than in the Senate. Meanwhile, a lack of tolerance for constitutional objections is growing by the day. Some critics have actually cited Johnson as precedent to show that impeachment can be done on purely political grounds. In other words, the very reason the Johnson impeachment is condemned by history is now being used today as a justification to dispense with standards and definitions of impeachable acts. One commentator has embraced the use of Johnson as precedent with a statement that might make every "Radical Republican" from the 19th century smile, saying, "At least they impeached the motherf----r."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Prof. Turley used to be a favorite of the Democrats in the House...until he ruined the Mueller hearing with facts and has become highly critical of the process that the Democrats are using in the Trump impeachment.

Let the teeth gnashing begin, but he is 100% correct that this rush to judgment is history repeated.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-17 07:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Criminals need to be punished. Not sure what adding leisure to it would do? Does it matter if Trump spends another $500 million on golf before the vote? Maybe use another $500 million to bribe some other governments?

What's the time business for? Fry him. He's not even putting up any defense. He wants it fast. At least you should respect the wishes of your lord.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-17 07:43 PM | Reply

Lol so they go fast that's bad and a sign they're victimizing Trump.

They go slow and it's a sign the got nothing.

Also, I'm not opening the article. Anybody who asserts criminality as a must for impeachment isn't worth my time.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-17 07:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Let the teeth gnashing begin, but he is 100% correct that this rush to judgment is history repeated.

Didn't you spend months advocating for this "rush to judgment"?

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-17 07:58 PM | Reply

#3

LOL, "it doesn't fit my narrative so I am not going to read it!!!!"

Go back to torturing mice, its more your speed.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-17 08:03 PM | Reply

#4

I spent months advocating for them to impeach Trump correctly for the Obstruction of Justice charges that Mueller laid out for them, not with this shht show.

The Dems seem to think that impeachment without conviction is the way to go after the GOP failed spectacularly with Clinton.

Looks like history is going to repeat itself yet again.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-17 08:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Rush = months of investigation and a 650 page report?

bwa hahahahahahaha

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-17 08:07 PM | Reply

Let's not forget that ------------------- is rushing through too.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-17 08:07 PM | Reply

...that impeachment without conviction is the way to go

That was always the way this was going to go. The Senate is not going to convict whatever the charges or evidence may be.

They've already as much as said so.

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-17 08:08 PM | Reply

#5 says the guy who can't stop chirping about the "narrative".

You don't need criminal conduct for impeachment.

You know this but can't help pulling a goatshart and having the last cutesy word.

You even throw in a snide comment about my profession that you don't know dick about just like your brain dead pal Nulli.

You're really batting 1.000 tonight.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-17 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

#9 don't bother. RoC is just like Jeff.

Fake objectivity. Fake intellectualism. Disingenuous, standardless, characterless hack.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-17 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Next step will be blaming Democrats for not swaying "public opinion" enough to get Republican senators to vote for conviction.

As if any Republican senator is more afraid of their constituents than they are of a middle-of-the-night golden potty tweetstorm from donald.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-17 08:16 PM | Reply

Democrats are the ones who write history books republicans are the ones who still think Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2019-12-17 08:34 PM | Reply

There is no rush to judgement or rush of any kind, but what was necessary time and effort has been spent and the case is made. If the guy does not want the historic insult he should not have caused the epic damage. Pelosi is right in the way she is handling things. From what I gather we could impeach him more than once (which is what I'm hoping for).

#14 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2019-12-17 09:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Democrats are the ones who write history books
#13 | POSTED BY TOR"

That is the Dem ELITES writing books marginalizing important events for the sake of diversity - which are then taught to the conservatives. The Dem base attends public schools and hence, cannot read beyond the 3rd grade level but absolutely love coloring in the pictures.

#15 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-17 09:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#9 don't bother. RoC is just like Jeff.
Fake objectivity. Fake intellectualism. Disingenuous, standardless, characterless hack.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-17 08:11 PM | FLAG:

Well they are right wingers so...............

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-17 09:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#16 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR"

Just as I was speaking of the product of the failed US public school system, in pops Laura to prove me right. Honest question for you, in your lifetime - have you read more book or have you colored more books?

#17 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-17 10:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

IRAG

If you weren't so busy huffing your own ------- you would notice that Elite universities are in blue States for a reason.

#18 | Posted by Tor at 2019-12-18 12:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Turley told the Commission that he could not know if Trump's actions were impeachable because he had not heard from all the witnesses... you know, the ones that Trump will not let testify.

Witnesses who would be nice to have and who we might possibly hear in the Sen... but witnesses who would only be corroborating what 17 other witnesses with direct knowledge, not hearsay, testified to under oath.

Witnesses that are mostly Trump admin and career diplomats, including a Purple Heart winner. Not to mention Trump's own public statements asking Russia, China, and the Ukraine to interfere in our election, which is the very definition of the Founder's concern in the impeachment clause.

But hey, it's just a "--------", right?

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 12:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"IRAG
If you weren't so busy huffing your own ------- you would notice that Elite universities are in blue States for a reason.
#18 | POSTED BY TOR"

Yes - but those universities were built and made rich/wonderful before you had the progressive takeover of education starting in the late 1960's. Further, the actual revenue producing fields in those schools are still dominated by conservatives - business, the sciences, etc. Slowly but surely, the left is bankrupting education just like you bankrupt everything else that you touch - which is why your progressive candidates want to forgive student loans vs. fix the problem of universities no longer providing a positive value proposition.

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-18 02:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

#20 | Posted by iragoldterd

LOL!!!

Yer funny, goldterd.

#21 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-18 07:24 AM | Reply

RoC was all into a speedy impeachment until congress started the inquiry and the polls showed more than 50% want his fat ass convicted and removed.

#22 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-12-18 07:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RoC was all into a speedy impeachment until congress started the inquiry and the polls showed more than 50% want his fat ass convicted and removed.

#22 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-1

He repeatedly mocked House democrats for not pulling the trigger. Now that they've pulled the trigger he still mocks. Elegant proof of being a Trumpite, isn't it?

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-18 08:12 AM | Reply

FakeLawyer with propaganda from the Kremlin's new propaganda outlet.

Why do you hate the constitution and America Fake Lawyer?
Have you always been a Ruskie or were you recently "converted"?

#24 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-12-18 10:22 AM | Reply

I wonder where RoC went?

You'd think he'd want to defend his honor...

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 10:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

You cant hog-tie the witnesses who you wont allow to testify, then bitch about a paucity 1st hand testimony.

#26 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-12-18 11:30 AM | Reply

Looks like history is going to repeat itself yet again.

POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yeah. No. Not really. Not even close. History actually does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.

Clinton continued to work for the American people during and after his impeachment.

Clinton was contrite and even apologetic. And Clinton stopped getting happy endings from his interns and did not lie about it any more.

Trump will continue and probably be worse because he will think he has been "exonerated" and will obviously claim "victory" as he continues and even doubles down his corrupt behaviors .

And you will probably be here to defend his continued corruption.

Everyone forgets there will be a morning after.

This will be the end of the Republican Party. If not the end the beginnings of the end for sure.

You might as well change the name to the Trump Party.


#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-18 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#26 of course you can, if you have a mouth breathing base too stupid to see you're creating the conditions you're using to criticize the issue.

Remember, these are people who'll read a story about a guy in a MAGA hat mouthing off in a bar, provoking a fight and getting punched in the face and cry about how "c-c-Conservatives" are persecuted.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 11:40 AM | Reply

I think Dems always wanted to impeach Trump, but were waiting for something so egregious that Republicans would have no choice but to join them. What they failed to understand is that the depth of disloyalty to America by the current Republican party has no bottom.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-18 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What they failed to understand is that the depth of disloyalty to America by the current Republican party has no bottom.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019

There's been a cultural shift and "modified" patriotism on the part of republicans is at the center of it.

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-18 01:08 PM | Reply

LOL, lots of butt-hurt name calling but little or no substance, which is typical for the DR Left that chose to post on this thread.

Bottom line, by not starting earlier, going to court (ala McGahn) to get witnesses that were hiding under Executive Privilege claims to compel their testimony, taking their time to develop their case and eliminate due process arguments from the GOP, the Majority has slapped together a case that only the hyper-partisans on the Left (and the coasts) will love.

The GOP made this same mistake on December 19, 1998 and it ended up costing them dearly.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 03:21 PM | Reply

"Bottom line, by not starting earlier..."

McGahn will take 8 months just to appeal the first ruling, and that doesn't include him invoking Executive Privilege once he's told to testify. And it's only been three months since the WB complaint became public.

You're a lawyer: how much longer would it take, with all appeals used, to settle an EP claim?

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 03:26 PM | Reply

" and eliminate due process arguments from the GOP"

Tell us another joke: The GOP would complain about the process even if they were in charge of it.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 03:27 PM | Reply

The GOP made this same mistake on December 19, 1998 and it ended up costing them dearly.
#31 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

And most GOP members that I've spoken to have zero regrets when it comes to impeaching Clinton. Mainly because it was "The right thing to do. Clinton lied under oath. Full stop."

Whelp, Trump learned a lesson from the Clinton impeachment and refused to testify under oath. More so, he refused to allow the main witnesses from testifying as well. So what's the right thing to do? Risk seats in 2020 with an impeachment? Or ignore this reckless behavior in HOPES of partisan gains in Congress?

The Dems chose the former, thankfully.

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 03:28 PM | Reply

And it's only been three months since the WB complaint became public.

And you just hit the nail on the head, as noted several times by Prof. Turley on numerous occasions: The Clinton investigation took 5 years and two special prosecutors and Johnson's impeachment took over a year (and it was the fourth attempt) yet the Dems are trying to jam this through in less than 4 months.

Joe is exactly correct when he said "I think Dems always wanted to impeach Trump, but were waiting for something so egregious that Republicans would have no choice but to join them."

To get everyone on the "egregious" train takes time, something that the Dems have not bothered to worry about in their rush to get this done before the primaries start.

You're a lawyer: how much longer would it take, with all appeals used, to settle an EP claim?

If they had done the exact same thing with Pompeo, Bolton, etc. as they did with McGahn, under exigency rules in the US District and Appellate courts, the appellate process would have been done by late February, early March. Unfortunately for the Dems, that falls right around Super Tuesday and they cannot afford the distraction that an impeachment would cause during the primaries.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 03:46 PM | Reply

Unfortunately for the Dems, that falls right around Super Tuesday and they cannot afford the distraction that an impeachment would cause during the primaries.
#35 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

So much for Country and Constitution over Party.

#36 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-18 03:48 PM | Reply

RoC continues to advocate for the House to cede their Constitutional duties to the Court.

But then, what else would a Republican lawyer say?

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 04:09 PM | Reply

RoC is an extreme right wing hack at this point. He did not use to be. Seems Trump infects every Republican in his path with the disease of cult like submission.

#38 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-12-18 04:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

- cult like submission

Yeah.... at least he paid Stormy. And Andrea.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 04:14 PM | Reply

#31 good on you for not extending your whine for 6 pages.

But please, tell us again how you're not a hack.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 04:19 PM | Reply

RoC continues to advocate for the House to cede their Constitutional duties to the Court.

Now do Clinton, since he did exactly the same thing that the Trump Administration is doing with EP.

#41 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 04:35 PM | Reply

#38 and 40

Predictably, you Dolts have nothing substantive to say.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 04:42 PM | Reply

Seems Trump infects every Republican in his path with the disease of cult like submission.

#38 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-12-18 04:12 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

It's got to be something to do with hard-wired personality traits.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-18 04:43 PM | Reply

#41

Does your whataboutism werk in court?

I bet not.

And I don't recall Bubba issuing a blanket order to all his Cabinet and aides not to cooperate or the Exec branch with paperwork.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 04:44 PM | Reply

Does your whataboutism werk in court?

I bet not.

And you would lose, it is called...wait for it...precedent.

And I don't recall Bubba issuing a blanket order to all his Cabinet and aides not to cooperate or the Exec branch with paperwork.

#44 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2019-12-18 04:44 PM

Of course you don't, that would require you to swallow what little pride you have left:

Clinton asserted executive privilege 14 times, some of them not in writing, but in 1998 became the first president since Nixon to have his use of the power struck down in court.

Clinton sought to invoke executive privilege to bar independent counsel Kenneth Starr from questioning aides, including deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey and communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal, in connection with Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled that Starr's need to collect evidence trumped Clinton's interest in keeping the conversations confidential, echoing the rationale in U.S. v. Nixon.

Five times presidents sparked controversy using executive privilege

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 04:52 PM | Reply

Actually it is surprising to me that, Moder8, as a Public Defender, has nothing to contribute to what Prof. Turley has to say since he makes a living defending criminals in court.

Perhaps that is because he realizes that Prof. Turley is correct, so all he can do is dive bomb the thread, call me a hack and run away.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 04:56 PM | Reply

"No other president has ever stonewalled Congress entirely when it comes to impeachment," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg Opinion.

"Even Richard Nixon, who famously withheld evidence and was, therefore, facing impeachment for obstruction of Congress, allowed some executive branch witnesses to testify and provided some documents to Congress."

www.usatoday.com

Lessee, this is SO hard! Noah Feldman or anonymous real estate attny?

Decisions, decisions

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 04:59 PM | Reply

Prof. Turley... likes to live in world where Trump hasn't "stonewalled Congress entirely" and all possible witnesses are available if only the Dems wanted to call them.

He said in testimony that he didn't know if the Pres committed impeachable offences because he hadn't heard all the witnesses.

Well, he heard all the avail witnesses, and it's the House's job to impeach, not to cede that job to the Courts.... for the next few years while Trump continues to subvert the election.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 05:03 PM | Reply

"Lessee, this is SO hard! Noah Feldman or anonymous real estate attny?"

does it have to be either/or?

can't they both be right?

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-18 05:03 PM | Reply

#49

"Can't we all get a bong?"

In this case, no, no other Pres has stonewalled completely like Trump has.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 05:05 PM | Reply

"Whelp, Trump learned a lesson from the Clinton impeachment and refused to testify under oath. More so, he refused to allow the main witnesses from testifying as well. So what's the right thing to do? Risk seats in 2020 with an impeachment? Or ignore this reckless behavior in HOPES of partisan gains in Congress?"

it's hard to do nothing about it when you know what's happened.

maybe bad strategy? not for me to say. but I can understand why the dems feel compelled to push this along the way they are

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-18 05:16 PM | Reply

#47

Way to move the goalposts, Dorkus, in a desperate attempt to salvage what little credibility you have left. Nothing "Impeachment Noah" said there diminishes the fact that Bubba invoked EP 14 times, which is, to date, 2x what Trump has done.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 05:24 PM | Reply

Predictably, you Dolts have nothing substantive to say.

#42 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Oops name calling. You better work on that butthurt.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 05:30 PM | Reply

- 2x what Trump has done.

I didn't think you could make yourself more ridiculous here, but hey, I'm willing to admit I was wrong about that.

Blanket stonewalling of all aides, staff, cabinet by Trump is less than 14 times by Clinton?

That must be some a' that there new Know-Nothing Party math.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 05:33 PM | Reply

#53

Translation: I got nothin...

#55 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 05:45 PM | Reply

#54

Clinton initially invoked a blanket Executive Privilege for all of his aides discussions and records relating to Monica Lewinsky, and Starr issued 14 subpoenas and took them all to court and won.

You should probably stop now.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 05:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Starr was Independent Counsel.

There is no equivalent to Starr in this circus.

Because Republicans dared not let anyone have that much power to investigate Trump.

You should probably stop now.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- relating to Monica Lewinsky

Is not stonewalling ALL Congressional subpoenas for all people and documents as Trump has done.

Maybe Harvard Prof Feldman will give you some free pointers.

Or maybe ax' Paul Krugman for some math tutoring.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 06:05 PM | Reply

There is no equivalent to Starr in this circus.

At least you admit that the Schiffshow is a circus.

Because Republicans dared not let anyone have that much power to investigate Trump.

Looks like someone needs to get an update on who is in the Majority in the House.

You should probably stop now.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 06:09 PM | Reply

#58

No thanks, but your lack of historical knowledge makes sense given that Impeachment Feldman and Never Right Krugman are your sources.

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 06:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9 don't bother. RoC is just like Jeff.
Fake objectivity. Fake intellectualism. Disingenuous, standardless, characterless hack.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW

And those are my good qualities!

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 06:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Looks like someone needs to get an update on who is in the Majority in the House."

What does that change, about the actual investigation we're talking about, which started when the GOP controlled the House?

Ohh.... is this the thing where the Democrats are right to impeach, but going about it the wrong way? You're playing JeffJ's game of "I support gay marriage... but I don't support the gay marriage was forced down my throat!" Which, in terms of policy, means JeffJ does not support the Fourteenth Amendment...

RightOCenter didn't leave the Democrats over impeachment, the Democrats left him!

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 06:16 PM | Reply

--Harvard Prof Feldman

I know when I want an unbiased opinion, Harvard professors are the first people to spring to mind.

#63 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-18 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Expertise is bias... to Deplorables.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 06:38 PM | Reply

- your lack of historical knowledge

Now you are just lying...

"No other president has ever stonewalled Congress entirely when it comes to impeachment," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg Opinion.

"Even Richard Nixon, who famously withheld evidence and was, therefore, facing impeachment for obstruction of Congress, allowed some executive branch witnesses to testify and provided some documents to Congress."

Those are historical facts... er, here, let me spell that for you, f-a-c-t-s, facts.

You know, since you and your party are so unfamiliar with those.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-18 07:00 PM | Reply

Translation: I got nothin...

#55 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

This whole thread has nothing.

Just more backhanded support for Trump.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 07:20 PM | Reply

Just more backhanded support for Trump.

#66 | POSTED BY JPW

You really are going off the deep end.

If you want to actually understand what is happening today, you have to put it into historical context.

That's what this thread is about, more than anything - precedent.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 07:25 PM | Reply

#64

Since you are blithely dismissing (without reading it) Prof. Turley's expertise as bias, that must make you a Deplorable.

Thanks for clearing that up.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 08:56 PM | Reply

#65

Keep posting that drivel from Impeachment Feldman, even though he perjured himself in his congressional testimony by claiming that "Until this call on July 25th [2019], I was an impeachment skeptic."

No wonder you lump him in the same category as Paul Krugman and his "the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine" prediction.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-18 09:00 PM | Reply

#67 yawn you're talking about something that's happened twice before and is an extraordinary measure to root out corruption and misbehavior.

Pounding that peg into a preconceived hole is absurd.

My statement remains-more backhanded support of Trump.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 10:26 PM | Reply

#70

Given this is such a rare occurrence, it's actually illustrative to both compare and contrast what took place on 3 other occasions throughout this country's ~250 year history.

Your take is kind of like a water-down Danforth take.

This earlier comment from me applies here:

I'm explaining how I see things shaking out short term. FFS. I predicted Ohio State would beat Michigan in football in November. The way you frame things you'd accuse me of being an OSU "sack licker" in spite of the fact that I'm a diehard UM fan.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-12-18 09:47 PM |

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 10:34 PM | Reply

"If you want to actually understand what is happening today, you have to put it into historical context."

In that case, tell us what you understood, that you didn't understand before, when you put it into "historical context."

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 10:43 PM | Reply

Given this is such a rare occurrence, it's actually illustrative to both compare and contrast what took place on 3 other occasions throughout this country's ~250 year history.

As an academic exercise but little else.

There are Constitutional reasons for impeachment and writings by the FFs to clarify their thoughts.

That's all that matters.

How it compares and contrasts is meaningless as to whether it fits the bill, largely because you have 3 instances over 250 years that may not even be that comparable beyond broad similarities, ie breach of public trust or X crime.

Your take is kind of like a water-down Danforth take.

Nonsense.

My take is clear and requires a hard stance, not mealy mouthed "I think he should be impeached" 5% of the time and 95% of anything but backing impeachment.

#73 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-18 10:45 PM | Reply

"not mealy mouthed "I think he should be impeached" 5% of the time and 95% of anything but backing impeachment."

Looks like my initial prediction of 20-1 in keystrokes was on target.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 10:52 PM | Reply

Looks like my initial prediction of 20-1 in keystrokes was on target.

#74 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The amount of projection in that post is downright staggering.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 11:25 PM | Reply

How's it compare to the amount of projection Trump used when he accused Hunter Biden of being the one doing crimes in the Ukraine?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 11:28 PM | Reply

"The amount of projection in that post is downright staggering"

My "projection" was you'd spend 20 times the keystrokes complaining about meaningless minutiae to every keystroke favoring impeachment. It's "downright staggering" how accurate my "projection" was.

So, I guess you're right ... in a way.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 11:33 PM | Reply

As an academic exercise but little else.

There are Constitutional reasons for impeachment and writings by the FFs to clarify their thoughts.

That's all that matters.

How it compares and contrasts is meaningless as to whether it fits the bill, largely because you have 3 instances over 250 years that may not even be that comparable beyond broad similarities, ie breach of public trust or X crime.

I'm not talking about whether or not an impeachment inquiry was warranted (I think it was).

This is about "X's and O's".

You can scream from the mountaintops that it's beyond the pale to play the Executive Privilege card in this scenario as it pertains to witnesses being called, but if a clear precedent has already been established......

This process is supposed to be extremely difficult by design.

This process in the House has seemed rushed and half-assed. Elections have consequences and the House can conduct this however it wants. That works both ways. Now the Senate has the ball and the GOP has not only a majority but a template that the House gave them to follow in terms of how this should be conducted moving forward.

Democrats control the House. That is because elections matter. I don't begrudge how they chose to run their inquiry. The GOP controls the Senate. I highly doubt I'll begrudge how they run their trial as I'm anticipating it to be similar to how the House conducted it's impeachment.

I do have a mirror ready in case any of you decide to play the double-standard card.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 11:37 PM | Reply

#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

So, you decided to double-down!

Ain't that cute?

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 11:38 PM | Reply

"So, you decided to double-down!"

Count your keystrokes in #78. Eleven were for impeachment. Thanks for proving my point so quickly.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 11:41 PM | Reply

"This process in the House has seemed rushed and half-assed"

Well lucky you, now it looks like they might not be done. Maybe Pelosi should pursue expedited subpoenas on Bolton and the folks in the Budget office. No real rush to get it over to folks who've indicated they won't be honest when taking their oaths.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-18 11:45 PM | Reply

"This process in the House has seemed rushed and half-assed."

^
"Rushed" is particularly funny!

Various people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency,[1][2] and talk of impeachment began before he took office. en.wikipedia.org

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-18 11:52 PM | Reply

#81

I'm all for the House using whatever powers it has to compel testimony. I am somewhat perplexed as to why they'd hold a vote prior to being granted testimony.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 11:56 PM | Reply

#80

How many of those keystrokes that you so dutifully counted were actual opposition to holding an impeachment inquiry?

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-18 11:58 PM | Reply

FTA:

The "Radical Republicans" in Congress started to lay a trap a year before impeachment. They were aware that Johnson wanted their ally, War Secretary Edwin Stanton, out of his cabinet, so they then decided to pass an unconstitutional law that made his firing a crime.

This kind of blows the "closest impeachment case to the House effort today" claim out of the water.

#85 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-19 12:02 AM | Reply

"How many of those keystrokes that you so dutifully counted were actual opposition to holding an impeachment inquiry?"

Versus being opposed to how the impeachment inquiry was being held, right?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 02:59 AM | Reply

No failure about it. Impeachment successful.
Deal with it (R)tards!

#87 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-12-19 04:53 AM | Reply

"How many of those keystrokes that you so dutifully counted were actual opposition to holding an impeachment inquiry?"

Versus being opposed to how the impeachment inquiry was being held, right?

#86 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I haven't complained as to how the House held the inquiry. I'm simply readying my mirror to be thrust in your collective faces when the Senate runs their trial in a comparable manner.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 07:22 AM | Reply

I'm simply readying my mirror to be thrust in your collective faces when the Senate runs their trial in a comparable manner.

They won't and they can't. I'm surprised you think that politics trumps common sense. Pelosi has played the GOP into a corner with only one exit.

All the Democrats are asking for is a fair trial. Americans understand that. The GOP has been screaming that Trump didn't receive a fair hearing in the House, so how is a rigged jury in the Senate going to be viewed as fair, especially when each Senator has to swear to be impartial before the trial begins?

Do you really think that the GOP can burn down the foundation of all jurisprudence in America, namely that all defendants must receive a fair trial? The GOP is arguing that they can rig the Senate because they wrongly claim that the Dems rigged the House. The Dems are saying, all we want is a fair hearing of evidence and testimony directly related to the evidence, a defense of same from the defendant and a decision from the jury hearing the evidence and ruling upon it fairly as jurors do everyday in America. If GOP Senators can mail in their verdict before hearing the evidence, what does that say about America's court process being an instrument of blind justice?

This is hardly inflammatory nor controversial. 71% of Americans want Trump aides to provide testimony during the Senate trial, including 64% of Republicans. Do you really think Americans won't overwhelmingly want a fair trial process in the Senate?

The GOP is in an untenable position of its own making. You're just too deep inside to see it.

#89 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 08:00 AM | Reply

All the Democrats are asking for is a fair trial.

Oh please.

Don't be so fricking naive.

Democrats had two tons of fun when they were in complete control in the House.

Now they seem to think that they have some kind of card to play in the GOP-lead Senate.

They are trying to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial.

McConnell is WAY too savvy to let the Democrats run roughshod over him.

All McConnwell needs to do is point out all of the GOP objections to how the Democrats ran their inquiry and correctly make the argument that he will conduct the trial with same degree of one-sidedness in the Senate. The public understands 'what comes around goes around', especially as it pertains to politics.

You're just too deep inside to see it.

#89 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Look in the mirror, my friend.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 09:42 AM | Reply

Tony,

Do you really think you, or anyone else, are really in a position to complain if the Senate runs their trial with the same-degree of one-sidedness that the House ran the inquiry?

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 09:44 AM | Reply

They won't and they can't. I'm surprised you think that politics trumps common sense. Pelosi has played the GOP into a corner with only one exit.

It's his angle to post 95% of what he says in support of the scummy GOP.

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 09:46 AM | Reply

It's his angle to post 95% of what he says in support of the scummy GOP.

#92 | POSTED BY JPW

Kindly remove your jaw from my ankles.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 09:48 AM | Reply

One sided in what wya, Jeff?

Please tell me you aren't going to regurgitate the GOPs garbage pile of talking points...

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 09:49 AM | Reply

Awww how cute. Pulling a page from goatshart's playbook.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 09:50 AM | Reply

Do you really think you, or anyone else, are really in a position to complain if the Senate runs their trial with the same-degree of one-sidedness that the House ran the inquiry?

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.''

After swearing the above oath, what do YOU think?

I get it, Republicans only care about oaths and laws when they serve their interests. The Senate trial isn't constitutionally designed to used as a vehicle for payback for grievances, it's supposed to be a solemn venue for an impartial rendering of justice based on the facts and evidence presented during the prosecution and defense of the Articles, full stop.

The Founders demanded impartiality and a fair hearing of the Articles because they understood the gravity of the circumstances. Kinda weird that Republicans want to advocate just the opposite.

#96 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 09:56 AM | Reply

"Do you really think Americans won't overwhelmingly want a fair trial process in the Senate?"

I doubt most Americans understand what a fair trial process even looks like. They'll rely on whatever their favorite media outlet tells them what it is.

Unfortunately, most Americans' definition of "fair trial process" really means "give me the outcome I wanted in the first place"

#97 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 09:59 AM | Reply

Tony,

You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work that way.

The Senate is completely justified in conducting its trial in a comparable manner the House conducted its hearings.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:01 AM | Reply

One sided in what wya, Jeff?

Please tell me you aren't going to regurgitate the GOPs garbage pile of talking points...

#94 | POSTED BY JPW

Strict control over who can and can't be called to testify. Restrictions over questioning. Starting the process in closed-door hearings and then selectively leaking to the press. Coaching witnesses during their testimony...

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:03 AM | Reply

Awww how cute. Pulling a page from goatshart's playbook.

#95 | POSTED BY JPW

So instead of disengaging from my left ankle you just switched to my right ankle.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'm surprised you think that politics trumps common sense"

not sure what you meant there but are you saying you don't see plenty of examples every single day where politics do in fact trump common sense?

#101 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 10:05 AM | Reply

The Senate is completely justified in conducting its trial in a comparable manner the House conducted its hearings.

So the Constitution's demand and oath for an impartial Senate jury means nothing because the Republicans are butt hurt.

Glad you're on the record Jeff, glad you're on the record.

#102 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:10 AM | Reply

--Unfortunately, most Americans' definition of "fair trial process" really means "give me the outcome I wanted in the first place"

That's certainly true of the hyperpartisans that post here. Not sure if it applies to normal people who aren't political junkies.

#103 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 10:12 AM | Reply

I doubt most Americans understand what a fair trial process even looks like. They'll rely on whatever their favorite media outlet tells them what it is.

A poll released Tuesday by ABC News and The Washington Post found that about 7 in 10 Americans think the administration officials should be able to testify.

In an example of bipartisan agreement, 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow (his aides) to appear in a Senate trial in the likely event that the House votes to impeach him.

Sixty-two percent of survey respondents expect Trump to face a fair Senate trial, with roughly equal agreement among parties, and 55% of respondents said Trump was treated fairly in the House impeachment inquiry process, with responses tending toward party lines.

www.usatoday.com

I don't doubt it. America has already spoken.

#104 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:14 AM | Reply

#102

I AM on the record, Tony.

I expect the Senate to conduct its hearings comparably to how the House conducted its hearings.

That is what I'm saying.

That you are taking umbrage with that stance suggests to me that you think the House did NOT have a fair process, otherwise you'd have no issue with Senate conducting its side of things in a similar manner.

Democrats: "We ran our inquiry in a transparent, fair and impartial manner."

Republicans: "OK, we will run the trial in a similar manner as to how the Democrat-House ran its inquiry."

Democrats: "How dare you! You took an oath. You have to run a fair trial!"

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:23 AM | Reply

I AM on the record, Tony.

So you honestly believe that the Founders' express command that any Senate impeachment trial be held fairly and the 100 Senators charged with seeking "impartial justice" is served by a process designed to do just the opposite?

Don't keep ignoring and dancing around the question. The Constitution didn't give the House specific rules, but they did command the Senate. Do you feel the Republicans are justified in ignoring the Constitution's charge because of what happened in the House?

If you keep insisting that the House process was biased, then why not make sure that the Senate process is unbiased?

The GOP has circled the wagons around their own mendacity and you keep refusing to see the truth of this matter.

#106 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:34 AM | Reply

"I expect the Senate to conduct its hearings comparably to how the House conducted its hearings. ... Democrats: "We ran our inquiry in a transparent, fair and impartial manner." - #105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:23 AM

"I read the House rules," the former New Jersey judge said. "And as frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors " the hearings over which Congressman Schiff is presiding " they are consistent with the rules. ... After making his statement on "Fox & Friends," Napolitano went on to explain that the impeachment inquiry rules were adopted in 2015 by House Republicans and allow for initial interviews of witnesses to be done in secret, much like a criminal case is presented to a grand jury. Any formal impeachment hearing, he added, would have to be done in public, as would a Senate trial."

source

So there is that.

#107 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-19 10:37 AM | Reply

"I don't doubt it. America has already spoken."

Americans are smarter and more objective today? Is that your belief?

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 10:40 AM | Reply

--Americans are smarter and more objective today?

It depends on what the latest polls say. If they vote GOP in 2020 they will be back to being deplorable, stupid, biased, etc.

#109 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 10:46 AM | Reply

#108

I expect both parties to act in a reciprocal manner, Tony.

If you believe the House ran a fair hearing then you should be totally good with the Senate running their trial in a similar manner.

In fairness (we are using that word a lot today) it remains to be seen if the Senate will run their proceedings similarly to the House. It remains to be seen whether the rules they draft up can be characterized as fair.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:50 AM | Reply

Americans are smarter and more objective today?

Law and Order is one of the longest running series in the history of television and each episode begins with the investigation of a crime, ending with its prosecution in a court of law.

Yes, all Americans understand what a fair trial entails. They understand prosecutors charge and then make their case and defendants make their counterarguments of innocence. There are rules and stipulations, and an impartial judge oversees the process. So again, Americans viscerally understand all of this.

Many keep forgetting this: A lot of Americans actually BELIEVE when Trump says that he has done nothing wrong and that the crazy Dems are out to get him he has the facts and evidence to back it up. They look at a fair trial process as the way to EXONERATE him because they believe that is what will happen if he's honestly judged.

How are the Republicans going to insist that a rigged process is actually fair and that Trump is exonerated by one if he isn't fairly tried in a traditional manner?

#111 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:53 AM | Reply

Tony,

To be clear, I ABSOLUTELY want a fair Senate trial.

Please don't confuse my pointing out the reality of political tit-for-tat with the notion that I like it or support it.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:56 AM | Reply

I expect both parties to act in a reciprocal manner, Tony.

I expect both parties to act in a constitutional manner Jeff, and you obviously don't. It's not about reciprocation, it's about "impartial justice."

Glad we could clear that up.

You refuse to answer any question about the Senate oath. And everyone can see why.

#113 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:56 AM | Reply

What does the oath mean to you Jeff? Is it optional, can the GOP swear to do something and then do just the opposite and create an intentionally biased trial?

The House was not charged the same as the Senate, and their roles are both constitutionally independent and different, which you keep ignoring.

#114 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 10:58 AM | Reply

#114

Would you consider it fair if McConnell agreed to have Mulvaney and Bolton testify but he also called Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify?

Let me phrase it another way - would you deem it to be fair if McConnell agreed to call every witness the Democrats want called but ALSO called witnesses that Democrats want to shield from testifying?

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 11:02 AM | Reply

"Yes, all Americans understand what a fair trial entails."

I PROFOUNDLY disagree with you on that point. They do NOT.

They think they know what a fair trial entails, because they watch Law and Order.

I was recently called in for jury duty for a criminal trial.

Throughout the jury selection process, can you guess how many times both the prosecution and defense reminded the potential jurors with this.."Despite what you might see on TV, this is how it really works...."??

at least 25 times before the jury had been finally selected.

"They look at a fair trial process as the way to EXONERATE him because they believe that is what will happen if he's honestly judged."

That still doesn't mean they know what a fair trial process even is.

#116 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 11:04 AM | Reply

"Is it optional, can the GOP swear to do something and then do just the opposite and create an intentionally biased trial?"

yes. Pelosi is doing what she can to prevent that but that's all there is.

#117 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 11:05 AM | Reply

Throughout the jury selection process, can you guess how many times both the prosecution and defense reminded the potential jurors with this.."Despite what you might see on TV, this is how it really works...."??

Shortly after getting out of college a buddy of mine was a paramedic and I remember at a small gathering at his place I was there with him and a few of his ambulance buddies and the show M*A*S*H came up. It was unanimously agreed that it was a great show but then they got going about how often the show got it wrong regarding emergency surgery.

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 11:10 AM | Reply

That still doesn't mean they know what a fair trial process even is.

You're taking it too far. I'm not saying that the common person is well versed on the law regarding trials. I'm simply asserting with conviction that every American is familiar with the simple trial process: Defendant, Prosecution, Judge, and jury, along with a specific set of rules determining what can and cannot be presented as evidence - which is determined during the trial itself.

And most of all that jurors are not allowed to carry overt bias into their rendering of a verdict. Since there is no voir dire in a Senate impeachment trial because the jurors are predetermined, there is an oath sworn under God to be impartial.

That has to mean what it says or the trial itself is not done in the manner directly dictated by the Constitution.

#119 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 11:24 AM | Reply

"I expect the Senate to conduct its hearings comparably to how the House conducted its hearings."

You're muddling things up here because a trial by its nature is supposed to be different from a grand jury hearing.

#120 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-19 11:30 AM | Reply

Why should anyone be shielded from testifying? I mean that as an honest question. Anyone that was involved in what is being investigated should absolutely be called. If the GOP actually believes that Hunter, Joe, and Schiff have anything of value to add to the investigation then by all means they can push for their testimony in exchange for actual fact witnesses. Trump, Rudy, Bolton, Mulvaney, etc should all testify under oath to what they were running here.

#121 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-19 11:41 AM | Reply

To be clear, I ABSOLUTELY want a fair Senate trial.

Please don't confuse my pointing out the reality of political tit-for-tat with the notion that I like it or support it.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ

Just like commercial breaks on the radio, Jeffy has to go to this 5% message to avoid admitting the 95% makes him bitterly partisan.

LOL

#122 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 11:51 AM | Reply

Democrats: "We ran our inquiry in a transparent, fair and impartial manner."

Republicans: "OK, we will run the trial in a similar manner as to how the Democrat-House ran its inquiry."

Democrats: "How dare you! You took an oath. You have to run a fair trial!"

#105 | Posted by JeffJ

What pathetically childish nonsense.

If a sheriff got busted using his office for personal enrichment, was charged by a grand jury only to have the trial presided over by his friend as judge and family as jurors, would you whine about the grand jury process recommending charges because the friend and family couldn't partake in it?

THAT is what is going on here. THAT is why your mealy mouthed posts are hilarious and insulting at the same time.

#123 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 11:54 AM | Reply

Why should anyone be shielded from testifying? I mean that as an honest question. Anyone that was involved in what is being investigated should absolutely be called. If the GOP actually believes that Hunter, Joe, and Schiff have anything of value to add to the investigation then by all means they can push for their testimony in exchange for actual fact witnesses. Trump, Rudy, Bolton, Mulvaney, etc should all testify under oath to what they were running here.

#121 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Agreed. A fair trial includes the inclusion of all exculpatory evidence as well as all material witnesses being called to testify should either the prosecutor or defense deem germane to the case.

I was thinking about all of this while I was in the shower - I do my best thinking in the shower.

Let's say a cop sees a rundown house in an OK neighborhood and he observes that this house has a single occupant who dresses in rough-looking clothes and is covered with tattoos. The cop thinks this guy is shady so he stakes out his house and when this guy leaves the cop breaks in an discovers a meth lab. Guy gets arrested and charged and the first witness the defense calls is the cop.

Defense: Did you secure a warrant before entering the house.

Cop: No.

D: What probable cause did you have?

C: He looked shady.

Defense then reads the relevant statues regarding what does and doesn't constitute probable cause and then asks, "I just oulined what constitutes probable cause, does 'looking shady' fit the statutory requirements?"

C: No.

Defense: "Your honor, I motion that ALL evidence obtained as a result of this be stricken as inadmissible due to unlawful search and seizure."

Judge: "Agreed. Case dismissed."

Democrats might have a Whistleblower problem. IG procedure requires firsthand knowledge as the first hurdle as to whether or not they will take up a WB complaint. On the WB form he claimed some firsthand knowledge, which jumped over that hurdle. Yet, in the complaint itself ALL of his citations are second or thirdhand. I don't see how anything other than actually listening in on the call can be construed as firsthand. If he did listen in on the call my guess is he would have committed a felony that is accompanied by considerable prison time as I'm pretty sure he wasn't authorized on the call. If he didn't listen-in then he falsified a government document citing some firsthand account and then he has another falsification whereby he answers "no" to the question on the form whether or not he spoke with a member of a political party prior to filling out his complaint. It's been reported that he consulted with a Schiff aide prior to filling out the complaint - I'm guessing that falsifying government documents is at least a misdemeanor. If this case was held in a court of law it would likely be tossed due to evidence being inadmissible due to how it was obtained - unlawful search and seizure. Now, it's possible that 'firsthand' knowledge can be construed more broadly than actually listening in on the call. I don't see how it could, but I'm not any kind of an expert.

Here's the thing though. This is not a strict legal case. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal remedy. The public and the Senators would have to determine how important this is as it pertains to removal or acquittal.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 12:37 PM | Reply

Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal remedy.

I disagree completely, its a legal remedy, and a legal procedure. To remove a President is a legal maneuver.

The fact that it has become political, is a tragedy of biblical proportions.

Don't get sucked into all this "its only political" BS.

Impeachment was never meant to be a politicalized process.

#125 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 12:51 PM | Reply

If it was ONLY a political remedy, then Congress and the President would only ever be from a single party.

This is where we are heading .... End of times...

#126 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 12:53 PM | Reply

On the WB form he claimed some firsthand knowledge, which jumped over that hurdle. Yet, in the complaint itself ALL of his citations are second or thirdhand.

No they aren't Jeff. The WB stated that he "was not a witness to most of the events described," meaning that he WAS witness to some. What he actually witnessed is classified, that is why it isn't written on the publicly released complaint.

#127 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 12:53 PM | Reply

The fact that it has become political, is a tragedy of biblical proportions.

Statutory violation is not a requirement for impeachment.

Which is why it's stupid to ask "what crime did he commit?".

#128 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 01:10 PM | Reply

If it was ONLY a political remedy, then Congress and the President would only ever be from a single party.

A very current, cynical mindset...

For decades, centuries, we were like a top spinning, with push and pull from both sides squalling out and allowing smooth function.

Lately, each side has begun to push or pull more than warranted, often in response to the other side's push or pull.

And so we're now a top wobbling badly, just as they do before they fall.

In times past it wouldn't have even been a question to remove a POTUS for soliciting foreign interference in our election because the sanctity of our political process was paramount.

Not anymore. And it's become so bad that one party will not only look the other way in such a situation, but will actively participate and cover for such conduct.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 01:15 PM | Reply

#124 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "On the WB form he claimed some firsthand knowledge, which jumped over that hurdle. Yet, in the complaint itself ALL of his citations are second or thirdhand."

The inspector general came out saying that the WB did in fact have some first hand knowledge. Who should I believe, you? Hahaha... They dont have to tell us what that first hand knowledge was, especially if it could risk exposing the WB.

Then there is this: "Intelligence community workers have long been able to blow the whistle based on second-hand or hearsay information. The law only requires federal workers to have a "reasonable belief" of misconduct in order to file a complaint, according to Debra D'Agostino, a federal employment lawyer."

#130 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-19 02:15 PM | Reply

"I'm simply readying my mirror to be thrust in your collective faces when the Senate runs their trial in a comparable manner."

You'd have to be okay with unfair trials to want to do that, JeffJ.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 03:22 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort