Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, January 19, 2020

US President Donald Trump's legal team has given its first formal response to the impeachment case against him, describing the charges as a "dangerous attack" on the American people. The six-page letter said the impeachment articles failed to allege any crime and were a "brazen" attempt to interfere with the 2020 election.

Advertisement

More

Comments

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

The six-page letter said the impeachment articles failed to allege any crime and were a "brazen" attempt to interfere with the 2020 election.

Posted by REDIAL at 07:55 PM | 0 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Trump speaking to his base again, with usual tinge of grandiosity.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-19 08:48 AM | Reply

Poor Donald Trump. Such a good and honest man. So patriotic and self-sacrificing. Why do people persecute him by withholding their love. There ought to be a law. Attorney General Barr is crafting one.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-19 08:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

Trump Legal Team Says Charges 'Brazen and Unlawful'

Fine; then the Trumphluffing legal team should have no problem refuting the testimony of real fact witnesses who are speaking under oath, with extraordinary legal peril for false testimony.

Stop your Lindsey Graham pearl-necklace clutching, and defend your client as professional legal teams are known to do.

Has anybody defending Trump done so under oath??

Not on your life.

#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-01-19 10:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#3 - this is an excellent point, the GOP called two witnesses during the House hearings, Gordon Sondland and Tim Morrison. We know Sondland was devastating to Drumpf's defense, and although Morrison tried very hard not to, he too damaged the defense. What's even more interesting is that all the witnesses who testified in the House were on the official side of this corrupt pressure scheme to assist Drumpf's reelection like Sonland, and Volker, or they were official government observers like Taylor, Kent and Hill. Now thanks to the Parnas interview and corroborating documents we see that the inside of the scheme run by Ghouliani was little more than a mob extortion operation, which is probably why Bolton called it a "drug deal."

#4 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-01-19 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I am reminded of this:

I am shocked and chagrined, mortified and stupefied. This trial is outrageous! It is a waste of the taxpayers' time and money. It is a travesty of justice that these four people have been incarcerated while the real perpetrator is walking around laughing"lying and laughing, laughing and lying. You know what these four people were? They were innocent bystanders. Now, you just think about that term. Innocent. Bystanders. Because that's exactly what they were. We know they were bystanders, nobody's disputing that. So how can a bystander be guilty? No such thing. Have you ever heard of a guilty bystander? No, because you cannot be a bystander and be guilty. Bystanders are by definition, innocent. That is the nature of bystanding. But no, they want to change nature here. They want to create a whole new animal"the guilty bystander. Don't you let them do it. Only you can stop them.

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-01-19 03:16 PM | Reply

Calling something an impeachable crime does not necessarily make it so.

#6 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-19 03:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Calling something a punishable crime does not necessarily make it so."

Interesting angle.

Some crimes can't be punished... or just ones by the President?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-19 03:41 PM | Reply

Impeachment is a political cure.

Anything, just talking, can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor.

Why?

Because what is a crime under the title "high crime and misdemeanor' is not defined.

The Courts cannot throw out the charges.

The Court is the Senate. The Senate must consider if High Crimes and Misdemeanors actually were committed.

Any judge would throw out a case brought bu a prosecutor for a non-crime as determined by the judge.

The Senate has the authority to make this determination. That is because removal is a political cure.

#8 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-19 04:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

Some crimes can't be punished... or just ones by the President?

The Courts cannot throw out the charges.

The Senate must consider if High Crimes and Misdemeanors actually were committed.

Whats the charge? Or Violation? What section of the law was violated? Because its not enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment.

Why should anyone be sent to any court without at least a charge of a crime that broke a particular law?

That is because removal is a political cure.

No its not .... its a legal remedy to a President breaking specific laws, the Senate is the JURY because the Founders didn't trust a small body, lik the SC to NOT be bribed.

You need a crime, a violation .... not just because you didn't like someone.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-19 04:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

Some crimes can't be punished... or just ones by the President?

The Courts cannot throw out the charges.

The Senate must consider if High Crimes and Misdemeanors actually were committed.

Whats the charge? Or Violation? What section of the law was violated? Because its not enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment.

Why should anyone be sent to any court without at least a charge of a crime that broke a particular law?

That is because removal is a political cure.

No its not .... its a legal remedy to a President breaking specific laws, the Senate is the JURY because the Founders didn't trust a small body, lik the SC to NOT be bribed.

You need a crime, a violation .... not just because you didn't like someone.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-19 04:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Whats the charge? Or Violation? What section of the law was violated? Because its not enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment.
Why should anyone be sent to any court without at least a charge of a crime that broke a particular law?
That is because removal is a political cure.
No its not .... its a legal remedy to a President breaking specific laws, the Senate is the JURY because the Founders didn't trust a small body, lik the SC to NOT be bribed.
You need a crime, a violation .... not just because you didn't like someone.

POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2020-01-19 04:19 PM | REPLY

God your stupidity is glaring. The constitution gives sole authority to the House what THEY themselves what is high crimes and misdemeanors. It doesn't have to be a legal statute violated. They do give 2 examples Treason and Bribery.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-19 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Treason and Bribery are crimes. Yup. I agree.

But, what the House decided is a crime isn't established by the Constitution. It is non-defined.

Was Trump impeached under these Articles?

Yes, obviously.

The Senate has the same authority to throw the case out for no crimes named.

Why?

Because the Constitution is silent on how the Senate processes the impeachment articles.

The Senate decides the rules.

Heck, it's just getting started. Let's wait and see how the Senate handles this.

Last I heard, the same rules as used with Clinton's are being used. Those rules passed 100-0 if I remember correctly.

Unless I missed some changes made, it's proceed.

#12 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-19 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So is your ridiculous argument that not only can POTUS not be charged with a crime while in office, but the ONLY crimes he can be impeached for are bribery and treason? So abusing the office of the President in order to cheat to win an election and abusing Presidential privilege to obstruct Congress, neither of which which might be perfectly described under US Code, cannot be used to remove a POTUS because they don't rise to treason or bribery? Absolutely ludicrous. Cult45 spends so much time bending over backward they'll not only be able to fellate Combover Quisling, but themselves as well.

#13 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-01-19 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12 | Posted by Petrous

You're an idiot.

#14 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-01-19 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Stonewalling Congress is a crime. Bribery is a crime. Conditional release of foriegn aide is a crime. What planet are you on matress?

#15 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-01-19 06:57 PM | Reply

Calling something an impeachable crime does not necessarily make it so.

#6 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01

Hiding your head in the sane doesn't necessarily make you an ostrich,

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-19 07:06 PM | Reply

Calling something an impeachable crime does not necessarily make it so.

#6 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01

Hiding your head in the sand doesn't necessarily make you an ostrich,

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-19 07:07 PM | Reply

--Hiding your head in the sand doesn't necessarily make you an ostrich,

No but it might make you a member of a climate cult group.

pbs.twimg.com

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-19 07:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well I would say better to have our heads in the sand than up Combover Quisling's ------. However, since this has been the hottest decade on record and the second hottest year on record, I'd say it's YOUR heads that are in the sand on climate change.

#19 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-01-19 09:56 PM | Reply

Where in the law are they crimed? Show me the criminal statute and the jail time associated with said crimes.

If you cant find them, then they only exist in the House under the political process.

And the end result is also a political process as the Senate decides, not the Judicial branch.

Explain how any part of 12 is false.

#20 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-19 09:59 PM | Reply

Renember, the charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Find these two in law.

#21 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-19 10:01 PM | Reply

Ryan Goodman @rgoodlaw

Dershowitz--Trump lawyer #SenateImpeachmentTrial--
@CNNSotu: impeachment only for "criminal like conduct"

FALSE

Regardless, top experts conclude Ukraine allegations include SEVERAL crimes

Crimes that Trump committed in Ukraine effort:

1. Bribery (@RDEliason)
2. Honest Services Fraud (@BarbMcQuade)
3. Hatch Act (Gary Stein)
4. Campaign Finance (@ThePaulSRyan)

Also violated constitutional demand to faithfully execute the law with Impoundment Act (@SamBerger_DC)

You can read about Trump's crimes here:

Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

www.justsecurity.org

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-19 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gal.
They took to the hills after you truth throat punched em. You are the best.

#23 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-01-19 11:26 PM | Reply

Renember, the charges are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Find these two in law.

#21 | POSTED BY PETROUS

In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable. Moreover, on July 20, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Virginia's governor, urged the inclusion of an impeachment power specifically because the "Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power." Even more famously, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 defined "high crimes and misdemeanors" as "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

The logic of impeachment as applied to the presidency is that the president has unique authority conferred by Article II. If he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political, he injures the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed, waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that there are "many" impeachable offenses, none of which is "alluded to in our statute book," because the abuses of power that constitute "political offences" are "of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task" of enumerating them all through "positive legislation would be impracticable."

www.washingtonpost.com

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-19 11:53 PM | Reply

Where in the law are they crimed? Show me the criminal statute and the jail time associated with said crimes.
If you cant find them, then they only exist in the House under the political process.
And the end result is also a political process as the Senate decides, not the Judicial branch.
Explain how any part of 12 is false.

POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2020-01-19 09:59 PM | REPLY

Consider it like employees of a corporation bringing complaints against their CEO and the shareholders deciding the CEO's fate whether to remove him or not.

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-20 12:56 AM | Reply

Where in the law are they crimed? Show me the criminal statute and the jail time associated with said crimes.
If you cant find them, then they only exist in the House under the political process.

It sounds like you are unaware that at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no criminal statutes because they hadn't been written yet. Federal statues did not exist until the Congress under the Constitution created them. So, obviously, a statute is not required to impeach and remove.

Several Federal judges have been impeached and removed for "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench", neither of which is a "criminal statute". The impeachment power is not different for President than it is for other "Federal Officers" including Federal Judges.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804

"The House adopted the select committee's eight articles on March 26, 1804,[17] one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his "intemperate and inflammatory ... peculiarly indecent and unbecoming ... highly unwarrantable ... highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury."

Several others were impeached and removed for "Abuse of power".

Nope, not seeing a violation of a Federal statute there...

#26 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-01-20 01:36 AM | Reply

A Visit from the Speaker

Twas the night before impeachment
And all through the Senate
Not a creature was stirring
Not even Mike Bennet.
Indictments were charged
By Pelosi with prayer,
In the hopes that removal
Would pass over there.
Biden, Bernie and Warren were out on the stump
Dreaming that they were the one to beat Trump.
Klobachar in a pantsuit, Steyer in a daze,
And even mayor Pete had little hope he could raise.
When out on the Mall, media started to chatter
The people subjected to another half-baked matter!
Away from our coffers, flow lots of cash
Actions in motion that seemed a bit rash.
Prospects were bleak for crest-fallen dopes
But what could bring candidates off of the ropes?
When what from our newsfeed began to appear
Articles of Impeachment and their managers -----!
And driving things forward and making it bleaker
We knew right away, it was the House Speaker.
Solemn and mournful, plodding they came
As she fist-bumped and giggled and called them by name
Now Demings, now Nadler, Lofgren and Jeffries
Garcia and Crow and Schiff are her besties!
Across the great hall, and into the chamber
Clutching the Articles, the fruits of their labor
As pages before that wild hurricane fly
When they met with an obstacle on that Hill so most high.
So straight to the people they made their appeal
With identity politics and entitlements real.
And that was their inkling heard up to the roof
The preening and shrieking and each massive goof.
As I drew back my reason, as spin did abound
To the floor they did come with arguments unsound.
They dressed in dark colors to show they were serious
To placate the Left, since 16 delirious.
A bunch of free stuff in front of US they dangled
Who cares the Constitution lay tattered and mangled?
Her cheeks were quite drawn, she slurred like a drunk
Her droll little mouth spewed hate like a punk
Her eyes had turned black, like a shark on a feed
With smoke and mirrors wielding power and greed.
Their faces were gaunt from too little sleeping,
Outside they laughed, but inside they were weeping.
Their base got a bone, for that was their yen
But all they'd to show was a gold autographed pen.
A twitch of her eye, and a finger to wag
Let us sigh in relief, acquittal's in the bag
She spoke lots of words, and dawdled at work
As 20 slipped away from the hands of the berserk
And wagging that finger in everyone's face
She slunk back to the House, because that was her place.
Because the Senate and McConnell won't play by their rules
If you're trusting in Schumer, you're playing the fool.
And I heard her exclaim as she faded in tears:
Impeachment is forever and we'll get four more years!

#27 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2020-01-20 12:36 PM | Reply

its a legal remedy to a President breaking specific laws, the Senate is the JURY because the Founders didn't trust a small body, lik the SC to NOT be bribed.
You need a crime, a violation .... not just because you didn't like someone.

#9 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Can you show me the law that says Impeachment is a legal remedy for the President "breaking specific laws"?

I can only see the Constitution saying its a remedy for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. I don't see anything about breaking Federal or State criminal laws.

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-20 01:10 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