The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[alfred russel]

I don't know...if he considered the case proved in the house, do you really need witnesses for a trial if the defense doesn't want them?

[The Minsky Moment]

It is interesting to me that Romney voted for removal for abuse of power, but rejected the idea that the President's power should be checked by a Congress able to investigate possible presidential wrongdoing.

I don't find that surprising. I don't think raising privilege objections is an impeachable offense even if those objections are not well-founded in law and unlikely to prevail.  If the objections were overruled in Court and the President still refused to permit compliance, that would be a different story, but that did not happen.

That said, I personally would have voted to convict on that article because of the argument Trump's Justice Department made in the Census case a few days ago - that the Court lacked the power to enforce a House subpoena but that it could use impeachment as a remedy. In combination with the stonewalling of the impeachment inquiries, it rises to such a level of bad faith as to justify conviction on the charge.  But I don't think the question is as clear cut as the first article.

[grumbler]

I don't find that surprising. I don't think raising privilege objections is an impeachable offense even if those objections are not well-founded in law and unlikely to prevail.  If the objections were overruled in Court and the President still refused to permit compliance, that would be a different story, but that did not happen.

The president never raised any privilege objections, only unlimited Article II powers objections. 

That said, I personally would have voted to convict on that article because of the argument Trump's Justice Department made in the Census case a few days ago - that the Court lacked the power to enforce a House subpoena but that it could use impeachment as a remedy. In combination with the stonewalling of the impeachment inquiries, it rises to such a level of bad faith as to justify conviction on the charge.  But I don't think the question is as clear cut as the first article.

Correct.  Trump's refusal was based on his claim that the President is able to do whatever he wants, subject only to impeachment, because the President was not subject to the courts.

[The Minsky Moment]

The president never raised any privilege objections, only unlimited Article II powers objections. 

it's a claim of executive privilege.  A ridiculous and unsustainable claim, but a claim nonetheless.

[Syt]

"The only one that voted against was a guy that can't stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency."
- Trump, speaking to Republicans.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know...if he considered the case proved in the house, do you really need witnesses for a trial if the defense doesn't want them?

If you look at the impeachment trial as if it resembled some kind of legitimate legal proceeding rather than a farce with lawyers talking, then McConnell really backed the GOP Senators into a corner. The defense based on evidentiary sufficiency blew up for good once Bolton resurfaced.  Voila - any questions about the evidence could be resolved by simply taking the testimony of witness with first hand knowledge ready, willing and able to testify - a witness no longer in the Executive Branch and thus no longer subject to Presidential orders to keep away.  The only way to pivot out of that outcome was to embrace Dershowitz's argument that it didn't matter because the articles did not state a viable offense.  The Dershowitz theory - to which the Senate irrevocably committed in denying the Bolton testimony - is the equivalent to the old common law demurrer - a plea in which the defendant agrees not to contest the factual sufficiency of the evidence but attacks the charge purely as a matter of law. At that point, it doesn't matter what the House proved or didn't prove - only whether the conduct alleged by the House managers comprises impeachable conduct.

[Caliga]

"The only one that voted against was a guy that can't stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency."
- Trump, speaking to Republicans.

Trump is perhaps the biggest piece of shit in American history.

[Syt]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481919-graham-when-i-die-god-isnt-going-to-ask-why-didnt-you-convict-trump

Graham: When I die God isn't going to ask 'Why didn't you convict Trump?'

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that when he dies, God isn't going to ask him why he didn't convict President Trump.

The South Carolina senator told Fox News' the Brian Kilmeade Show that he used his God-given "common sense" to decide to acquit the president in the "easiest decision I ever had to make."

"It was politically driven, it was driven by people who are not looking for the truth," he said. "They hate Trump, they were gonna impeach him the day he got elected and if you can't see through this, you know, your religion is clouding your thinking here."

Graham was responding to Sen. Mitt Romney's (R-Utah) reference to his religion in his announcement of his decision to convict President Trump on the abuse of power charge.

"When I go to meet God at the pearly gates I don't think he's going to ask me, 'Why didn't you convict Trump?'" Graham said. "I may be wrong, but I don't think that's gonna be at the top of the list. I'll have a lot to answer for, but this was clearly an effort to destroy Trump."

The senator also added he likes Romney and has "always liked him."

"I appreciate the fact that he's helped the Republican agenda," he said. "He's going to help us continue to build up the military, cut taxes and reform the government, I hope."

Romney has been facing a slew of backlash from GOP lawmakers and the president after becoming the only Republican to vote to convict Trump on a charge. The senator seemed to choke up during his announcement.

"I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced," he said.

Trump was ultimately acquitted of both articles of impeachment after the inquiry and trial had taken over Washington for months. The president celebrated his acquittal Thursday, holding up a newspaper with the front-page headline declaring him not guilty.

[dps]

"The only one that voted against was a guy that can't stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency."
- Trump, speaking to Republicans.

Trump is perhaps the biggest piece of shit in American history.

I dunno, he's not the only contender;  there's John C. Calhoun, George Lincoln Rockwell, Charles Manson, and a few others. 

Among people who actually held the office of President, though, no one comes close to matching him for the title.

[The Minsky Moment]

Lindsey is making an unwarranted assumption

[Malthus]

Lindsey is making an unwarranted assumption

Down, not up.   

[The Minsky Moment]

My Christian theology is a bit shaky but I'm pretty sure putting yourself in league with the Antichrist points one in a more southerly direction.

[dps]

Lindsey is making an unwarranted assumption

Nah, I'm sure he'll die at some point.

[Barrister]

Among people who actually held the office of President, though, no one comes close to matching him for the title.

Andrew Jackson?  Andrew Johnson?

[dps]

Among people who actually held the office of President, though, no one comes close to matching him for the title.

Andrew Jackson?  Andrew Johnson?

Jackson isn't as bad as some people think;  the man certainly had his faults both as a person and as a political leader, but a lot of his bad rep came from propaganda put out by his political opponents.  Johnson was in over his head as President, but I don't see how that makes him a piece of shit as a person--as a person, Lyndon was worse than Andrew, but a much better President.