Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[NWRMidnight]

There is no concept like double jeopardy when it comes to impeachment.



Impeachment and criminal charges are totally different beasts. What you've misinterpreted just means that the president can't undo an impeachment. It doesn't mean he can't separately pardon someone for the criminal acts that were brought up in an impeachment.

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, so double jeapardy does not apply.

Incorrect on the pardon. Crimes committed and tried for impeachment are not pardonable, even at the criminal level. If that was not true, then it would put a president above the law.

Here is an article at the guardian that talks about it:

Trump won't lose his job – but the impeachment inquiry is still essential | Robert Reich

The process is required by the constitution, seems to be shifting voters’ opinions, and will render the president unpardonable

www.google.com

 

[HurleyBird]

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, so double jeapardy does not apply.

Exactly, which is why your "saving some things so they can have another go at it" argument doesn't make sense.

Incorrect on the pardon.

Absolutely correct. Only extreme partisans take that interpretation of the "except in cases of impeachment" clause. Some Republicans had the same notion for Clinton. Note that your source just states his opinion without providing any sort of argument.

Presidential pardon: What does "except in Cases of Impeachment" mean?

Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution establishes the presidential pardon power as follows. The President shall ... have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences agai...

law.stackexchange.com

Your reading is supported by the earlier drafts of the Committee on Detail. After giving the President the pardon power, those drafts say, "but his Pardon shall not be pleadable in Bar of an Impeachment." Interestingly, the main topic discussed was whether to give the President the power to pardon Treason. They worried he was likely to be a party to any treason plot.

Can President Clinton Pardon Himself?

President Clinton promised this month not to pardon himself. It's surprising to see Clinton voluntarily relinquish a legal weapon, but even more...

slate.com

The problem with this argument is that the Constitution elsewhere (Article I, Section 3) makes a distinction between “cases of impeachment” and subsequent criminal prosecution for the same offenses. So it’s unlikely that the founding fathers were referring to the subsequent criminal prosecution when they restricted the power to pardon

 

[NWRMidnight]

Exactly, which is why your "saving some things so they can have another go at it" argument doesn't make sense.



Absolutely correct. Only extreme partisans take that interpretation of the "except in cases of impeachment" clause. Some Republicans had the same notion for Clinton. Note that your source just states his opinion without providing any sort of argument.

Presidential pardon: What does "except in Cases of Impeachment" mean?

Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution establishes the presidential pardon power as follows. The President shall ... have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences agai...

law.stackexchange.com

Can President Clinton Pardon Himself?

President Clinton promised this month not to pardon himself. It's surprising to see Clinton voluntarily relinquish a legal weapon, but even more...

slate.com

You are disregarding the fact that most of the other charges, the evidence is still tied up in the courts. (The full unredacted version of the muller report, his tax returns, etc). Which is one of the reasons I listed they are waiting.

If an impeached president can be pardoned in the criminal court for the crimes he was impeached on, then we just nullified any account ability other than "being fired" which really is all an impeachment if removed from office really is, of a President, making him above the law. That means a President could commit the most horrendous crimes, be impeached, then be pardoned by the vice President? Do you realize what would happen if true?

Your article is about self pardon.. which is also opinion..

In all honest, we both are talking about opinion, because non of it has been tested in the courts.

I do know for a fact, that our founding fathers did not indent any President to be above the law, or to break laws and commit crimes and get away with it.

 

[fskimospy]

You are disregarding the fact that most of the other charges, the evidence is still tied up in the courts. (The full unredacted version of the muller report, his tax returns, etc). Which is one of the reasons I listed they are waiting.

If an impeached president can be pardoned in the criminal court for the crimes he was impeached on, then we just nullified any account ability other than "being fired" which really is all an impeachment if removed from office really is, of a President, making him above the law. That means a President could commit the most horrendous crimes, be impeached, then be pardoned by the vice President? Do you realize what would happen if true?

Your article is about self pardon.. which is also opinion..

In all honest, we both are talking about opinion, because non of it has been tested in the courts.

I do know for a fact, that our founding fathers did not indent any President to be above the law, or to break laws and commit crimes and get away with it.

It is most likely that Trump can be pardoned for the crimes he committed that got him impeached.

While this is shitty and one reason we should abolish the pardon power or subject it to congressional approval in the end it probably doesn’t matter as Trump appears to be on the hook for numerous state crimes he can’t pardon his way out of. The real test will be if we have the political will to prosecute him and his administration. I hope we do.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Republicans, always planning ahead! And now, they're beginning impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden already. Louie Gohmert says they already have the paperwork

Louie Gohmert threatens to impeach Joe Biden in hearing meltdown: 'We've already got the forms'

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) blasted House Democrats on Monday for what he said were "kangaroo" impeachment hearings.'I'm going to use my five minutes, not to ask questions," Gohmert complained to a House committee hearing arguments for and against the impeachment of President Donald Trump."I've...

www.rawstory.com

Doesn't surprise me. In this Vanity Fair article from Nov. 4 2016, Republicans were already talking about impeaching not yet elected Hillary Clinton. And refusing to approve any SC nominees until a Republican was elected. Pretty interesting read in light of the Republican talking points we are hearing now.

Republicans are a minority rule party, and they know that the only way they can continue to hold power is to use undemocratic means to keep power. One way to do that is to obstruct and disrupt. What they want is for the average voter, to check out. They want the average centrist voter to say "They all suck. Fuck voting."

 

[VRAMdemon]

So, considering the republicans in the Senate clear motive to acquit despite the evidence, at what point does the GOP become a bunch of confederates? Inviting foreign powers to tilt an election to keep an above-the-law executive in power? Hard to imagine a less patriotic, Un-American position. what Bill Barr is doing and saying as the head of the DoJ - He's made absolutely no bones about the fact that he is going to operate as Trump's attack dog because he believes in the power of the executive branch to advance conservative causes. Look at what Trump is saying about Chris Wray. Together, they're trying to plant the seed, trying to lay down the groundwork, trying to establish consent for whatever comes next.

The Senate Republicans will just 'yadda yadda' the "Inviting foreign powers to tilt an election" bit away. They have consistently avoided answering any and all questions on the topic of Presidents calling on foreign powers to influence elections. That's a forbidden subject. Because after all, the Unitary Executive head can do whatever he damn well pleases, and it will turn out to be for the good of the entire nation! Because mystical magical reasons!

Republicans in the Senate will occupy themselves by following the lead of those in the House: complaining about those Awful, Awful Democrats and How Rude They Are to Our Great President. Party over Country, and a pox on their houses.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Not one minute spent disputing facts in those hearings. Just attacking intent, procedure, and bringing up conspiracy theories.

The pattern remains the same:

1. Deny the Trump misdeed
2. Admit the misdeed, but claim its not really a misdeed
3. Attack the accuser
4. Attack the intent
5. Claim conspiracy

Cognitive dissonance is a beotch.

 

[fskimospy]

So, considering the republicans in the Senate clear motive to acquit despite the evidence, at what point does the GOP become a bunch of confederates? Inviting foreign powers to tilt an election to keep an above-the-law executive in power? Hard to imagine a less patriotic, Un-American position. what Bill Barr is doing and saying as the head of the DoJ - He's made absolutely no bones about the fact that he is going to operate as Trump's attack dog because he believes in the power of the executive branch to advance conservative causes. Look at what Trump is saying about Chris Wray. Together, they're trying to plant the seed, trying to lay down the groundwork, trying to establish consent for whatever comes next.

The Senate Republicans will just 'yadda yadda' the "Inviting foreign powers to tilt an election" bit away. They have consistently avoided answering any and all questions on the topic of Presidents calling on foreign powers to influence elections. That's a forbidden subject. Because after all, the Unitary Executive head can do whatever he damn well pleases, and it will turn out to be for the good of the entire nation! Because mystical magical reasons!

Republicans in the Senate will occupy themselves by following the lead of those in the House: complaining about those Awful, Awful Democrats and How Rude They Are to Our Great President. Party over Country, and a pox on their houses.

Pretty simple, they hate liberals and losing power more than they like democracy.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Not one minute spent disputing facts in those hearings.

They definitely dispute the facts, they just don't have a reason to do so. Their arguments are the long form equivalent of 'Nu-uh!' and 'I know you are but what am I'.
They are disputing the fact by simply refusing to believe they are facts.

 

[soundforbjt]

Turns out Roger Ailes was right, with Fox News Nixon would not have been forced out of office.

 

[fskimospy]

What I’ve found most interesting about impeachment is how the justifications have changed over time. If you look back at when this all first broke it is very clear Republicans (incredibly naively) did not believe there would be such strong evidence of Trump’s criminal activity so they were perfectly happy to say that it Trump was extorting Ukraine that would be bad. When it turned out that’s exactly what he was doing they had to switch to their new ‘furious bullshitting’ tactic.

Now you might be asking why they didn’t turn against Trump when it was proven he did it but that’s because they never really cared to begin with, they just underestimated Trump’s brazenness and stupidity.

 

[Homerboy]

What I’ve found most interesting about impeachment is how the justifications have changed over time. If you look back at when this all first broke it is very clear Republicans (incredibly naively) did not believe there would be such strong evidence of Trump’s criminal activity so they were perfectly happy to say that it Trump was extorting Ukraine that would be bad. When it turned out that’s exactly what he was doing they had to switch to their new ‘furious bullshitting’ tactic.

Now you might be asking why they didn’t turn against Trump when it was proven he did it but that’s because they never really cared to begin with, they just underestimated Trump’s brazenness and stupidity.

And now celebrate it and defend it.
Just freaking insane.

 

[Homerboy]

I really do feel like this is a valid point. If the president just basically denies information about himself from being included in the hearing, and that is basically upheld as being "ok", then exactly how in the future would a president be impeached?

 

[brycejones]

And now celebrate it and defend it.
Just freaking insane.

Hey libtards abuse of power isn't a crime! Therefore no foul!

-Trump 12/11/2019

 

[brycejones]

I really do feel like this is a valid point. If the president just basically denies information about himself from being included in the hearing, and that is basically upheld as being "ok", then exactly how in the future would a president be impeached?

View attachment 14253

The GOP will suddenly be very concerned about this the next time a Democrat is elected President.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I really do feel like this is a valid point. If the president just basically denies information about himself from being included in the hearing, and that is basically upheld as being "ok", then exactly how in the future would a president be impeached?

Only until the SCOTUS says otherwise, which they fully expect will happen before the next Democrat President. The President is only immune to congressional oversight on R numbered years.

 

[fskimospy]

I really do feel like this is a valid point. If the president just basically denies information about himself from being included in the hearing, and that is basically upheld as being "ok", then exactly how in the future would a president be impeached?

Yes, at least as far as Republicans go in the future every Republican president can start their day by asking themselves if the Democrats have 67 Senators yet. If the answer is no then they can basically commit any crimes they want.

 

[fskimospy]

Only until the SCOTUS says otherwise, which they fully expect will happen before the next Democrat President. The President is only immune to congressional oversight on R numbered years.

Yeah but what if SCOTUS rules he has to turn them over and he just says no? Are you confident Republicans would then vote to remove him from office? I'm not.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah but what if SCOTUS rules he has to turn them over and he just says no? Are you confident Republicans would then vote to remove him from office? I'm not.

Then I would expect the bureaucracy to resist him and turn over the documents and testify against his wishes since not doing so would be against the law. Just as if when his term is finally over I expect the Secret Service to carry him out if he refuses to accept it gracefully.
The President is just one man. The government is greater than him.

 

[interchange]

I really do feel like this is a valid point. If the president just basically denies information about himself from being included in the hearing, and that is basically upheld as being "ok", then exactly how in the future would a president be impeached?

View attachment 14253

Unfortunately it's only valid in a vacuum. This is a political proceeding, not a legal one. If the scenario repeats itself and a future President pulls the same shit, either a responsible Congress will ignore Trump getting away with it and laugh away arguments that Trump made it legal to repeat the obstruction. Or it will be an inherently political proceeding with the legal aspects floated only for show like Trump's impeachment is playing out to be. In the latter case, precedent will be meaningless too because the votes will follow politics and operate in disregard of the facts. In either case, what happens for Trump doesn't actually apply. That said, failure to hold Trump accountable definitely affects what Trump perceives he may be able to get away with in the future and what future Presidents may be willing to try and get away with themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Then I would expect the bureaucracy to resist him and turn over the documents and testify against his wishes since not doing so would be against the law. Just as if when his term is finally over I expect the Secret Service to carry him out if he refuses to accept it gracefully.
The President is just one man. The government is greater than him.

I will file your optimistic appraisal of the situation right next to Trump's tax returns that the Treasury secretary provided so that he wouldn't be in crystal clear violation of the law.

I hope you're right, but I'm not confident in it.

 

[Brainonska511]

The Simpsons had it so right many years ago with Sideshow Bob: "... but deep down inside, you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalise criminals and rule you like a king!"

 

[ivwshane]

Looks like the republicans have a new talking point. They are now insinuating that the DNC was able to get the FBI to start an investigation into the trump administration. They are basically trying to discredit the FBI, just like dear leader.

 

[zinfamous]

Then I would expect the bureaucracy to resist him and turn over the documents and testify against his wishes since not doing so would be against the law. Just as if when his term is finally over I expect the Secret Service to carry him out if he refuses to accept it gracefully.
The President is just one man. The government is greater than him.

Trump, the modern GOP, and its sycophants roundly believe that he is the government.

That is the problem.

All the fantasies that they feared about Obama, are exactly what they worship in Trump.

 

[hal2kilo]

I guess this still belongs here, I don't want to start a new thread. The smoking guns for the Pubs in the Oranges of the Russian Investigation appears to be an altered email, which said that Carter Page was not a US asset when he apparently was. Yet Horowitz makes the statement that no documentary or testimonial evidence supported the claim that the FBI was politically bias. What the Republicans are trying to do is convince us that they can read between the lines and tell that the FBI was biased by their supposed actions. Especially fealty to the damnable Steele dossier.