I don’t understand what such a move gets him. If true, such games will only further anger a public who is NOT tuning out and ignoring this the way the GOP wishes they would. It’s a bad move.
I can only think that McConnell has proven he is dastardly…makes a beeline for all roads to maintaining power. This little ‘head fake,’ if true just keeps his party in power, and green lights all the future judges, tax cuts, ACA destruction that the core constituents - KOCH Bros, and all the far right interests, that maintain their power.
Examples of his beelines - #MerrickGarland, #Kavanaugh’sFBIreviewOfotherWitnesses #TaxCutsWithNoDemImput #GetRidOfACAbutStoppedByMcCain #150PlusJudges
Yes, it will never pass the smell test…for most thinking Americans.
None of those had the levels of engagement or public awareness, sadly, as this. I think he is seriously underestimating what this will do to them in the long run on the gamble they can somehow play catch up before November.
Probably so…
Proposed Q’s from Sen Romney which try to get at T’s arguments about being more concerned about corruption, what Giuliani’s role had been etc. Shows that he gives a damn about finding out what is truthful in this case
Cross-posting
What’s that? The NSA has more info on the Russian disinformation campaign against Ukraine and the Trump regime is blocking them from providing it to congress?
Oh my.
Summary of the Impeachment Inquiry into Trump
January 23rd - 29th
- 01/23/20 Lindsey Graham Bizarrely Defends Trump: ‘He Did Nothing Wrong In His Mind’
- 01/23/20 Trump is "bored" by the proceedings, GOP senator says
- 01/23/20 Trump’s trial may hinge on Lamar Alexander
- 01/24/20 ‘Take her out’: Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired
- 01/24/20 Lev Parnas Says He Has Recording of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing
- 01/24/20 Rudy Pal Igor Fruman Taped Trump Trying to Fire Ukraine Ambassador: Lawyer
- 01/24/20 Report: Trump Recorded Telling Parnas And Fruman To ‘Take Her Out’ About Yovanovitch
- 01/24/20 Democrats warn at impeachment trial that Trump will abuse his office again if not removed
- 01/24/20 Trump complains about his defense team’s ‘Death Valley’ impeachment time slot
- 01/24/20 Trump tweeted 54 times before noon today
- 01/24/20 Americans still divided on Trump’s removal from office, but a strong economy is boosting his approval rating, Post-ABC poll finds
- 01/24/20 66% call for witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial: Poll
- 01/24/20 A Guide to the Case For and Against Removing Trump
- 01/25/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 6, Opening of Defense Arguments
- 01/25/20 Trump Did ‘Nothing Wrong,’ His Legal Team Says In First Day Of Impeachment Defense
- 01/25/20 Assessing the Trump team’s 6-point impeachment defense
- 01/25/20 Trump Impeachment: Highlights of Saturday’s Trial
- 01/25/20 Trump’s Defense Says Democrats Have Failed to Make Impeachment Case
- 01/25/20 Trump’s legal team launches attack on Dem case — and Schiff
- 01/25/20 Fact-checking opening statements from President Trump’s legal team
- 01/25/20 Romney: ‘It’s very likely I’ll be in favor of witnesses’ in Trump impeachment trial
- 01/25/20 WATCH: Full video of Trump appearing to say Ukraine ambassador should be removed
- 01/25/20 Tape Made Public of Trump Discussing Ukraine With Donors
- 01/25/20 In recording Trump asks how long Ukraine can resist Russians
- 01/25/20 Here’s The Recording Of Trump Saying He Wanted To “Get Rid Of” A Top US Ambassador
- 01/26/20 Parnas recording shows Trump talking with indicted businessmen the President has said he doesn’t know
- 01/26/20 Schiff ‘has not paid the price’ for impeachment, Trump says in what appears to be veiled threat
- 01/26/20 Schiff, Calling Trump ‘Wrathful and Vindictive,’ Sees Tweet as a Threat
- 01/26/20 Fox News Poll: Record economy ratings, as half say Senate should remove Trump
- 01/26/20 Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says
- 01/26/20 Bolton alleges in book that Trump tied Ukraine aid to investigations
- 01/26/20 Democrats call for Bolton to testify in Trump impeachment trial after new report on aid to Ukraine
- 01/26/20 What comes next at Trump’s impeachment trial?
- 01/27/20 Senators overseeing impeachment trial got campaign cash from Trump legal team members
- 01/27/20 Trump’s legal team gave thousands in contributions to Republican senators ahead of impeachment trial
- 01/27/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 7
- 01/27/20 3 ways Bolton’s bombshells contradict Trump’s defense
- 01/27/10 Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton revelations
- 01/27/20 Trump denies explosive new Bolton allegations
- 01/27/20 Trump rages after reports that Bolton book claims president tied Ukraine aid to probes
- 01/27/20 Mitch McConnell is angry at White House over John Bolton manuscript, report says
- 01/27/20 Impeachment Trial More Likely to See Witnesses After Bolton Allegations
- 01/27/20 Toomey discusses a ‘one-for-one’ witness deal in Trump impeachment amid Bolton revelations, officials say
- 01/27/20 Romney, Collins say Bolton report strengthens case for witnesses, makes them increasingly likely
- 01/27/20 A ‘minor player’ and a ‘shiny object’: Trump’s legal team tries to explain away Rudy Giuliani
- 01/28/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 8
- 01/27/20 Bolton Was Concerned That Trump Did Favors for Autocratic Leaders, Book Says
- 01/27/20 Bolton bombshell sets off a whodunit frenzy
- 01/28/20 McConnell Says GOP Doesn’t Have Votes to Block Impeachment Witnesses
- 01/28/20 McConnell tells senators he doesn’t yet have votes to block witnesses in Trump impeachment trial
- 01/28/20 Impeachment state of play: What McConnell’s comments really mean
- 01/28/20 Graham backs plan for senators to review Bolton manuscript in classified setting
- 01/28/20 Poll: 75% Of Voters Say Allow Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 53% Say President Trump Not Telling Truth About Ukraine
- 01/28/20 Schiff: Trump’s lawyers make best case for Bolton testimony
- 01/28/20 Read: Doe Records Regarding U.S. Delegation To Ukraine Led By Former Secretary Perry
- 01/28/20 GOP concedes Trump may have withheld aid for probes but says it’s not impeachable
- 01/28/20 White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book
- 01/29/20 White House says Bolton book contains top secret information
- 01/29/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 9, Senate Questions
- 01/29/20 Press Release: Engel Statement on September 23, 2019 Call with John Bolton
- 01/29/20 Top Democrat reveals private call with Bolton that contradicts Trump claims
- 01/29/20 Trump Impeachment Trial Offers Hints on Where Senators Stand on Witnesses
- 01/29/20 Senate Republicans move the goal posts again after Bolton’s book and Dershowitz’s defense of Trump
- 01/29/20 Trump rages at Bolton, says former adviser would have caused ‘World War Six’
- 01/29/20 Trump Impeachment Trial Offers Hints on Where Senators Stand on Witnesses
- 01/29/20 Trump defenders: Ukraine trade no grounds for impeachment
- 01/29/20 Rudy Giuliani says he "never ever" discussed Ukraine military aid with President Trump
- 01/29/20 Parnas Lawyer: Giuliani Delivered Graham Letter Calling for Sanctions on Ukrainian Officials
- 01/29/20 Trio of Dem senators considering vote to acquit Trump
Watch:
- 01/25/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 6, Opening of Defense Arguments
- 01/27/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 7
- 01/28/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 8
- 01/29/20 Watch: Senate Impeachment Trial, Day 9, Senate Questions
But that argument would make him King and as I recall objecting to a King was the basis for the founding of the United States of America.
Gosh, going through all these stories today, I was struck by one horrible thought. I don’t know if this right but it seems the President’s team is actually arguing to end impeachment all together with some of these claims. It’s very troubling. This could be the last impeachment ever.
In my review, I believe, no process would be deemed correct by the White House. The President’s team argues in court that the court has no jurisdiction to rule on information and witnesses given to the House. Then here before us they have been arguing the exact opposite, that the House should have gone to the courts to get rulings on subpoenas. They tried that with Don McGahn’s testimony, it’s taking ages, we’ll pretty much never get that testimony.
So then I started thinking, maybe impeachment is already dead as legal way to remove a President, it’s just that Trump is now proving it to be completely true. No one is really taking this seriously, I see more articles about Mitt Romney drinking chocolate milk, than I do the merits of the arguments being made.
So think about it, this is as far as Congress has been before, so maybe there truly is no mid-term removal outside the 25th amendment. For all the hype is gets Impeachment sure seems like harsher Censure. Anyways those are my terrifying thoughts this evening.
What do you guys think? Impeachment, already broken or did Trump break it?
This may be where we are heading, you are right. As the goal posts keep moving away from a ‘fairness’ quotient, and what was true in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments will not serve as a benchmark here in terms of calling witness and getting documents, is chilling.
The fact that the majority of the Senate can vote to ignore T’s behavior because T has the right to do as he pleases. There is an obvious power grab, right to power, fueled by an entrenched Senate and the team of lawyers acting on the President’s behalf, not the nations is very alarming.
Here’s some push back from the Congressional legal perspective against DOJ
Thread from Ezra Klein- Vox boiling down the argument towards what the R’s hope to accomplish - basically Getting the R’s to bypass any knowledge that T used his office to leverage another country to do his bidding in 2020 election.
@MissJava or @anon95374541 - I’d like to as for a move to Impeachment plz! Thnx
The fact is, impeachment was NOT made for the governing body we have now.
It was to be tried in the Senate because that was seen as the more stable, staid body.
But the Senate at that time was far smaller, and Senators were appointed, not elected. Our current legislative block has shown that the Senate now is even MORE politically polarized than the House, and no longer trustworthy as a rational deliberative body. I really do think it’s time we re-examined how that all works.
Even the professor, Dershowitz quoted as agreeing with his argument, actually disagrees. Read Professor Bowie’s response to Dershowitz’s insane claims.
Don’t Be Confused by Trump’s Defense. What He Is Accused of Are Crimes.
By Nikolas Bowie
Watching CNN last week, I learned that I’m partly responsible for President Trump’s legal defense.
On the screen was one of the president’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, explaining his new position that impeachment requires “criminal-like behavior.” When the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin interjected that “every single law professor” disagreed with him, Mr. Dershowitz rejoined that one professor — me! — was “completely” on his side.
Mr. Dershowitz encouraged Mr. Toobin to read a law review article I wrote on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, in which a former Supreme Court justice, Benjamin Curtis, successfully argued that no one should ever be punished for doing something that wasn’t a crime. Mr. Dershowitz apparently thought my article supported his view that even if Mr. Trump did everything the House has accused him of doing, the president shouldn’t be convicted because he hasn’t been accused of criminal behavior.
As an academic, my first reaction was to be grateful that someone had actually read one of my articles.
But as a legal academic, my second reaction was confusion. Even if you think impeachment requires a crime, as I do, that belief hardly supports the president’s defense or Mr. Dershowitz’s position. President Trump has been accused of a crime. Two in fact: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.”
The phrase “abuse of power” appears nowhere in the federal criminal code, which lists thousands of criminal laws passed by Congress over the years. But many crimes aren’t written down in codes. Crimes derived from the “common law” — the body of law developed from judicial opinions and legal treatises rather than statutes — have been a staple of American law for centuries. Today in many states, district attorneys routinely charge people with things like “assault,” “forgery” and “indecent exposure” even where no statute makes those things a crime.
Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute. Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up. Burglary is an established crime, even where its definition exists only in legal treatises and judicial opinions.
President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”
Courts from Michigan to Maryland have recently upheld convictions of government officials for committing this common-law crime — despite objections that the crime has never been codified by statute. And the House, in its first article of impeachment, has accused Mr. Trump of exactly what the law prohibits: He “abused the powers of the presidency” for “corrupt purposes in pursuit of a personal political benefit.”
As for “obstruction of Congress,” that’s not only a common-law crime. Versions of the crime have also been listed in the federal criminal code since the 19th century.
Common-law crimes aren’t as common as they once were because they generally have been replaced by statutes, especially at the federal level. The Supreme Court long ago observed that Congress has never passed a law giving all federal district courts jurisdiction to hear common-law crimes. But in making this observation, the Supreme Court cast no doubt on Congress’s power to punish someone for a common-law crime. Since that decision, Congress itself has repeatedlyarrested and punished people for violating the unwritten crimes of contempt and bribery in contexts where the federal contempt of Congress statute doesn’t apply.
As a law professor who occasionally represents indigent criminal defendants, I am deeply troubled by prosecutions under vague, open-ended laws. The principle of legality — that no one should be punished for doing something that wasn’t clearly against the established law — sits at the foundation of any just society. We should all be skeptical of arguments that allow the government to tailor an offense retroactively to suit an obnoxious target.
But that’s not what’s happening to President Trump. And when Mr. Dershowitz defends the president by invoking my own law review article about Justice Benjamin Curtis, he seems to forget that when Curtis made a legality argument to contest President Johnson’s impeachment, Curtis declared, “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law, written or unwritten, express or implied.”
Abuse of power may be “unwritten” in any code, and obstruction of Congress may be “implied” by statutes, but these crimes are now as well established, well defined and destructive of the public trust as bribery or treason. If the president did what the House accuses him of doing, he can and should be punished.
“It’s we the people, not you the douchebag.”