Impeachment Clown Show - Why are they calling them witnesses?

[Truth Detector]

Indeed.

[Sirthinksalot]

https://youtu.be/zjedLeVGcfE

^^The head clown.

[Cinnabar]

Guys if we arent careful this impeachment will lead to an all out civil war.

I suggest we try putting our differences aside for the greater good.

No need for a war at all. The left will thrive once the right wing albatross around the neck of progress for the greater good is cut loose. No one will care. BLUEXIT!!!

[Iron-Merc]

You can't be serious? We have a political party and phony media in this country who have been trying to overturn an election for three years impugning anyone and everyone who ever voted for Trump and you think we can set aside our differences?

You have a political party that is willing to burn down their own house, make a mockery of our elections and our institutions and you think they can be reasoned with?

The only way this stupidity will end, and even then I have my doubts, is when Trump is re-elected and Republicans take back the house.

No, im telling you a civil war is imminent. My previous comment was wishful thinking, there is no way we can set aside our differences at this point.

And Im telling you, there will be no 2020 election. Trump will not make it through his first term. There is a coup in it's final stages right now, and Trump will fall, and with him the nation and all of it's peoples.

And you guessed it, democrats are responsible for the total and complete destruction of America.

[Truth Detector]

No, im telling you a civil war is imminent. My previous comment was wishful thinking, there is no way we can set aside our differences at this point.

And Im telling you, there will be no 2020 election. Trump will not make it through his first term. There is a coup in it's final stages right now, and Trump will fall, and with him the nation and all of it's peoples.

And you guessed it, democrats are responsible for the total and complete destruction of America.

[Truth Detector]

No need for a war at all. The left will thrive once the right wing albatross around the neck of progress for the greater good is cut loose. No one will care. BLUEXIT!!!

[archives]

their bias wouldmean they would never be called as an expert witness in a real trial

one dude wanted to impeach on Trump's tweet
that bitter old woman is so full of bile, she attacked Baron.
The other guy faded into the background

Turly beat them all up as rank partisans

You are not correct on any of that

All of them have testified before Congress previously on Constitutional law issues, and Gerhardt, who has appeared before Congress a number of times, who you said faded, is considered the leading Constitutional scholar in the country

Karlan didn't "attacked Barron," her comment was, "the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron," which isn't even close to "attacking Barron," Gaetz, was just looking for his talking point for Hannity's show that night.

Karlan's response was perfect, "I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong"

And Turly didn't beat anyone up, in fact, Turly has lost unanimously the two impeachment cases concerning Judges that he employed the same arguments in their defense, he is a recognized scholar, but it is amazing that he was the best the GOP could offer

You know if you turned off Sean for awhile you would have a better understanding of facts

[Truth Detector]

All of them have testified before Congress previously on Constitutional law issues, and Gerhardt, who has appeared before Congress a number of times, who you said faded, is considered the leading Constitutional scholar in the country

Karlan didn't "attacked Barron," her comment was, "the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron," which isn't even close to "attacking Barron," Gaetz, was just looking for his talking point for Hannity's show that night.

Karlan's response was perfect, "I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong"

Karlan is a political hack and shouldn't be teaching anything above the third grade level. She has described herself as an example of a "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women"

Her credibility on anything is a ZERO.

And Turly didn't beat anyone up, in fact, Turly has lost unanimously the two impeachment cases concerning Judges that he employed the same arguments in their defense, he is a recognized scholar, but it is amazing that he was the best the GOP could offer

Turley has more Constitutional knowledge and good sense in his little pinky than you and the three hacks thre Party of the Jackass threw up there.

Turley: Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.

You know if you turned off Sean for awhile you would have a better understanding of facts

There you go again with that tired boorish Fox meme. If you had a brain, you would have a better understanding of facts.

[archives]

Karlan is a political hack and shouldn't be teaching anything above the third grade level. She has described herself as an example of a "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women"

Her credibility on anything is a ZERO.



Turley has more Constitutional knowledge and good sense in his little pinky than you and the three hacks thre Party of the Jackass threw up there.

Turley: Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.



There you go again with that tired boorish Fox meme. If you had a brain, you would have a better understanding of facts.

And you are just as wrong as your fellow Red Hat comrade

Karlan teaches at Sanford, it is not the Liberty online College that the talk radio demagogues advertise all the time, but most considered its' Law School pretty high, she has published in recognized legal journals, is considered an authority on voting rights, and has argued seven cases in front of the Supreme Court, hardly a resume of a third grade teacher

As I said, Turley is accomplished as they all are, he is recognized as a legal contrarian, which is why the GOP picked him, and as I stated above, he has lost unanimously the two cases involving impeachment of Judges were he used in their defense the same the arguments he explained yesterday.

And if you actually listened to what Turley said, rather than buy the Hannity interpretation, the basis of his view is that this impeachment is moving too fast considering the information that is still available, like Truley was oblivious to the fact that Trump has banned all those with knowledge of events and relevant documents from being seen by any House Committee

Now you can try again, or, is probably the case given you lack content, run with one of your corny copy and past videos

[Truth Detector]

As I have stressed, it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power. However, although criminality is not required in such a case, clarity is necessary. That comes from a complete and comprehensive record that eliminates exculpatory motivations or explanations. The problem is that this is an exceptionally narrow impeachment resting on the thinnest possible evidentiary record. During the House Intelligence Committee proceedings, Democratic leaders indicated that they wanted to proceed exclusively or primarily on the Ukrainian allegations and wanted a vote by the end of December. I previously wrote that the current incomplete record is insufficient to sustain an impeachment case, a view recently voiced by the New York Times and other sources.

...

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record.

...

These efforts reflect the long history of impeachment being used as a way to amplify political differences and grievances. Such legislative throat clearing has been stopped by the House by more circumspect members before articles were drafted or passed. This misuse of impeachment has been plain during the Trump Administration. Members have called for removal based on a myriad of objections against this President. Rep. Al Green(D-Texas) filed a resolution in the House of Representatives for impeachment after Trump called for players kneeling during the national anthem to be fired. Others called for impeachment over President Trump’s controversial statement on the Charlottesville protests. Rep. Steve Cohen’s (D-Tenn.) explained that “If the president can’t recognize the difference between these domestic terrorists and the people who oppose their anti-American attitudes, then he cannot defend us.” These calls have been joined by an array of legal experts who have insisted that clear criminal conduct by Trump, including treason, have been shown in the Russian investigation. Professor Lawrence Tribe argued that Trump’s pardoning of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is clearly impeachable and could even be overturned by the courts. Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, declared that President Trump’s participation in fundraisers for Senators, a common practice of all presidents in election years, is impeachable. Painter insists that any such fundraising can constitute “felony bribery” since these senators will likely sit in judgment in any impeachment trial. Painter declared“This is a bribe. Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it?” CNN Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin declared, on the air, that Trump could be impeached solely on the basis of a tweet in which Trump criticized then Attorney General Jeff Sessions for federal charges brought against two Republican congressman shortly before the mid-term elections. CNN Legal Analyst and former White House ethics attorney Norm Eisen claimed before the release of the Mueller report (which ultimately rejected any knowing collusion or conspiracy by Trump officials with Russian operatives) that the criminal case for collusion was “devastating” and that Trump is “colluding in plain sight.” I have known many of these members and commentators for years on a professional or personal basis. I do not question their sincere beliefs on the grounds for such impeachments, but we have fundamental differences in the meaning and proper use of this rarely used constitutional device.

As I have previously written, such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment. Slate has even featured a running “Impeach-O-Meter.” Despite my disagreement with many of President Trump’s policies and statements, impeachment was never intended to be used as a mid-term corrective option for a divisive or unpopular leader. To its credit, the House has, in all but one case, arrested such impulsive moves before the transmittal of actual articles of impeachment to the Senate. Indeed, only two cases have warranted submission to the Senate and one was a demonstrative failure on the part of the House in adhering to the impeachment standard. Those two impeachments—and the third near-impeachment of Richard Nixon—warrant closer examination and comparison in the current environment.

...

While generally viewed as an abusive use of impeachment by most legal and historical scholars, the Johnson impeachment has curiously been cited as a basis for the current impeachment. Some believe that it is precedent that presidents can be impeached over purely “political disagreements.” It is a chilling argument. Impeachment is not the remedy for political disagreement. The Johnson impeachment shows that the system can work to prevent an abusive impeachment even when the country and the Congress despise a president. The lasting lesson is that in every time and in every Congress, there remain leaders who can transcend their own insular political interests and defy the demands of some voters to fulfill their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution cannot take credit for such profiles of courage. Such courage rests within each member but the Constitution demands that each member summon that courage when the roll is called as it was on May 16, 1868.

...

My position in the Clinton impeachment hearing was simple and remains unchanged. Perjury is an impeachable offense. Period.It does not matter what the subject happened to be. The President heads the Executive Branch and is duty bound to enforce federal law including the perjury laws. Thousands of citizens have been sentenced to jail for the same act committed by President Clinton. He could refuse to answer the question and face the consequences,or he could tell the truth. What he could not do is lie and assume he had license to commit a crime that his own Administration was prosecuting others for.Emerging from that hearing was an “executive function”theory limiting “high crimes and misdemeanors” to misconduct related to the office of the President or misuse of official power. While supporters of the executive function theory recognized that this theory was not absolute and that some private conduct can be impeachable, it was argued that Clinton's conduct was personal and outside the realm of “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This theory has been criticized in other articles. This threshold argument, however, would appear again in the Senate trial. Notably, the defenders of the President argued that the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be treated differently for judicial, as opposed to presidential, officers. This argument was compelled by the fact that the Senate had previously removed Judge Claiborne for perjury before a grand jury and removed Judge Hastings, who had actually been acquitted on perjury charges by a court.I have previously written against this executive function theory of impeachable offenses.

The Clinton impeachment was narrow but based on underlying criminal conduct largely investigated by an Independent Counsel. The allegation of perjury of a sitting president was supported by a long investigation and extensive record. Indeed, the perjury by Clinton was clear and acknowledged even by some of his supporters. The flaws in the Clinton impeachment emerged from the highly restrictive and outcome determinative rules imposed by the Senate. In comparison, the Trump impeachment inquiry has raised a number of criminal acts but each of those alleged crimes are undermined by legal and evidentiary deficiencies. As discussed below, the strongest claim is for a non-criminal abuse of power if a quid pro quo can be established on the record. That deficiency should be addressed before any articles are reported to the floor of the House.

D. Summary

A comparison of the current impeachment inquiry with the three prior presidential inquiries puts a few facts into sharp relief. First, this is a case without a clear criminal act and would be the first such case in history if the House proceeds without further evidence. In all three impeachment inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton were clear and established. With Johnson, the House effectively created a trapdoor crime and Johnson knowingly jumped through it. The problem was that the law—the Tenure in Office Act—was presumptively unconstitutional and the impeachment was narrowly built around that dubious criminal act. With Nixon, there were a host of alleged criminal acts and dozens of officials who would be convicted of felonies. With Clinton, there was an act of perjury that even his supporters acknowledged was a felony, leaving them to argue that some felonies “do not rise to the level” of an impeachment. Despite clear and established allegations of criminal acts committed by the president, narrow impeachments like Johnson and Clinton have fared badly. As will be discussed further below, the recently suggested criminal acts related to the Ukrainian controversy are worse off, being highly questionable from a legal standpoint and far from established from an evidentiary standpoint.

Second, the abbreviated period of investigation into this controversy is both problematic and puzzling. Although the Johnson impeachment progressed quickly after the firing of the Secretary of War, that controversy had been building for over a year and was actually the fourth attempted impeachment. Moreover, Johnson fell into the trap laid a year before in the Tenure of Office Act. The formal termination was the event that triggered the statutory language of the act and thus there was no dispute as to the critical facts. We have never seen a controversy arise for the first time and move to an impeachment in such a short period. Nixon and Clinton developed over many months of investigation and a wide array of witness testimony and grand jury proceedings. In the current matter, much remains unknown in terms of key witnesses and underlying documents. There is no explanation why the matter must be completed by December. After two years of endless talk of impeachable and criminal acts, little movement occurred toward an impeachment. Suddenly the House appears adamant that this impeachment must be completed by the end of December. To be blunt, if the schedule is being accelerated by the approach of the Iowa caucuses, it would be both an artificial and inimical element to introduce into the process. This is not the first impeachment occurring during a political season. In the Johnson impeachment, the vote on the articles was interrupted by the need for some Senators to go to the Republican National Convention. The bifurcated vote occurred in May 1868 and the election was held just six months later.

Finally, the difference in the record is striking. Again, Johnson’s impeachment must be set aside as an outlier since it was based on a manufactured trap-door crime. Yet, even with Johnson, there was over a year of investigations and proceedings related to his alleged usurpation and defiance of the federal law. The Ukrainian matter is largely built around a handful of witnesses and a schedule that reportedly set the matter for a vote within weeks of the underlying presidential act. Such a wafer-thin record only magnifies the problems already present in a narrowly constructed impeachment. The question for the House remains whether it is seeking simply to secure an impeachment or actually trying to build a case for removal. If it is the latter, this is not the schedule or the process needed to build a viable case. The House should not assume that the Republican control of the Senate makes any serious effort at impeachment impractical or naïve. All four impeachment inquiries have occurred during rabid political periods. However, politicians can on occasion rise to the moment and chose principle over politics. Indeed, in the Johnson trial, senators knowingly sacrificed their careers to fulfill their constitutional oaths. If the House wants to make a serious effort at impeachment, it should focus on building the record to raise these allegations to the level of impeachable offenses and leave to the Senate the question of whether members will themselves rise to the moment that follows.

...

In any case, Chairman Schiff and committee members began to specifically ask witnesses about elements that were pulled from criminal cases. When some of us noted that courts have rejected these broader interpretations or that there are missing elements for these crimes, advocates immediately shifted to a position that it really does not matter because “this is an impeachment.” This allows members to claim criminal acts while dismissing the need to actually support such allegations. If that were the case, members could simply claim any crime from treason to genocide. While impeachment does encompass non-crimes, including abuse of power, past impeachments have largely been structured around criminal definitions. The reason is simple and obvious. The impeachment standard was designed to be a high bar and felonies often were treated as inherently grave and serious. Legal definitions and case law also offer an objective and reliable point of reference for judging the conduct of judicial and executive officers. It is unfair to claim there is a clear case of a crime like bribery and simultaneously dismiss any need to substantiate such a claim under the controlling definitions and meaning of that crime. After all, the common mantra that “no one is above the law” is a reference to the law applied to all citizens, even presidents. If the House does not have the evidence to support a claim of a criminal act, it should either develop such evidence or abandon the claim. As noted below, abandoning such claims would still leave abuse of power as a viable ground for impeachment. It just must be proven.

...

The premise of the bribery allegations is that President Trump was soliciting a bribe from Ukraine when he withheld either a visit at the White House or military aid in order to secure investigations into the 2016 election meddling and the Hunter Biden contract by Ukraine. On its face, the bribery theory is undermined by the fact that Trump released the aid without the alleged pre-conditions. However, the legal flaws in this theory are more significant than such factual conflicts. As I have previously written, this record does not support a bribery charge in either century. Before we address this bribery theory, it is important to note that any criminal allegation in an impeachment must be sufficiently clear and recognized to serve two purposes. First, it must put presidents on notice of where a line exists in the range of permissible comments or conduct in office. Second, it must be sufficiently clear to assure the public that an impeachment is not simply an exercise of partisan creativity in rationalizing a removal of a president. Neither of these purposes was satisfied in the Johnson impeachment where the crime was manufactured by Congress. This is why past impeachments focused on establishing criminal acts with reference to the criminal code and controlling case law. Moreover, when alleging bribery, it is the modern definition that is the most critical since presidents (and voters) expect clarity in the standards applied to presidential conduct. Rather than founding these allegations on clear and recognized definitions, the House has advanced a capacious and novel view of bribery to fit the limited facts. If impeachment is reduced to a test of creative redefinitions of crimes, no president will be confident in their ability to operate without the threat of removal. Finally, as noted earlier, dismissing the need to establish criminal conduct by arguing an act is “close enough for impeachment,” is a transparent and opportunistic spin. This is not improvisational jazz. “Close enough” is not nearly enough for a credible case of impeachment.

...

The discussion of a visit to the White House is facially inadequate for this task, as it is not a formal exercise of governmental power. However, withholding of military aid certainly does smack of a “determination before an agency.” Yet, that “quo” breaks down on closer scrutiny, even before getting to the question of a “corrupt intent.” Consider the specific act in this case. As the Ukrainians knew, Congress appropriated the $391 million in military aid for Ukraine and the money was in the process of being apportioned. Witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee stated that it was not uncommon to have delays in such apportionment or for an Administration to hold back money for a period longer than the 55 days involved in these circumstances. Acting Chief of Staff Mike Mulvaney stated that the White House understood it was required to release the money by a date certain absent a lawful reason barring apportionment. That day was the end of September for the White House. Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act (ICA), reserving the funds requires notice to Congress. This process has always been marked by administrative and diplomatic delays. As the witnesses indicated, it is not always clear why aid is delayed. Arguably, by the middle of October, the apportionment of the aid was effectively guaranteed. It is not contested that the Administration could delay the apportionment to resolve concerns over how the funds would be effectively used or apportioned. The White House had until the end of the fiscal year on September 30 to obligate the funds. On September 11, the funds were released. By September 30, all but $35 million in the funds were obligated. However, on September 27, President Trump signed a spending bill that averted a government shutdown and extended current funding, specifically providing another year to send funds to Ukraine.

...

Many have legitimately criticized the President for his fixation on Crowdstrike and his flawed understanding of that company’s role and Ukrainian ties. However, asking for an investigation into election interference in 2016 does not show a corrupt intent. U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly looking into the origins of the FBI investigation under the Obama Administration. That investigation necessarily includes the use of information from Ukrainian figures in the Steele dossier. Witnesses like Nellie Ohr referenced Ukrainian sources in the investigation paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton. While one can reasonably question the significance of such involvement(and it is certainly not on the scale of the Russian intervention into the election), it is part of an official investigation by the Justice Department. Trump may indeed be wildly off base in his concerns about Ukrainian efforts to influence the election. However, even if these views are clueless, they are not corrupt. The request does not ask for a particular finding but cooperation with the Justice Department and an investigation into Ukrainian conduct. Even if the findings were to support Trump’s view (and there is no guarantee that would be case), there is no reason to expect such findings within the remaining time before the election. Likewise, the release of unspecified findings from an official investigation at some unspecified date are not a “thing of value” under any reasonable definition of the statute.

...

Again, the issue is not whether these comments are correct,but whether they are corrupt. In my view, there is no case law that would support a claim of corrupt intent in such comments to support a bribery charge. There is no question that an investigation of the Bidens would help President Trump politically. However, if President Trump honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama Administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt, notwithstanding its inappropriateness.

...

There is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee. Let us start with the transfer of the file. The transfer of the transcript of the file was raised as a possible act of obstruction to hide evidence of a quid pro quo. However, the nefarious allegations behind the transfer were directly contradicted by Tim Morrison, the former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council. Morrison testified that he was the one who recommended that the transcript be restricted after questions were raised about President Trump’s request for investigations. He said that he did so solely to protect against leaks and that he spoke to senior NSC lawyer John Eisenberg. When Morrison learned the transcript was transferred to a classified server, he asked Eisenberg about the move. He indicated that Eisenberg was surprised and told him it was a mistake. He described it as an “administrative error.” Absent additional testimony or proof that Morrison has perjured himself, the allegation concerning the transfer of the transcript would seem entirely without factual support, let alone legal support, as a criminal obstructive act.

...

Basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power. . . by Congress. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set for future presidents and Congresses in making an appeal to the Judiciary into“high crime and misdemeanor.”

...

In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason. Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More in “A Man For All Seasons.” In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” Both sides in this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in defense much like Roper. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution. However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic president. Where will you stand then “the laws all being flat?”

[Truth Detector]

And you are just as wrong as your fellow Red Hat comrade

Why? Because you say so? Irony coming from a partisan hack who has NEVER been right about anything.

Karlan teaches at Sanford, it is not the Liberty online College that the talk radio demagogues advertise all the time, but most considered its' Law School pretty high, she has published in recognized legal journals, is considered an authority on voting rights, and has argued seven cases in front of the Supreme Court, hardly a resume of a third grade teacher

Karlan is an anti-Trumper hack. Her comments and writings confirm this.

As I said, Turley is accomplished as they all are, he is recognized as a legal contrarian, which is why the GOP picked him, and as I stated above, he has lost unanimously the two cases involving impeachment of Judges were he used in their defense the same the arguments he explained yesterday.

And if you actually listened to what Turley said, rather than buy the Hannity interpretation, the basis of his view is that this impeachment is moving too fast considering the information that is still available, like Truley was oblivious to the fact that Trump has banned all those with knowledge of events and relevant documents from being seen by any House Committee

Now you can try again, or, is probably the case given you lack content, run with one of your corny copy and past videos

There is nothing contrarian about Turley. His legal arguments are sound; unlike the other three partisan hacks the Democrats picked. See above.