TheCid

Impeachment AND Conviction, Impeachment Inquiry, 25th Amendment or Censure

479 posts in this topic

I really don't agree with 'the people who came out for Trump' POV which implies these people like Trump.   I guess that is the main point I have been trying to make today.   These people voted for Trump,  but they are NOT Trump supporters.  Most see Trump's many warts.   Therefore the fact that Trump is a complete failure and clueless will NOT impact how GOP members and independents vote in the mid-term.   They have higher voter turnout than Dems and progressives in mid-term elections and if they continue to do so the Dems will NOT unseat a sitting GOP House member in 2018. 

 

Instead the Dems need to use Trump to make major increases in their mid-term voter turnout.    Here in So Cal there are 4 GOP House seats that the Dems are targeting and based on polling data one seat is listed as toss up,  two as just leaning GOP and the other solid for the GOP.     That is progress for the Dems in these districts (which based on voter registration have a GOP majority).  

What about Darell Issa's district?

 

I think we are getting into semantics on what "supporter" means.  To me a supporter is someone who voted for him and who accepts 90% of what he does without serious objection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Darell Issa's district?

 

I think we are getting into semantics on what "supporter" means.  To me a supporter is someone who voted for him and who accepts 90% of what he does without serious objection.

 

The Issa district is the one the pollster listed as a toss up;  I.e. the one out of the 4 the Dem were MOST likely to re-take.

 

Yes, we are getting into semantics on 'supporter' but I wanted to contrast the type of true-blue Trump supporters we see here (MM, J, N),  with the types I know in CA.     Yea, sorry but I'm going to have to nit-pic yet again since you use the term 90% of 'what he does'.  Most GOP members I know don't accept 25% of 'what he does' (e.g. his tweets, his arsine comments,  his immaturity,  his tax plan, his budget etc...),   but they want a GOP President because they 'accept' most of the GOP platform (while Trump only 'accepts' about 50% of that).      These GOP members are much more in the Ryan's camp of the party than Trump's.    Of course some will say there is NO difference between these two camps but I don't see it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Issa district is the one the pollster listed as a toss up;  I.e. the one out of the 4 the Dem were MOST likely to re-take.

 

Yes, we are getting into semantics on 'supporter' but I wanted to contrast the type of true-blue Trump supporters we see here (MM, J, N),  with the types I know in CA.     Yea, sorry but I'm going to have to nit-pic yet again since you use the term 90% of 'what he does'.  Most GOP members I know don't accept 25% of 'what he does' (e.g. his tweets, his arsine comments,  his immaturity,  his tax plan, his budget etc...),   but they want a GOP President because they 'accept' most of the GOP platform (while Trump only 'accepts' about 50% of that).      These GOP members are much more in the Ryan's camp of the party than Trump's.    Of course some will say there is NO difference between these two camps but I don't see it that way.

I guess what I mean by accept is that they do not strongly object to what he does and call him and his minnons on the carpet.

Having been in politics (still am), I recognize that it is a two edged sword.  If you object too much, you don't get what you want later.

But to me that is what is so bad about so many people in the GOP and those that call themselves independents but are really Repubulicans.  For the first time, we have a president who is completely off the rails in almost every area.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article in Washington Post explaining the 25th Amendment.   Most interesting part is Section 4, about half-way through the article.  This is part where president can be removed for incapacity.

Surprisingly a majority of the cabinet and the vice-president make the decision.  Then the president can disagree and VP and Cabinet have four days to reassert incapacity.  Then it goes to Congress if president "appeals" the reassertion. Congress has 21 days to make a decision. 2/3's of House and 2/3's of Senate must agree that president is incapcitated or president resumes power.

Not clear to me as to what happens if Congress does not make a decision in 21 days, which is likely with this Congress.  Seems to imply that if Congress does not have the necessary 2/3's vote within 21 days, the president resumes power.  Then he/she fires the Cabinet?

 

In other words, not very likely at all that the 25th Amendment will be used to remove Trump from office.

 

www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/07/5-things-you-should-know-about-the-25th-amendment/?utm_term=.890e75c37240&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obstruction of Justice: Here’s the Legal Definition-

 

"..........the question, then, of whether an explicit order is necessary for the definition of obstruction of justice. Here’s the relevant section of the federal legal code (our emphasis):

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States,.....

 

That definition does not require that there be a direct order that would quash or affect the investigation. “The key question here is whether the president acted with corrupt intent,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor,....

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/08/obstruction-of-justice-heres-the-legal-definition/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add bribery to the charges.  He asked Comey if he liked his job then tried to get him to drop the investigation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obstruction of Justice: Here’s the Legal Definition-

 

"..........the question, then, of whether an explicit order is necessary for the definition of obstruction of justice. Here’s the relevant section of the federal legal code (our emphasis):

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States,.....

 

That definition does not require that there be a direct order that would quash or affect the investigation. “The key question here is whether the president acted with corrupt intent,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor,....

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/08/obstruction-of-justice-heres-the-legal-definition/

 

a very useful thing to know, mr6666.

 

was trump sufficiently threatening? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this was obstruction of justice, and it certainly

sounds like it, it would still be Donny's word against

Comey's.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vautrin--Unless Trump DID tape their conversations.  Mueller, the Senate, the House ALL would then subpoena the tape(s).  If I remember Presidential law correctly, Trump couldn't refuse to turn them over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this was obstruction of justice, and it certainly

sounds like it, it would still be Donny's word against

Comey's.

 

Not so.  Comey has his notes taken at the time and discussions with many in his office regarding the meetings that he just had.  All of which is admissible evidence.

Trump hasn't exactly been been Mr. Man of His Word ever.  Does he hope to buy credibility with his office?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so.  Comey has his notes taken at the time and discussions with many in his office regarding the meetings that he just had.  All of which is admissible evidence.

Trump hasn't exactly been been Mr. Man of His Word ever.  Does he hope to buy credibility with his office?

 

Comey's notes are still just 'his word'.   E.g. one could write untruths.    Of course Trump claims to have taped their conversations.   So Trump why don't you release the tapes???   :blink:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamesjazzguitar--Probably because there are NO tapes.  It's a win-win situation for Comey, and a Lose-Lose situation for Trump.  Trump's Twitter bluff was Called.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamesjazzguitar--Probably because there are NO tapes.  It's a win-win situation for Comey, and a Lose-Lose situation for Trump.  Trump's Twitter bluff was Called.

 

I also assume that there are no tapes and that Trump 'said' that just to intimidate Comey.    But of course it didn't intimidate Comey since he has nothing to hide.   I assume Comey would have welcomed those conversations being taped or at least another person or two being in the room.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey's notes are still just 'his word'.   E.g. one could write untruths.    Of course Trump claims to have taped their conversations.   So Trump why don't you release the tapes???   :blink:   

All the legal authorities I have heard on this so far state that Comey's written memoranda would be accepted as evidence in court in a legal proceeding.

While they are only "his word," they were written almost immediately after the meetings which enhances their relevancy.  Not to mention they were written by the Director of the FBI.

It gives more weight to just "his word" as in a court proceeding.  After all, testimony is accepted as legitimate in a legal situation unless proven wrong.

It is also the immediacy of what he wrote.  Not something he made up or wrote weeks or months after the event.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vautrin--Unless Trump DID tape their conversations.  Mueller, the Senate, the House ALL would then subpoena the tape(s).  If I remember Presidential law correctly, Trump couldn't refuse to turn them over.

Just to be pedantic, there is no "presidential" law.  However, there is executive privilege which is what Trump would try to use.  Didn't work too well for Nixon and hasn't since then.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vautrin--Unless Trump DID tape their conversations.  Mueller, the Senate, the House ALL would then subpoena the tape(s).  If I remember Presidential law correctly, Trump couldn't refuse to turn them over.

That's the big unanswered question. Did Trump actually tape those

conversations or did he just tweet about the possibility to spook

Comey? Of course if he did tape them, they could be subpoenaed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the big unanswered question. Did Trump actually tape those

conversations or did he just tweet about the possibility to spook

Comey? Of course if he did tape them, they could be subpoenaed.

When Nixon tried to invoke executive privilege to shield his tapes, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn them over.  It all fell apart after that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so.  Comey has his notes taken at the time and discussions with many in his office regarding the meetings that he just had.  All of which is admissible evidence.

Trump hasn't exactly been been Mr. Man of His Word ever.  Does he hope to buy credibility with his office?

In the court of public opinion, Comey would probably win out

over Trump, but in a legal setting it might be different.

All Trump would have to say is that Comey, while a great guy,

is misremembering their conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the court of public opinion, Comey would probably win out

over Trump, but in a legal setting it might be different.

All Trump would have to say is that Comey, while a great guy,

is misremembering their conversation.

All the legal authorities I have heard on this so far state that Comey's written memoranda would be accepted as evidence in court in a legal proceeding.

While they are only "his word," they were written almost immediately after the meetings which enhances their relevancy.  Not to mention they were written by the Director of the FBI.

It gives more weight to just "his word" as in a court proceeding.  After all, testimony is accepted as legitimate in a legal situation unless proven wrong.

It is also the immediacy of what he wrote.  Not something he made up or wrote weeks or months after the event.

 

Still think this would trump Trump.  In addition, his record for honesty is far, far worse than Comey's.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Nixon tried to invoke executive privilege to shield his tapes, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn them over.  It all fell apart after that.

That's what finally did Tricky Dicky in. As someone said We should

have burned those gd tapes. I still have selected transcripts of the

tapes printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office, running to 1300

pages. The official title is Submission of Recorded Presidential

Conversations To the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of

Representatives by President Richard Nixon April 30, 1974. Whew.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comey's notes are still just 'his word'.   E.g. one could write untruths.    Of course Trump claims to have taped their conversations.   So Trump why don't you release the tapes???   :blink:   

 

Not so.  That is why they are called contemporaneous.  He was locking his "story" in on the date before knowing its relevance.  That is why it is given extra weight in court.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the legal authorities I have heard on this so far state that Comey's written memoranda would be accepted as evidence in court in a legal proceeding.

While they are only "his word," they were written almost immediately after the meetings which enhances their relevancy.  Not to mention they were written by the Director of the FBI.

It gives more weight to just "his word" as in a court proceeding.  After all, testimony is accepted as legitimate in a legal situation unless proven wrong.

It is also the immediacy of what he wrote.  Not something he made up or wrote weeks or months after the event.

 

Still think this would trump Trump.  In addition, his record for honesty is far, far worse than Comey's.

I'm sure Trump's lawyers would make an argument against them, if it

ever got that far, which is uncertain right now. And surely Comey

has a better track record for honesty than Trump, but who doesn't.

I'm sure that Comey also wanted to rebut some of claims Trump has

made against him and set the record straight. When the POTUS calls

you a nut job, you can't let that pass.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if this was obstruction of justice, and it certainlysounds like it, it would still be Donny's word againstComey's.

Then Trump is sunk!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then Trump is sunk!

As I already said, yes in the court of public opinion, Donny

wouldn't stand a chance. But in a court of law, I can see

his lawyer working like hell on the he said/he said theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us