What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Nerdy Impeachment Thread (1 Viewer)

The Constitution. 

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and

disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
Does that apply, though? Given the mark Trump has left on it, the office of President may no longer be considered an office of honor or trust or ... oh. Never mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So it's impeachment AND removal that keeps him from running again or is it just impeachment?  Had to be both right?

 
I wonder when the investigations on what Biden did and what Democrats have talked about in closed door meetings will happen ?

I mean .. everyone knows Presidents work with other Presidents, etc right ?

remember Obama saying

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.

 
I wonder when the investigations on what Biden did and what Democrats have talked about in closed door meetings will happen ?

I mean .. everyone knows Presidents work with other Presidents, etc right ?

remember Obama saying

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
Take it to the Obama thread.

 
I wonder when the investigations on what Biden did and what Democrats have talked about in closed door meetings will happen ?

I mean .. everyone knows Presidents work with other Presidents, etc right ?

remember Obama saying

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

“This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.

The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
Trying to get a foreign leader to do what he wants isn’t the problem.  

Setting up an investigation of a political rival by a foreign government with his personal lawyer as a go between using taxpayer money as his bargaining chip is the problem. 

 
I'll keep it here thanks - the question is .... have we applied to all the other presidents and elected officials what the Democrats are applying now ?

its a valid question 
I am sure it is a valid question - it fits the technical form of a question.

But, its not a relevant question - in this thread, anyway.

 
I'll keep it here thanks - the question is .... have we applied to all the other presidents and elected officials what the Democrats are applying now ?

its a valid question 
Is there another sitting president who has admitted to asking a foreign country to help investigate a potential political opponent?

Happy to discuss if you can keep it on topic. 

 
Imagining a Senate Trial: Reading the Senate Rules of Impeachment Litigation

...Following these rules, the managers—led, say, by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff—will have alerted the Senate that they’re ready to present the articles, and Julie Adams, the secretary of the Senate, will have responded that the Senate will receive them. Schiff and the others will approach the Senate bar. The Senate’s sergeant at arms, Michael C. Stenger, will proclaim: “All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.” Following Stenger’s proclamation, the House managers will exhibit the articles, displaying their allegations against the president.

A few blocks away, Chief Justice John Roberts will have already received a request from the Senate—the first time in more than 20 years a chief justice will have received such a summons: He must arrive at the Capitol building the next day at 1:00 p.m. to preside over the consideration of the impeachment articles. The chief justice will return to the Senate daily—except on Sundays—while the articles are being considered and throughout Trump’s trial. No one is certain how long that may take.

The following day, the chief justice will arrive at the Capitol and take an oath administered by, in all likelihood, the president pro tempore of the Senate, Chuck Grassley. Roberts will then administer a special oath required by Article I of the Constitution to the senators present: ‘‘I solemnly swear ... that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

Meanwhile, a writ of summons will be delivered to President Trump. The writ will recite the impeachment articles and call on Trump to appear before the Senate, to file his answer to the articles, and to abide by the orders and judgments of the Senate in its consideration of them. Trump’s derisive tweets about the Senate process will give rise to the widespread inference that he has, in fact, received the Senate’s writ. ...
- Good summary of the rules for the trial.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Articles of Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.

***************************************

Article I: Abuse of power

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment and that the President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government–conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested—

(A) the release of $391 million of United 5 States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

In all this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self- governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

***************************************​

Article II: Obstruction of Congress

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—

Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment. President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole Power of Impeachment" vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

***************************************

 
The Senate has conducted 15 impeachment trials. It heard witnesses in every one.

***

>> Historical precedent is clear, and it’s not on Trump’s side.

President Trump’s allies in the Senate want to move forward to an impeachment trial without a commitment to calling witnesses. They insinuate that precedent is on their side, but they’re wrong.

The Senate has heard testimony from witnesses at every trial it has completed in its 231-year history. If the current Senate takes seriously its constitutional responsibility to conduct an impeachment trial of Trump and the oath its members will take to “do impartial justice,” then it must not depart from this unambiguous body of precedent. It must hear from witnesses to the president’s misconduct.

Only 19 other individuals besides Trump have been impeached by the House of Representatives. The Senate completed a trial in 15 of those cases, and in every single one of them, it heard testimony from witnesses. Those cases include the only two prior instances in which a president was impeached. At the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, the Senate permitted House managers to obtain trial depositions of three witnesses — Monica Lewinsky, Clinton confidant Vernon Jordan and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal — and the full Senate viewed video excerpts of those depositions. At the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, the Senate heard testimony from 41 witnesses.

The Senate has obtained testimony from a large number of witnesses in every impeachment trial conducted in the last 50 years: 21 in the 1986 trial of Judge Harry Claiborne; 55 in the 1989 trial of Judge Alcee L. Hastings; 10 in the 1989 trial of Judge Walter Nixon, and 26 in the 2010 trial of Judge Thomas Porteous. Although at least one senator has suggested that the Senate has no duty to go beyond testimony obtained by the House, that has happened on multiple occasions. The Senate heard from seven witnesses at Walter Nixon’s trial who had not testified before the House; three at Clinton’s trial who also had not testified before the House; and 17 at Porteous’s trial who had not testified before the House.

Four other individuals were impeached but did not face a full Senate trial because the case was abandoned before witnesses could be called. The impeachment trials of three U.S. District Court judges — Mark Delahay, George English and Samuel Kent — were called off after each resigned from the bench. In each case, the judge’s resignation achieved the same result that conviction would have: his removal from office.

Sen. William Blount’s impeachment in 1799 was the fourth case that was abandoned before witnesses could be called. Blount, a senator from the newly admitted state of Tennessee, was engaged in land speculation. According to an official Senate history, Blount feared that the French would gain control of Spanish-held territories in Florida and Louisiana and thus further damage his financial interests. To prevent this potential loss of money, Blount “concocted a scheme for Indians and frontiersmen to attack Spanish Florida and Louisiana, to transfer those territories to Great Britain.” After proof of the scheme emerged, Blount was expelled by the Senate and impeached by the House. At the trial, the Senate ultimately determined that Blount, as a former senator, was not an “officer” within the meaning of the impeachment clauses of the Constitution, a precedent that has little bearing on Trump’s impending trial.

Senate precedent, therefore, is astoundingly clear: In every single case in which the Senate has completed its constitutional obligation to conduct an impeachment trial, lawmakers have heard from fact witnesses before reaching a verdict. The only individuals who were impeached and did not face a full Senate trial with witnesses were individuals who resigned or were expelled from their position before trial.

There is no good reason for the Senate to depart from this unambiguous body of precedent now. The chamber takes great pride in referring to itself as the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” and an impeachment trial of a president is one of the most important responsibilities that it can undertake. Given the stakes for our democracy and for the Senate, it is alarming that any member of the institution would consider voting on the question of whether to remove a president from office without taking every available step to fully get to the bottom of what he did.

The Senate trial represents the last opportunity for Congress to get all relevant information about the Ukraine affair before it renders a verdict. If Trump’s conduct was as perfect as he claims it was, he and the witnesses he has withheld from Congress should have nothing to hide.

At least one witness has already said that he will cooperate: On Monday, former national security adviser John Bolton said he would testify before the Senate if it subpoenaed him. A simple majority vote in the Senate is all that stands in the way of him doing so. There are other witnesses, including acting chief of staff and Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, who have knowledge of Trump’s misconduct but have yet to provide testimony. The Senate should subpoena them as well.

It is time for each and every senator to decide whether they will uphold their solemn oath to do impartial justice at Trump’s impeachment trial. Departing from Senate precedent by refusing to hear from witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the president’s abuses of power would be a betrayal of that oath. It would also be a betrayal of the American people, who are counting on them to uncover the truth — the whole truth — and to act on it.<<

***

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 Last night CJ Roberts referred to the Swayne impeachment trial.

This is from the Senate site:

Another influential impeachment trial came in 1905, when Florida District Judge Charles Swayne was impeached for filing false travel vouchers, improper use of private railroad cars, unlawfully imprisoning two attorneys for contempt, and living outside of his district. Swayne's trial consumed nearly three months of the Senate schedule before it ended on February 27, 1905, when the Senate voted to acquit. There was little doubt that Swayne was guilty of some of the offenses charged against him. Indeed, his counsel admitted as much, and called the lapses "inadvertent." The Senate refused to convict Swayne, however, because many senators did not believe his offenses amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanors."

During this long trial, it was suggested that a Senate committee, rather than the Senate as a whole, should hear impeachment evidence, and Senator George F. Hoar of Massachusetts proposed that the presiding officer appoint such a committee. While Hoar's proposal would eventually be embodied in Rule XI of the Senate's impeachment rules, in 1905 the resolution was referred to the Rules Committee, which took no action.
- This is from the Senate impeachment rule XI, apparently implemented in 1986:

XI. That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine, and for such purpose the committee so appointed and the chairman thereof, to be elected by the committee, shall (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) exercise all the powers and functions conferred upon the Senate and the Presiding Officer of the Senate, respectively, under the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of the committee so appointed. The committee so appointed shall report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings and testimony had and given before such committee, and such report shall be received by the Senate and the evidence so received and the testimony so taken shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject to the right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and materiality, as having been received and taken before the Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in open Senate.
- It's just interesting to me that this is a situation where high crimes/misdemeanors were not found as a comp to what is going on now and also that there is another avenue available for hearing evidence.

 
- It's just interesting to me that this is a situation where high crimes/misdemeanors were not found as a comp to what is going on now and also that there is another avenue available for hearing evidence
But that would mean actually giving voice to potential witnesses to malfeasance.  The GOP won't allow that to happen.

 
Apparently CJ Roberts had precedent for ruling on witnesses if he had been given the opportunity.

...For guidance on how to navigate in his role on these matters, Roberts can look not to the taciturn Rehnquist but to another precedent: Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase and his more active management of the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.

The Ambition of Chief Justice Chase

Salmon Chase took a very different road to the high court than did Roberts, who served in the Solicitor General office, at a corporate law firm, and on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Chase had been an activist and politician for decades before rising to the Court. As a lawyer, Chase defended fugitive slaves in Ohio and helped found the Free Soil Party and later the Republican Party. First elected US Senator in Ohio, Chase later served as Governor leading up to the Civil War. Ever ambitious, Chase sought the Presidential nomination in 1860, gaining 49 votes from Ohio on the first ballot at the Chicago convention of the Republican Party. He pledged his loyalty to Lincoln after the convention and subsequently earned appointment as Secretary of the Treasury in 1861. Chase ably managed the nation’s finances during the Civil War, cautiously issuing greenback currency and avoiding hyper-inflation while funding the Union war effort. In 1864 Lincoln feared Chase would run again for President with support from the more radical elements of the Republican Party. Partly to forestall that, Lincoln appointed Chase to the Supreme Court upon the death of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

Once appointed and confirmed (in a single day), Chase worked hard to strengthen the Supreme Court’s authority, no small task for an institution long defined by the odious Taney.  

...

Chief Justice Chase and witnesses

Much like the contentious votes on witnesses at the start of the Trump trial, the Johnson trial “court” held a series of key votes on procedural issues, the most important of which had to do with timing and witness relevance. Radicals who demanded Johnson’s conviction wanted a quick trial to capitalize on public outrage over Johnson’s recent violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Conservatives argued that the trial should proceed more deliberatively and managed to force a 25-25 tie on the question. Chief Justice Chase broke the tie and voted in favor of the lengthier trial, which proved crucial in helping the defense rally support for the President. Chase cast similar tiebreaking votes on the admissibility of certain witnesses whom the White House Counsel called to testify to the fact that Johnson was merely challenging the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act and not violating the law as an abuse of Presidential power.

But Chase also issued rulings on the admission of witnesses and evidence that were not about breaking ties, but simply the umpire-like management that one expects with a judge presiding over a case. In those instances, the Senate sustained him. For example, in one instance, an objection was made that a line of new questions posed to General William T. Sherman would be tantamount to calling him back as a witness. Chase was not shy to make the call. “The Chief Justice thinks it is entirely competent for the Senate to recall any witness,” he said. Later in the trial when President Johnson wished to introduce statements he made after House impeachment proceedings started that he honestly did not believe Stanton was covered by the Tenure of Office Act, Chase ruled against the Defense. Chase rejected that evidence because, at this point in time, the accused were generally not allowed to testify at all in criminal procedures. ...

 
The dragging it out is over.  The house called 18 witnesses and produced thousands of pages of documents, it's time this farce was terminated, rather than continuing to throw hail Mary's in the hope that something materializes.  Hating the President isn't a reason for removal.  No high crimes or treason was demonstrated, as stated by the constitution.  It's over, move on.  Of course we all know that if Trump is re-elected we will have to go through this over and over until his 2nd term is up.   Perhaps doing for the American people, the reason they were elected, is in order at this time?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The dragging it out is over.  The house called 18 witnesses and produced thousands of pages of documents, it's time this farce was terminated, rather than continuing to throw hail Mary's in the hope that something materializes.  Hating the President isn't a reason for removal.  No high crimes or treason was demonstrated, as stated by the constitution.  It's over, move on.  Of course we all know that if Trump is re-elected we will have to go through this over and over until his 2nd term is up.  
The reason the trial was a farce was because Republicans had partisanly predetermined to vote "Not guilty".

Also, it's not "high crimes or treason", it's "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". And Trump's behavior is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they used that phrase.

 
The reason the trial was a farce was because Republicans had partisanly predetermined to vote "Not guilty".

Also, it's not "high crimes or treason", it's "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". And Trump's behavior is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they used that phrase.
What constitutes misdemeanors?  Are we going to go through this for every President going forward?  The constitution does state the President has the duty to investigation corruption.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason the trial was a farce was because Republicans had partisanly predetermined to vote "Not guilty".

Also, it's not "high crimes or treason", it's "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". And Trump's behavior is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they used that phrase.
What constitutes misdemeanors?  Are we going to go through this for every President going forward?  The constitution does state the President has the duty to investigation corruption.
First off, the Constitution says nothing about "duty to investigate corruption". :lol:

Second, the President's "duty" can not and should not ever extend to violating two of the principles at the very heart of the Constitution -- "due process" and "checks and balances". Trump violated both when he attempted to circumvent the power of Congress to investigate a U.S. citizen who had not been accused or suspected of committing a crime.

Third, it's not "misdemeanors" that you should be worried about defining. It's "high". As in "high Crimes". A "high Crime" is an unlawful or wrongful act perpetrated against the Country, usually for personal benefit. And that's exactly what Trump did. 

Trump supporters can try to spin it all they want, but his shame will forever be a stain on the Republican party.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top