Schiff lost his marbles

[Jim in CT]

According to Adam Schiff, withholding aid from Ukraine puts us at risk of Russia attacking our mainland.

And in addition, Trump must be removed to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election. Yes, Schiff is arguing that Trump should be punished today, for wrongdoings he will commit in the future. Because that’s perfectly consistent with the traditions of American jurisprudence. Convict someone before they commit a crime.

If Schiff believed in the validity of the underlying charges, he wouldn’t be going to these absurd extremes. Obviously, not even Schiff believes in the charges.

It’s a farce.

[Ian]

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Ian

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

[scottw]

Schiff continues to demonstrate that he is a deranged lunatic...which makes him the perfect democrat to lead his party to slaughter...I feel for the senators that have to sit and be lectured to by this bug eyed toad....it will all be over soon and the democrats can get back to their relentless effort of undermining our country and our president...

some great dirt surfacing on the bidens lately...amazing how every time joe went abroad a close relative with no experience got a boatload of cash and a cushy job

I can't believe commie bernie called lie-a-watha a liar on national tv....those kids need to get together and smoke a peace pipe...

now hillary is taking out bernie, bernie is taking out lie-a...biden just needs to open his trap to take himself out.....bernie's campaign workers are threatening to guillotine and gulag the rich(I wonder if that includes bernie, lie-a, bloomberg, pelosi...the democrat list is long)

did that guy on the democrap impeachment team wear his sneakers into the senate too...I think it's a cool look buy mildly inappropriate

this could not be more enjoyable....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

they could not have concocted weaker articles of impeachment...now they are paying the price...they need to go back to the drawing board and I have no doubt that they will....btw...Ian didn't state facts he stated opinion

[PaulS]

No, Ian stated facts and so did GS. You just can't admit it.

[Sea Dangles]

👶 🍼 👶
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

if he believed those facts, he wouldn't be trying to scare us into thinking Russia is planning to invade.

I'm old enough to remember when Obama made fun of Romney for suggesting Russia was any kind of adversary, now Russia is planning to invade our shores?

It's a complete joke.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, Ian stated facts and so did GS. You just can't admit it.

Paul, is Russia planning to invade us?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, is Russia planning to invade us?

Did Ian or GS say that?

[spence]

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Republicans will not address the evidence or the extreme coincidence all witnesses said the same thing.

They'll attack the process only ingnoring Trump own words in mutiple interviews rallies and Twitter asking for and encouraging help from foreign countries

Even during the perfect call
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

According to Adam Schiff, withholding aid from Ukraine puts us at risk of Russia attacking our mainland.

And in addition, Trump must be removed to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election. Yes, Schiff is arguing that Trump should be punished today, for wrongdoings he will commit in the future. Because that’s perfectly consistent with the traditions of American jurisprudence. Convict someone before they commit a crime.

If Schiff believed in the validity of the underlying charges, he wouldn’t be going to these absurd extremes. Obviously, not even Schiff believes in the charges.

It’s a farce.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution.
That's why there is no penalty other than being removed from office and prevented from holding another position.

As far as why Floridaman should be removed, work backwards: The “check” on acting in a purely partisan way on matters of law is that your standard will apply to the other party. The only way you don’t care is if you believe the opposition will never hold power again. And to guarantee that, you NEED the foreign interference.

To continue, this assumes that the foreign interference will always work in your favor. What do you do to ensure that? You make sure and permit the money and the power of the U.S. to be used for the benefit of those countries who are willing to “help,” not based on what is truly in our nation’s interest.

This whole thing is setting up the corruption and reorienting of our institutions and processes for the sole purpose of maintaining power. That’s it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Did Ian or GS say that?

Did I say they did?

Once again, are you worried that Russia is planning to physically attack us?

Seems like you don't want to answer that question.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution.
That's why there is no penalty other than being removed from office and prevented from holding another position.

As far as why Floridaman should be removed, work backwards: The “check” on acting in a purely partisan way on matters of law is that your standard will apply to the other party. The only way you don’t care is if you believe the opposition will never hold power again. And to guarantee that, you NEED the foreign interference.

To continue, this assumes that the foreign interference will always work in your favor. What do you do to ensure that? You make sure and permit the money and the power of the U.S. to be used for the benefit of those countries who are willing to “help,” not based on what is truly in our nation’s interest.

This whole thing is setting up the corruption and reorienting of our institutions and processes for the sole purpose of maintaining power. That’s it.

"don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution"

Here's a sincere question, doesn't it say high crime or misdemeanor?

And can you be impeached, out of fear of what you might do in the future? Because that's the case Schiff is making, when he says we have to remove Trump to secure the integrity of the 2020 election, which is 9 months out. In this country, we don't punish people for things we fear they might do in the future.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is a desperate cry for a thorough mental evaluation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's "brilliant" to suggest that we punish someone for something they might do in the future, and to suggest Russia is going to invade?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's "brilliant" to suggest that we punish someone for something they might do in the future, and to suggest Russia is going to invade?

What exactly did he say? Seems like you're just trying to distract yourself from the real issue.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Did I say they did?

Once again, are you worried that Russia is planning to physically attack us?

Seems like you don't want to answer that question.

I don't know what he said but you constantly pick out one thing a Dem. says or does and complains about it while ignoring the numerous thing Repub. do.

Sorry, but I think you are a very petty person.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I only watched a short portion of it but I would agree. Trump's misdeeds have been laid out with crayons for the mouth breathers who listen to Trump's constants whining that what he did was perfect.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I only watched a short portion of it but I would agree. Trump's misdeeds have been laid out with crayons for the mouth breathers who listen to Trump's constants whining that what he did was perfect.

I know you are very disappointed but you really need to be able to get on with your life....I'm praying for pete too

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know you are very disappointed but you really need to be able to get on with your life....I'm praying for pete too

You forgot to throw in your usual "Democraps" insult somewhere into your post.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What exactly did he say? Seems like you're just trying to distract yourself from the real issue.

So, by your own admission, you don't know what he said. But you somehow concluded that he was "brilliant".

It's a complete waste trying to talk to you guys.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution"

Here's a sincere question, doesn't it say high crime or misdemeanor?

And can you be impeached, out of fear of what you might do in the future? Because that's the case Schiff is making, when he says we have to remove Trump to secure the integrity of the 2020 election, which is 9 months out. In this country, we don't punish people for things we fear they might do in the future.

The case that Schiff is making is that he has already done so and has said that he is currently and will continue to seek foreign interference in our elections.

Impeachment was not designed as punishment, but as protection for the Constitution and the Republic that it enabled.

In impeachment proceedings, the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. According to the Constitution, the only penalties allowed to be imposed by the Senate are removal from office and disqualification from holding any federal office in the future.


I'll defer to Hugo Black on high crimes and misdemeanors and what he thinks they mean It's as short an excerpt as I could make it, you really should read the whole chapter for yourself

"Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

This is the third, catchall phrase in the formula designating impeachable offenses. The reader will hardly need to be told that it must generate, and has generated, great difficulties of interpretation. Some definite things can be said about its extent, but we will be left with an area of considerable vagueness. Let us take the definite things first.

It would be well to start with the one and only discussion of the phrase at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The day was September 8, 1787, just nine days before the Constitution was signed and transmitted for the adherence of the states. The impeachment provision, as reported out by the last of the convention committees (except the final one charged only with polishing the style of the Constitution), listed "treason and bribery" as the only grounds for impeachment and removal. The colloquy we need to look at was brief, taking perhaps five minutes:

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.

Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after "bribery" "or maladministration". Mr. Gerry seconded him—

Mr Madison So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. Mason withdrew "maladministration" & substitutes "other high crimes & misdemeanors"

On the question thus altered

N. H— ay. Mas.— ay Ct. ay. (N. J. no) Pa no. Del. no. Md ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay.* Geo. ay. [Ayes—8; noes—3.]

This is by far the most important piece of evidence on the original intention with regard to the "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrase. It is true that the proceedings of the Convention were secret (a fact, like the fact that the Supreme Court deliberates in deep secrecy, not often mentioned by those who would have us think that secrecy in public affairs is always wrong). But the men present were representative of their time, and their understanding, at the moment when the crucial language was under closest examination, tells us a great deal about its meaning.

It is interesting first that this passage quite definitely establishes that "maladministration" was distinctly rejected as a ground for impeachment. The conscious and deliberate character of this rejection is accentuated by the fact that a good many state constitutions of the time did have "maladministration" as an impeachment ground. This does not mean that a given act may not be an instance both of "maladministration" and of "high crime" or "misdemeanor." It does mean that not all acts of "maladministration" are covered by the phrase actually accepted. This follows inevitably from Madison's ready acceptance of the phraseology now in the text; if "maladministration" was too "vague" for him, and "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" included all "maladministration," then he would surely have objected to the phrase actually accepted, as being even "vaguer" than the one rejected.

On the other hand, Mason's ready substitution of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that he thought (and no voice was raised in doubt) that this new phrase would satisfactorily cover "many great and dangerous offenses" not reached by the words "treason" and "bribery"; its coverage was understood to be broad.

The whole colloquy just quoted seems to support the view that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" ought to be conceived as offenses having about them some flavor of criminality. Mere "maladministration" was not to be enough for impeachment. This line may be a hard one to follow, but it is the line that the Framers quite clearly intended to draw, and we will have to try to follow it as best we can.

You can read the rest if the chapter here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense

and an essay applying Blacks thoughts to our current situation here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeach-...-charles-black

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

"Abuse" of power is, in itself, too vague a concept to be considered a crime and is subject to opposing opinion. All Presidents could have been accused of abuse of power, but the "abuse" would have to be specified as a crime before it could be considered impeachable. The actual action that is supposed to be an abuse is what must be considered.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

That law had a date by which it had to be fulfilled. The money was sent before that date. The money was sent, and Ukraine didn't have to do anything extra to get it. Ukraine's President has said more than once that there was no pressure or no bribe or any quid pro quo to get the money. Those are all facts.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

First of all Floridaman admitted publicly that he has all the evidence and will not release it. The only innocent man in the world who hides exculpatory information.

Crime, you can start here
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

Read the press statement. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

As far as no pressure goes, you think Zelensky had a choice, that he could say he committed a corrupt act?
As a comedian and an actor, he was famous for his laser focus on the foibles of Ukrainian politicians. Zelensky chooses his words carefully. When he met with Trump, Zelensky knew that Ukrainians would be listening carefully, too.

Zelensky ran for the presidency on an anti-corruption platform, and won in a landslide. Admitting to giving in to pressure — or admitting to pressuring independent members of his government to conduct investigations — would mean not only losing bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress but also destroying his credibility among Ukrainians.

[PaulS]

Cipollone stated Tuesday that Republican lawmakers had not been allowed into the secure room where the House Intelligence Committee deposed witnesses last year

Is this Cipollone losing his marbles or just a continuation of the sleazy, lying Republican (in my best JimCT voice) ways?

,

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

First of all Floridaman admitted publicly that he has all the evidence and will not release it. The only innocent man in the world who hides exculpatory information.

You have not stated a fact. You have given your opinion.

There is sufficient exculpatory information already available in open sources. The burden is on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence of guilt. That has not happened.

When it comes to the constitutional separation of powers, executive privilege would be eroded by submitting to requests that would abridge that power. There is already sufficient exculpatory evidence, so there is no need to endanger the power of executive privilege.

Crime, you can start here
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

Read the press statement. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

The money was given on time. The reason for temporary delay was a reasonable request under the circumstances to ask for some assurance that it would not be wasted on further corruption. Some may argue that it was not reasonable, others would say it was. The money was delivered on time without a quid pro quo.

As far as no pressure goes, you think Zelensky had a choice, that he could say he committed a corrupt act?
As a comedian and an actor, he was famous for his laser focus on the foibles of Ukrainian politicians. Zelensky chooses his words carefully. When he met with Trump, Zelensky knew that Ukrainians would be listening carefully, too.

Zelensky ran for the presidency on an anti-corruption platform, and won in a landslide. Admitting to giving in to pressure — or admitting to pressuring independent members of his government to conduct investigations — would mean not only losing bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress but also destroying his credibility among Ukrainians.

Zelensky's satements are facts. Your "interpretation" is conjecture.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Zelensky's satements are facts. Your "interpretation" is conjecture.

Executive privilege only works for certain people and things, it cannot be a protective blanket over all actions that the office wants to conceal, and as with other legal veils, once pierced it is moot and in any case cannot be used to conceal a crime.

[scottw]

I'm really concerned that we won't be able to fight the coming Russian invasion while at the same time fighting the ground war that trump started with iran a couple of weeks while at the same time preventing the takeover of Virginia by white supremacists and nazis