1. Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

The "Impeachment Clock" May Have Just Moved A Bit

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by Judge, May 29, 2019.

  1. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller formally stated the following:

    “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

    Muller clearly outlined why a sitting president cannot constitutionally be charged with a crime through the mainstream of our criminal justice system. However he also reiterated that the circumstances did not warrant any sense of a formal exoneration of Donald J. Trump.

    Effectively leaving the door open to Congress in choosing whether or not to pursue the possibility of impeachment. The only optional constitutional action to consider beyond this investigation and all of its conclusions.

    Historically speaking, the only two impeachments have both resulted in acquittals, largely along political lines. Making the process fraught with political risk, especially in an election cycle. Something up to now that Speaker Pelosi clearly wants to avoid, despite the numerous objections of progressives within her own party.

    As much as Mueller wants to be completely off the hook on all this, I suspect the House Judiciary Committee may be calling him back in the near future.

    U.S. Special Counsel Mueller says charging Trump was 'not an option' - Reuters
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  2. Tesseract

    Tesseract Active Member

    Messages:
    219
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2018
    Karma:
    +209
    Which means that he is innocent until proven otherwise. It also means that Mr. Mueller (properly pronounced 'Myu-lar', not 'Mullah') has no evidence of wrongdoing, which means that as far as we know no crimes were actually committed. That being the case, there is nothing they can actually charge him with. They have precisely nothing, he has admitted as much, so CAN WE NOW PLEASE JUST DROP THIS!? ENOUGH ALREADY!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    I'm afraid it's not that simple- legally, constitutionally or politically. ;)

    The House of Representatives can potentially charge a president with anything they want to if they have the votes internally to approve such a prosecution in a formal act of impeachment. It's become abundantly clear that various House committee chairmen have no intention of dropping the matter, not to mention the political capital it generates in an election cycle. The only formal manner in which Congress can likely prosecute a sitting president is through the act of impeachment- not conventional due process based on the findings of the Mueller Report. And it's just a report. Not a legally binding aspect of due process that prohibits Congress from launching its own investigation which may or may not parallel Mueller's findings.

    Though prior to any consideration of an impeachment requires the act of discovery and due diligence conducted by the House of Representatives if they find cause to do so. Regardless of how anyone outside of the House interprets the Mueller Report. And the more the administration resists the House from just attempting conducting basic acts of discovery, the more reason (and political capital) to investigate possible acts of obstruction. Consequently it's risky for the Attorney General to be anything less than compliant to Congress.

    Constitutionally speaking the ball is in the corner of the House. Not the president, and not Robert Mueller. Any conventional prosecution of a president would likely have to wait until they are officially out of office. Leaving Congress only with an option to impeach the president. However impeachment historically tends to be used as a political weapon rather than one reflecting real due process. Which likely reflects why the Speaker of the House does not support impeachment to remedy the situation while Trump remains in office. Where a Senate trial and vote would likely fall along party lines rather than reflect jurisprudence. Though these days it seems that Republicans can't unconditionally count on Senators Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins to "toe the party line" either. In the meantime, we have the threat of impeachment in an election cycle. Which in theory is more damaging to the administration than to the House of Representatives, as long as it remains unclear whether a case is actually built against the president or not. However that in itself remains within the realm of politics- not law.

    It's also conceivable that if Donald Trump did violate any laws, that the matter could again be taken up by other state and federal legal jurisdictions after January 20th, 2021 provided of course, he loses his bid for reelection. In the meantime it's no secret that both the Southern District of NY as well as the state of NY continue to aggressively and independently investigate the Trump Organization on a rather broad front. Regardless of how anyone parses the Mueller Report for better or worse.

    What's worth understanding here is that the Department of Justice has no final word over Congress contemplating an act of impeachment against a sitting president. Nor is Congress dependent on discovery conducted exclusively within the Department of Justice. They can choose to use their own internal legal resources independent of the DOJ. Where "Separation of Powers" can become paramount in the eyes of Congress. All made worse if and when the DOJ is less than compliant when it comes to legal and constitutional requests of the House. When trust between the two branches of government is lost.

    It's one thing to deal with the possibility of a president having committed obstruction. Quite another if and when an Attorney General may be doing the same just to politically protect a sitting president. Where it all amounts to a constitutional crisis- and political stalemate that can only be resolved through the intervention of federal courts and potentially the act of impeachment through Congress.

    In terms of separation of powers between the Executive Branch and Congress, the Mueller Report is anything but legally binding, other than perhaps in the court of public opinion falling largely along ideological and party lines in an election cycle. In essence, I wouldn't expect to see Democrats drop the specter of impeachment any more than I'd expect Republicans to have given up on Secretary Clinton's misuse of email right up to the general election.

    "Politics as usual", whether or not due process and jurisprudence truly becomes an issue. Historically speaking, I can only point out the obvious. That the two formal impeachments (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) resulted in acquittals, predictably falling along party lines. That the threat of impeachment in an election cycle can be a powerful tactic. However that the formal implementation of an impeachment by Congress can have the opposite effect.

    I suppose the worst case scenario would be intervention by the Supreme Court where the Executive Branch simply ignores the court. Could that happen? It has before. Where a sitting president placed a number of citizens in detention for the duration without trial. With a Chief Justice ordering a writ of injunction to cease and desist this denial of habeas corpus to their citizens. Though this particular president wasn't impeached for ignoring such an order. But his face did end up on every five-dollar bill. Go figure. :eek:

    While we have separation of powers, I'm not convinced that we have properly working "checks and balances" in such instances. Unfortunately our government is more than capable of being quite dysfunctional.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Tesseract

    Tesseract Active Member

    Messages:
    219
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2018
    Karma:
    +209
    Exactly, and that's just one of the problems with it. This isn't about justice at all, it's just yet one more attempt by his (many) enemies to destroy him. It's vindictive, it's all about power, and not what is in the best interests of the nation. Anyway, you seem to know much more about this than I do, so I'll just leave it there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    As long as any impeachment process falls roughly along political party lines, it will always amount to a form of political retribution- not a genuine form of due process.

    Real due process involves an impartial judge and jury of your peers. Not ideological friends and foes who will be perpetually motivated to get even in the next election cycle.

    IMO impeachment should always be an absolutely last resort of Congress. Where it is abundantly clear to both sides of the aisles that a crime has been committed by a sitting president. Not any accusation that amounts to just another "political football".
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. oskar

    oskar New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Karma:
    +14
    The Donald is never going to eat a peach. Liberals have always said; "Hey, Donald! In peaches!", but he will never get in to the tub of peach juice. He will never be in peach.
     
  7. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    From his complexion, one might think he inhales peaches, let alone eats them.

    One thing for sure though, he's still got Georgia in his pocket. ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  8. oskar

    oskar New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Karma:
    +14
    Not in the mood. This place is filled with cliques, worse than any other place on the net. I may as well just stick with the neurotypicals. At least they aren't whining, virtue-signalling, cliquey, two-faced, thugs.
     
  9. Tesseract

    Tesseract Active Member

    Messages:
    219
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2018
    Karma:
    +209
    Um... what you've just described there (whiny, virtue-signalling, cliquey...) is almost the perfect image of how many, if not most, 'neurotypicals' behave. 'Aspies', on the other hand, tend not to be 'two-faced', because if we don't like someone we will let them know immediately, whether intentionally or not. We also don't talk behind other's backs, we don't engage in gossip.
     
  10. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    Clearly House Judicial Committee Chairman Jerome Nadler is pushing another House consideration for impeachment. Though at this point in time I can't help but wonder if behind closed doors, some Democrats simply want to sustain the issue itself for the duration of the election cycle just for political capital and to sway voters.

    After all, I just don't see a real possibility of votes in the Senate going against the president and his party in an impeachment vote. Even with a new interpretations of Robert Mueller's report.

    That the best remedy to throw Donald Trump out of office remains at the ballot box. Still, there appear to be a few jurists in the Democratic Party who sincerely believe that crimes were committed by the administration, and perhaps more fundamentally that no one- not even a president is ever above the law.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Amerimutt

    Amerimutt New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Karma:
    +4
    Why do you still maintain faith in the mainstream political process, when in reality it is all a show, like a TV show for the gullible masses?
    It's time to stop watching such nonsense. The truth is, nearly everyone inside the government is part of secret societies, and those who aren't usually get ostracized or even murdered.

    We are living in a dictatorship. You are being watched. Laws are enforced selectively. Being autistic presents a potential problem for this society and government. We think differently and act differently.
    Presidents are chosen years in advance, during secret proceedings of the Freemasons, and other occult groups.
    Elections and other things are just a sham.
     
  12. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    LOL. You're preaching to the choir. It isn't "a matter of faith" as you claim.

    It's simply all there is relative to adversarial politics. Where our democracy only allows the electorate to vote, but not fundamentally change our political landscape. Not much different from the former Soviet Union. Where citizens vote for predetermined candidates, but have no real control over the party apparatus itself. Though in our case, even with two parties we effectively have a monolithic result.

    But there's also nothing particularly secret about this either. Dictatorship? Not in the literal sense. Corporate Oligarchy? Probably. As voters our options are terribly limited. That much is true and always has been. Still, it's interesting to see a few candidates who seem to be openly challenging the corporate oligarchy. With a predictable result reflecting that real change can be advocated, as long as it's not truly implemented.

    However we can still express preference of one oligarch over another. After all, they aren't created equally either. No, we can't change the system. But on occasion we might be able to change some of its players.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Amerimutt

    Amerimutt New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2019
    Karma:
    +4
    One of the things I don't understand is why people willingly gobble up the dog and pony shows each Presidential election. Voters seemingly believed Trump would fulfill those wild promises he made, about the wall, deporting illegal immigants, no more wars in the middle east.
    The US still has troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq but I rarely see this topic discussed.
    From what i've heard, the government implemented restrictions on Afghanistan reporting because the situation recently worsened.
    Trump is basically a neocon and appointed Bolton to his cabinet. Yet he still has a core of supporters (I don't see many young people supporting him. Usually conservative young people gravitate towards extremes, not milquetoast Republican and Democrat circuses.)

    You are absolutely correct. This country has a similar system to the old USSR, but the difference is, people here buy into it more.
    As people stop watching state sponsored propaganda like TV and gravitate more towards independent thought, perhaps a revolution awaits.
     
  14. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    The former Soviet Union was a formal and absolute dictatorship of the proletariat, with only one color representing the will of the state- red. Citizens did not have the right or choice to "buy into it" at all.

    Conversely in the US there is a perpetual illusion that democracy inherently invites the possibility of choice and change through competing political ideologies of "red and blue". Though both only actually represent green- the color of money and shareholders' equity.

    Compounded by a great deal of "political kabuki" that is so entrenched in our political system. Often amounting to a whole lot of "smoke and mirrors" to deceive the electorate in terms of who really controls public policy. Worse still, we have 24/7 broadcast cable news that pretends to reflect the ideologies of red and blue, only as a marketing device to net viewers and corporate sponsors to aggrandize their bottom line to shareholders. What binds Fox News, MSNBC and CNN isn't red or blue, but again the color of money- green. After all they're all publicly traded corporations, who exist for their directors, officers and shareholders. Not liberals or conservatives.

    Allowing for relative freedom and democracy to be quite problematic. Confusing the electorate in America, as opposed to Soviet Russia where their electorate wasn't allowed to be "confused" at all. Where if you are construed as being outside the system, in effect you are an "enemy of the state". A political dynamic shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    Not only that the House has elected to open a formal impeachment inquiry, but that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reversed her past decision over impeachment, given the gravity of this recent scandal involving President Trump, Ukraine and their president, and the late son of Vice President Joe Biden. That the president may have attempted to leverage Ukraine to get their president to launch a probe regarding Joe Biden's son for political capital during an election cycle.

    Considering so much past controversy over the question Trump's alleged role in Russian election tampering, this latest allegation seems to have changed the balance of the impeachment question. Particularly given that up to now Speaker Nancy Pelosi has always firmly advised against any move towards the possible impeachment of the president. Especially during an election cycle.

    As of this moment, some 187 member of the House support some action over possible impeachment of the president. Though bear in mind this is only a preliminary move for an inquiry- not the act of impeachment itself.

    Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry into Trump as pressure grows over alleged abuses of power

    House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  16. puzzlingbill

    puzzlingbill Definitely Someone

    Messages:
    188
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2016
    Karma:
    +286
    The executive branch is required by law to turn over the whistleblower report to Congress. Trump is acting like a dictator who thinks he is above the law. He obviously got a copy of Third World Dictatorships for Dummies from his pal Putin, and is carrying out the Putin plan to destroy American democracy. The saddest thing is that Republicans are still defending this toxic clown.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    It's what leaves the Articles of Impeachment without any real teeth. Where historically partisan votes in the Senate are generated that predictably support a sitting president. Where a party chooses to fight for it's political longevity regardless of whether the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. The pursuit of politics rather than justice. Republicans in a majority supported impeached president Andrew Johnson, effectively avoiding a conviction in the Senate. Equally Democrats in their majority supported Bill Clinton.

    The question is whether or not in the course of discovery, whether this case moves Republicans towards accepting whether a crime has truly been committed. Something akin to the coverup attempt of Watergate by the Nixon administration. Where there was a slow, but steady realization of Congressional Republicans that the president himself was culpable in the coverup itself.

    While Richard Nixon remains the only president who would have likely been impeached in a bipartisan effort of the Senate, he was never formally charged. Even though being formally pardoned by President Ford.

    All eyes should be on whatever evidence and traction which may or may not exist over this latest scandal. And particularly to observe the sentiments of personalities like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. Both have always struck me as somewhat reluctant members of the Senate who choose to support the president only in the name of partisan political expediency. If their support were to suddenly wane for the president, it may be like watching a dam burst. Much as was the case for Senate Republicans overseeing the Watergate hearings.

    However proving such a case is usually quite daunting. Equally hampered by continual accusations of election cycle politics. Time will tell depending on what happens in the course of legal discovery over this recent event.

    IMO, this latest allegation rises above any and other accusations aimed at the Trump administration to date. That it may ultimately reflect a pattern of behavior in terms of soliciting the aid and manipulation of foreign powers in an election. Which if proven would be regarded as an egregious act for both any presidential candidate and a sitting president, and possibly invite other charges such as espionage and even treason. Though virtually all of such charges traditionally have a very "high bar" in terms of successfully securing a conviction.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Jacoby

    Jacoby Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    151
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Karma:
    +116
    This Ukraine stuff is total nothingburger when it comes to Trump but it seems like Joe Biden might be guilty of corruption. Nothing illegal about that call at all, by the same standard then Biden/Obama/Clinton are 10x more guilty. Democrats are deranged and desperate, living in a completely different reality.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. puzzlingbill

    puzzlingbill Definitely Someone

    Messages:
    188
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2016
    Karma:
    +286
    That's the problem when you believe social media, where facts are irrelevant.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Judge

    Judge Well-Known Member V.I.P Member

    Messages:
    24,129
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Karma:
    +30,934
    Looks like the administration is off to a great start. :eek:

    After a release of the transcript regarding his phone call to Ukraine's president, they mistakenly emailed talking points for Trump's defenders to the Democratic lawmakers and their staff. Oops. :oops:

    "I would like to thank @WhiteHouse for sending me their talking points on how best to spin the disastrous Trump/Zelensky call in Trump’s favor. However, I will not be using their spin and will instead stick with the truth. But thanks though."

    — US Rep Brendan Boyle (@RepBrendanBoyle) September 25, 2019

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...70aa52-dfb2-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1