Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Oh, look, here's Joni Ernst arguing that if Joe Biden is elected Congressional Republicans will immediately move to impeach him over Ukraine:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... if-he-wins

That's totally normal and sane.

[_Markk]

Why wouldn't they, this will be the status quo. When Trump is acquitted, and if the Democrats get both the house and the senate he is gone. He will probably get impeached again even if they have the house only, then they can LOL, say he is the only two time loser, and they would do this for no other reason. Impeachments can't be partisan, but unfortunately I think it is heading that way.

I think (hope) Pelosi knew this, but was to weak (by numbers and will) to get the others to follow her logic, which is too bad.

[_EAllusion]

Why wouldn't they, this will be the status quo.

If you do this justified thing to us in good faith, we'll do it back to you as a sham in bad faith.

Trying to impeach the President is overturning the will of the voters. It's unacceptable. Also, if the President is a Democrat, he should be impeached over a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... e/fg1zjmf/

For those interested Adam Schiff made incredibly compelling arguments yesterday and posted clips on Twitter. I'll link a few below;

Over the past week, we've seen a descent into Constitutional madness. The President and his team argue that any conduct is okay, as long as a president thinks it will benefit him. That's an argument of pure desperation — one you only make when you know your client is guilty.[1]

The pattern of his words and conduct is clear: President Trump thinks he is above the law. He thinks he is the state. Trump said it himself: Under Article II I can do whatever I want. Precisely what our Founders feared. Precisely why they drafted the remedy of impeachment.[2]

The idea that abuse of power isn’t impeachable would’ve terrified our Founders. You can’t write off a consensus of Constitutional scholars by calling them “Never Trumpers,” Unless we're prepared to accept that Article II really does allow the President to do whatever he wants.[3]

We’ve seen a remarkable lowering of the bar. According to Trump’s lawyers, everything is okay as long as the president believes it helps his reelection. It’s not okay to solicit foreign election interference, even if you fail. It just makes you a failed crook.[4]

[_mikwut]

Doc,

Over the past week, we've seen a descent into Constitutional madness. The President and his team argue that any conduct is okay, as long as a president thinks it will benefit him. That's an argument of pure desperation — one you only make when you know your client is guilty.

That argument was never made. It is a distortion.

[_Icarus]

That argument was never made. It is a distortion.

The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

[_mikwut]

Quote:
That argument was never made. It is a distortion.

The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

That's just not true. Dershowitz has clarified on practically every network.

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Quote:
That argument was never made. It is a distortion.

The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

That's just not true. Dershowitz has clarified on practically every network.

mikwut

No, Dershowitz saw the firestorm those comments caused and walked them back on Twitter and cable news, but not in the trial itself where Republicans and Democarts alike took him to mean what he literally said. The latter were horrified and the former either offered no comment or support. He said what he said.

What you are saying is just not true. Why do you choose to do that?

[_Icarus]

That's literally what he said on the Senate floor whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter what he "clarified" on the "networks" well after the Senate Republicans used his BS argument as an excuse to vote against witnesses. You don't get a take back on that kind of violence to the Constitution just so you can get your boy off the hook..

[_EAllusion]

That argument was never made. It is a distortion.

The argument was actually much dumber than that. The defense argued that the President can cheat to get himself reelected so long as he genuinely believes that him being reelected is the best thing for the country. And so cheating is not impeachable for that reason. How quickly they went from "he didn't do it" to "ok he did it but that's not impeachable."

The argument is that a quid pro quo is not impeachable if the President believes that the result advances the public interest. If the president also believes it advances his or her personal interest, that's incidental. That's plainly the argument he made on the floor of the Senate. It's in keeping with his prior argument that a President could allow Russia to invade Alaska and seize its territory and the Constitution offers no recourse but the next election.

So if the President wants to bribe a foreign country by withholding lawfully appropriated aid in exchange for helping him in a disinformation campaign to help his personal political interests, so long as the President thinks (or says he thinks) his personal political interests benefit the nation, that's legal and unimpeachable. And, by the same logic, if the President announces that anyone who kills his political opponents will be pardoned and handsomely rewarded, that's also unimpeachable.

This is insane, and Dershowitz was dragged for this and just about everything else he said, so he's now walking it back, but that's still the argument on record for the trial.