Impeachment hearings

[_Icarus]

Sen. Lamar Alexander made an astonishing admission. He said he will vote against allowing new evidence / witnesses because the House democrats have already proved their case. But the goal posts have constantly moved by the GOP and now we've reached the point where they've finally admitted that it doesn't matter to them if Trump did it.

For months it was "no he didn't do it." Then after all sorts of twisted logic and bad faith arguments, it finally becomes "ok he did it but it doesn't matter to us."

[_Some Schmo]

E,

Take a deep breath. You don't and you won't live in an autocratic government under Trump. Hysteria E. Keep a cool head really.

mikwut

Go back to school and learn what autocracy means. If we're not already there, we've taken several giant leaps in that direction over the past few years.

Not only because of a corrupt Trump who has a clear contempt for the rule of law, but also because of a complicit citizenry who share your nonchalant attitude that enabled him.

It's true. The right loves to irrationally and maniacally freak out about the idea of democratic socialism... but a dictatorship? Their party led by an autocrat who likes to snuggle with other dictators? Sign us up!

Of course, in their defense, they're really too damned stupid to recognize that's what's happening.

[_Icarus]

[_Icarus]

It's true. The right loves to irrationally and maniacally freak out about the idea of democratic socialism... but a dictatorship? Their party led by an autocrat who likes to snuggle with other dictators? Sign us up!

Of course, in their defense, they're really too ____ stupid to recognize that's what's happening.

Now is probably a good time to remind that it wasn't so long ago that the same people giving Trump carte blanche is the same crowd who hysterically accused Obama of tearing up the Constitution and being like a king/dictator because of things like DACA and Obamacare.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just remember, Trump's lawyer's argument was:

If a sitting President BELIEVES that his re-election is for the betterment of the nation than he/she is allowed to do ANYTHING, as that action would benefit the nation by helping them get reelected.

Don't believe me?

“If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Trump's lawyers argued a President cannot commit an illegal act while wielding the powers of the Presidency, and that a President cannot be impeached for abusing his power. They argue Obstruction of Congress "doesn't exist" and the case should be dismissed.

From the Southern District of NY case:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... uling.html

He [Trump's lawyer] contends that, in his view of the President's duties and functions and the allocation of governmental powers between the executive and the judicial branches under the U.S. Constitution, the person who serves as President, while in office, enjoys absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind. Consider the reach of the President's argument. As the court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration. That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the President acted alone or in concert with other individuals.

This is the defense his impeachment lawyers have taken up, and seem to be endorsed by the GOP.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

NYT reports:

Close to 100 law professors and legal historians, in an open letter to the Senate on Friday, rejected the arguments put forward by the Trump impeachment legal team. They explained that the scholarly consensus is that impeachment does not require proof of an indictable crime and that “abuse of power” is an impeachable offense, contrary to what President Trump’s team has broadly argued

The letter also rejected a suggestion put forward by one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, that presidents may abuse the powers of their office to secure re-election without being impeached so long as they think their continuance in power would be good for the country.

“To accept such a view would be to give the president carte blanche to corrupt American electoral democracy,” the letter says.

eta: The level of concern this tactic has garnered among non-idiots is at least one small good sign that people aren’t going to roll over without at least saying something about it.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Mikwut - These fringe arguments that place a corrupt President’s ability to illicitly manipulate elections and engage in other abuses of power above the law are serious and good.

EA: This is apologetics for de facto autocracy.

Also Mikwut: Whoa there Chicken Little. You aren’t living in an autocracy.

[_DarkHelmet]

“If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

To be fair, Dershowitz specifed quid pro quo. So, for example, Trump couldn't murder all the Democrat party front runners to ensure his re-election using the defense that his re-election is in the public's interest. However, he could hire a hitman to murder all the Democrat party front runners and that would not be an illegal quid pro quo. I'm not sure what happens if Trump inevitably stiffs the hitman when he gets the bill. If Trump fails to fulfill his part of the quid pro quo is it still a quid pro quo? I guess that's a question for Dershowitz.

[_EAllusion]

There’s a ton of major developments breaking at the moment that are in the “my God” range. It’s always worse than you thought with this admin. Always.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

To be fair, Dershowitz specifed quid pro quo. So, for example, Trump couldn't murder all the Democrat party front runners to ensure his re-election using the defense that his re-election is in the public's interest. However, he could hire a hitman to murder all the Democrat party front runners and that would not be an illegal quid pro quo. I'm not sure what happens if Trump inevitably stiffs the hitman when he gets the bill. If Trump fails to fulfill his part of the quid pro quo is it still a quid pro quo? I guess that's a question for Dershowitz.

I’m... not sure you’re following all of his statements in context to impeachment. Dershowitz has gone on record that as long as the President thinks it’s in the nation’s best interest he can do whatever he wants, and can’t commit a crime. I’m not trying to be a dick toward you, but this point is settled, on the record, and easily googled.

- Doc