An interesting thought...

[S.A. Boggs]

DOJ holds that a sitting President cannot be criminally indicted. That is a policy never tested in court but under it no Federal charges will be brought, and the DOJ would fight state charges.

This is not to say that a sitting President cannot do things contrary to the laws on the books or what Congress is willing to tolerate. "High crimes and misdemeanors" therefore covers the spectrum.

As for what the articles of impeachment say Trump has done, you are free to read them yourself. It's a quick read.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/de...mpeachment.pdf

This evidence is flimsy at best, locally the DA couldn't get an indictment on this.
Sam

[Art]

Impeachment of the President is more debased every time it's used. Andrew Johnson was impeached for refusing to follow a law that almost everyone agrees, today, was totally unconstitutional. Bill Clinton was impeached for a crime that had little or nothing to do with his conduct in office (other presidents had behaved similarly.) Clinton did discharge the criminal liability by what amounts to a plea bargain the day he left office. Now Donald Trump is being impeached purely because his political opponents detest him. There was probably good reason to impeach Dick Nixon but he resigned when he realized, after consultation, that he would be impeached and probably convicted in the Senate trial,

The "whistleblowers" (leaker) lawyer actually said that "The coup" was in progress.

Unfortunately the whole thing has become nothing more than a House censure on steroids.

[togor]

This evidence is flimsy at best, locally the DA couldn't get an indictment on this.
Sam

Abuse of Power is not a criminal offense per se, although Obstruction of Justice is. I've been on enough gun forums over the years to see plenty of raving about government tyranny. Abuse of power is exactly the sort of thing they worry about. Of course we know now that for many (but not all), it's the direction of the abuse and not the extent of it that matters. So if it was Obama or Clinton and not Trump we'd be getting daily accounts of it chapter & verse.

I point out that no one on Trump's side has waded into the fracas head first and given a brick-by-brick account of why what happened is really just fine, and this is all an epic misunderstanding. They may yet seize their chance to do so.

[S.A. Boggs]

Trump will survive this political fracas and win reelection. The question for the Democrats is how much damage does this do to the part this fall? As I watched the procession to the Senate Chambers one has to ask, "Is this the funeral procession for the Democratic Party?"
Sam

[Gun Smoke]

Trump will survive this political fracas and win reelection. The question for the Democrats is how much damage does this do to the part this fall? As I watched the procession to the Senate Chambers one has to ask, "Is this the funeral procession for the Democratic Party?"
Sam

I feel Trump will have no problem. My concern is the house and senate. The last election was an example of how far this country has rotted by the dems winning the house. Their antics, scams and charades had been going on a couple of years and people still elected them.

[Vern Humphrey]

I feel Trump will have no problem. My concern is the house and senate. The last election was an example of how far this country has rotted by the dems winning the house. Their antics, scams and charades had been going on a couple of years and people still elected them.

I believe Sam is right -- the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot.

[RED]

If obstruction of Congress is a high crime and misdemeanor, then every President that has has vetoed a bill that Congress passed should have been impeached...

[togor]

If obstruction of Congress is a high crime and misdemeanor, then every President that has has vetoed a bill that Congress passed should have been impeached...

Article I Section 7

[Sandpebble]

vetoing a bill is a far cry from telling people not to honour a legal supeona .... or attempting to prevent them doing so.... don't ya think ... maybe ?

[Art]

vetoing a bill is a far cry from telling people not to honour a legal supeona .... or attempting to prevent them doing so.... don't ya think ... maybe ?

The house didn't issue subpoenas during the investigation. The drafted letters of demand which were as worthless as the paper they were printed on. Presidents have routinely assert "Executive Privilege" and told subordinates not to cooperate until the courts sort it out. They (the House big shots) did not go to court because they said things were so urgent and "The Donald" so dangerous they didn't have time for formalities like letting the Courts, the Constitutional referees who had decided these issues in the past, sort it out. I would remind you that in the last administration not only were documents refused but Eric Holder refused to appear before congress in the "Fast and Furious" investigation. He was found in contempt which really means nothing and his boss was not impeached.

Do better.

Once again, "where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit."

[Vern Humphrey]

The house didn't issue subpoenas during the investigation. Presidents have routinely told subordinates not to cooperate until compelled to by the courts. I would remind you that in the last administration Eric Holder refused to appear before congress in the "Fast and Furious" investigation. He was found in contempt which really means nothing and his boss was not impeached.

Do better.

The difference being, of course, that Eric Holder really committed serious crimes -- one of those guns he walked across the border was used in an attack that killed a US Border Patrolman and another was used in a terrorist attack in France.

[togor]

Art those are disingenuous process arguments intended to deflect responsibility away from the Administration, who is refuses to make material witnesses available in a timely fashion. The calculation in the House was that a 6 month delay in the courts puts this matter a few months before the election, at which point the next argument would be to let the voters decide. That argument holds even now in my opinion, but I understand why the Democrats felt it was necessary to protect their candidates by going this route as the campaign season begins, if only to burn Trump's cadre of henchmen.

[RED]

Art those are disingenuous process arguments intended to deflect responsibility away from the Administration, who is refuses to make material witnesses available in a timely fashion. The calculation in the House was that a 6 month delay in the courts puts this matter a few months before the election, at which point the next argument would be to let the voters decide. That argument holds even now in my opinion, but I understand why the Democrats felt it was necessary to protect their candidates by going this route as the campaign season begins, if only to burn Trump's cadre of henchmen.

Double speak from a traitor Communist agitator. Twist and turn, hate and burn.

[Art]

Art those are disingenuous process arguments intended to deflect responsibility away from the Administration, who is refuses to make material witnesses available in a timely fashion. The calculation in the House was that a 6 month delay in the courts puts this matter a few months before the election, at which point the next argument would be to let the voters decide. That argument holds even now in my opinion, but I understand why the Democrats felt it was necessary to protect their candidates by going this route as the campaign season begins, if only to burn Trump's cadre of henchmen.

Togor, sometimes you are a total tool.

[Vern Humphrey]

Togor, sometimes you are a total tool.

Sometimes I think "togor" is a mis-spelling for "crowbar," the simplest tool known to man.