I Support/Oppose The Articles Of Impeachment Because ______________

[GuitarStv]

One Republican with a shred of decency and morality remaining.

Meanwhile, Don Jr. just publicly called Romney a pussy, and calls for the GOP to expel him from the party.

And we sink deeper and deeper...

Ah yes . . . remember the old adage "The mark of a brave man is hiding what you believe and meekly following what the crowd is doing out of fear of reprisal".

[DaMa]

Trump tweeted out a nasty anti-Romney video already.   A new low for Trump. 

Well, not really.  I think his anti-McCain rant was lower.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Over/unders on the vote?

I’ll take 53-46-1 acquittal on both counts. Party line vote except Manchin, Romney votes present.

Looks like I was off by one. I’ll do better next time.

Now, I’m a fan of impeachment as it keeps the House and Senate out of our hair for a few weeks. But I’m curious. What did this actually accomplish in the end?  President Trump will probably win re-election. And the cuffs are off when it comes to his conduct. A second impeachment isn’t happening. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics would understand that it was highly unlikely that a President's own party would convict. Is there some sort of political calculus that says this sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2024?

[GuitarStv]

You're right.  It's almost like . . . they were impeaching him for the abuse of power while in office, rather than as a set up for Democratic victory in the next election.

[JLee]

Over/unders on the vote?

I’ll take 53-46-1 acquittal on both counts. Party line vote except Manchin, Romney votes present.

Looks like I was off by one. I’ll do better next time.

Now, I’m a fan of impeachment as it keeps the House and Senate out of our hair for a few weeks. But I’m curious. What did this actually accomplish in the end?  President Trump will probably win re-election. And the cuffs are off when it comes to his conduct. A second impeachment isn’t happening. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics would understand that it was highly unlikely that a President's own party would convict. Is there some sort of political calculus that says this sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2024?

Why arrest a billionaire for crimes when his attorneys are just going to get him off anyway? What's the point of the justice system if we all know that justice won't be served anyway?

[DarkandStormy]

Trump tweeted out a nasty anti-Romney video already.   A new low for Trump. 

Well, not really.  I think his anti-McCain rant was lower.

It makes Romney look cool lmao

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Well, just like the last impeachment, a total waste of time and money.

The thing that makes me sadder than just about anything is that pointing out the President of the United States abused his power and broke his oath of office is a “total waste of time and money.”

I have what might be a semantic point, but I'm being honest here.

The "Abuse of Power" charge was a non-starter for me, because what the House was actually accusing Trump of was bribery and extortion.  Why weren't the articles for bribery and extortion, then?

To me, the House must have come to the conclusion that it could not prove either one of these crimes, and thus went for a more nebulous abuse of power charge.

Do you think bribery and extortion should have been the articles instead of a vague "abuse of power"?

[JLee]

Well, just like the last impeachment, a total waste of time and money.

The thing that makes me sadder than just about anything is that pointing out the President of the United States abused his power and broke his oath of office is a “total waste of time and money.”

I have what might be a semantic point, but I'm being honest here.

The "Abuse of Power" charge was a non-starter for me, because what the House was actually accusing Trump of was bribery and extortion.  Why weren't the articles for bribery and extortion, then?

To me, the House must have come to the conclusion that it could not prove either one of these crimes, and thus went for a more nebulous abuse of power charge.

Do you think bribery and extortion should have been the articles instead of a vague "abuse of power"?

Are you implying that utilizing the presidential office to bribe/extort a foreign government for personal gain is not an abuse of power?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Well, just like the last impeachment, a total waste of time and money.

The thing that makes me sadder than just about anything is that pointing out the President of the United States abused his power and broke his oath of office is a “total waste of time and money.”

I have what might be a semantic point, but I'm being honest here.

The "Abuse of Power" charge was a non-starter for me, because what the House was actually accusing Trump of was bribery and extortion.  Why weren't the articles for bribery and extortion, then?

To me, the House must have come to the conclusion that it could not prove either one of these crimes, and thus went for a more nebulous abuse of power charge.

Do you think bribery and extortion should have been the articles instead of a vague "abuse of power"?

Are you implying that utilizing the presidential office to bribe/extort a foreign government for personal gain is not an abuse of power?

I'm saying if the House believed the president was guilty of utilizing his or her office to bribe or extort a foreign government, the House should be charging him with bribery and extortion and proven its case. 

The "abuse of power" is a nebulous cop-out that, to me, was an admission by the House that it did not believe it could actually prove bribery and extortion.  And if you could not prove bribery and extortion, then you could not use bribery and extortion as the basis for an abuse of power charge.

[JLee]

Well, just like the last impeachment, a total waste of time and money.

The thing that makes me sadder than just about anything is that pointing out the President of the United States abused his power and broke his oath of office is a “total waste of time and money.”

I have what might be a semantic point, but I'm being honest here.

The "Abuse of Power" charge was a non-starter for me, because what the House was actually accusing Trump of was bribery and extortion.  Why weren't the articles for bribery and extortion, then?

To me, the House must have come to the conclusion that it could not prove either one of these crimes, and thus went for a more nebulous abuse of power charge.

Do you think bribery and extortion should have been the articles instead of a vague "abuse of power"?

Are you implying that utilizing the presidential office to bribe/extort a foreign government for personal gain is not an abuse of power?

I'm saying if the House believed the president was guilty of utilizing his or her office to bribe or extort a foreign government, the House should be charging him with bribery and extortion and proven its case. 

The "abuse of power" is a nebulous cop-out that, to me, was an admission by the House that it did not believe it could actually prove bribery and extortion.  And if you could not prove bribery and extortion, then you could not use bribery and extortion as the basis for an abuse of power charge.

Impeachment does not have to prove a statutory crime. It's purposefully vague because Congress is supposed to be comprised of mature adults who are capable of recognizing what is and is not appropriate presidential behavior.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Impeachment does not have to prove a statutory crime. It's purposefully vague because Congress is supposed to be comprised of mature adults who are capable of recognizing what is and is not appropriate presidential behavior.

Do you think he should have been charged with extortion and bribery?  I'm asking because I think it would have been both a legally and politically better move.

[shenlong55]

Well, just like the last impeachment, a total waste of time and money.

The thing that makes me sadder than just about anything is that pointing out the President of the United States abused his power and broke his oath of office is a “total waste of time and money.”

I have what might be a semantic point, but I'm being honest here.

The "Abuse of Power" charge was a non-starter for me, because what the House was actually accusing Trump of was bribery and extortion.  Why weren't the articles for bribery and extortion, then?

To me, the House must have come to the conclusion that it could not prove either one of these crimes, and thus went for a more nebulous abuse of power charge.

Do you think bribery and extortion should have been the articles instead of a vague "abuse of power"?

Are you implying that utilizing the presidential office to bribe/extort a foreign government for personal gain is not an abuse of power?

I'm saying if the House believed the president was guilty of utilizing his or her office to bribe or extort a foreign government, the House should be charging him with bribery and extortion and proven its case. 

The "abuse of power" is a nebulous cop-out that, to me, was an admission by the House that it did not believe it could actually prove bribery and extortion.  And if you could not prove bribery and extortion, then you could not use bribery and extortion as the basis for an abuse of power charge.

That's a pretty big assumption based on some flimsy evidence IMO.

[JLee]

Impeachment does not have to prove a statutory crime. It's purposefully vague because Congress is supposed to be comprised of mature adults who are capable of recognizing what is and is not appropriate presidential behavior.

Do you think he should have been charged with extortion and bribery?  I'm asking because I think it would have been both a legally and politically better move.

This would be a legally better move based on what, your irrelevant criminal trial experience?

Impeachment does not have to prove a statutory crime. It's purposefully vague because Congress is supposed to be comprised of mature adults who are capable of recognizing what is and is not appropriate presidential behavior, much like these members of Congress did ~20 years ago.

“How about an important person hurting somebody of low means? It’s not very scholarly, but I think it’s the truth. I think that’s what they meant by high crimes. Doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”

"Our nation is indeed at a crossroads...I am of course referring to the investigation into serious allegations of illegal conduct by the President of the United States—that the president has engaged in a persistent pattern and practice of obstruction of justice. The allegations are grave, the investigation is legitimate, and ascertaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the unqualified, unevasive truth is absolutely critical."

"We are here because the president did wrongful acts and he admits to that...Once you lose your moral authority to lead, you are a failure as a leader. FDR once spoke of the Presidency in this way: 'The Presidency is not merely an administrative office...It is preeminently a place of moral leadership.'"

"As a relatively young man, I remember a time in this great nation when those endowed with public trust and those that were elected to public office were held to a higher standard."

"I think we have seen the truth. And I think the final truth is that this President should be held to the very highest of standards."

"Being truthful to the American people is part of our system of justice. Americans deserve to know the full truth about this issue in a fair and complete manner."

"This President has violated the law; he has betrayed his oath and constitutional duty; he has undermined the legal system and the rule of law—all to promote his own selfish interests and desires, which he consistently puts ahead of the country's best interests."

"Having to make a choice, I choose to be on the side that says no person is above the law, that this is a nation of laws not men, that telling the truth matters, and that we should expect our public officials to conduct themselves in compliance with the highest ethical standards."

"We in Kansas know that you don't urge hiding legal evidence under the bed unless you want to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. The President did so."

[GuitarStv]

Impeachment does not have to prove a statutory crime. It's purposefully vague because Congress is supposed to be comprised of mature adults who are capable of recognizing what is and is not appropriate presidential behavior.

Do you think he should have been charged with extortion and bribery?  I'm asking because I think it would have been both a legally and politically better move.

Extortion - obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery.

No, that doesn't fit.


Bribery?  Yes.  That is what Trump was accused of in the initial impeachment report that the house voted on, along with wire fraud. . . and there is ample evidence of this crime.

I don't think it would have made a difference though, given the self-admitted total lack of impartiality and full pre-judgement of the Republicans in charge of voting in the Senate.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Good Lord @JLee .  You poke and prod and ask a bunch of questions of anybody who does not follow the Democratic Party line, and a lot of people (including me) take the time to post thoughtful responses to you.

And I ask you one question and you can't answer it?  Just answer it.  I'm simply asking out of curiosity whether you think the president committed bribery, and whether that should have been an article of impeachment.  Just answer the damn question.  Christ.  What's the point of a forum?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I'm saying if the House believed the president was guilty of utilizing his or her office to bribe or extort a foreign government, the House should be charging him with bribery and extortion and proven its case. 

The "abuse of power" is a nebulous cop-out that, to me, was an admission by the House that it did not believe it could actually prove bribery and extortion.  And if you could not prove bribery and extortion, then you could not use bribery and extortion as the basis for an abuse of power charge.

That's a pretty big assumption based on some flimsy evidence IMO.

Since you disagree with my assumption, why do you believe the House did not include an article of impeachment that POTUS was guilty of bribery?

[JLee]

Good Lord @JLee .  You poke and prod and ask a bunch of questions of anybody who does not follow the Democratic Party line, and a lot of people (including me) take the time to post thoughtful responses to you.

And I ask you one question and you can't answer it?  Just answer it.  I'm simply asking out of curiosity whether you think the president committed bribery, and whether that should have been an article of impeachment.  Just answer the damn question.  Christ.  What's the point of a forum?

You actually did not ask me that question - you asked the second half of that sentence alone. Anyway, no -- I think "abuse of power" was appropriate. Being needlessly specific is unnecessary.

I follow a consistent line, not a party line. Your arrogance in assuming my political history and beliefs is fucking astonishing.

[partgypsy]

My intellectual side is thinking about, how I was thinking climate change, which means increased insecurity, reduced resources, increased migration of people and less livable land overall, we as humans/societies could respond in one of two ways. See it as a threat that affects all and unit us due to that shared threat. Governments work together to ameliorate some of the worse effects, including agreements on emissions, carbon taxes, and possibly relaxed borders, immigration of climate-affected refugees. The other option would be the increase of authoritative governments who want to control their borders, as well as enact every-man-for-themselves policies regarding resource use, exploitation and use of fossil fuels, and amount of pollution/environmental destruction allowed. I have to say while Europe is kind of hanging together, the path seems to be going in the other direction. Even if individuals in the countries want a united positive response to climate change, the people in control of governments have other plans. In fact it may spur another series of conflicts over land, resources and fuels up to and including seizures of land and/or invasions.

It's just all happening faster than I thought it would.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Good Lord @JLee .  You poke and prod and ask a bunch of questions of anybody who does not follow the Democratic Party line, and a lot of people (including me) take the time to post thoughtful responses to you.

And I ask you one question and you can't answer it?  Just answer it.  I'm simply asking out of curiosity whether you think the president committed bribery, and whether that should have been an article of impeachment.  Just answer the damn question.  Christ.  What's the point of a forum?

You actually did not ask me that question - you asked the second half of that sentence alone. Anyway, no -- I think "abuse of power" was appropriate. Being needlessly specific is unnecessary.

I follow a consistent line, not a party line. Your arrogance in assuming my political history and beliefs is fucking astonishing.

I do not necessarily disagree with your position that impeachment is a political process, and that "high crimes" can be political rather than statutory in nature.

But if that is your position, I don't think you can also assert that traditional rules of criminal procedure and trial procedure (you know, the criminal code) should be followed.  I also don't think you should be surprised when the outcome is political in nature.

[JLee]

Good Lord @JLee .  You poke and prod and ask a bunch of questions of anybody who does not follow the Democratic Party line, and a lot of people (including me) take the time to post thoughtful responses to you.

And I ask you one question and you can't answer it?  Just answer it.  I'm simply asking out of curiosity whether you think the president committed bribery, and whether that should have been an article of impeachment.  Just answer the damn question.  Christ.  What's the point of a forum?

You actually did not ask me that question - you asked the second half of that sentence alone. Anyway, no -- I think "abuse of power" was appropriate. Being needlessly specific is unnecessary.

I follow a consistent line, not a party line. Your arrogance in assuming my political history and beliefs is fucking astonishing.

I do not necessarily disagree with your position that impeachment is a political process, and that "high crimes" can be political rather than statutory in nature.

But if that is your position, I don't think you can also assert that traditional rules of criminal procedure and trial procedure (you know, the criminal code) should be followed. I also don't think you should be surprised when the outcome is political in nature.

Nobody that I know is surprised. The GOP members of Congress are comprised largely of spineless cowards, beholden to the whims of their leadership and not to the people who elected them. I'm surprised that Romney stood up for what he believed was right and I do respect him for that.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Nobody that I know is surprised. The GOP members of Congress are comprised largely of spineless cowards, beholden to the whims of their leadership and not to the people who elected them. I'm surprised that Romney stood up for what he believed was right and I do respect him for that.

We are getting to my overall point.  This is good.

I am saying that IF Democrats thought POTUS was guilty of bribery, that is substantively criminal.  I can read it in the code.  I can touch it in the criminal law books from nine centuries of criminal law to explain it.  Americans understand it. 

I would be able to use substantive criminal law, and since I am using substantive criminal law, now I also have my argument to use procedural criminal law.  (As opposed to presenting a purely political charge, which in that case, I think there's a fair argument to also throw out traditional trial procedures).

I think the case would have been a lot easier to present -- and would have perhaps obtained bipartisan support -- if the charge was bribery versus a nebulous "abuse of power" charge.

Do I think it would have resulted in impeachment?  Probably not.  But I think the swing Republicans may have moved (Collins, Alexander, Murkowski, etc.).

Do you disagree? 

[JLee]

Nobody that I know is surprised. The GOP members of Congress are comprised largely of spineless cowards, beholden to the whims of their leadership and not to the people who elected them. I'm surprised that Romney stood up for what he believed was right and I do respect him for that.

We are getting to my overall point.  This is good.

I am saying that IF Democrats thought POTUS was guilty of bribery, that is substantively criminal.  I can read it in the code.  I can touch it in the criminal law books from nine centuries of criminal law to explain it.  Americans understand it. 

I would be able to use substantive criminal law, and since I am using substantive criminal law, now I also have my argument to use procedural criminal law.  (As opposed to presenting a purely political charge, which in that case, I think there's a fair argument to also throw out traditional trial procedures).

I think the case would have been a lot easier to present -- and would have perhaps obtained bipartisan support -- if the charge was bribery versus a nebulous "abuse of power" charge.

Do I think it would have resulted in impeachment?  Probably not.  But I think the swing Republicans may have moved (Collins, Alexander, Murkowski, etc.).

Do you disagree?

Given that the US Justice Department's policy is that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, and the Justice Department seems to be acting as Trump's personal representation, I don't see how that would have changed anything.

[GuitarStv]

Nobody that I know is surprised. The GOP members of Congress are comprised largely of spineless cowards, beholden to the whims of their leadership and not to the people who elected them. I'm surprised that Romney stood up for what he believed was right and I do respect him for that.

We are getting to my overall point.  This is good.

I am saying that IF Democrats thought POTUS was guilty of bribery, that is substantively criminal.  I can read it in the code.  I can touch it in the criminal law books from nine centuries of criminal law to explain it.  Americans understand it. 

I would be able to use substantive criminal law, and since I am using substantive criminal law, now I also have my argument to use procedural criminal law.  (As opposed to presenting a purely political charge, which in that case, I think there's a fair argument to also throw out traditional trial procedures).

I think the case would have been a lot easier to present -- and would have perhaps obtained bipartisan support -- if the charge was bribery versus a nebulous "abuse of power" charge.

Do I think it would have resulted in impeachment?  Probably not.  But I think the swing Republicans may have moved (Collins, Alexander, Murkowski, etc.).

Do you disagree?

I disagree.

I don't believe that the swing Republicans are as stupid as you apparently do.  These people know what Trump did and how he did it.  Calling a turd by another name doesn't change what it is.  They didn't vote against him because every time that any Republican steps out of line now, he is rabidly attacked by the party.  See:  Bolton, Romney, etc.  I don't think that 'abuse of power' changing to 'bribery' would have made any difference at all.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

And just the day after acquittal, Trump is out telling Republicans that he did nothing wrong.  It is, in fact, the Democrats who are corrupt and unfair.  For any of the Republican Senators that acquitted on the premise that Trump will have learned a lesson from all this, they should resign for their incompetence and inability to see the obvious.  We have entered a very dangerous 9 months where Trump is eager to bolster his reelection odds by any means necessary and believes that he is untouchable.  This is gearing up to be an exceptionally ugly and divisive election season, with Trump more in his element than ever.

[Kris]

Nobody that I know is surprised. The GOP members of Congress are comprised largely of spineless cowards, beholden to the whims of their leadership and not to the people who elected them. I'm surprised that Romney stood up for what he believed was right and I do respect him for that.

We are getting to my overall point.  This is good.

I am saying that IF Democrats thought POTUS was guilty of bribery, that is substantively criminal.  I can read it in the code.  I can touch it in the criminal law books from nine centuries of criminal law to explain it.  Americans understand it. 

I would be able to use substantive criminal law, and since I am using substantive criminal law, now I also have my argument to use procedural criminal law.  (As opposed to presenting a purely political charge, which in that case, I think there's a fair argument to also throw out traditional trial procedures).

I think the case would have been a lot easier to present -- and would have perhaps obtained bipartisan support -- if the charge was bribery versus a nebulous "abuse of power" charge.

Do I think it would have resulted in impeachment?  Probably not.  But I think the swing Republicans may have moved (Collins, Alexander, Murkowski, etc.).

Do you disagree?

I disagree.

I don't believe that the swing Republicans are as stupid as you apparently do.  These people know what Trump did and how he did it.  Calling a turd by another name doesn't change what it is.  They didn't vote against him because every time that any Republican steps out of line now, he is rabidly attacked by the party.  See:  Bolton, Romney, etc.  I don't think that 'abuse of power' changing to 'bribery' would have made any difference at all.

Agreed.

They know what he did. Most of them know it was wrong.

They just don't care.

[LennStar]

I disagree.

I don't believe that the swing Republicans are as stupid as you apparently do.  These people know what Trump did and how he did it.  Calling a turd by another name doesn't change what it is.  They didn't vote against him because every time that any Republican steps out of line now, he is rabidly attacked by the party.  See:  Bolton, Romney, etc.  I don't think that 'abuse of power' changing to 'bribery' would have made any difference at all.

Agreed.

They know what he did. Most of them know it was wrong.

They just don't care.

I think they do. They jsut not care enough to lose their "job", income and power. Not to mention that just others would come up.

Trump is an idiot, but he understands feels how power works. That is all what his deal making etc. is about. That is all what his kicking out of people around him is. That is all what that hilarious "president Trump is the best president ever!!!" carousel in front of cameras was.

If you don't understand that, you will never understand why Republicans act as they do.

[SunnyDays]

If Trump wins again, how long until a civil war begins?  Bets anyone?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Given that the US Justice Department's policy is that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, and the Justice Department seems to be acting as Trump's personal representation, I don't see how that would have changed anything.

Of course, the Justice Department's policy is based primarily on the fact that the remedy to "indict" a sitting president is impeachment; and this takes us back to the "does there need to be a crime" loop of argument.

I subjectively happen to think quite a few Americans, and then perhaps their representatives, would have been more open minded if the charge wasn't so nebulously and politically drafted.  Or, as someone else put it, if the House called a turd a turd.

To just one specific note, "abuse of power" has no mens rea requirement.  A lot of Democrats talked about wanting to know Trump's motives, but abuse of power is not a crime.  Thus there is no mens rea requirement necessary to prove "abuse of power," whatever that is.  Thus there really is no evidentiary need to determine Trump's motive -- it's not necessary to prove the offense.

Conversely, 18 USC 201 (the federal bribery statute for public officials) does have specific intent requirements.  Thus making intent extremely relevant.  Thus making calling certain witnesses far more necessary.  Thus improving Democrats' argument about the issue.  On and on.

But if the charge is just "abuse of power," that's a completely subjective interpretation with no case law, no statute to follow, no mens rea requirement, etc.  It's just a nebulous cop-out to me.

I think the House would have been better off calling a turd a turd.

[GuitarStv]

Mens rea?  It has been fully and exhaustively proven that Trump engaged in quid-pro quo with the Ukraine.

At it's heart, the reason to establish mens rea in a crimnal trial is to establish if the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong.  That is beside the point in the impeachment proceeding.  If Trump's so dangerously incompetent that he doesn't know bribing a foreign leader for personal favors is wrong, he shouldn't be president.  If he does know that it's wrong, then he shouldn't be president.

While I agree, calling the bribery that Trump engaged in 'bribery' would be slightly more gut level appealing, it would have had no impact or effect on the pre-determined impeachment 'trial' held by the Senate.


What I find odd is that you are focusing so much on this while ignoring the second term of impeachment that Trump is also guilty of - obstruction of congress.

[Davnasty]

Given that the US Justice Department's policy is that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, and the Justice Department seems to be acting as Trump's personal representation, I don't see how that would have changed anything.

Of course, the Justice Department's policy is based primarily on the fact that the remedy to "indict" a sitting president is impeachment; and this takes us back to the "does there need to be a crime" loop of argument.

I subjectively happen to think quite a few Americans, and then perhaps their representatives, would have been more open minded if the charge wasn't so nebulously and politically drafted.  Or, as someone else put it, if the House called a turd a turd.

To just one specific note, "abuse of power" has no mens rea requirement.  A lot of Democrats talked about wanting to know Trump's motives, but abuse of power is not a crime.  Thus there is no mens rea requirement necessary to prove "abuse of power," whatever that is.  Thus there really is no evidentiary need to determine Trump's motive -- it's not necessary to prove the offense.

Conversely, 18 USC 201 (the federal bribery statute for public officials) does have specific intent requirements.  Thus making intent extremely relevant.  Thus making calling certain witnesses far more necessary.  Thus improving Democrats' argument about the issue.  On and on.

But if the charge is just "abuse of power," that's a completely subjective interpretation with no case law, no statute to follow, no mens rea requirement, etc.  It's just a nebulous cop-out to me.

I think the House would have been better off calling a turd a turd.

This sounds like a plausible explanation to me.

Bribery, defined as soliciting a favor or benefit in exchange for influencing an official act, seems to fit Trump’s conduct: He asked for announcements of investigations in exchange for military aid and a White House visit.

But rather than trying to satisfy technical statutory requirements such as “quid pro quo,” and allowing Republicans to quibble over legal definitions and factual conclusions as to whether one thing was conditioned on the other, House members would be wise to frame the articles more broadly in terms of abuse of office—which is at the heart of impeachable conduct. The law professors testified that the greatest fears of the framers were foreign influence, subverting elections, and abuse of power to promote personal interests. Here, drafters could make a compelling case that Trump’s conduct has made all of those fears come true.

My take on it is that a reasonable person can look at the relevant facts and say Trump was not asking for the investigation because he wanted to investigate corruption. The timing and justification just don't add up.

However, House Democrats knew that the jury would not be made up of people using basic reasoning skills, it would be made up of senators with a stake in the outcome of the trial. Therefore there would be nothing stopping them from arguing that Trump's motives were, if not entirely pure, at least mixed. As in, he sought the investigation for personal gain but also because he wanted to go after corruption.

If his motives were mixed, charging him with bribery would set bad precedent as it is very common for politicians to have mixed motivations as is quid pro quo. When you mix those two elements, most politicians could then be charged with bribery. For example: representative Bob agrees to vote for X in exchange for funds for a new school. There is quid pro quo, but it's not for personal gain so it's all good. But wait, if Bob gains favor from voters because he provided a new school, it is for personal gain. Now there's mixed motivation.

So again, I don't think that's an honest argument unless you believe Trump really wanted to go after corruption, but it's an easy enough argument for Republican senators to make and never admit that Trump did anything wrong.

Instead they charged him with abuse of power which basically says, "We all know what happened here, do you really think this is OK?" and in the end some senators admitted, "this was not OK, but I'm voting to acquit anyway"

This doesn't explain why they didn't include bribery as a third article. Perhaps they didn't want to give the Republicans a reasonable argument to latch onto and give them momentum in the media?

In any case I don't think House Democrats ever believed he would be removed, so the real goal was to influence public opinion. If Republicans could give technical reasons for why they voted to acquit, then even those who dislike Trump might agree with their vote.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Mens rea?  It has been fully and exhaustively proven that Trump engaged in quid-pro quo with the Ukraine.

At it's heart, the reason to establish mens rea in a crimnal trial is to establish if the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong.  That is beside the point in the impeachment proceeding.  If Trump's so dangerously incompetent that he doesn't know bribing a foreign leader for personal favors is wrong, he shouldn't be president.  If he does know that it's wrong, then he shouldn't be president.

While I agree, calling the bribery that Trump engaged in 'bribery' would be slightly more gut level appealing, it would have had no impact or effect on the pre-determined impeachment 'trial' held by the Senate.


What I find odd is that you are focusing so much on this while ignoring the second term of impeachment that Trump is also guilty of - obstruction of congress.

I respectfully don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to get at with "mens rea."  I'm saying that if the actual charge itself was a crime, then "intent" is incredibly relevant.  If intent is relevant, numerous other witnesses and documents are relevant to prove intent. 

I think it's pretty politically easy to not allow additional witnesses -- who are going to testify about intent -- when intent is not an element of what's been charged, and we are basically saying, as Davnasty put it, "We know what happened is wrong...here it is."  But if this were bribery, I dare say I think it would have been very difficult for swing Republicans to deny witnesses on a central element of a crime.

***

I will never, ever, support an "Obstruction of Congress" charge under any circumstance, except maybe the executive's actual burning down of Congress.  It is not a thing, it has never been a thing, it has zero legal precedent, and it is another colloquial dodge that concedes Trump is not guilty of one of the many statutes Congress actually has at its disposal (contempt, witness tampering, witness retaliation, etc.).  Note that these are actual codifications of what Congress thinks is wrong to do to Congress, and they did not actually bring these charges.

It's easy right now to say DOESNT NEED TO BE A CRIME.  Let's wait until Republicans gain the House again and have another bullshit Benghazi inquiry and impeach on grounds of amorphous bullshit with zero legal precedent.  I know, for one, I will call it bullshit.  Not sure if you would be able to.

[eljefe-speaks]

If Trump wins again, how long until a civil war begins?  Bets anyone?

I will take that bet. I don't see it happening.

[JLee]

Mens rea?  It has been fully and exhaustively proven that Trump engaged in quid-pro quo with the Ukraine.

At it's heart, the reason to establish mens rea in a crimnal trial is to establish if the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong.  That is beside the point in the impeachment proceeding.  If Trump's so dangerously incompetent that he doesn't know bribing a foreign leader for personal favors is wrong, he shouldn't be president.  If he does know that it's wrong, then he shouldn't be president.

While I agree, calling the bribery that Trump engaged in 'bribery' would be slightly more gut level appealing, it would have had no impact or effect on the pre-determined impeachment 'trial' held by the Senate.


What I find odd is that you are focusing so much on this while ignoring the second term of impeachment that Trump is also guilty of - obstruction of congress.

I respectfully don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to get at with "mens rea."  I'm saying that if the actual charge itself was a crime, then "intent" is incredibly relevant.  If intent is relevant, numerous other witnesses and documents are relevant to prove intent. 

I think it's pretty politically easy to not allow additional witnesses -- who are going to testify about intent -- when intent is not an element of what's been charged, and we are basically saying, as Davnasty put it, "We know what happened is wrong...here it is."  But if this were bribery, I dare say I think it would have been very difficult for swing Republicans to deny witnesses on a central element of a crime.

***

I will never, ever, support an "Obstruction of Congress" charge under any circumstance, except maybe the executive's actual burning down of Congress.  It is not a thing, it has never been a thing, it has zero legal precedent, and it is another colloquial dodge that concedes Trump is not guilty of one of the many statutes Congress actually has at its disposal (contempt, witness tampering, witness retaliation, etc.).  Note that these are actual codifications of what Congress thinks is wrong to do to Congress, and they did not actually bring these charges.

It's easy right now to say DOESNT NEED TO BE A CRIME.  Let's wait until Republicans gain the House again and have another bullshit Benghazi inquiry and impeach on grounds of amorphous bullshit with zero legal precedent.  I know, for one, I will call it bullshit.  Not sure if you would be able to.

With an average of one impeachment every 77 years, there is not exactly a lot of precedent to lean on. The litany of quotes I posted earlier indicates to me that Congress knows damn well what impeachment is supposed to be.

[MasterStache]

If Trump wins again, how long until a civil war begins?  Bets anyone?

I will take that bet. I don't see it happening.

I'll take that bet as well. Being impeached is a far cry from civil war. I did see a sign today (not the first mind you) that said "God, Guns and Trump." Those are the kinds of people that I would put my money on to initiate an armed conflict.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Over/unders on the vote?

I’ll take 53-46-1 acquittal on both counts. Party line vote except Manchin, Romney votes present.

Looks like I was off by one. I’ll do better next time.

Now, I’m a fan of impeachment as it keeps the House and Senate out of our hair for a few weeks. But I’m curious. What did this actually accomplish in the end?  President Trump will probably win re-election. And the cuffs are off when it comes to his conduct. A second impeachment isn’t happening. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics would understand that it was highly unlikely that a President's own party would convict. Is there some sort of political calculus that says this sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2024?

Why arrest a billionaire for crimes when his attorneys are just going to get him off anyway? What's the point of the justice system if we all know that justice won't be served anyway?

Thanks for the comment.

I think you’re missing the mark on a couple of points. Impeachment is not a judicial process, it’s a legislative/political one. The process is a roughly analogous to a criminal prosecution but very different. And there is also the relative chances of success. I’d argue that the chances of a billionaire being convicted in a  criminal court are not so bad. Obviously wealth offers advantage, but not unlimited advantage. Whereas the chances of getting a conviction in an impeachment where the Presidents party is in majority control of the senate are slim to none.

[JLee]

Over/unders on the vote?

I’ll take 53-46-1 acquittal on both counts. Party line vote except Manchin, Romney votes present.

Looks like I was off by one. I’ll do better next time.

Now, I’m a fan of impeachment as it keeps the House and Senate out of our hair for a few weeks. But I’m curious. What did this actually accomplish in the end?  President Trump will probably win re-election. And the cuffs are off when it comes to his conduct. A second impeachment isn’t happening. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics would understand that it was highly unlikely that a President's own party would convict. Is there some sort of political calculus that says this sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2024?

Why arrest a billionaire for crimes when his attorneys are just going to get him off anyway? What's the point of the justice system if we all know that justice won't be served anyway?

Thanks for the comment.

I think you’re missing the mark on a couple of points. Impeachment is not a judicial process, it’s a legislative/political one. The process is a roughly analogous to a criminal prosecution but very different. And there is also the relative chances of success. I’d argue that the chances of a billionaire being convicted in a  criminal court are not so bad. Obviously wealth offers advantage, but not unlimited advantage. Whereas the chances of getting a conviction in an impeachment where the Presidents party is in majority control of the senate are slim to none.

Welcome to an analogy, my friend.

[Buffaloski Boris]

Over/unders on the vote?

I’ll take 53-46-1 acquittal on both counts. Party line vote except Manchin, Romney votes present.

Looks like I was off by one. I’ll do better next time.

Now, I’m a fan of impeachment as it keeps the House and Senate out of our hair for a few weeks. But I’m curious. What did this actually accomplish in the end?  President Trump will probably win re-election. And the cuffs are off when it comes to his conduct. A second impeachment isn’t happening. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics would understand that it was highly unlikely that a President's own party would convict. Is there some sort of political calculus that says this sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2024?

Why arrest a billionaire for crimes when his attorneys are just going to get him off anyway? What's the point of the justice system if we all know that justice won't be served anyway?

Thanks for the comment.

I think you’re missing the mark on a couple of points. Impeachment is not a judicial process, it’s a legislative/political one. The process is a roughly analogous to a criminal prosecution but very different. And there is also the relative chances of success. I’d argue that the chances of a billionaire being convicted in a  criminal court are not so bad. Obviously wealth offers advantage, but not unlimited advantage. Whereas the chances of getting a conviction in an impeachment where the Presidents party is in majority control of the senate are slim to none.

Welcome to an analogy, my friend.

LOL. Ya got me there, hoss. We’re too damned serious about this political BS anyway.

[SunnyDays]

If Trump wins again, how long until a civil war begins?  Bets anyone?

I will take that bet. I don't see it happening.

I'll take that bet as well. Being impeached is a far cry from civil war. I did see a sign today (not the first mind you) that said "God, Guns and Trump." Those are the kinds of people that I would put my money on to initiate an armed conflict.

I agree they bear watching.  I didn’t mean that the impeachment itself would lead to civil war, but that another Trump term would embolden the hard core supporters to push their agenda, which is fairly anarchical, in my opinion.  Look at how much more racist rhetoric has become acceptable since he came into office.  Supporters have their best chance in a long time to push their world view and it only takes a small number to get things rolling.  What if the Virginia rally hadn’t been stopped?

[MasterStache]

If Trump wins again, how long until a civil war begins?  Bets anyone?

I will take that bet. I don't see it happening.

I'll take that bet as well. Being impeached is a far cry from civil war. I did see a sign today (not the first mind you) that said "God, Guns and Trump." Those are the kinds of people that I would put my money on to initiate an armed conflict.

I agree they bear watching.  I didn’t mean that the impeachment itself would lead to civil war, but that another Trump term would embolden the hard core supporters to push their agenda, which is fairly anarchical, in my opinion. Look at how much more racist rhetoric has become acceptable since he came into office.  Supporters have their best chance in a long time to push their world view and it only takes a small number to get things rolling.  What if the Virginia rally hadn’t been stopped?

Gotchya! I couldn't agree more.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

If Trump wins again, how long until a civil war begins?  Bets anyone?

I will take that bet. I don't see it happening.

I'll take that bet as well. Being impeached is a far cry from civil war. I did see a sign today (not the first mind you) that said "God, Guns and Trump." Those are the kinds of people that I would put my money on to initiate an armed conflict.

I agree they bear watching.  I didn’t mean that the impeachment itself would lead to civil war, but that another Trump term would embolden the hard core supporters to push their agenda, which is fairly anarchical, in my opinion.  Look at how much more racist rhetoric has become acceptable since he came into office.  Supporters have their best chance in a long time to push their world view and it only takes a small number to get things rolling.  What if the Virginia rally hadn’t been stopped?

Not sure I buy this.  Charlottesville was billed by a full week of media coverage as being the largest white supremacist rally in decades, and like 500 people showed up.  Out of 325 million.

I would agree that terrible rhetoric is on the rise, but we are talking tenths of a percent of the population, if that.  Media just hypes up the worst of the worst for ratings, much like murders and robberies.

[shenlong55]

I'm saying if the House believed the president was guilty of utilizing his or her office to bribe or extort a foreign government, the House should be charging him with bribery and extortion and proven its case. 

The "abuse of power" is a nebulous cop-out that, to me, was an admission by the House that it did not believe it could actually prove bribery and extortion.  And if you could not prove bribery and extortion, then you could not use bribery and extortion as the basis for an abuse of power charge.

That's a pretty big assumption based on some flimsy evidence IMO.

Since you disagree with my assumption, why do you believe the House did not include an article of impeachment that POTUS was guilty of bribery?

Because Abuse of Power is technically more accurate and encompasses bribery.  Although I realize after thinking on it for a while that that is kind of the same thing you're saying...  I just disagree with your characterization of it.

I don't think the impeachment process is supposed to match up exactly with a criminal trial, but that it should probably be as close to one as possible after taking into account the factors that make impeachment different from a criminal trial.  For example, I don't think of charging "Abuse of Power" as a "cop-out" because I don't think they had a responsibility to prove that the situation was an exact fit to the statutory language for bribery or extortion.  I think it was sufficient to show that it matches the spirit of those statutes and involved the use of presidential power.  In fact, I think that's exactly why the framers left the impeachment clause somewhat ambiguous and made it a political process.  Because they knew that the power afforded to the president could give rise to some unique situations that wouldn't fit the statutory language exactly since laws are generally written with the average citizen in mind, not the president.

I also believe that congressional Republican understand this fully, so their arguments about the House not charging specific statutory crimes and/or not being able to prove that the situation meets the exact text of the statutes come off as severely disingenuous to me.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Because Abuse of Power is technically more accurate and encompasses bribery.  Although I realize after thinking on it for a while that that is kind of the same thing you're saying...  I just disagree with your characterization of it.

I don't think the impeachment process is supposed to match up exactly with a criminal trial, but that it should probably be as close to one as possible after taking into account the factors that make impeachment different from a criminal trial.  For example, I don't think of charging "Abuse of Power" as a "cop-out" because I don't think they had a responsibility to prove that the situation was an exact fit to the statutory language for bribery or extortion.  I think it was sufficient to show that it matches the spirit of those statutes and involved the use of presidential power.  In fact, I think that's exactly why the framers left the impeachment clause somewhat ambiguous and made it a political process.  Because they knew that the power afforded to the president could give rise to some unique situations that wouldn't fit the statutory language exactly since laws are generally written with the average citizen in mind, not the president.

I also believe that congressional Republican understand this fully, so their arguments about the House not charging specific statutory crimes and/or not being able to prove that the situation meets the exact text of the statutes come off as severely disingenuous to me.

Fair enough.  I've said this before in this thread, but to me, nothing reflects society's moral compass more than the law.  At local, state, and federal levels, there are more books that can fit in my office listing, "Here is what is wrong, and if the state can prove you did this, you will be deprived of your liberty via X sentence."

Based on the facts alleged, the House could have brought charges for bribery and several other white collar crimes.  Article 2 (obstruction of congress) should have been contempt, witness tampering, witness retaliation, etc.  These are all things the federal government has specifically identified a wrong.  These are all things most common people understand.

But "abuse of power"?  What is that?  It's so amorphous that it begs to be defined, much like obscenity (we know it when we see it).  And when you revert to something that broad, you're likely going to get a political result.

[Davnasty]

Because Abuse of Power is technically more accurate and encompasses bribery.  Although I realize after thinking on it for a while that that is kind of the same thing you're saying...  I just disagree with your characterization of it.

I don't think the impeachment process is supposed to match up exactly with a criminal trial, but that it should probably be as close to one as possible after taking into account the factors that make impeachment different from a criminal trial.  For example, I don't think of charging "Abuse of Power" as a "cop-out" because I don't think they had a responsibility to prove that the situation was an exact fit to the statutory language for bribery or extortion.  I think it was sufficient to show that it matches the spirit of those statutes and involved the use of presidential power.  In fact, I think that's exactly why the framers left the impeachment clause somewhat ambiguous and made it a political process.  Because they knew that the power afforded to the president could give rise to some unique situations that wouldn't fit the statutory language exactly since laws are generally written with the average citizen in mind, not the president.

I also believe that congressional Republican understand this fully, so their arguments about the House not charging specific statutory crimes and/or not being able to prove that the situation meets the exact text of the statutes come off as severely disingenuous to me.

Fair enough.  I've said this before in this thread, but to me, nothing reflects society's moral compass more than the law.  At local, state, and federal levels, there are more books that can fit in my office listing, "Here is what is wrong, and if the state can prove you did this, you will be deprived of your liberty via X sentence."

Based on the facts alleged, the House could have brought charges for bribery and several other white collar crimes.  Article 2 (obstruction of congress) should have been contempt, witness tampering, witness retaliation, etc.  These are all things the federal government has specifically identified a wrong.  These are all things most common people understand.

But "abuse of power"?  What is that?  It's so amorphous that it begs to be defined, much like obscenity (we know it when we see it).  And when you revert to something that broad, you're likely going to get a political result.

Do you honestly believe there was any chance of Trump being removed if they had added the charge of bribery?

We've speculated a bit here and I think come up with plausible reasons for why the choices were made to not include bribery, but in the end I just accept that the people who made that decision know a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on. And the decision wasn't just made by one person, there were teams of people who have made a career of making these kinds of decisions. That doesn't make them right, but it does make them a whole lot more likely to be right than me.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Do you honestly believe there was any chance of Trump being removed if they had added the charge of bribery?

We've speculated a bit here and I think come up with plausible reasons for why the choices were made to not include bribery, but in the end I just accept that the people who made that decision know a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on. And the decision wasn't just made by one person, there were teams of people who have made a career of making these kinds of decisions. That doesn't make them right, but it does make them a whole lot more likely to be right than me.

I emphatically disagree that high-level Democrats, most of them being from California and New York (Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer), have any clue about what the hell is actually going on in this country. 

[Kris]

Do you honestly believe there was any chance of Trump being removed if they had added the charge of bribery?

We've speculated a bit here and I think come up with plausible reasons for why the choices were made to not include bribery, but in the end I just accept that the people who made that decision know a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on. And the decision wasn't just made by one person, there were teams of people who have made a career of making these kinds of decisions. That doesn't make them right, but it does make them a whole lot more likely to be right than me.

I emphatically disagree that high-level Democrats, most of them being from California and New York (Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer), have any clue about what the hell is actually going on in this country.

God, I get so tired of the "in this country" phrase getting bandied around as though "this country" only consists of the rural Midwest.

And for the record, I come from the rural Midwest.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Do you honestly believe there was any chance of Trump being removed if they had added the charge of bribery?

We've speculated a bit here and I think come up with plausible reasons for why the choices were made to not include bribery, but in the end I just accept that the people who made that decision know a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on. And the decision wasn't just made by one person, there were teams of people who have made a career of making these kinds of decisions. That doesn't make them right, but it does make them a whole lot more likely to be right than me.

I emphatically disagree that high-level Democrats, most of them being from California and New York (Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer), have any clue about what the hell is actually going on in this country.

God, I get so tired of the "in this country" phrase getting bandied around as though "this country" only consists of the rural Midwest.

And for the record, I come from the rural Midwest.

I didn't mean it that way, and my references to geography were misleading.  I mean that Dems pander more to the Twitter political crowd, which is maybe .5% of the citizenry, than they should.

Pelosi ripping up the SOTU was a purely "hope this goes viral!!!" move that panders to nobody except the crazies.  Could say the same for a lot of the obstructive behavior from Dems over the last three years.

[shenlong55]

Because Abuse of Power is technically more accurate and encompasses bribery.  Although I realize after thinking on it for a while that that is kind of the same thing you're saying...  I just disagree with your characterization of it.

I don't think the impeachment process is supposed to match up exactly with a criminal trial, but that it should probably be as close to one as possible after taking into account the factors that make impeachment different from a criminal trial.  For example, I don't think of charging "Abuse of Power" as a "cop-out" because I don't think they had a responsibility to prove that the situation was an exact fit to the statutory language for bribery or extortion.  I think it was sufficient to show that it matches the spirit of those statutes and involved the use of presidential power.  In fact, I think that's exactly why the framers left the impeachment clause somewhat ambiguous and made it a political process.  Because they knew that the power afforded to the president could give rise to some unique situations that wouldn't fit the statutory language exactly since laws are generally written with the average citizen in mind, not the president.

I also believe that congressional Republican understand this fully, so their arguments about the House not charging specific statutory crimes and/or not being able to prove that the situation meets the exact text of the statutes come off as severely disingenuous to me.

Fair enough.  I've said this before in this thread, but to me, nothing reflects society's moral compass more than the law.  At local, state, and federal levels, there are more books that can fit in my office listing, "Here is what is wrong, and if the state can prove you did this, you will be deprived of your liberty via X sentence."

I agree with this to a point, but I think you also have to take into account that the human ability to put thought to paper is not perfect and therefore the law is essentially always a work in progress.  Otherwise we could have just created all the laws that we thought were appropriate in 1776 and immediately disbanded the legislature.

Based on the facts alleged, the House could have brought charges for bribery and several other white collar crimes.  Article 2 (obstruction of congress) should have been contempt, witness tampering, witness retaliation, etc.  These are all things the federal government has specifically identified a wrong.  These are all things most common people understand.

But "abuse of power"?  What is that?  It's so amorphous that it begs to be defined, much like obscenity (we know it when we see it).  And when you revert to something that broad, you're likely going to get a political result.

I guess I just don't see "abuse of power" as being all that amorphous.  I think it's pretty much synonymous with corruption and I think this sentence from the Wikipedia article on corruption sums it up nicely...

"Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain."

When I hear abuse of power I think of Prince John and the Sherriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood, Thomas Brian Reynolds from Enemy of the State, Nixon in real life...

Look, I get that charging specific statutory crimes might have made it easier to convince the average citizen of his guilt.  But I think abuse of power is the more accurate term and I think it's the responsibility of those in congress to educate their constituents on issues like this rather than just parroting their uninformed or misinformed arguments.  Yes, representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, but they are also supposed to provide some resistance to their constituents and/or educate them when they are more informed about the issue.  That's why we have a representative democracy instead of a pure democracy.

ETA: I also fully believe that if the House had charged specific statutory crimes that congressional Republicans would have argued that the situation didn't meet the exact statutory definition of those crimes (congressional Republicans can find a disingenuous argument for/against anything), so I don't actually think it would have changed anything.  I think the only thing that could have changed the outcome is if congressional Republicans had actually decided to communicate the truth of the situation to their constituents rather than making every disingenuous argument they can come up with.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Do you honestly believe there was any chance of Trump being removed if they had added the charge of bribery?

We've speculated a bit here and I think come up with plausible reasons for why the choices were made to not include bribery, but in the end I just accept that the people who made that decision know a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on. And the decision wasn't just made by one person, there were teams of people who have made a career of making these kinds of decisions. That doesn't make them right, but it does make them a whole lot more likely to be right than me.

I emphatically disagree that high-level Democrats, most of them being from California and New York (Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer), have any clue about what the hell is actually going on in this country.

God, I get so tired of the "in this country" phrase getting bandied around as though "this country" only consists of the rural Midwest.

And for the record, I come from the rural Midwest.

I didn't mean it that way, and my references to geography were misleading.  I mean that Dems pander more to the Twitter political crowd, which is maybe .5% of the citizenry, than they should.

Pelosi ripping up the SOTU was a purely "hope this goes viral!!!" move that panders to nobody except the crazies.  Could say the same for a lot of the obstructive behavior from Dems over the last three years.

Hmmm, I wonder if you are biased at all.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Hmmm, I wonder if you are biased at all.

If voting for Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012, and Clinton in 2016 makes me biased, I guess you caught me.

[GuitarStv]

Mens rea?  It has been fully and exhaustively proven that Trump engaged in quid-pro quo with the Ukraine.

At it's heart, the reason to establish mens rea in a crimnal trial is to establish if the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong.  That is beside the point in the impeachment proceeding.  If Trump's so dangerously incompetent that he doesn't know bribing a foreign leader for personal favors is wrong, he shouldn't be president.  If he does know that it's wrong, then he shouldn't be president.

While I agree, calling the bribery that Trump engaged in 'bribery' would be slightly more gut level appealing, it would have had no impact or effect on the pre-determined impeachment 'trial' held by the Senate.


What I find odd is that you are focusing so much on this while ignoring the second term of impeachment that Trump is also guilty of - obstruction of congress.

I respectfully don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to get at with "mens rea."  I'm saying that if the actual charge itself was a crime, then "intent" is incredibly relevant.  If intent is relevant, numerous other witnesses and documents are relevant to prove intent. 

Respectfully, I completely disagree with you on this, for the reason outlined above.

Mens rea is important in bribery cases because there are instances where they are complicated and not clear cut.  If I have a friend who works for a company that I want to do business with, we go out for an expensive meal and I pick up the check, is that bribery?

This is not at all the case with Donald Trump, his bribery was extremely straight forward.  He broke the law in an obvious way, for obvious reasons.  It's also important to draw the distinction between impeachment and a criminal trial.  In a criminal trial, the guy who is convicted will be punished . . . and will likely be going away to jail.  There's an obvious need for an extremely high standard there.

If convicted, Donald Trump would face no real punishment - only removal from the office his actions have proven that he is unfit to hold.

I think it's pretty politically easy to not allow additional witnesses -- who are going to testify about intent -- when intent is not an element of what's been charged, and we are basically saying, as Davnasty put it, "We know what happened is wrong...here it is."  But if this were bribery, I dare say I think it would have been very difficult for swing Republicans to deny witnesses on a central element of a crime.

I disagree with your assessment.  Republicans had already decided Trump's fate should he be impeached long before the proceeding had passed in the house.  A witness could only have made this pre-judgement look worse than it already does.  It doesn't make logical sense that it would have been allowed by Republicans - regardless of what the charges were.  They were going to push this through as fast as possible to get it out of the news cycle . . . and they did.

I will never, ever, support an "Obstruction of Congress" charge under any circumstance, except maybe the executive's actual burning down of Congress.  It is not a thing, it has never been a thing, it has zero legal precedent, and it is another colloquial dodge that concedes Trump is not guilty of one of the many statutes Congress actually has at its disposal (contempt, witness tampering, witness retaliation, etc.).  Note that these are actual codifications of what Congress thinks is wrong to do to Congress, and they did not actually bring these charges.

Given your legal background, I find it odd that you didn't know that contempt of congress is indeed a legal charge.  The rules regarding congressional subpoenas were decided in Wilkinson v. United_States, and the House of Representatives met all of them in their requests.  By refusing to co-operate and refusing to answer congressional subpoenas, Trump was in clear violation of the law (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf) on this matter, and did indeed commit a crime.

Republicans also ignored this while delivering their pre-judgement regarding the impeachment.