trump impeachment watch thread

[hater]

A president facing re-election should not engage his private attorney to facilitate an investigation into the likely candidate he will face in said election. It's an improper use of presidential power and is an affront on the democratic system. If there is a concern about the Biden's it should not be politicized - but handed off to a neutral law enforcement agency.

Where did you copy that from? Link?

[vy65]

Where did you copy that from? Link?

I copied it from my brain and from law school

[TSA]

Nope. They decided 27 years ago. I'm asking you whether, based on that decision, Trump's lawyer is correct or incorrect. Stop dodging.

Court will decide if he’s correct or incorrect.

[Pavlov]

Where did you copy that from? Link?

I copied it from my brain and from law school

[Pavlov]

Court will decide if he’s correct or incorrect.

sure. I guess a court will get to immediately dismiss any suit Trump tries to bring on those grounds if he's stupid enough to go that route.

And you agree he is that stupid.

The SCOTUS explicitly ruled that courts have no say in how impeachments are run. Period.

[vy65]

Court will decide if he’s correct or incorrect.

Sweet, so you're refusing to answer and deflecting with an inane comment. Since you can't give me an answer, I'll pencil you in as agreeing with me that the letter is incorrect. Feel free to come forward with any case law that says otherwise.

[hater]

I copied it from my brain and from law school

OK then

First of all, likely candidate is a problematic term. How likely? How likely is Biden to be Trump's opponent? 50%? 60%? 30%? Where do you stop? IMO it's way too early to tell if Biden is likely as Bernie and Warren are pretty much caught up

And next, even if let's say Biden was likely, a personal attorney cannot investigate. He can talk to investigator and officers but he himself cannot investigate, much less in a foreign country. So that is problematic as well

Next, even if Biden is likely and an attorney could investigate, are you saying a potential presidential contender is off limits to any investigation? If Bidden be heads someone on a DC street, and Trump was made aware is he not allowed to push for investigation? Since when are likely presidential contenders off limits?

See, your analysis is an analysis as much as mine. And it's got lots of weaknesses. Thus why IMO this is still a nothing hurger

Nothing will come out of it as I predicted in page 1

[TSA]

A president facing re-election should not engage his private attorney to facilitate an investigation into the likely candidate he will face in said election. It's an improper use of presidential power and is an affront on the democratic system. If there is a concern about the Biden's it should not be politicized - but handed off to a neutral law enforcement agency.

So it’s only bad for a President to ask for corruption of a likely candidate to be investigated if facing re-election? The current President dealt with much worse while he was the likely candidate—CIA, FBI, NSA, spies, foreign assistance from intelligence agencies in Australia, Italy, UK. Were you okay with the government wielding that power against him based off paid for claims from his rival candidate?

[vy65]

sure. I guess a court will get to immediately dismiss any suit Trump tries to bring on those grounds if he's stupid enough to go that route.

And you agree he is that stupid.

The SCOTUS explicitly ruled that courts have no say in how impeachments are run. Period.

Curious to hear what TSA and other conservative legal pundits think has changed since 1993 that would suddenly make impeachment not a political question.

[vy65]

So it’s only bad for a President to ask for corruption of a likely candidate to be investigated if facing re-election? The current President dealt with much worse while he was the likely candidate—CIA, FBI, NSA, spies, foreign assistance from intelligence agencies in Australia, Italy, UK. Were you okay with the government wielding that power against him based off paid for claims from his rival candidate?

nuh uh ... mine first. I've gone along with you plenty already

[TSA]

Sweet, so you're refusing to answer and deflecting with an inane comment. Since you can't give me an answer, I'll pencil you in as agreeing with me that the letter is incorrect. Feel free to come forward with any case law that says otherwise.

You just don’t like the answer. You don’t think it will go to court?

[TSA]

nuh uh ... mine first. I've gone along with you plenty already

As I’ve done with you.

You’re up Sparky. So it’s only bad for a President to ask for corruption of a likely candidate to be investigated if facing re-election? The current President dealt with much worse while he was the likely candidate—CIA, FBI, NSA, spies, foreign assistance from intelligence agencies in Australia, Italy, UK. Were you okay with the government wielding that power against him based off paid for claims from his rival candidate?

[vy65]

OK then

First of all, likely candidate is a problematic term. How likely? How likely is Biden to be Trump's opponent? 50%? 60%? 30%? Where do you stop? IMO it's way too early to tell if Biden is likely as Bernie and Warren are pretty much caught up

Why does that matter? It's an abuse of office no matter how realistic or not the opponent is. In this case, Biden is the frontrunner.

And next, even if let's say Biden was likely, a personal attorney cannot investigate. He can talk to investigator and officers but he himself cannot investigate, much less in a foreign country. So that is problematic as well

You might want to tell DJT this since he's having his personal lawyer involved in the investigation. To, you know, investigate Biden.

But even if you disagree with that - which you shouldn't because its plainly there in the transcript - it's nevertheless an abuse of office to have a personal attorney involved, at all.

Next, even if Biden is likely and an attorney could investigate, are you saying a potential presidential contender is off limits to any investigation? If Bidden be heads someone on a DC street, and Trump was made aware is he not allowed to push for investigation? Since when are likely presidential contenders off limits?

It is off limits to have the president involve his personal attorney in requesting a foreign power to investigate a political rival. You're asking these questions as though there's some distinction you're making, but you're not.

If Biden commits murder, then we have non-politicized organizations (D.C. police, the FBI, the U.S. Marshalls, etc...) to investigate. None of what you're saying is support for a president to politicize the issue.

See, your analysis is an analysis as much as mine. And it's got lots of weaknesses. Thus why IMO this is still a nothing hurger

Nothing will come out of it as I predicted in page 1

No.

[Pavlov]

You just don’t like the answer. You don’t think it will go to court?

Only as a stalling tactic. Even the most Trump friendly judge would immediately dismiss. There is no getting around Nixon.

[TSA]

OK then

First of all, likely candidate is a problematic term. How likely? How likely is Biden to be Trump's opponent? 50%? 60%? 30%? Where do you stop? IMO it's way too early to tell if Biden is likely as Bernie and Warren are pretty much caught up

And next, even if let's say Biden was likely, a personal attorney cannot investigate. He can talk to investigator and officers but he himself cannot investigate, much less in a foreign country. So that is problematic as well

Next, even if Biden is likely and an attorney could investigate, are you saying a potential presidential contender is off limits to any investigation? If Bidden be heads someone on a DC street, and Trump was made aware is he not allowed to push for investigation? Since when are likely presidential contenders off limits?

See, your analysis is an analysis as much as mine. And it's got lots of weaknesses. Thus why IMO this is still a nothing hurger

Nothing will come out of it as I predicted in page 1

2020 candidates are off limits.

[vy65]

You just don’t like the answer. You don’t think it will go to court?

It going to court or not doesn't answer the question - which is whether Trump's lawyer got it right. You know he didn't, admitted to it partially, and are no obfuscating. So I'm putting you down as a "VY is right on this one." Thanks.

[koriwhat]

2020 candidates are off limits.

she is such a 2face horse face... what an ugly ass inside and out!

[vy65]

As I’ve done with you.

You’re up Sparky. So it’s only bad for a President to ask for corruption of a likely candidate to be investigated if facing re-election? The current President dealt with much worse while he was the likely candidate—CIA, FBI, NSA, spies, foreign assistance from intelligence agencies in Australia, Italy, UK. Were you okay with the government wielding that power against him based off paid for claims from his rival candidate?

I don't do whataboutism. If DJT experienced the same thing - which I'm agnostic on - that's bad and should be investigated. That doesn't get DJT off the hook. Two wrongs and all that

[vy65]

You just don’t like the answer. You don’t think it will go to court?

What's changed since Nixon? Has Congress voluntarily ceded its impeachment power? Did we amend the cons ution? Is there a circuit split?

Why do you think it will go to SCOTUS? Do you know how often the Court grants cert? Especially in a case that's more or less already decided?

[TSA]

I don't do whataboutism. If DJT experienced the same thing - which I'm agnostic on - that's bad and should be investigated. That doesn't get DJT off the hook. Two wrongs and all that

Do you think the two situations are comparable?

[Chris]

just own it. not a big deal tbh

Nothing to own, just a statement of fact : )

[Pavlov]

Do you think the two situations are comparable?

You know they aren't.

[spurraider21]

Nothing to own, just a statement of fact : )

disappointed

[vy65]

Do you think the two situations are comparable?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I don't think what happened 3 years ago is particularly relevant to whether DJT committed an impeachable offense. Because it's, you know, irrelevant.

[Pavlov]

The notion that you can withhold information and do ents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.

-- Trey Gowdy