Page 306 of 308
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:24 pm
by Digby
gransoporro wrote:Digby wrote:Sandydragon wrote:
What power does the Impeachment Process have to call witnesses and require them to give honest testimony which can be properly cross examined? I assume that they can but it feels more like a political process than an actual legal fact finding exercise, and part of me wonders if the better option might have been to launch a full inquiry, interview suspects etc and then look at criminal charges as they come to light. I suspect we will see a lot of grandstanding followed by a vote that is broadly on party lines.
Two things to consider that I know of, first yes Congress can subpoena individuals to give testimony, but to date there's not been much cost to ignoring that. Whether it's sort of now a Dem led DoJ would alter that I don't know, certainly during Trump's first impeachment there were no attempt made by the DoJ to compel witnesses Trump didn't want, but the DoJ could act against someone failing to testify seeking a criminal conviction that does come with jail time, or Congress could bring a civil case and hope a judge sides with them (but that could take years given all the possible courts and appeals it'd filter through), or they could have the Sergeant at Arms detain someone refusing to testify which is perhaps the simplest and also most controversial response.
Second, does Trump enjoy executive privilege? It's the President who enjoys executive privilege and Trump isn't that. There is some established law on why former Presidents should continue to be able to assert executive privilege, there was also an executive decree on that introduced by Bush Jnr that was I think removed by Obama, but otherwise beyond why Trump might enjoy some executive privilege how it'd work isn't tested, nor does one know if witnesses would go along with any privilege Trump asserted, nor how the privilege would be deemed to apply to impeachment and/or criminal behaviour.
Subpoena power: Trump’s DOJ refused to support the subpoenas, leaving really no enforcement to Congress but to have the sergeant at arms arrest the subject of subpoena. This could change under Biden.
Executive privilege: yes, Trump enjoys it for conversations about policy during his presidency. They do not extend to crimes, or matters that are not under the presidency (organizing a rally, for example).
Congress did have the option to pursue a civil case, but practically that's not really an option.
And the executive privilege is untested law. There's really only confirmation on why a former president should continue to enjoy it, exactly how that works out isn't clear, not generally nor in regards to this impeachment. There's a reasonable chance such discussions could be drawn out a long time, which is a tick in the column for keeping the impeachment hearing as simply and even as political as possible
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:31 pm
by Digby
Trump's new attorney is the same man as refused to bring Bill Cosby to trial and indeed promised not to bring a prosecution against Cosby. There is some defence in that given the first trial for Cosby ended up with no verdict, but it's not a good look for Trump given his history of sexual allegations
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:06 pm
by Which Tyler
gransoporro wrote:Clinton lied under oath. He lied about a bj, yes, but the crime was lying under oath.
I'm aware. It was an attempt at humour.
gransoporro wrote:No double jeopardy. One could be impeached and removed without going to trial, or the other way around, or both.
Thank you - is that known and proven? or assumed but untested?
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:31 pm
by gransoporro
Which Tyler wrote:gransoporro wrote:Clinton lied under oath. He lied about a bj, yes, but the crime was lying under oath.
I'm aware. It was an attempt at humour.
gransoporro wrote:No double jeopardy. One could be impeached and removed without going to trial, or the other way around, or both.
Thank you - is that known and proven? or assumed but untested?
Impeachment is a political trial, where a high crime is such because the House thinks so. They have to convince the Senate.
So it is separate from actual justice.
Example: Spiro Agnew was never impeached. judge Porteous was impeached, removed and disqualified but never went under trial.
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm
by Which Tyler
Thank you - I'm aware of the difference between politics and law, and it would seem that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
I was more wondering whether it could potentially be argued that it applies, once escalated to the (Trump appointed) supreme court.
It seems like it hasn't actually been tested.
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:18 pm
by gransoporro
Which Tyler wrote:Thank you - I'm aware of the difference between politics and law, and it would seem that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
I was more wondering whether it could potentially be argued that it applies, once escalated to the (Trump appointed) supreme court.
It seems like it hasn't actually been tested.
Nixon (the judge) vs United States: the Supreme Court says impeachment is non justiciable. Therefore no double jeopardy is possible since the two spheres do not intersect.
The SC can still reverse precedent, so it could be argued. Still the SC must opt to hear the case first.
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:38 pm
by Sandydragon
gransoporro wrote:Which Tyler wrote:Thank you - I'm aware of the difference between politics and law, and it would seem that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
I was more wondering whether it could potentially be argued that it applies, once escalated to the (Trump appointed) supreme court.
It seems like it hasn't actually been tested.
Nixon (the judge) vs United States: the Supreme Court says impeachment is non justiciable. Therefore no double jeopardy is possible since the two spheres do not intersect.
The SC can still reverse precedent, so it could be argued. Still the SC must opt to hear the case first.
I suppose that he could be charged with any number of feeetal or state crimes but providing he isn’t actually in jail, he can still run for the Republican nomination for the next election.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:54 am
by Which Tyler
gransoporro wrote:Nixon (the judge) vs United States: the Supreme Court says impeachment is non justiciable. Therefore no double jeopardy is possible since the two spheres do not intersect.
The SC can still reverse precedent, so it could be argued. Still the SC must opt to hear the case first.
Thank you, tested and decided then - good to know
Sandydragon wrote:I suppose that he could be charged with any number of feeetal or state crimes but providing he isn’t actually in jail, he can still run for the Republican nomination for the next election.
Yes (I think).
In all liklihood, if actually convicted in a court of law, then he (or any other candidate) would be immediately impeached - and that impeachment would be useless, or he wouldn't have made it through the primaries.
Re: Trump
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:43 am
by Son of Mathonwy
Trump may have lost the election but this thread is destroying the Biden thread.
Re: Trump
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:40 am
by Mikey Brown
Son of Mathonwy wrote:Trump may have lost the election but this thread is destroying the Biden thread.
Well Biden is “presidential” so nothing he does or says matters. Everything is fine now and the US is on an unstoppable upward trajectory.
Re: Trump
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:12 pm
by morepork
frickin space lasers man.
Re: Trump
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:48 pm
by morepork
Another masterclass in legal preparedness and competence going down.
Not that it will matter.
Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:45 am
by Which Tyler
Re: Trump
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:16 pm
by Galfon
Acquitted by Senate (53 - 47).
It's been a Witch Hunt - official.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-u ... a-56054136
Re: Trump
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:01 pm
by Mikey Brown
Jesus. I didn’t think it was even in doubt. I thought he’d be the scapegoat now so many have turned on him.
Re: Trump
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:26 pm
by morepork
Absolutely fucking pathetic. Fuck all of them. Fuck them.
Re: Trump
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:12 am
by cashead
Anyone that voted to acquit - either a fash-scum or a bitch.
Re: Trump
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:51 am
by Puja
While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).
Puja
Re: Trump
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:14 am
by Sandydragon
Puja wrote:
While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).
Puja
I’m surprised that 7 Republicans voted to convict. Their fear of the Trumpian base is clouding any sensible judgement for those who feel that Trump is indeed a dangerous idiot.
Whether Trump will run himself for the next election isn’t that clear but he will definitely retain significant influence in the Republican Party for the foreseeable future and I can’t see a candidate gaining the Republican nomination without Trumps blessing.
Re: Trump
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:19 am
by Digby
I'd like to think the fat old man will be dead soon, but I had that hope 4-5 years back
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:03 pm
by gransoporro
Sandydragon wrote:Puja wrote:
While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).
Puja
I’m surprised that 7 Republicans voted to convict. Their fear of the Trumpian base is clouding any sensible judgement for those who feel that Trump is indeed a dangerous idiot.
Whether Trump will run himself for the next election isn’t that clear but he will definitely retain significant influence in the Republican Party for the foreseeable future and I can’t see a candidate gaining the Republican nomination without Trumps blessing.
Of the 7, 2 are not running for re-election, 2 have just been re-elected , then there are Murkowsky, Sasse and Romney. Murkovsky is up in 2022.
Re: Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:38 pm
by Puja
gransoporro wrote:Sandydragon wrote:Puja wrote:
While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).
Puja
I’m surprised that 7 Republicans voted to convict. Their fear of the Trumpian base is clouding any sensible judgement for those who feel that Trump is indeed a dangerous idiot.
Whether Trump will run himself for the next election isn’t that clear but he will definitely retain significant influence in the Republican Party for the foreseeable future and I can’t see a candidate gaining the Republican nomination without Trumps blessing.
Of the 7, 2 are not running for re-election, 2 have just been re-elected , then there are Murkowsky, Sasse and Romney. Murkovsky is up in 2022.
Murkowski is also a Senator for Alaska, which is switching to an open system, so she can't be primaried and ruled out of running. She's also personally popular there, so she doesn't give a shit about the GOP's opinion of her.
Puja
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:51 am
by morepork
I mean, what are they going to campaign on to lock in the nationalist base for another go around? White Grievance II: This time its in the open. Promise to divert all the resources for the Department of Education to a newly formed State Racist Talk Back Radio and Digital Communications Internet Space Laser Arm of the Air Force?
Everything they touched died. Surely the market for angry christian anti-diversity (plugging merchandise, and toxic dietary supplements that cure every illness) is saturated by know?
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:36 am
by cashead
It makes this brand of fascism somewhat unique - there's no actual endgame in sight for them because it's just so reactionary.
The organisational level has also been utterly destroyed as well, with most of the people between the Orange Pissboi and shitheads like Norse-appropriating fash-cunt have effectively had their lives ruined and forced into irrelevance and obscurity.
Also, literal lol at some mods getting their jimmies rustled at the prospect of offending nazis. Fucking pathetic.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:51 am
by Puja
cashead wrote:Also, literal lol at some mods getting their jimmies rustled at the prospect of offending nazis. Fucking pathetic.
Mate, the rule is literally just don't abuse other posters. You getting banned for telling people to fuck off or calling them cunts isn't proving any point. Argue as you like, offend as you like, just don't call people names or tell them to fuck off - not because it'll offend them, but because it's one of the basic board rules and you're just giving them an open-and-shut case to get you booted again.
Puja