if withholding aid is an abuse of power, then nearly every President out there can be up for the same charge. Same for using executive privilege and or seeking remedy in the courts (as is the President’s right and the Judicial Branch’s remit)… these are such nonsense and non-criminal that it’s not even funny, but since this a political (not a legal) process they can run with it. And it won’t end here…remember they’ve dedicated the last 3+ years investigating Trump in some failed form or another. Maxine Waters is basically saying she’ll come back as a ghost to investigate him. Nope, it will keep going, and if they get voted into a position of superiority they will use that power to punish him and his family any way they can because that’s how they use their power.
Our founders did not foresee two political parties running federal election primaries but that there would be various valid points of view to be considered. I propose Rank Choice Voting for all Federal Elections and that the federal primaries be ‘open to all registered voters’. That is one way of negating the ‘strangle hold’ the two parties have over who will be running for election. I’m tried of choosing between the ‘lesser of two evils’.
The president then weighed in on why he thought his legal team had been so successful, appearing to openly admit that he and his administration had actively prevented Congress from obtaining material evidence directly relevant to the impeachment proceedings.
“I got to watch enough – I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material,” he said.
✄
“The second article of impeachment was for obstruction of Congress: covering up witnesses and documents from the American people,” Demings, a former law enforcement officer, wrote. “This morning the President not only confessed to it, he bragged about it: ‘Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.’”
“My former student Judge (Ken) Starr emphasizes that prior impeachments have been bipartisan,” Duke University Law School professor Walter Dellinger said of his former pupil.
“He assumes that is a criticism of Democrats who have proceeded alone rather than [a criticism] of the GOP members who have refused to consider joining in a serious critique of the president’s actions.”
“A president who refused to defend the US against a foreign attack would not be violating any criminal law,” Dellinger noted, giving an extreme example of an impeachable offense that is not codified in a criminal statute.
Ken Starr just erred suggesting that testimonial immunity for White House aides is established in the law. The opposite is true,” she wrote, linking to a 2008 opinion of their former Whitewater colleague Judge John D. Bates.
That opinion stated that then-President George W. Bush’s top advisers were not immune from congressional subpoenas.
Back in 1998, Starr called Clinton’s invocation of privileges an “abuse.”
Much said about third parties and the Electoral College.
Third parties: A problem all of their own. What’s the complaint about today’s two parties? Both have become “radicalized” and neither represents the “center” or the moderate. But “third parties,” in their present state, are even more “radicalized” than the two main parties.
Example: The Libertarian Party. Kind of like Republicans on steroids.
Wide open primaries: Well, that’s even worse. Living in a state where that occurs, it often feels like, since one party has already decided who its candidate will be, that party’s members now vote in my primary, with all the appearance of making sure the weakest candidate on my slate gets to move forward.
With Donnie the guaranteed nominee for Republicans, you can just imagine what that’s going to look like.
Like Bernie for president, how can you run as a candidate for my party if you don’t even want to join my party? If you want to vote in my primary, you need to join my party!
Last note about primaries: Or do you want California? Where it’s not unheard of that with the “top two” rule they have, both candidates can come from the same party.
So much for third parties and open primaries. Up next: The Electoral College.
Electoral College: A unique problem in our government because “once upon a time,” it was the Electoral College that elected our president (its only reason for being) but, over time, states took away their power to vote independently (re: the current “faithless Elector” lawsuits floating around the country).
There is nothing in the Federal Constitution requiring the now infamous “winner-take-all” manner in which states assign their Electors, nevertheless, that’s exactly what 48 states do. And the two states that do not go with winner-take-all still use a formula to decide how many of their votes go to which candidate. And, at just four votes per state (Maine and Nebraska), and the possibility that those four votes will be split, guess how much attention they must get in the election.
Therefore, having stripped Electors in the Electoral College of their right to choose the best candidate (and having chosen them from the respective party of the candidate who won that state’s popular vote), the Electoral College today functions as little more than a constitutionally mandated gerrymander, guaranteeing unequal representation of large swaths of the population.
Those who say, “That’s why we have the Electoral College,” are, in fact, saying that those who live in populous states “deserve” a fraction of the representation as those who live in, say, Wyoming. And I won’t even get into the problem of the cap on the number of members in the House of Representatives – which doubles down on that same inequality.
Bottom line: Nothing short of a national popular vote can fix any of these problems. As long as we are divided by states, well, we remain a house divided against itself.
As for Donnie himself, I recommend viewing Mike Peters strip for 25-Jan-20, over on Comics Kingdom. By the by, CK takes comics away after about seven days, so if you don’t go quickly, it might not last.
One would think a person who chooses to run for president understands if they win they are expected to conduct him/herself accordingly within the rule of law and authority of the Constitution or face impeachment. Much like one leaves the house knowing one must obey the rule of law or face criminal charges. The concept of Impeachment doesn’t just apply to presidents, it applies to Congressmen and judicial appointees. This argument by the GOP is such BS.There will never be a strong third party until the current two parties are weakened by the will of the American people.
Any one catch Pam Bondi yesterday, judging by the way all the lovely fair unbiased networks cut away from any one that dosen’t their narrative, you haven’t.
In the House the defendant was denied the chance to address his accusers. By denying the chance to cross examine the witness(s) denied the due process. I believe in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The Democrats complained they were block from certain testimony but they failed to go to the courts for a ruling.
God, Stantis exists in this unholy no-man’s land between cognizant and cretinous. He sees Trump for what he is, but he’s still too blinded by a lifetime of right-wing brain rot to see that he’s still being bamboozled.
kaffekup almost 5 years ago
Fat chance, Scott.
The Democrats built a sound case.
The republicans knew it, or else they would have refuted it. Instead, they just attacked the process, and in vain.
But, since they always vote in amoral and unintelligent lockstep, nothing was going to happen. Especially the exoneration of Donnie Dimwit.
braindead Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Not a strong case?
Refusal to allow one document or one witness is not obstruction of Congress on its face?
And withholding of military aid to blackmail Ukraine for a personal favor is not abuse of power?
Scott, that’s incredibly weak, especially for a conservative.
.
#TraitorTrump
cdcoventry almost 5 years ago
if withholding aid is an abuse of power, then nearly every President out there can be up for the same charge. Same for using executive privilege and or seeking remedy in the courts (as is the President’s right and the Judicial Branch’s remit)… these are such nonsense and non-criminal that it’s not even funny, but since this a political (not a legal) process they can run with it. And it won’t end here…remember they’ve dedicated the last 3+ years investigating Trump in some failed form or another. Maxine Waters is basically saying she’ll come back as a ghost to investigate him. Nope, it will keep going, and if they get voted into a position of superiority they will use that power to punish him and his family any way they can because that’s how they use their power.
Sanspareil almost 5 years ago
3rd parties would be an improvement on the current impasse but the odds of that happening are the same as drumpf getting removed by the Senate
James Deveney Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Our founders did not foresee two political parties running federal election primaries but that there would be various valid points of view to be considered. I propose Rank Choice Voting for all Federal Elections and that the federal primaries be ‘open to all registered voters’. That is one way of negating the ‘strangle hold’ the two parties have over who will be running for election. I’m tried of choosing between the ‘lesser of two evils’.
Silly Season almost 5 years ago
https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/impeachment-manager-trump-just-confessed-to-obstructing-congress/
The president then weighed in on why he thought his legal team had been so successful, appearing to openly admit that he and his administration had actively prevented Congress from obtaining material evidence directly relevant to the impeachment proceedings.
“I got to watch enough – I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material,” he said.
✄
“The second article of impeachment was for obstruction of Congress: covering up witnesses and documents from the American people,” Demings, a former law enforcement officer, wrote. “This morning the President not only confessed to it, he bragged about it: ‘Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.’”
(Even a confession isn’t good enough for Stantis)
Silly Season almost 5 years ago
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ken-starrs-former-law-professor-schools-him-on-his-impeachment-arguments/
“My former student Judge (Ken) Starr emphasizes that prior impeachments have been bipartisan,” Duke University Law School professor Walter Dellinger said of his former pupil.
“He assumes that is a criticism of Democrats who have proceeded alone rather than [a criticism] of the GOP members who have refused to consider joining in a serious critique of the president’s actions.”
“A president who refused to defend the US against a foreign attack would not be violating any criminal law,” Dellinger noted, giving an extreme example of an impeachable offense that is not codified in a criminal statute.
Ken Starr just erred suggesting that testimonial immunity for White House aides is established in the law. The opposite is true,” she wrote, linking to a 2008 opinion of their former Whitewater colleague Judge John D. Bates.
That opinion stated that then-President George W. Bush’s top advisers were not immune from congressional subpoenas.
Back in 1998, Starr called Clinton’s invocation of privileges an “abuse.”
willkepley almost 5 years ago
the 2 current parties will never allow a 3rd party to live. They’ll kill it off in the cradle.
OldManOfHockey1 almost 5 years ago
We have a real “third” party Scott, the Libertarian Party!
Cheapskate0 almost 5 years ago
Much said about third parties and the Electoral College.
Third parties: A problem all of their own. What’s the complaint about today’s two parties? Both have become “radicalized” and neither represents the “center” or the moderate. But “third parties,” in their present state, are even more “radicalized” than the two main parties.
Example: The Libertarian Party. Kind of like Republicans on steroids.
Wide open primaries: Well, that’s even worse. Living in a state where that occurs, it often feels like, since one party has already decided who its candidate will be, that party’s members now vote in my primary, with all the appearance of making sure the weakest candidate on my slate gets to move forward.
With Donnie the guaranteed nominee for Republicans, you can just imagine what that’s going to look like.
Like Bernie for president, how can you run as a candidate for my party if you don’t even want to join my party? If you want to vote in my primary, you need to join my party!
Last note about primaries: Or do you want California? Where it’s not unheard of that with the “top two” rule they have, both candidates can come from the same party.
So much for third parties and open primaries. Up next: The Electoral College.
Cheapskate0 almost 5 years ago
Electoral College: A unique problem in our government because “once upon a time,” it was the Electoral College that elected our president (its only reason for being) but, over time, states took away their power to vote independently (re: the current “faithless Elector” lawsuits floating around the country).
There is nothing in the Federal Constitution requiring the now infamous “winner-take-all” manner in which states assign their Electors, nevertheless, that’s exactly what 48 states do. And the two states that do not go with winner-take-all still use a formula to decide how many of their votes go to which candidate. And, at just four votes per state (Maine and Nebraska), and the possibility that those four votes will be split, guess how much attention they must get in the election.
Therefore, having stripped Electors in the Electoral College of their right to choose the best candidate (and having chosen them from the respective party of the candidate who won that state’s popular vote), the Electoral College today functions as little more than a constitutionally mandated gerrymander, guaranteeing unequal representation of large swaths of the population.
Those who say, “That’s why we have the Electoral College,” are, in fact, saying that those who live in populous states “deserve” a fraction of the representation as those who live in, say, Wyoming. And I won’t even get into the problem of the cap on the number of members in the House of Representatives – which doubles down on that same inequality.
Bottom line: Nothing short of a national popular vote can fix any of these problems. As long as we are divided by states, well, we remain a house divided against itself.
Cheapskate0 almost 5 years ago
As for Donnie himself, I recommend viewing Mike Peters strip for 25-Jan-20, over on Comics Kingdom. By the by, CK takes comics away after about seven days, so if you don’t go quickly, it might not last.
RobinHood almost 5 years ago
I believe I’ve passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight
I once believed in causes too
I had my pointless point of view
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right
And there’s always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he’s never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can’t understand why his heart always breaks
But his honor is sold and his courage as well
And he’s biased and false and he’s boring as hell
And he’ll go to the grave as an angry old man
Apoligies to William Martin Joel
There are those that will turn this negativly toward me, they are entitled to their opinion, of course. We all know who these will be
William Robbins Premium Member almost 5 years ago
Can’t say they didn’t make a case when the obstruction of justice is sanctioned by those in power.
Monchoxyz almost 5 years ago
I am all in for third party idea. Have been all my life.
ndblackirish97 almost 5 years ago
One would think a person who chooses to run for president understands if they win they are expected to conduct him/herself accordingly within the rule of law and authority of the Constitution or face impeachment. Much like one leaves the house knowing one must obey the rule of law or face criminal charges. The concept of Impeachment doesn’t just apply to presidents, it applies to Congressmen and judicial appointees. This argument by the GOP is such BS.There will never be a strong third party until the current two parties are weakened by the will of the American people.
RobinHood almost 5 years ago
Any one catch Pam Bondi yesterday, judging by the way all the lovely fair unbiased networks cut away from any one that dosen’t their narrative, you haven’t.
Plods with ...™ almost 5 years ago
One could only hope.
Andylit Premium Member almost 5 years ago
The same point as when the GOP Impeached Clinton. It is pure politics aimed at the upcoming election.
I expect the Dems will suffer similar consequences.
jmworacle almost 5 years ago
In the House the defendant was denied the chance to address his accusers. By denying the chance to cross examine the witness(s) denied the due process. I believe in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The Democrats complained they were block from certain testimony but they failed to go to the courts for a ruling.
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] almost 5 years ago
The Democrats didn’t have to. Our president did it for them and said to the fact as well as in writing. Slam dunk.
JLG Premium Member almost 5 years ago
God, Stantis exists in this unholy no-man’s land between cognizant and cretinous. He sees Trump for what he is, but he’s still too blinded by a lifetime of right-wing brain rot to see that he’s still being bamboozled.