monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Y’know, it may be pretty widely agreed

even after having been impeached

snood wrote:

even after having been impeached

You're getting ahead of yourself a bit. As of last night's evening news, Pelosi has still not gone forward with submitting any impeachment charges to the Senate.

oralloy wrote:

snood wrote:

even after having been impeached

You're getting ahead of yourself a bit. As of last night's evening news, Pelosi has still not gone forward with submitting any impeachment charges to the Senate.

You’ll understand one day, sooner or later, that the moment they voted in the house to adopt the two articles of impeachment, Trump became an impeached president.

Impeachment happens in the house. That’s done. What happens in the Senate is a vote on removal from office. That’s the part that’s on hold. I don’t expect you to easily accept the simple fact that Trump has been impeached. It’s probably too much of a strain on your rigid, sycophantic mindset about Trump. Wouldn’t want you to injure yourself trying to have an open mind.

No matter. Trump is impeached whether you accept it, deny it, try to redefine it, or run it up a flagpole and salute it.

A former GOP congressman who retired earlier this year says President Donald Trump is "psychologically, morally, intellectually, and emotionally unfit for office" and that he will consider voting for a Democrat in 2020.

Dave Trott, who represented suburban Detroit for two terms until he declined to seek reelection last year, made the comments in a letter to The Atlantic and went on to say Congress should remove Trump from office.
"High unemployment, a stagnating economy, and massive debt for a few years are better than alienating the rest of our allies, getting into a nuclear war with Iran, or allowing 10,000 Islamist soldiers to be set free in Syria," Trott wrote. He was responding to an article published in The Atlantic in September quoting military officers who were critical of Trump.

it would be nice if sitting Congressman and Senators would shed their sins and come out with the truth.

It is equally plausible that after three years of continuous and in some areas illegal investigation of all things Trump - none of which have revealed what they sought out to establish, he was outraged by the rather blatant and flagrant misuse of his Vice Presidential office by 'ole Joe Biden" for the career and economic benefit of his not-very-admirable son. A highly unusual appointment as a Naval officer, arranged by his Father, starting out with immediate appointment as a Lt Commander, from which he was very soon summarily fired for illegal drug use; accompanying his farther on Air Force 2 on a State visit to Chins during which the son got over one billion in funding l for his newly formed venture capital company; and finally appointment to an unusually highly paid position on a Ukrainian petroleum firm already deeply involved in well-known corrupt practices in Ukraine, following which ole Joe demanded and got the termination of an investigation of it under threat of withholding aid previously authorized by Congress - all create at least a very strong impression of misuse of the powers of his office for personal gain.

Comey was not the prosecutor. Lynch's corrupt DOJ was. Can you say tarmac meeting? The case can be re-opened.

You’ll understand one day, sooner or later, that the moment they voted in the house to adopt the two articles of impeachment, Trump became an impeached president.

Sorry, no. I make it a point to disbelieve leftist delusion.

On Monday, the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that they want to compel the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, in the hope of filing additional articles of impeachment related to the “Russia collusion” investigation.

The Department of Justice says the issue is moot, arguing that any decision on McGahn’s testimony would be prejudicial to the president’s trial in the Senate, since Trump has been accused of “obstruction of Congress” merely for resisting subpoenas of senior White House officials like McGahn.

The Judiciary Committee’s case is, arguably, undermined by its own impeachment report, in which it referred to McGahn’s possible testimony as relevant to “these articles of impeachment” (emphasis added). It added that it intended to continue investigating, but not with regard to impeaching Trump.

Now, Pelosi and the Democrats want to change the rules. They want to hold impeachment over the president’s head before they have come to a final decision about what they will be impeaching him for — a Kafka-esque scenario in which the accused must wait for judicial process until guilt is found.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, but it would be difficult to argue that the president enjoys fewer rights than an ordinary criminal defendant.

That is, unless he is a Republican named Trump.

Democrats have already trampled his rights to due process and his rights to legal representation, departing from the precedents in the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries. Pelosi’s new gambit simply adds to those abuses and mocks the ideal of justice.

A fair trial is impossible under such circumstances. Indeed, Pelosi has no intention of providing a fair trial. She is attempting to exert power that she does not even have, according to the Constitution, to dictate the Senate’s trial procedures.

The only “fair trial” possible now must result in a dismissal.