HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » One Of USA's Largest News... » Reply #6

Response to riversedge (Original post)

Sat Dec 7, 2019, 01:39 PM

6. Kick

Any articles of impeachment approved by the House will act as the political equivalent of an indictment, setting forth specific instances of misconduct; the Senate would then convene a trial to decide whether Trump should be expelled from the presidency. It’s obvious that at least one article should cite Trump’s improper approaches to Ukraine, whether they are described as “bribery” (an offense specifically mentioned in the Constitution’s impeachment clause) or abuse of power. A separate article would be warranted for his outrageous efforts to obstruct Congress by keeping information from the impeachment inquiry.

Finally, we continue to believe that the House should consider an article of impeachment addressing the actions Trump took to thwart or hobble special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice, but neither did he exonerate the president. Atty. Gen. William Barr and then-Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein subsequently concluded that the evidence developed by Mueller was “not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” But in deciding whether Trump’s attempted interference amounted to an impeachable offense, Congress could well come to a different conclusion. And the allegation that Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation involves the same sort of disrespect for legal norms as his defiant actions toward Congress’ inquiry into the Ukraine matter.

Trump’s defenders argue that the evidence against him on Ukraine is incomplete and thus inconclusive. They’re correct that some potentially important witnesses — including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who reportedly put the hold on the Ukrainian aid, and former national security advisor John Bolton, who reportedly objected to the efforts to persuade Ukraine to conduct the investigations — haven’t testified. But that is because Trump has objected to such testimony. Delaying impeachment because of no-show witnesses would reward Trump’s obstructionism.

Besides, as the president himself tweeted on Thursday: “If you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our country can get back to business.”



Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
riversedge Dec 7 OP
dewsgirl Dec 7 #1
hlthe2b Dec 7 #2
riversedge Dec 7 #4
mucifer Dec 7 #7
diva77 Dec 7 #10
Hekate Dec 7 #19
diva77 Dec 7 #26
riversedge Dec 7 #3
calimary Dec 7 #9
oldsoftie Dec 7 #14
NBachers Dec 7 #18
warmfeet Dec 7 #25
CrispyQ Dec 8 #29
Beartracks Dec 7 #5
LineReply Kick
dalton99a Dec 7 #6
robbob Dec 7 #12
procon Dec 7 #8
Hekate Dec 7 #20
AncientGeezer Dec 8 #27
Zorro Dec 7 #11
robbob Dec 7 #15
Jake Stern Dec 7 #13
Martin Eden Dec 7 #16
LiberalLovinLug Dec 7 #17
Pacifist Patriot Dec 7 #21
lastlib Dec 7 #24
OhNo-Really Dec 7 #22
Marcuse Dec 7 #23
packman Dec 8 #28
Please login to view edit histories.