Active Now

CosmicWunderkind
Element 99
Malizz
Danilo_G
my2cents
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Motormouth compares the CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS of Impeachment to a LYNCHING. Do you? What do you compare it to?

Motormouth compares the CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS of Impeachment to a LYNCHING. Do you? What do you compare it to?

Posted - October 22, 2019

Responses


  • 46117
    He basically said that the Constitution was old and useless and doesn't matter any more.  And he will be right if he is not impeached for this.  
      October 22, 2019 9:47 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    He has contempt for anything worthwhile valuable meaningful. We have contempt for him. We 're even. Thank you for your reply Sharon! :)
      October 22, 2019 11:34 AM MDT
    0


  • I don't see it as a lynching or as anything else considered to be unjust.  I see it as ultimate proof that in our society it is of paramount importance that no one consider him or herself to be above the law regardless of their actual position or supposed position of power.  We must all answer for our misdeeds especially those that are grievous enough to harm others singularly or as a nation which I would argue Mr. Trump does on a daily basis.  God Bless America and may he have mercy on all our souls...preferably in the form of removing that pitiful excuse for a man and a leader from office and doing it in a manner that forever attaches shame to his name.
      October 22, 2019 9:59 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I admire your kindness directed toward a person whom you obviously dislike. I am not as kind. I know calling him names does nothing at all to fix things. But I am what you call a "stream of consciousness" writer and others who just let it all flow out in whatever order without worrying about it. Thank you for another really good answer Halloweenie. I'm gonna try to be more like you. What could it hurt?
      October 22, 2019 11:48 AM MDT
    1

  • 32536
    I see it as very biased and not following precedent.   It is simply the Dems using our gov and our tax money to do oppo-research against Trump. 

    When both Nixon and Clinton were impeached the opposite party had powers to supuenna, to cross examine witnesses, the Presidents lawyers as well. 

    There was a special investigator who did the witness interviewing etc. Not an Adam Schiff heading up the investigation.  Yes we had Mueller. But that was a different charge and Mueller cleared Trump of working with the Russians. So the Dems do not want to go that route....Mueller and any new SP will be bound by the law....not need in letting the law get in the way of getting free political dirt. 

    This is not a fair investigation. Not a unbiased investigation.  It is a theft of tax money by the DNC. 

    They should make it official and vote on the inquiry and open it up to the public.  The are doing it in secret because they know it is bull.  And they know it will not fly in the Senate. 

    DNC should pay for their on political dirt....not use our tax money.    
      October 22, 2019 10:20 AM MDT
    4

  • 113301
    AARRGGHH!
      October 22, 2019 11:48 AM MDT
    1

  • 32536
    That made me smile :)
      October 22, 2019 12:52 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    That makes me very happy to know m'dear! Thanks and Happy Wednesday to thee m2c! :)
      October 23, 2019 2:44 AM MDT
    1

  • 16202
    Mueller did NOT clear Trump of anything and said so explicitly. He merely stated that evidence was insufficient at the time to impeach. That was BEFORE his attempted blackmail of Ukraine and his contemptible "send them back where they came from" directed at four women of color, all US citizens and three of the four American by birthright. That gets you fired in ANY other line of work without exception.
      October 23, 2019 3:16 AM MDT
    1

  • 32536
    You should read it again. 
    From Mueller report "....the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Now....it not Mueller nor any other prosecutor in the USA or any other free country's job to clear a defendant. We have the assumption of innocence. If there is no proof of a guilt...then there is innocence. 
      October 23, 2019 7:07 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      October 24, 2019 2:03 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    OMG m2c. Right out of the Sean Hannity playbook. SIGH. Where are YOU in all of this? You keep disappearing into the miasma of lies that you present as truth. How can you not see what is really there? Why do you see what you are being TOLD is there? Ever it shall be thus. More's the pity. Alas alack too bad. How sad.
      October 24, 2019 2:08 AM MDT
    0

  • 13395
    Far right media -Western Journal,  OAN TV channel,  etc. They claim to be fact based. 
      October 24, 2019 2:40 AM MDT
    0

  • Since this particular impeachment is completely devoid of due process, with some coercion of witnesses behind closed doors. Since the defendant's side won't be allowed to challenge such witnesses and "evidence" and since this is a judicial farce that knows no bounds, it can be only described as a "lynching". Or "kangaroo" court, take your pick.
      October 22, 2019 1:32 PM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    During an impeachment process, the House functions essentially as a grand jury---due process does not apply because due process is guaranteed for criminal proceedings, not for when the grounds for the indictments are being investigated. 

    If Trump is impeached, the Senate will conduct the trial---then and only then will due process apply. 

    Grand jury secrecy rules dating to the 1600s actually prohibit lawyers from entering the grand jury room during testimony.

    In federal court today, only the witness, the prosecutor, and a court reporter – and, of course, the grand jurors – are allowed to be present during grand jury testimony

    Constitutional provisions

    The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    — Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    —Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
    [The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    —Article II, Section 2
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    —Article II, Section 4

    Now then, is there anything I can help you with? This post was edited by tom jackson at October 23, 2019 2:44 AM MDT
      October 23, 2019 1:08 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Bigly thanks for sharing such helpful info tom! It is appreciated! Happy Wednesday to thee! :) Oh I LOVE your tagline! Keep 'em coming please? Made me laugh!
      October 23, 2019 2:46 AM MDT
    1

  • 32536
    Precident due process applies in the House as well. That is how it was done in both Nixon and Clinton impeachment. Also there should be an impartial special investigator. Mueller report was that for the Russian hoax. There should be one for the Ukraine call if that is what the Dems want to use. Not a obviously biased and liar (he directly lied on TV) like Schiff. Who also could be a potential witness...he contact with the whistleblower (which he also lied about). 
      October 23, 2019 7:17 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Russian HOAX? Et tu brute? Et tu? Oy vey.
      October 23, 2019 9:40 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    At the time of an impeachment inquiry, the current House membership determines the current process to be used.

    If the Justice Department under Barr had done its investigative job when it received the whistleblower complaint, the House would not have to be doing it.

    So Barr, by his dereliction of his duty, made it necessary for the House to act as a grand jury which in turn required that any precedent involving due process could not incorporated into its inquiry.

    Therefore, the House is doing what the Barr should have done, and investigate under rules similar to that of a grand jury.

    If the house determines that there are grounds for impeachment, they will vote article(s) of impeachment and refer such to the Senate.

    Then and only then, will Trump be entitled to---and be afforded---due process.

    Neither I nor reality can be any clearer.

      October 23, 2019 1:26 PM MDT
    2

  • 32536
    If they followed the precedent of the 2 impeachments in the modern era then the President's attorneys would be allowed to participate. 

    "Nixon's lawyer was allowed to question witnesses called by the committee and to recommend, but only to recommend, other witnesses to be called, Clinton's lawyers were allowed to call witnesses, and to question at least some, if not all, of the witnesses called by the committee." 

    That is reality....clear as day.
      October 23, 2019 1:42 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Did you totally miss what I said about the procedures when grand jury like proceedings are involved?

    Do you realize that each new Congress when it is seated is free to establish its own rules?

    Are you aware that administrative impeachment precedents in Congress are not binding on the current seated House---no matter which party is in control?

    Why didn't Trump request a special prosecutor to look into the Ukraine issue?---{perhaps because Independent counsels are allowed to pursue criminal matters they discover in the course of carrying out their original mandate. So while Starr never indicted the Clintons for their role in Whitewater, he became aware of allegations of sexual misconduct by the president from the time when he was governor of Arkansas. This led to information about a young woman who, while an intern in the White House in the mid-1990s, had a sexual affair with Clinton during the time he was president.

    That woman, Monica Lewinsky, became a household name, and
    (Clinton's) efforts to deny the accusations became a case of perjury and obstruction of justice – leading to his impeachment by the House of Representatives in late 1998.}

    There are precedents for a president to request the appointment of a special prosecutor.

    Watergate. Before his May 25, 1973, appointment as Richard Nixon's attorney general, Elliott Richardson had agreed at his Senate confirmation hearing to appoint a Watergate special prosecutor, and so immediately on taking office appointed  Archibald Cox under a special one-time regulation.

    After Clinton took office, the
    (Whitewater)controversy continued. So (Clinton)he asked his attorney general, Janet Reno, to appoint an independent counsel. She named Robert Fiske, a respected Republican litigator, who built a case against several Arkansans involved in the deal but not the Clintons.

    And Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller.

    And do you realize....Darn, the dog wants her bone---later.


      October 23, 2019 2:24 PM MDT
    1

  • 32536
    I did not say they Constitution requires anything...it does not other than the one vote to send to the Senate.  I said precedent would gives these things to the minority party.  

    Pelosi did not ask for a special prosecutor....if she asked she may have gotten one. But she does not want a fair process. That is obvious from the house member she put in charge.   

    It is a waste of time and tax money....Senate will never vote to remove. It is the Dems using our gov to do oppo-research.  

    (Not that it matters much but the Clinton special prosecutor with the impeachment was Ken Starr)
      October 23, 2019 3:13 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    If this were football, you would have just tried another misdirection play.  

    Whether or not there were precedents is immaterial. And if you are going to go with "if's," how about this one: "If Trump were a man of values and integrity, there would be no impeachment inquiry."

    Again, did you not notice that Trump should have asked Barr to appoint one?  And given that Barr refused to follow up on the whistleblower complaint, why would she ask for a special prosecutor?

    And I guess if a known killer would be able to scare a jury enough to not convict him, you would argue that there would be no point in a district attorney spending a city's money on a trial because the jury would never convict the killer.

    And I'm forced to correct you again about the special prosecutor and Whitewater---to whit: The original Whitewater special prosecutor was Robert B. Fiske Jr., a moderate Republican selected in January 1994 by Attorney General Janet Reno, who had the authority to make the appointment because the independent counsel law had expired.

    In August 1994, with the law renewed and Fiske under fire from conservatives for being insufficiently aggressive in pursuit of the president, the three-judge panel in charge of appointing independent counsels abruptly replaced him with a conservative activist named Kenneth W. Starr

    And a word of advice---people tend to wind up starving and homeless if they try to make a living correcting what I post.
      October 23, 2019 10:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 32536
    Why would Trump ask for one? He released the call transcript. 

    Not a deflection. I am talking modern precident. You are talking about the requirements under the law.  

    If Dems want the people to take any of this seriously they should get serious. Adam Schiff is a partisian hack. 
      October 24, 2019 5:14 AM MDT
    0