Utopia Talk / Politics / Activist judge blocks the wall!

Average Ameriacn Member	Wed Dec 11 12:55:41 Activist judge, Clinton judge!!! "On August 25, 1994, Briones was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas" http://www...using-pentagon-funds-for-wall/ Federal judge blocks Trump administration from using Pentagon funds for wall BY MELISSA QUINN DECEMBER 11, 2019 / 8:31 AM / CBS NEWS A federal judge in Texas blocked the Trump administration from using military construction funds to pay for President Trump's wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, delivering a blow to the president as he seeks to fulfill the signature promise of his 2016 presidential campaign. The ruling Tuesday by U.S. District Judge David Briones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas bars the Trump administration from using $3.6 billion authorized for military construction projects to pay for construction of the wall. In September, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized the reprogramming of the military construction funds, allowing that money to be used to build roughly 175 miles of border barriers. The move was expected to affect roughly 127 Pentagon projects.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 12 08:40:22 "Military construction only applies to airstrips for bombing third-world shitholes, and for barracks for an ever-increasing standing army, not for securing the border" -some faggot who thinks the commander in chief is the lower judiciary
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 12 09:10:24 We really need a dedicated thread for cases of Clinton- and Obama-appointed judges making questionable rulings against the Trump administration. I volunteer tw for the job.
hood Member	Thu Dec 12 09:14:25 The executive doesn't control the purse. Blatant and unconstitutional power grab for Trump to try to decide how to spend money. That's pretty clearly the job of Congress. Maybe don't get your butthole all puckered up over proper rulings just because reality is against you?
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 12 09:18:02 "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." I can see how this is very ambiguous
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 12 09:19:16 "border security has nothing to do with national security" -Hood et al.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 12 09:23:21 anyhthing can be made as has to do with national security. And it will be. Climate change for sure, there are pantagon reports on it. You are gonna be ready to drop on your old knees and blow judges who will try to stop next Dem president from using the whole military budget however he see fit. In the name of national security, of course
hood Member	Thu Dec 12 09:32:19 "I hate the Constitution" - rugian et al.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 12 09:41:38 "Congress micromanages every construction project in the $600 billion defense budget" retards
hood Member	Thu Dec 12 09:47:21 Congress has repeatedly blocked funding for the wall. Attempting to get around this is illegal. Any argument to the contrary is both retarded and in contempt of the Constitution.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 12 09:52:04 Congress approved $1.4 billion in civilian funding on the wall this year. They also approved $8.7 billion in general defense construction funding. If they don't like the construction projects in question, perhaps they should tell their constituents why they're slashing Title 1 spending by $3.6 billion next year.
hood Member	Thu Dec 12 10:05:39 Yes, they approved $1.4 billion, not $5 billion. It's pretty simple math, actually.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 12 10:08:19 Also pretty simple to realize that allocation of yearly budgets doesn't equate to real time micromanagement of funds Something tells me no one would be whining if $3 billion was reallocated from the F-35 boondoggle to A-10 maintenance
hood Member	Thu Dec 12 10:13:47 Congress hasn't expressly limited the expenses of either of those projects. They have expressly limited the expenses for the wall. It's like your analogies are the F-35 of logic; defunct.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Dec 12 10:37:32 Congress doesn't have the votes to prohibit wall construction.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 09:48:48 The kind of defense spending micromanagement going on Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie We just voted to pass the final conference report version of the NDAA, which was scheduled last night at 10pm. The report is 3,488 pages long! The table of contents itself is 49 pages long. Without enough time to actually read this report & for other reasons, I voted no. http://twi...tatus/1204893474442625026?s=20
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 13 14:17:23 is the military going to patrol the border? no they aren't allowed to engage in any law enforcement activities this wall is not about stopping military incursions, it's supposedly about illegal immigration, drugs, trafficking... all things the military is prohibited from engaging in it's not a military project in any way shape or form
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 13 14:18:03 (mic drop)... :p
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 14:36:54 "illegal immigration" Is a matter of framing, many militaries around the world are the party involved in stopping this "drugs, trafficking" Not prohibited from engaging in Afghanistan, apparently
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 13 14:55:02 the US military IS prohibited from stopping those things in the United States, which is where the wall is... there simply is no way this is a military construction project Esper's rationale seems to be as Trump did the stunt of deploying military to the border (even though they couldn't do much) meant the wall would be helpful in i guess not making Trump do that again...
hood Member	Fri Dec 13 15:05:31 Forwyn still hating on the constitution? Seems so.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 13 15:59:35 Hood On the bright side, they have not yet started hating the 22. amendment. But early days. We will see in a couple years if their position on that shifts too.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 16:43:29 "the US military IS prohibited from stopping those things in the United States" Yes, IN the US. Nothing in PCA about protecting the border "Forwyn still hating on the constitution?" That's quaint coming from you
jergul large member	Fri Dec 13 16:50:25 Forwyn It is probably constitutional to defend the border from the Mexican side. But they did not want to do that when Trump asked.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 16:51:23 Yes, much more constitutional to defend the border by parking in oil fields in Syria without declarations of war, or even Congressional AUMFs
hood Member	Fri Dec 13 17:06:04 That's related to illegally misusing funds how, exactly?
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 17:13:30 Title 1 Construction Spending is Title 1 Construction Spending Again, the constitutional check there is for Congress to reduce Title 1 funding to $5.1 billion next year, since apparently it's not needed where they said it was.
kargen Member	Fri Dec 13 19:56:07 hood congress doesn't get to choose how the money is spent. They get to choose who spends the money. There is a whole lot of leeway on what happens to the funds once they are appropriated and President Trump does have the power to direct military funds in certain cases. The courts will eventually decide if this is such a case.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 13 20:23:15 Kargen Was not the OP about the court deciding on the matter? Personally, I think Trump should have aimed higher and used military construction funds to build another Trump tower. May as well use that whole lot of leeway of gilded toilet seats.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 13 20:23:58 on gilded toilet seats*
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 13 21:17:32 While I agree according to NEA he technically has the authority to direct military construction for what the president declares a national emergency That requires military personell. My concerns are this is worded poorly or I missed something...because a potus could deem almost anything a national wmergency requiring military personel...this leaves no room for someone to check this power which doeant sit well with me. If we were being invaded that would be one thing...not that a wall has been that effective since gunpowder was invented. I would like to read the ruling on why this was denied...im glad we're not building the wall.
kargen Member	Fri Dec 13 21:21:02 "Was not the OP about the court deciding on the matter?" I was replying to hood.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 21:23:25 "Was not the OP about the court deciding on the matter?" There is no clause giving such a court any power over the matter.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 13 21:45:41 Then you should definately appeal his ruling and see what the next level of the Federal Justice system has to say about that.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 13 22:05:18 Executive has that covered. Benchcucks would just rule that average citizens have no standing in such a case.
hood Member	Sat Dec 14 02:53:05 "hood congress doesn't get to choose how the money is spent." This is empirically wrong. This is so wrong I'm concerned that I have somehow found my way into an alternate universe. Luckily, it's fucking kargen opening his wrong-hole, so there's no actual crisis.
kargen Member	Sat Dec 14 03:05:33 nah I am correct. Congress allocates funds to agencies and departments but it is up to those agencies and departments to decide how to spend. Congress can suggest how the funds are spent and can the next budget reduce spending if they feel funds were not properly spent but the agencies decide how to spend the funds they are given. The military gets a budget but a big chunk of that budget is open ended as to how it is spent.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 14 04:24:28 Kargen So the judge did not in fact bar funding of a project? Funny how wrong the OP is.
Dukhat Member	Sat Dec 14 09:20:25 Cuckservatives achieve new lows everyday.
hood Member	Sat Dec 14 10:09:56 "Congress allocates funds to agencies and departments but it is up to those agencies and departments to decide how to spend." Congress CAN do that. They can also fund direct projects. You are clinically retarded, you should just trust your superiors (everyone) on this one. Or, I don't know, pay attention to literally fucking any year and the budget battles.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 14 10:17:14 But we should have absolutely no concerns about Trump running for a third term. because the intent of the wording in the 22. amendment is so clear, even if the wording does not forbid it.
Habebe Member	Tue Dec 17 23:34:34 Anyway the judges ruling is now irrelevant in this case* As Congress just made a spending bill with the Democratic held House passing earmarking 1.8 billion for Trumps wall ( not much since he asked for 8 bill) but it also grants him money designated military construction funds to build the wall. So he got the $ another way. Its kind of a shame, the wall is a terrible idea.....
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 11:30:34 "No one is above the law." A recent Democrat mantra during this impeachment process. Seems to be that politics is above the law for the left and right. This period in history has severely damaged this Democratic Republic. I fail to see any substantial win for Justice at the present? Trump will remain in office and probably has a better than 50/50 chance of being reelected. The Republican party could possibly take back the house and keep the Senate. Hair will be on fire. The Framers were wise ahead of their time and presently being abused in this impeachment process. Why do you suppose that all the current Democratic leadership have said in the past that an Impeachment to be successful must be bipartisan?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 13:24:36 The impeachment will be exactly as successful as that of Clinton. I am pretty sure he was impeached along partisan lines :). Its exactly what the framers intendent. A low threshold for impeachment, a much higher one for conviction. You really should just view it as the harshest censure the house can give.
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 13:30:16 Not exactly. Clinton was convicted of crimes even though I didn't believe what he did was impeachable.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 13:37:10 Clinton was not convicted of any of the charges he was impeached for. Trump will share his boat. Its nothing to go batshit crazy over.
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 13:43:48 You think I'm going bat shit? chuckling Clinton lost his law licence and payed a large settlement to Paula Jones. You are correct that he wasn't convicted of the articles of impeachment that were charged.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 18 15:03:09 Jergul, Clinton was impeached with like 30 democrats as well as public opinion trending against him.... History was kinder to him than the politics of the day. It was also a different time....no one really cares as I've said from day one. .My opinion was vindicated by last week's meet the press.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Dec 18 15:41:12 “ Wed Dec 18 15:03:09 Jergul, Clinton was impeached with like 30 democrats as well as public opinion trending against him...” This is incorrect. There were five Dem votes Aye, and five GOP Nay, iirc. On the perjury charge, with obstruction charge voting about the same. And Clinton had like 70% approval rating at that point
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Dec 18 15:42:18 After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Dec 18 15:43:45 Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote; 223-5 R, 5-200 D, 0-1 independent)[25] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote; 216-12 R, 5-199 D, 0-1 independent).[26] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[27] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).[28] wiki
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 15:49:11 TJ Trump is going batshit. You might be accused of melodrama :). Clinton handed in his law license and settled with Jones after he left office. Do you think Trump will be immune to fall-out once he leaves office? My bet is that he will need a pardon to avoid being crucified by the criminal-justice system at both State and Federal levels.
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 16:28:48 Melodrama->-< lol Trump constantly triggers intentionally. "Do you think Trump will be immune to fall-out once he leaves office?" It might be the exact reason the articles against him are so weak. If he is convicted of a crime in the impeachment process he would be immune to the exact same crime when he leaves office. Who knows? One thing for certain is that the Democratic party wants the historic record to show he was impeached. They know he will not be convicted. Can't be positive how that will affect his civilian life going forward. He won't be immune to any other crimes that He could allegedly be indicted for committing. I won't get ahead of myself, but after he leaves office the odds of charged seem slim.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 16:44:19 He constantly triggers himself. Who knows if he has any control over it. http://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download seems to contradict what you said.
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 16:54:11 You provided a link to a memorandum of opinion. Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction. I'd like to see an attempt.
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 17:02:43 Since I took time to read your memorandum presented as an opinion to the AG I will post this fragment from the opinion. "The briefs central contention was that “ all civil officers of the United States other than the President are amenable to the federal criminal process either before or after the conclusion of impeachment proceedings.”
jergul large member	Wed Dec 18 19:46:51 TJ While federal officers. I was not suggesting trump could be subject to the criminal justice system while still president. Impeachment is not a criminal procedure. Trump will spend the rest of his days in court or in prison once he leaves office. Sounds like fun.
TJ Member	Wed Dec 18 20:43:55 You should read my posts again. "Trump will spend the rest of his days in court or in prison once he leaves office." He constantly dealt with courts before President I have no reason to believe that will actually change. I know you and many other would like to see him in prison for the remainder of his life, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
kargen Member	Wed Dec 18 20:48:20 Once it gets to the courts the burden of proof jumps way way up. Most of what he is being accused of now will most likely be dismissed before it goes to trial. Other than an over zealous New York Attorney General with a personal grudge I doubt many are willing to try and prosecute with the lack of evidence.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 04:17:49 TJ I read your post. You are inadvertedly making the Mueller argument. A president cannot be charged with stuff as ultimately he would be judging himself. That changes once he leaves office. I think he personally be forced to accept wrongdoing or get/give himself a pardon (which also accepts wrongdoing). Kargen Mueller was pretty clear on wrong-doing. He just felt you could not charge a sitting president with stuff like that. Trump will not sit as president forever.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 19 04:44:34 Is there a reasonable position that includes secure borders (which is important) and not wasting resources on stupid things (also important)? One that has managed to survive the partisan hackery and knee jerk reactions? Reasonable people want to have secure borders, uphold humanitarian obligations and not isolate their country behind a figurative and/or physical wall.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 19 04:44:45 Mueller isn't a judge and jury. His opinion doesn't change my opinion at all. I still don't think any prosecutor would waste time taking this to court with the burden of proof needed for conviction. No way they want to be the lawyer that blew it. Well the New York Attorney General as I mentioned above my take another turn at bat but he is used to striking out. And of course President Trump will not be president forever. The point of all these investigations is to get him out of the White House. Once he is out why bother? I suppose maybe out of sheer pettiness they might try but they are going to have much more than what Mueller or anybody else have given them so far to get it to the point where they try to seat a jury. If it did get that far (it won't) seating a jury would be next to impossible. You would need to find 12 people plus back-ups that have not been exposed to all the news coverage and have no opinion of President Trump one way or the other.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 07:16:52 I was adressing your thought that charges would be dropped for lack of evidence. I was not commenting at all on the outcome of one or many jury trials. You should not complain too much about investigations as one almost certainly got him into the White House. They found two juries for OJ. I am sure they can find a couple for Trump.
TJ Member	Thu Dec 19 10:20:30 jergul: TJ I read your post. You are inadvertedly making the Mueller argument. A president cannot be charged with stuff as ultimately he would be judging himself. No, I'm not. Mueller said he couldn't be charged civilly while in office for civil crimes. There is a clear distinction between our positions. Obviously he wasn't discounting impeachment in his report. As a matter of fact concerning the current investigations Mueller may have a lot to answer for in the near future. I've stated that a President couldn't be charged again for civil crimes that he/she is impeached for and acquitted or convicted in the Senate. Mueller's judgement was vested in law and not an argument he was making. I suggested you read all my posts again not a particular one. Mueller was correct in his judgement and I used your own link to support that particular point. "all civil officers of the United States "other than the President" are amenable to the federal criminal" What don't you understand about the above statement from the link you presented? Those briefs were from the Deputy AG to the AG presenting arguments to amend the law for all civil officers other than the President. As for you suggesting that my position is that of Mueller's judgement is not even close. His position was law as is my position law. Mueller's position is not the point I've made in this thread. My position was about double jeopardy. The Articles approved by the House are political, not any of the civil crimes mentioned in the Constitution for impeachment, and they have abused their power ignoring the Executive rights disrespecting the separation of powers in our Constitution. I'm fairly certain the Articles will be dismissed in the Senate after both sides present their position.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 13:35:40 Just wow@your last paragraph. My opinion after reviewing *stuff* is that a sitting president cannot be charged with many things he can be charged with once he leaves office. Anyway. He was impeached same is Clinton. No doubt he will face similar things Clinton faced once Trump leaves office. Unless Trump admits to guilt by accept a blanket pardon of course.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 13:36:29 Damn, that was very approximate English.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 19 13:48:18 "I'm fairly certain" 100% certain. Democrats will wrangle 67 votes about the same time as US hits 12.5% - that is to say, not by 2020
TJ Member	Thu Dec 19 15:01:21 "My opinion after reviewing *stuff* is that a sitting president cannot be charged with many things he can be charged with once he leaves office." Sure he can be charged through the impeachment process. Again: Mueller highly insinuated with his summary of his report. He can't be charged by outside courts. Your opinion is incorrect and poorly constructed. He can't be charged with any crimes that have been acquitted or convicted of in the Senate after he leaves office. Once he leaves office he is subject to any laws not covered in the impeachment process. The House can impeach the President for any crimes they feel are justified, same with the Senate and convict. There are penalties constitutionally if convicted. A President convicted in the Senate would not be allowed to hold any position of honor within government. You don't need to appreciate or agree with the last paragraph in my previous post, but it describe a fair assessment. It is alright with me that you disagree with the lawful aspect, but it doesn't change anything. It is the difference of opinion within the House and Senate. You won't see an indictment once he leaves office concerning the impeachment articles that have been approved by the House and acquitted or convicted in the Senate, because they are the court. Doing so would be a double jeopardy case if they were actual crimes. It doesn't matter if you don't like the process. The remainder of your post I've not disputed. He will be subject to charges being brought forth in a civilian court, but they won't be related to his impeachment articles. Again, don't hold your breath if you expect otherwise. Until you can show me a case prosecuted in any Federal court or State court where a civilian is charged with abuse of power or obstruction of congress this circle jerk is over. It is not much different than your Presidential third term assessment you've argued.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 19 15:45:21 "I was adressing your thought that charges would be dropped for lack of evidence." Yeah I know and I am saying there isn't enough evidence to convict and knowing that most prosecutors would not waste their time and risk their careers by trying. Knowing someone committed a crime and proving it are miles apart. I'm not saying charges would be dropped. I am saying they would not be pursued.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 16:01:21 TJ I will agree to disagree on that intepretation :). Kargen Trump is a notorious settler. That will not play in his favour in terms of raising charges. I think this will play out exactly like Clinton. Assuming Trump does not admit to guilt by way of a pardon.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 19 18:23:58 Yeah he dedicated a chapter or two to settling. THe basics are ask for everything you want then settle for most of what you want. That same strategy doesn't apply to court cases though. He has settled out of court on civil matters but that is different than legal matters. You keep mentioning pardon as if that is something that will happen. It won't. A pardon is for federal crimes only. A president can't pardon himself. Double jeopardy does't apply because impeachment is for removal from office only so technically the accused hasn't faced the consequences that would cause double jeopardy to apply. Thing is any president that would pardon President Trump would probably have appointed an attorney general that wouldn't charge him anyway so he is safe there. Any charges outside of that would not be federal crimes so couldn't be pardoned. You can drop the pardon distraction because it simply will not happen.
TJ Member	Thu Dec 19 19:22:03 Ok, I did some additional research. I stand corrected on the double jeopardy law. Shame on me, but I was going on memory from other materials I've read in the past. I was mistaken evidently.
TJ Member	Thu Dec 19 19:40:24 In addition obstruction of justice is different than obstruction of congress. If Congress doesn't wait for a ruling there is no obstruction of Congress. Trump asserting his executive powers isn't a crime unless he refuses a subpoena upheld by the Supreme Court. If he were to do that it would be an obstruction of justice.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 19 20:23:33 Kargen Trump could step down for a 5 minute coffee-break and have his vp acting as president sign the pardon. Trump could also pardon himself just to trigger demorats as many will say if he does. The pardon would be valid unless overturned. There is also no time limit A gop president after trump could have a 4 year run, then see the feds charge trump as soon as a democrat took the executive office. So lots of possibilities. TJ Trump has not asserted executive privilege, nor would it matter. He could still be charged after he leaves office. He would have to take the matter to the Supreme Court by way of appeals to get a ruling. He has been impeached for defying congress on the subpoena matter. The article of impeachment remains valid unless overturned by the Supreme Court.
TJ Member	Thu Dec 19 22:22:44 "Trump has not asserted executive privilege" By not adhering was his assertion of executive privilege. Nothing else was required. The House should have adhered to the legal process. "He could still be charged after he leaves office." I've already retracted my opposition. And yes, for multiple times I've agreed they can and have impeached. Get your popcorn ready for what is ahead, even before the Articles are submitted to the Senate.
TJ Member	Thu Dec 19 22:36:08 BTW, if the Minority takes over the House and maintain the Majority in the Senate in the 2020 Election they can expunge the record. oops...
kargen Member	Thu Dec 19 22:52:48 "Trump could step down for a 5 minute coffee-break and have his vp acting as president sign the pardon." Yeah and monkeys could fly out my ass. Why would they even want to. There is no scenario where it would make anything better. President Trump can't pardon himself. Courts decided that when President Nixon's lawyer suggested it was an option. "There is also no time limit A gop president after trump could have a 4 year run, then see the feds charge trump as soon as a democrat took the executive office." Are you saying that Democrat would then pardon President Trump? Or are you thinking the Republican knowing he is going to lose his 2nd term will just say what the fuck I'm going to pardon President Trump for no damn reason? Pardon isn't going to happen. Even if it were possible it isn't the least bit probable. Best chance scenario is one of his children becomes president and pardons him after his death. You have better odds of rolling a 15 at the crap tables in Vegas than of President Trump being pardoned. Some are now arguing that until the Senate actually gets the indictment sent to them President Trump has not been impeached. According to them that one last step is needed. There is no precedent one way or the other on that position as it has never come up.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 05:37:13 TJ He will still be impeached even if that is true. Kargen The vp acting as president could pardon Trump. It would help against charges by the criminal justice system. The courts did not rule on that. Nixon's counsel had the opinion that he could not. The matter went no further than so. Trump could pardon himself and you could say it was just to trigger the demorats. The pardon might eventually be overturned. No, I was saying a GOP president does not assure that the criminal justice system will not charge Trump. It merely gives a hiatus until the democrats take the oval office. Trump has been impeached. You do not need a precedent to know that. "only the house" is a dead givaway.
kargen Member	Fri Dec 20 09:45:14 Again none of this is going to happen. There is zero upside to anyone including President Trump no need dwelling on something that will not happen. So I am done on the pardon topic.
TJ Member	Fri Dec 20 10:27:16 jergul: To expunge a record of impeachment there has to be a record to expunge. He has, possibly been impeached, yet he hasn't officially been impeached until those articles leave the house. I can get quirky too! chuckle-all things possible, eh?
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 11:22:17 He was impeached the moment the vote was tallied. Sole power of impeachment rests with the house. Words mean things.
TJ Member	Fri Dec 20 11:34:31 I depend more on actions than words. Actions mean things. People change their minds on occasion. Yes my words mean things too. Simply because I'm me. :)
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 20 13:16:10 @jergul: Harvard law prof. disagrees http://www...-serious-problem-for-democrats
Dukhat Member	Fri Dec 20 14:12:17 Doesn't matter. Nobody cares about legalistic truths in the age of Trump. Pelosi is a genius for pulling this maneuver off because Trump had this grand idea of colluding with McConnell to save his own skin but now Pelosi delayed things for months so that Trump can bury himself for opening his mouth. In the very short-run, impeachment is a net positive for Republicans because their idiot supporters all love a good victimization narrative. In the long run, people realize Trump is a lying bullshitter. The more you drag it out, the worst it gets for Trump.
TJ Member	Fri Dec 20 14:31:17 That law professor is supposedly a Constitutional expert that gave testimony pro impeachment in Judiciary hearing. "Doesn't matter. Nobody cares about legalistic truths in the age of Trump." That is a mouthful, so I guess he isn't impeached then if nobody cares about legalistic truths.
kargen Member	Fri Dec 20 15:32:40 "Pelosi is a genius for pulling this maneuver off" No she is an obstructionist and the Republicans have plenty of funds to get this message out. This is all about the independents and undecided and the longer this goes on the better it gets for Republicans in that sense. Two thirds of the nation just want the whole thing over and done.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 18:36:07 TJ He is impeached and the history books will denote that fact.
kargen Member	Fri Dec 20 18:45:14 Turns out he might not be. I was thinking the conclusion of the vote would be the impeachment but more lawyers are coming out saying the process isn't done until the House presents the articles of impeachment to the Senate. It is certainly cloudy enough President Trump and others can claim he has not yet been impeached. Might be better politically though to agree that he has been impeached then ridicule the Democrats for not following through. They can easily spin it saying the Democrats know there is no proof of the charges so haven't even bothered to present them.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 19:19:50 Kargen The house has definately not finished the role it has in the process that includes both an impeachment and a trial. Its a stunt similar to say the Senate dismissing the Articles of Impeachment instead of voting on the Articles. Neither touches on the impeachent itself, but both block a senate trial. We all know Trump is going to say he was found innocent of impeachment, or that the impeachment was dismissed. So it makes little difference at this juncture that people are conflating the act of impeachment with the house completing its involvement in impeachment and trial process. They will be jumping around like cases of rabbits pretending Trump's impeachment was not real no matter what.
TJ Member	Fri Dec 20 20:51:43 jergul large member Fri Dec 20 18:36:07 TJ He is impeached and the history books will denote that fact. You are getting a little redundant. My post didn't say I said he wasn't impeached. Did you watch the Judiciary testimony by Noah Feldman? Maybe you should check it out. Why do you think a progressive liberal would create such a stunt?
jergul large member	Fri Dec 20 21:16:11 http://www...tution-meaning-of-impeachment/ Read Sorry if I was being redundant. I read your posts to mean that the house had not yet impeached Trump. If I got that wrong, then I got that wrong.
TJ Member	Fri Dec 20 21:22:57 Thanks for clarifying my Point about Feldman. It is not an odd thing for Constitutional Scholars disagreeing with one another. Especially an older one and a younger one. I watched the entire Inquiry and Judiciary hearing. Did you read the link Forwyn posted?
TJ Member	Fri Dec 20 21:30:50 BTW, I am more in line with Turley. He is a democrat who voted for Obama and Clinton. Seems he has received a lot of nasty flack from the left for his testimony. It seemed to be his belief that Trump did something wrong, but the House wasn't preforming their Constitutional duties correctly. Seems the left like to eat their own. Now Feldman seems to agree from a different aspect.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 21 01:21:16 TJ I disagree with the legal reasoning. If the process has to be completed for impeachment and the senate controls the end part of the process, then the house no longer has the sole power of impeachment. But it is true that trump could with greater credibility claim that he was not really impeached. He is claiming that and will continue to claim that anyway. Its ultimately a legacy thing and it will not matter much if the white house disputes it (beyond it being noted the white house disputed it). Tuley's position does not really matter. The house has the power to impeach even if it does not do it properely. It has no constitutional duty to test all legal recourses before impeaching. The white house could challenge that Article if it wanted. Take it to the Supreme Court and see if it thinks executive privilege can block testimony in impeachment hearings.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 21 10:01:39 j->"Turley's position does not really matter." It does matter, just not from the narrow perspective you've taken. It matters to me and many others. "Viva la resistance", long live my view of freedom. :) j->"The white house could challenge that Article if it wanted. Take it to the Supreme Court and see if it thinks executive privilege can block testimony in impeachment hearings." There wouldn't be any need. The Supreme Court Chief Justice will be presiding over a Senate Trial. The man is a Constitutional Scholar. oops! Every happening in all our lives become a part of our individual legacy. Sadly, some legacies mean more than others. Life is a winding path. And to pleasantly troll-> If it gets to the Senate. Not guilty of the Articles.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 21 12:18:42 TJ But still impeached. Which will be his legacy.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 21 13:07:59 lol
jergul large member	Sat Dec 21 13:54:57 Well, his legacy only in so far that impeachment was Clinton's legacy :-). Turns out there are 3 things awaiting a Supreme Court ruling that revolve around the executive not supplying information. A fair trial would obviously need those 3 things clarified before it could proceed. So there is an argument for delaying the trial until the Supreme Court has made its ruling. I am sure you are familiar with the line of thinking. You wanted the house to wait. Delaying the senate proceeding is surely the next best thing? :).
TJ Member	Sat Dec 21 13:58:05 "then the house no longer has the sole power of impeachment." Sure they do and all that is necessary is for House to send the Articles to the Senate. If an indictment isn't presented to a court it is worthless. Abandoned...
TJ Member	Sat Dec 21 14:27:28 I don't know about it being the next best thing as you've phrased will be beneficial or even decided before a Senate trial. I wouldn't discount it though. They should have waited for anything that would strengthened their position before writing the Articles. It doesn't appear that is the reason being provided by the House Speaker. Do you think she is deliberately deviating from the truth? If so, would that be considered moral from your perspective? She has admitted she is holding the articles basically as a quid pro quo. The Senate doesn't care if she sends them along or not.
	show deleted posts