Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Do you think the impeachment has to be wrapped-up by Christmas?

What's the hurry? I think the most impeachable stuff has yet to be said. And if they don't get Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani and Bolton- it would be a severe loss.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 71December 13, 2019 4:36 AM

The Clinton impeachment hearings lasted three months in the House. Oh, and the House? It voted to release Clinton’s grand jury testimony tape. That’s what they’ve most strenuously opposed in the Trump investigation.

3 year investigation followed by a three month impeachment process in the House. The GOP monkeys deserve this circus.

by Anonymousreply 1December 4, 2019 11:31 PM

Would it have killed you to have at least posted a picture or link OP? Would it? I mean would that have really been so hard? Would it? Why don’t you try to think more of others next time before you post? What's your problem? I mean really, what's your damn problem?

by Anonymousreply 2December 4, 2019 11:35 PM

Keep it going.

Then let it go to the Senate and watch them subpoena everyone that the HoR “disallowed”.

The HoR will not let it leave. They will attempt to “censure” him.

Today was a disaster for the legal case for impeachment.

by Anonymousreply 3December 5, 2019 12:01 AM

I want them to impeach the fucker right before they leave for Christmas holidays as a nice Christmas present for the orange orangutan. Give him something to think about as he's down at Mar-a-Lago.

by Anonymousreply 4December 5, 2019 12:55 AM

I agree OP. I think the Democrats are making a big mistake trying to wrap it up and do the vote before Christmas.

They need to wait until some of those bigger witnesses (like Bolton) are available to testify.

by Anonymousreply 5December 5, 2019 12:58 AM

It's way too early. I want them to put out their reports pending the court decisions on the major players being forced to testify.

The Christmas thing is a Repug talking point started my McConnell and now transformed into the Repugs on the judiciary committee spewing garbage about how this is obviously illegitimate because it's just too fast! It's actually hilarious if you pay attention. I hope Pelosi, et al, are smart enough to wait until March or April, especially since they need to fold in all the other crimes and not just have it focused on Ukraine. If it is only on Ukraine and they give it to the Senate before Christmas, it will be a present for the Repugs. The trial in the Senate will be over by February and they will all just move on and this nation of people with the attention span of gnats will fall back to their ignorant Facebook-believing idiocy and re-elect the "innocent" Trump.

by Anonymousreply 6December 5, 2019 1:07 AM

No reason to drag this out. Impeach him, then let the Senate spend the holidays contemplating whether or not they really want to spend the next five years cleaning up after the incontinent old bastard.

by Anonymousreply 7December 5, 2019 1:12 AM

Mitch is going to drag it out in the Senate, to prevent the Dem Senators from being on the campaign trail.

by Anonymousreply 8December 5, 2019 1:41 AM

R8, which is another excellent reason to wait until April to hold the impeachment vote. They are just starting to get the rulings on forcing these fuckers like McGahn and Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify. I really don't understand why they would want to move forward right now without those testimonies that are on their way based on ALL the court decisions.

by Anonymousreply 9December 5, 2019 2:31 AM

Any day now, OP!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10December 5, 2019 3:22 AM

They ought to subpoena the various Administration officials but proceed away. They can get the vote by Christmas so no reason to drag it out, do it. Keep those subpoenas active, for use by the Senate which is getting a later start.

Things will get bogged down there, but that’s fine, que sera sera.

by Anonymousreply 11December 5, 2019 3:38 AM

Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani and Bolton Can still testify before the Senate.

But you can’t be more guilty than”guilty”. If they can prove the case now, they don’t need to double-dog prove it.

by Anonymousreply 12December 5, 2019 3:58 AM

R12, they still need to win in the court of public opinion. That's where the testimony of the big players comes in. They should wait for that.

And, why do some of you think it's going to get bogged down in the Senate? I think they're going to zoom through it in January if they impeach him by Christmas. It will all be over by February and forgotten by March. It will also embolden Trump and impeaching him twice will blow up in the Democrat's faces so there would literally be no check on anything he does for almost ten months leading up to the election.

by Anonymousreply 13December 5, 2019 6:14 AM

You know that report that McConnell has put out a Senate calendar for next year with January having nothing due to the potential trial? I think that's part of a game. He's trying to set the timeline. He wants a January trial. He was also the first one to say that they'd impeach Trump by Thanksgiving, which he then changed to Christmas. Why the fuck are the Democrats letting McConnell set their agenda and timeline? Go look it up. These named times have always come first from McConnell's turtle beak.

by Anonymousreply 14December 5, 2019 6:19 AM

I don't think the public gives a shit. Everyone knows he won't be completely impeached. Everyone knows who they're going to vote for in 2020. Rhetoric about 'tearing the country apart' and 'it will negatively affect the Democrats' is dumb.

And we don't need a groundswell of public support- this is not an election. We pay these Ivy League grads a lot of money to take care of this stuff for us. Do your job and get it done.

He's an incompetent President and should never have been ran for POTUS. No candidate ever has had that much baggage. And everyone who voted for him needs to do some soul-searching. What were you thinking?

And those who still support this creep after 4 years of deplorable actions can go to hell.

by Anonymousreply 15December 5, 2019 8:12 AM

Whatever happens here, it’s can sever the fatal alignment of Republicans and Trump.

Soon, the Supreme Court will rule on multiple motions regarding access to Trump’s financial records and his IRS tax filings. This will reopen investigations in the House and lead to more charges.

Trump, who should be removed, will see an expanding distance as more evidence gets put into the public domain. His loyal allies will step away, as the shit spray will hit everyone near him. It’s classic Washington “run for cover”

“I don’t know him!” —The GOP

by Anonymousreply 16December 6, 2019 10:39 PM

I think that the Democrats would very much like to get the Republicans on record as supporting corruption before the next election cycle.

by Anonymousreply 17December 6, 2019 10:43 PM

Total circus. I've switched parties. These idiots running this cluster-fuck should be impeached themselves.

by Anonymousreply 18December 6, 2019 10:45 PM

I freely admit that I don't know what is going to happen, nor what would be best for those who are anti-Trump. I wish I did.

by Anonymousreply 19December 6, 2019 11:22 PM

It will never end. He'll dig into the Oval Office like a tick and it will take a SWAT team to remove him.

Hopefully in cuffs though!

by Anonymousreply 20December 6, 2019 11:34 PM

people are tired. they are tired of Trump but they are also tired of this impeachment. If they go away for the holidays without it being done and then try to come back and start it over again people will no longer be interested and they will lose support. If Pelosi had any question as to whether it would work or not she wouldn't have gone down this path.

by Anonymousreply 21December 6, 2019 11:39 PM

Most people are just turning the channel. The Deplorables have been assured Trump is untouchable, so they are unconcerned. If they thought Der Fuhrer was in danger they would be rioting in the streets.

It doesn't matter how it ends. It matters that they do their job, explore and pursue it.

by Anonymousreply 22December 7, 2019 1:49 AM

We need to make sure people understand he’s a traitor, especially in Florida, Virginia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

I don’t understand how anyone can think he could win in November, when only 77,000 votes in 4 states threw the election. It doesn’t seem to hard to correct that this time. Provided Warren/Pete don’t get a polonium sandwich, I mean.

by Anonymousreply 23December 7, 2019 2:11 AM

Imagine, though, If Warren does get a polonium sandwich in October, and as a result of the upheaval, Trump wins. Then we discover that Trump quashed the subsequent FBI investigation and it was the Russians for sure. Congress implements sanctions, but Trump refuses to implement them. Imagine we impeach again, but the Senate refuses to convict.

Then what? We could be stuck with Trump for another 4 years! It’s not like Trump would be shown to be worse than we already know him to be.

by Anonymousreply 24December 7, 2019 2:17 AM

They need to get it done either before xmas or early in the new year. Americans were fatigued by the Mueller investigation, which took eons when you consider the pace of the news cycle these days.

by Anonymousreply 25December 7, 2019 2:25 AM

[quote]We need to make sure people understand he’s a traitor, especially in Florida, Virginia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

What people understand is today's headline:

"The U.S. economy added 266,000 jobs for the month and the unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent, matching the lowest level in 50 years."

If in November 2020 people believe ( facts be damned) that the country is better off economically than it was 4 years ago, then Trump wins. Period.

by Anonymousreply 26December 7, 2019 2:49 AM

R26, if that were true, he’d be polling better now. He’s unpopular because people don’t like him for various reason, there are so many, and they know he’s not to be credited for rainbows and puppies.

by Anonymousreply 27December 7, 2019 2:55 AM

500 legal scholars signed on an article to the WaPo today, saying that Trump should be impeached.

The impeachment can, will, and should be completed by Christmas. The House will still be investigating and researching, though. In January, the trial will start in the Senate. I hear it may take 8 weeks, perhaps. That makes it, perhaps, March before the Senate votes. There may be a lot of new info surfacing by then.

I wonder how they will handle Pompeo, Bolton, and the others? In the House, they already knew what all the witnesses were going to say, due to private, earlier testimony, before they testified in open session. That was for the audience’s benefit and avoids embarrassing Perry Mason-like answers.

by Anonymousreply 28December 7, 2019 4:02 AM

The Senate will subpoena Hunter Biden as their first witness.

This is a foolish errand that will ensure re-election for Trump.

by Anonymousreply 29December 7, 2019 6:35 AM

[quote]if that were true, he’d be polling better now. He’s unpopular because people don’t like him for various reason, there are so many, and they know he’s not to be credited for rainbows and puppies.

After 2016 what polls do you believe? At the moment the polls are all over the place. YouGov has his approval rating among likely or registered voters at 41%. Rasmussen at 51 %.

by Anonymousreply 30December 7, 2019 3:42 PM

[quote] R29: The Senate will subpoena Hunter Biden as their first witness.

The above is a foolish error and Justice Roberts will not allow it. It will ensure the destruction of Trump .

by Anonymousreply 31December 7, 2019 4:05 PM

R30, I certainly don’t believe Rasmussen. They are Republican leaning and the Republicans are known for lying. That’s their brand.

by Anonymousreply 32December 7, 2019 4:07 PM

[quote] r30: After 2016 what polls do you believe? At the moment the polls are all over the place. YouGov has his approval rating among likely or registered voters at 41%. Rasmussen at 51%.

Trump has consistently polled below 50% in multiple polls ever since his not so well-attended inauguration. The man can’t appear in public unless it’s at a campaign rally.

by Anonymousreply 33December 7, 2019 4:11 PM

R33He won with 46 % of the vote. And on Nov 8th 2016, Gallop reported his disapproval rating at 61%. He was liked less than Hillary.

But he won. She lost.

by Anonymousreply 34December 7, 2019 11:38 PM

It doesn't matter. It won't keep from Trumps re-election in 2020.

by Anonymousreply 35December 8, 2019 12:57 AM

R31 I think it's either Rule 7 or Rule 8. While Roberts will be "invited" to oversee the impeachment, the rules and procedures have been described as "Calvinball": they make up the rules as they go. The Chief Justice can rule on admissibility of evidence, but he can also kick it back to the Senate to decide what's admissible.

Unlike the House, colloquy is prohibited - meaning, the Senators have to be quiet during the trial. No gabbing about, no distracting behavior. No Nunes tantrums. That rather freezes out some of the usually more colorful members who enjoy playing to the cameras.

by Anonymousreply 36December 8, 2019 4:41 AM

I know the Dem and Repub leaders have agreed on the rules beforehand in the past.

The Chief Justice “presides” according to the Constitution, so I would bet Roberts gets to interpret what that word means. All three are also guided by a desire to appear to be working in good faith, but Republicans have been so faithless in recent years, so we shall see.

by Anonymousreply 37December 9, 2019 4:36 AM

Republican Senate will not impeach him as did the Democrats didnt impeach Clinton. Waste of time and will only rally him to another term as president

by Anonymousreply 38December 9, 2019 11:02 AM

R38 Senators vote to remove not impeach. Yes, it's likely there won't be 20 Repub Senators to kick Trump out. Most everyone knows and accepts this. Trump is getting impeached because it's the right thing to and history will look kindly upon Pelosi and Schiff. But, Trump hasn't been impeached yet, and the trial hasn't started. At the end of the day, whatever does happen, once Trump is impeached and the trial is finished, we don't know where public opinion will stand. If it goes way up for removal, those Repub Senators won't have any other choice but to kick him out. Unlikely, but still possible. Who knows what reveals await us. It was only a few months ago that we learned Trump tried to pressure a foreign entity to act in a way that would benefit him against one of his political rivals.

As far as "waste of time," Trump's approval rating takes a hit when the impeachment talk remains in the news cycle. So, it has been worth it. If he gets reelected, it won't be because of any kind of vindication from the impeachment process. That's on the Dems to produce a candidate and campaign that can take him down.

by Anonymousreply 39December 9, 2019 11:59 AM

The Senate doesn't impeach. The Senate convicts.

Clinton was indeed impeached, as impeachment happens in the House. Once the House impeaches, then the issue moves to the Senate, who can vote to convict or not.

by Anonymousreply 40December 9, 2019 12:03 PM

[quote]And on Nov 8th 2016, Gallop reported his disapproval rating at 61%. He was liked less than Hillary. But he won. She lost.

Gallup hadn't had time to register the effects of the Comey letter. In states like New Jersey that were polling much more quickly, her support dropped by several points and didn't have time to recover by election day. 538 showed her chances of winning dropping by more than 20% once the letter came out. She didn't recover much of that by November 8th. She HAD been at 85% chance to win and dropped to 71% by the time election day rolled around.

Let's not forget what happened, especially when it was so recent.

You forget the 2016 "October Surprise" at your peril. It's going to happen again. Try not to freak out and let it stop you from voting Trump out this time.

by Anonymousreply 41December 9, 2019 12:07 PM

They should vote to impeach, but not send to senate until ALL testimony has been gathered. Turtlehole will be able to set the rules in the senate trial and he could preclude new evidence. So if they don’t get Bolton (among others) on record before it goes to the senate, it won’t matter what comes out in his book.

I say delay until Bolton is forced to testify. If, for no other reason to take the sails out of his book launch.

by Anonymousreply 42December 9, 2019 12:14 PM

They need to force the people who wouldn't testify to testify. Seeing Trump crony after Trump crony refuse to talk or tell ridiculous lies would help show people what's going on.

by Anonymousreply 43December 9, 2019 12:24 PM

[quote]Gallup hadn't had time to register the effects of the Comey letter. In states like New Jersey that were polling much more quickly, her support dropped by several points and didn't have time to recover by election day. 538 showed her chances of winning dropping by more than 20% once the letter came out. She didn't recover much of that by November 8th. She HAD been at 85% chance to win and dropped to 71% by the time election day rolled around.

What are you babbling about?

I wrote about how Trump was liked EVEN LESS than Hillary Clinton. But he won.

And it may very well turn out the same in 2020. Disapproval for Trump might not necessarily mean votes for the Dem.

[quote]Gallup hadn't had time to register the effects of the Comey letter. In states like New Jersey that were polling much more quickly, her support dropped by several points and didn't have time to recover by election day.

If you want to talk about Hillary's support among the public, please know that last year (Sept. 28th 2018) Gallup polling showed this:

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorability with U.S. adults is unchanged from last November -- remaining at a record low (36%)."

In other words, liked even LESS than in 2016.

by Anonymousreply 44December 9, 2019 4:09 PM

[quote]What are you babbling about?

I was trying to explain something to a guy who can't even spell "Gallup" properly and who failed to mention that Trump's and Clinton's disapproval ratings were BOTH very low on November 8, 2016, and as such weren't indicators of who would win.

What Clinton's approval rating on Gallup was 14 months ago is of no relevance whatsoever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45December 9, 2019 4:15 PM

[quote]I was trying to explain something to a guy who can't even spell "Gallup" properly and who failed to mention that Trump's and Clinton's disapproval ratings were BOTH very low on November 8, 2016, and as such weren't indicators of who would win.

*sigh*

Exactly. Bingo. Trump's high disapproval ratings may not necessary be an indicator of his chances of winning in 2020.

Follow the thread, dope.

My post at R34 was in response to what R33 wrote::"Trump has consistently polled below 50% in multiple polls ever since his not so well-attended inauguration. "

by Anonymousreply 46December 9, 2019 5:26 PM

R38, I completely disagree. Firstly, the Dems must proceed. It’s their duty. The Constitution is not a waste of time.

Aside from that, If the Dems put on a good case, they will win over Republicans and Republican Senators. They already have 8 or so. My prediction is there will be a trickle of Republican Senators prepared to convict, then a flood.

The Dems don’t need any more info to prosecute the case. If they can’t convict with what they have, they simply will never convict. That’s how solid their case is. That’s why Republicans are so hysterical about this. Have you heard Gym Jordan screaming? We don’t want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Trump can be bounced out with what we have already. He can’t be double-bounced out if more crimes are revealed.

Now, the Clinton impeachment was more destructive to the Republicans in Congress than to Clinton. The Rs lost two Speakers, IIRC, and then did worse than expected in the midterm election. We’re already starting to see this with Nunes being skewered by Swalwell, and Rudy and others in peril. it’s a process, and it’s going well.

by Anonymousreply 47December 9, 2019 11:42 PM

[quote] R46: Exactly. Bingo. Trump's high disapproval ratings may not necessary be an indicator of his chances of winning in 2020.

I think we are all aware that predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Aside from knowing that anything can happen 11 months from now, our best indicators today say that Trump is not popular. Not popular in raw numbers, not popular compared to other Presidents at this point, etc.

The impeachment will be good for Dems. If it succeeds, it will be because Trump becomes more widely known to be a criminal. If it fails, it will energize his base to vote, and he will lose reelection.

by Anonymousreply 48December 9, 2019 11:50 PM

^ If it fails, it will energize THE DEM BASE to vote, and he will lose reelection.

by Anonymousreply 49December 9, 2019 11:53 PM

I hope Speaker Pelosi holds the impeachment, meaning - she doesn't forward it to the Senate. There's a number of outstanding issues in front of the Supreme Court regarding evidence.

Certainly, the Republicans want this over so they can take a victory lap and fund raise for the next election cycle. Let's not give them that. The spectre of more referrals, more charges that are vastly more serious than what we already have accomplishes a couple of goals. First, it keeps the heat on Trump and his criminal cabal to come forward. Second, the pressure peels Republican support. This will be especially true if the House gets Trump's records and can prove he's been having conversations with Putin that are as bad as the ones he had with Zelenky.

Leave this dangling: what if there's evidence that shows Trump, his kids and their allies committed Treason. Actual treason against the US. This goes from "Nixon class" to Rosenberg class, you know - the people who were executed for treason.

Now, let that sit in your head for a bit. Republicans have always defended maximum punishment for treason.

Demonstrate it *could be* treason, and the Republicans fall like flowers in a gale storm. Nobody will defend Trump against that charge. It's guilt by association.

by Anonymousreply 50December 10, 2019 12:39 AM

Sorry, R50, it can’t be treason in peacetime. It could be espionage, perhaps, but not treason.

As far as “holding” it, we’re already at the end of the game. It will take at least 4 weeks in the Senate, maybe 12 weeks, to adjudicate. If Nancy holds it, in 4 more weeks, the argument will become that it’s “too late” and we should “let the people decide” in November instead of proceeding. Besides, the Dem Senators running in the primaries want the impeachment settled.

by Anonymousreply 51December 10, 2019 12:50 AM

Who gives a fuck if the Repukes start issuing subpoenas? Just ignore them - the White House set the precedent.

by Anonymousreply 52December 10, 2019 1:21 AM

R5/R6/R13, if you think they should wait, listen to Adam Schiff today when they announced the articles of impeachment. He explains why we can’t wait. He does a good job.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53December 11, 2019 1:17 AM

The number of Dem Reps that are “on the fence” about voting in favor of impeachment is killing Schiff and Pelosi.

As of today, a vote would probably result in rejection of the Articles of Impeachment, by just a couple of votes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54December 11, 2019 1:28 AM

And this.

Itf 19 of these vulnerable democratic representatives decide to vote against impeachment, then it fails in the House of Representatives.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55December 11, 2019 1:29 AM

There are 31 House districts that are held by Democrats but which voted for Trump, in some cases by large margins. One of those Democrats — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), a 15-termer whose district gave Trump a 31-point victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 — voted against beginning the impeachment inquiry. Peterson seems unlikely to vote for the articles of impeachment, and he may not be alone. For these representatives, it's a lot easier to defend supporting an inquiry ("I just wanted to settle the matter once and for all" or even "I wanted to give the president a fair chance to clear his name") than backing impeachment itself.

With a 235-seat majority (plus one independent, Justin Amash of Michigan, who has expressed support for impeachment) against 197 Republicans, House Democrats can only afford to lose 18 votes. If all 31 Trump-district Democrats vote "no," impeachment fails. If Democratic representatives share their national voter base's perspective from that Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight survey and vote accordingly, a whopping 63 would vote "no," so impeachment definitely fails.

by Anonymousreply 56December 11, 2019 1:44 AM

You dummies think Pelosi doesn't know her caucus? Hahaha.

by Anonymousreply 57December 11, 2019 2:10 AM

R57 is right.

R56, there were a number of Representatives who won seats in Trump country, but this was seen as a 2018 repudiation of Trump. These people don’t have to worry too much. It doesn’t seem like you accounted for them, have you?

by Anonymousreply 58December 11, 2019 2:27 AM

R58

If Trump supporters (and independents), turned off by the impeachment, turn out for Trump, then they will lose their seats in a landslide.

The Democratic Prez field is weak. That will not draw marginal Dem voters.

This impeachment is energizing the Republican base.

The massive repo operations by the federal reserve are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy every month. That money will keep pushing the stock market higher, unemployment even lower (if possible!), and will eventually have the (long term) negative effect of sparking massive wage and price inflation as that money begins to really enter the general economy. The last time the federal reserve did this, it worked out GREAT for the top 0.1% and their political allies...and fucked everyone else. This will be worse, but it will juice the economy big.

I get called a Russian troll all the time, but my post inevitably get a half dozen likes, because many Democrats agree with my unvarnished assessment.

I don’t like Donald Trump at all. He is intellectually incurious, ignorant of economics, has good instincts on foreign policy but has hired hundreds of Swamp Creatures to advise him.

He’s venal, arrogant, obnoxious, emotional and easily swayed.

BUT-

His emotional connection with his core audience, coupled with his pugnacious style, the appearance of a witchhunt during the impeachment, the failure of the Mueller report, the #FakeNews meme...these all help him.

A failed conviction in the Senate would be humiliating to Dems. It might take months before several Senators can campaign for president again.

by Anonymousreply 59December 11, 2019 3:01 AM

R59, well, I disagree on much of what you wrote.

Impeachment will be a “win” for the Dems, however the Senate votes. As long as the Dems present a good case, which I think they will. It will demoralize the Deplorables, and energize the Dems, especially if the senate vote fails to convict. This will infuriate most hardcore liberals.

You should really get a different handle. HardcoreLiberal doesn’t describe you very well, I don’t think. Most Liberals I know don’t think there’s been a witch-hunt. They think we have a lawless President and we’ve been unable to keep up with addressing all the crimes he is committing. I’d expect a hardcoreliberal to be calling for Trump’s imprisonment or execution.

by Anonymousreply 60December 11, 2019 3:19 AM

"Hardcore LIberal" needs to change his name to "Concern Troll."

by Anonymousreply 61December 11, 2019 1:57 PM

R60

Most liberals are now authoritarian socialists.

They don’t even understand the word liberal, or what it means.

by Anonymousreply 62December 11, 2019 3:14 PM

That’s a generalization, r62. Like most generalizations, it’s untrue. It’s also just foolish.

by Anonymousreply 63December 11, 2019 3:16 PM

R51 It can. The constitution specifically cites treason which does not have a dependent clause for "wartime only".

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" is where the door opens specifically for charges of treason. The opportunity existed to charge Snowden with treason, which Trump also repeatedly called for. With two witnesses against Trump for his actions against the US - Congress could charge him with a specifically political crime.

To your point, this is rare - I think maybe 30 treason trials have been held since the founding of the republic, with Aaron Burr's the most famous.

The Espionage Act has never been tested constitutionally, where the treason clause is black letter in the constitution itself. The Espionage Act was used in the attempted prosecution of the Washington Pos and Daniel Ellsberg t over the Pentagon Papers failed due to pretrial conduct by the government. To the specific point, espionage requires actions related to providing of classified information to an enemy. Trump, as President, has the legal right to declassify information as he wishes - and has done without regard to the intelligence community or department of defense.

I think prosecution on espionage would not survive a challenge in the supreme court. Treason? Treason has a great deal of weight and is a terrifying proposition to the administration. It's a large net that catches a lot of Trump's fish.

by Anonymousreply 64December 11, 2019 4:14 PM

That’s interesting, R64; however, I have recently heard that the Supreme Court has ruled that treason requires a wartime enemy. I’d love to see Trump hanging for treason, though.

by Anonymousreply 65December 12, 2019 2:30 AM

It's called a cold war. We never stopped being at war with Russia. We're just not shooting bullets. It's being fought with spies and computers.

by Anonymousreply 66December 12, 2019 6:11 AM

Sure, R66, but the lawyers would shoot that down rather quickly. I hope for Supermax imprisonment for life.

by Anonymousreply 67December 13, 2019 1:01 AM

We’ve been at war since 2001.

by Anonymousreply 68December 13, 2019 2:22 AM

R65, there are old Supreme Court cases that address the meaning of the term “enemy,” concluding that some sort of collective physical threat to the U.S. must be present. But this hasn’t been revisited by the Court since WWII.

by Anonymousreply 69December 13, 2019 2:47 AM

R69, I'd say Russia's nuclear stockpile and never ending spy activity are a collective physical threat.

by Anonymousreply 70December 13, 2019 4:31 AM

A charge of treason will certainly focus Trump‘s mind.

I’ve said before and I’ll keep saying, they need to be prepared to seize his passport. After arrest, he can’t get home-release. He’s a flight risk, a national security risk, a “friend” of dictators, and an asshole. He will run.

by Anonymousreply 71December 13, 2019 4:36 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!