2nd Impeachment? House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

[Fueri]

If at first you don't succeed....

The corrupt bastard has already successfully been impeached.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

Not until Aunt Nancy finds the paperwork and sends it to the Senate he isn't where it will be summarily tossed in the trash.

Then you feckless fools can see if you can get it right the next time around.

Good luck.

You are another person who doesn't appear to know how impeachment works.

First, they get information about the possibility of an impeachable offense. Then, the House does an investigation to see if impeachable offenses have been committed. If it is determined that there were, they then draw up articles of impeachment and vote on whether or not to impeach.

Once the House impeaches the president, it is then passed to the Senate. And, while the Senate cannot reverse the impeachment of the House, they can vote to remove or keep the president. Even if the Senate votes to keep him, he's still been impeached.

The House does the impeaching, the Senate decides if the president should stay or not. Matter of fact, even though the Senate decided to not remove Clinton, because of the vote in the House, he will always be remembered as a president who was impeached.

M'kay.

Impeachment is a process laid out in the constitution. part of that process is the trial in the senate, so we have not completed the process, so he has not been impeached.

The process isn't complete, therefore we cannot use past tense.

We can say he is being impeached, but not that he has been impeached.

But thanks for the supposed lesson.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And that is why the WB needs to testify. Who told him about the call, did that person have clearance to divulge it, and did the WB have clearance to hear and in turn divulge it again?

Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

One could come to the conclusion that the left impeached a president with no evidence of any wrongdoing, and is just trying to wing it in hopes of actually finding an impeachable offense.

As more information is released, more impeachment charges can be filed

Fruit of the poisonous tree - Wikipedia

If they didn't have sufficient evidence to support the first Impeachment inquiry, then they acted illegally by conducting it. It is not legal to bring a criminal action which one knows is unsupportable, in the hope that in the course of investigating it, evidence will emerge of a previously unsuspected crime.

And any evidence obtained as a result of illegal activity is poisoned, and inadmissible.

The only thing that the House can do regarding this matter, at this point, that is not blatantly illegal, is to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, for trial.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As more information is released, more impeachment charges can be filed

That is also true, but if that's the case, why did they rush these articles out? If they felt there was more to come, they should have postponed the articles until they had completed their investigations.

 

[hadit]

As more information is released, more impeachment charges can be filed

Doing so would simply underscore the incompetence of the House democrats.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As more information is released, more impeachment charges can be filed

That is also true, but if that's the case, why did they rush these articles out? If they felt there was more to come, they should have postponed the articles until they had completed their investigations.

Maybe because the Republicans kept calling the investigation phase of it a "kangaroo court" and a "witchhunt". Probably decided to go with the first few things that they knew would stick to impeach him with a vote in the House.

 

[xyz]

Trump has committed so many crimes, the Ukraine stuff was obvious and very much in the open. Trump even admitted to it in basic terms, he just said it wasn't a crime.

They should get his taxes, he has a lot of conflicts of interest which should be investigated, in particular his dealings with Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Allegedly Kushner told the Saudis to go ahead and kill Khashoggi, and it was intecepted by Turkish intelligence. I doubt it was Kushner's idea, Stinky Donald probably told him to. I would think he would have no problem ordering the death of a journalist critical of himself.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Trump has committed so many crimes, the Ukraine stuff was obvious and very much in the open. Trump even admitted to it in basic terms, he just said it wasn't a crime.

They should get his taxes, he has a lot of conflicts of interest which should be investigated, in particular his dealings with Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Allegedly Kushner told the Saudis to go ahead and kill Khashoggi, and it was intecepted [sic] by Turkish intelligence. I doubt it was Kushner's idea, Stinky Donald probably told him to. I would think he would have no problem ordering the death of a journalist critical of himself.

You really need to put the shiny side outward. This ↑ is a perfect example of what happens when someone puts the shiny side inward.

Look here for more information.

 

[ThisIsMe]

As more information is released, more impeachment charges can be filed

That is also true, but if that's the case, why did they rush these articles out? If they felt there was more to come, they should have postponed the articles until they had completed their investigations.

Maybe because the Republicans kept calling the investigation phase of it a "kangaroo court" and a "witchhunt". Probably decided to go with the first few things that they knew would stick to impeach him with a vote in the House.

I'm not going to believe the Democrats let the repubs bully them into impeachment articles. It had to be a timing issue. Dems wanted these articles out now for strategic reasons. Otherwise, they would have waited until they had a rock solid reason, instead of a broad spectrum charge. It's almost if they wanted to get the articles out there with a vague charge like "abuse of power", which could literally be anything, and is non specific, with the hopes that later, they can keep investigating and fill in the charges, at a later time.

That would lead one to conclude they didnt have a valid reason for impeachment, which is why the charge is so vague, and they are hoping to find the charge sometime down the line.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You would be right in a kangaroo court. But,........

Go ahead and finish.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That makes as much sense as claiming that every instance in which a citizen declines to allow the police to search his home without a warrant is evidence that that citizen is guilty of a crime.

Whoah, waaay offbase. That's absurd. Every time you refused to provide documents for which you were subpoenaed, that would, indeed, be evidence of obstruction. And if you weren't a fat, mentally ill president, you would go sit in jail for it. So the president is getting special protection here, not especially bad treatment. Get it right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.

False. Are you just kind of making stuff up as you go?

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm not going to believe the Democrats let the repubs bully them into impeachment articles. It had to be a timing issue. Dems wanted these articles out now for strategic reasons. Otherwise, they would have waited until they had a rock solid reason, instead of a broad spectrum charge. It's almost if they wanted to get the articles out there with a vague charge like "abuse of power", which could literally be anything, and is non specific, with the hopes that later, they can keep investigating and fill in the charges, at a later time.

That would lead one to conclude they didnt have a valid reason for impeachment, which is why the charge is so vague, and they are hoping to find the charge sometime down the line.

That leads you to the conclusion which you had drawn before, and for ulterior motives, even though that conclusion isn't warranted, and it's based entirely on your ignorance of the issues and the process.

The evidence for Trump's corruption is rock solid. Anyone reading up on the matter knows that, but you don't, because you didn't.

Abuse of power is perfectly clear, but you don't know that either. It's the use of the power of the office for anything other than to further the nation's interest. That's what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, in essence.

Now, can the evidence for Trump's corruption become even stronger? Of course it can. Of course, preventing main witnesses from testifying is, even in criminal trials, associated with a presumption of wrongdoing. If you had more than just two brain cells firing, you'd know that, too. But you don't. And that's why you are reduced to re-bleating, time and again, that exact same pap you've been promulgating before, with nothing other than your ignorance being painted in ever stronger colors as a result.

Now, Republicans have a choice to make: They can be honorable members of Congress, get to the truth of the matters at hand, and call witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the goings-on. Or they can betray their shameful sycophancy, and participate in Trump's corrupt cover-up. We already know what your choice is. Let's hope the honorable Senators find whatever remnants of their consciences are still operational.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That would lead one to conclude they didnt [sic] have a valid reason for impeachment, which is why the charge is so vague, and they are hoping to find the charge sometime down the line.

Again, if it becomes too obvious that this was the case, then the whole thing falls apart. If knowingly carried out the first impeachment inquiry, knowing that they had no supportable charges to bring, then they acted illegally. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree principle, any evidence that is uncovered as a result of that first illegal inquiry is inadmissible.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The evidence for Trump's corruption is rock solid.

If that was anywhere close to true, then as long and as hard as the Democraps have been going after him, buy now they'd have come up with something much better with which to try to charge him than the unsupportable bullshit with which they fluffed their bogus impeachment articles.

 

[Care4all]

WTF? Another impeachment? We are now entering the Twilight zone:

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

"The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals about whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn following the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
"If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment," Letter wrote."

That sounds like double-jeopardy, a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Also, like possible grounds for having the collective Democratic portion of the House declared a vexatious litigator.

They were on very thin ice, bringing up the one impeachment proceeding that they did, with no actual evidence of any actual crimes; and now, having passed the Articles of Impeachment, refusing to allow the case to proceed to trial in a timely manner, depriving the defendant of any fair chance to defend himself or otherwise to receive due process of law.

If, having failed once, they try it a second time, this would certainly be grounds to bring legal proceedings against each and every corrupt one of them.

double jeopardy, is being charged/tried for the same crime twice...
if there were new impeachment charges, it would be for NEW high crimes or misdemeanors, not the same ones.. so double jeopardy would not come in to play.....

Obviously, if you have new crimes, then they could impeach (which simply means 'charge'), again and again and again if the House felt necessary.... and new crimes kept being committed.

but that is highly unlikely, due to the political risk of making impeachment meaningless...imo.

 

[protectionist]

WTF? Another impeachment? We are now entering the Twilight zone:

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

"The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals about whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn following the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
"If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment," Letter wrote."

All of which confirms what I've been saying, that this impeachment circus is nothing more than a big show put on by Democrats to enhance their 2020 election chances.

1. .The impeachment won't go to the Senate where that would be counterproductive for Democrats.

2. Instead of a pro-Trump Senate scenario, Democrats will stage another big Trump bashing scenario.

3. Democrats may dream up one excuse after another right up until November, to hold more House hearings, just as a way to keep Trump in a negative light. The latest contortion of Democrat desperation campaigning

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm not going to believe the Democrats let the repubs bully them into impeachment articles. It had to be a timing issue. Dems wanted these articles out now for strategic reasons. Otherwise, they would have waited until they had a rock solid reason, instead of a broad spectrum charge. It's almost if they wanted to get the articles out there with a vague charge like "abuse of power", which could literally be anything, and is non specific, with the hopes that later, they can keep investigating and fill in the charges, at a later time.

That would lead one to conclude they didnt have a valid reason for impeachment, which is why the charge is so vague, and they are hoping to find the charge sometime down the line.

That leads you to the conclusion which you had drawn before, and for ulterior motives, even though that conclusion isn't warranted, and it's based entirely on your ignorance of the issues and the process.

The evidence for Trump's corruption is rock solid. Anyone reading up on the matter knows that, but you don't, because you didn't.

Abuse of power is perfectly clear, but you don't know that either. It's the use of the power of the office for anything other than to further the nation's interest. That's what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, in essence.

Now, can the evidence for Trump's corruption become even stronger? Of course it can. Of course, preventing main witnesses from testifying is, even in criminal trials, associated with a presumption of wrongdoing. If you had more than just two brain cells firing, you'd know that, too. But you don't. And that's why you are reduced to re-bleating, time and again, that exact same pap you've been promulgating before, with nothing other than your ignorance being painted in ever stronger colors as a result.

Now, Republicans have a choice to make: They can be honorable members of Congress, get to the truth of the matters at hand, and call witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the goings-on. Or they can betray their shameful sycophancy, and participate in Trump's corrupt cover-up. We already know what your choice is. Let's hope the honorable Senators find whatever remnants of their consciences are still operational.

"Abuse of power" is open ended. It's like an empty container waiting for something to fill it.

If the dems had an actual allegation, they could have said so. Treason, bribery, extortion, espionage, those are "chargeable offenses", but those werent in the articles, it was "abuse of power".

During all of the testimony, there was never any evidence provided, nor was there any testimony given that said trump asked for the investigation with intent to influence his campaign, or for personal reasons. All of that came from dems in the house, and from left wing media. You have to prove intent, which would be hard to do. Even in the phone call transcript, trump used the word "us", meaning the nation.

Also, trump never asked for any investigation into joe biden directly. He asked for an investigation into why the prosecutor was fired.

If there were any evidence that, prior to the phone call with zelinsky, trump had been talking about him being worried about biden, or any hint that he may want to try and damage biden for his campaign, then left would have merit to stand on. As far as I am aware, this isnt the case. Up to now, it's all been supposition and assumption.

You have to prove intent, because without it, you simply have a president asking for help about supposed misconduct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the dems had an actual allegation, they could have said so.

Abuse of power is an actual accusation. People go to jail for it all the time. Same for obstruction. Your entire argument is stupid.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If the dems had an actual allegation, they could have said so.

Abuse of power is an actual accusation. People go to jail for it all the time. Same for obstruction. Your entire argument is stupid.

"Abuse of power" is so open ended, that it could literally mean anything the opposing party wants it to.

There has to be an underlying charge. To simply say someone is going to be reprimanded for abuse of power just doesnt work. You have to spell out and prove what it was that the person did to abuse their power.

If the term abuse of power is simply all that is needed, then you really could impeach every single president, since somewhere along the way, via executive orders, or working deals with other countries, or simply using government assets for personal use (taking air force one to golf), could be labeled abuse of power.

Besides all if that, there still has not been any evidence shown that trump did any of this for his own personal gain. Even his telephone call shows the opposite of that.

Again, abuse of power is being used as an empty vessel that the dems put out there so they could get their articles of impeachment written as soon as possible, with hopes of finding crimes later to "fill in the blank". Again, if it were not, then why the rush to put out these articles if they knew they were going to keep investigating? Why not wait until they had everything done, and then write up the articles?