Cohen Hearings "should be seen as the first hearing" in Trump impeachment.

[The Romulan Republic]

Problem, the DoJ would be without teeth if it doesn't have an attack dog to keep the other two branches in line. Congress and the Presidency have always told the DoJ where to fuck off unless either branch backs them. Andrew Jackson's -effectively- 'MAKE ME' statement to the Supreme Court during his time as presidency shows how toothless it is without Congress backing it up (or vice versa when Congress basically told the DoJ to make them). The DoJ thus needs someone -in this case the FBI- to tell either branch that if they don't toe the line, then they will be made to.

That is why there is a limit on the FBI director's term, and the US has been poorer for that as while Director Hoover was a paranoid asshole, he was a lawful, somewhat apolitical, nation-patriot paranoid asshole.

Just noticed that you referred to the DOJ as a branch of government on part with Congress and the Executive. It isn't. It is a sub-division of the Executive. Its job is not to act as a check on the Executive and Legislature. You are conflating the Department of Justice and the Judicial Branch (ie the courts).

Elevating the FBI to a branch of government equal to the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary would be a massive, fundamental change to the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Just noticed that you referred to the DOJ as a branch of government on part with Congress and the Executive. It isn't. It is a sub-division of the Executive. Its job is not to act as a check on the Executive and Legislature. You are conflating the Department of Justice and the Judicial Branch (ie the courts).

Elevating the FBI to a branch of government equal to the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary would be a massive, fundamental change to the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

The DoJ is the representation of the Judicial System in the US, and without the FBI, the Judicial branch has always relied on the 'good will' of either the executive and/or the legislative branches of the government. The FBI basically gave the Judicial branch the ability to be the check on power for the other two branches.

... sad but true.

[The Romulan Republic]

Makes me wonder if when the Constitution was written, it should have given the Judicial its own enforcement arm.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Makes me wonder if when the Constitution was written, it should have given the Judicial its own enforcement arm.

Orignally, that was the job of the US Marshals' Service.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yep, this is definitely the first step towards impeachment:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics ... index.html

(CNN)On Monday, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that he was beginning a broad-scale investigation into Donald Trump's business and political life, the first step in a slow but purposeful attempt by congressional Democrats to build an impeachment case against the President.
Nadler, in an interview with ABC's "This Week," was open about the strategy. "We do not now have the evidence all sorted out and everything to do an impeachment," he said. "Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen."

THE POINT -- NOW ON YOUTUBE!
In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!
That persuasion campaign began in earnest Monday, with Nadler issuing more than six dozen letters to various Trump administration officials, business partners and campaign officials, seeking answers to a wide variety of questions. The questions deal with, among other topics: potential obstruction of justice, hush money payments to two women alleging affairs with Trump, potential collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign and violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause.
As Axios' Mike Allen wrote in his Monday newsletter:



"In an investigation being coordinated among six to eight House committees, Trump will essentially be on public trial for months to come, with topics that include abuse of power, obstruction of justice, conflicts of interest (including profit from the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue) and money laundering."
That this "public trial" is being led by Nadler -- and the Judiciary Committee -- is no coincidence. The impeachment process -- if it happens -- would run through that same Judiciary Committee and be overseen by Nadler.
This is a testing ground.
It's also an acknowledgment by Democrats that impeachment is a purely political -- not legal -- process that requires persuasion. This isn't about convincing a jury or a judge. This is about convincing the American people, who then, theoretically, pressure their representatives in Congress. (The last time Congress impeached a president without public buy-in -- in 1998 -- the impeachment backfired badly against the Republicans who had pursued it.)
One person who has long grasped that a) impeachment, not indictment, is the real threat to the President and b) impeachment only happens if the court of public opinion wants it to happen is one Donald John Trump.
For much of the past 18 months, Trump has railed against his own Justice Department, describing the ongoing special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election as a witch hunt and a hoax. He has savaged Robert Mueller and his special counsel team as "angry" Democrats trying to relitigate the election. (Mueller is a registered Republican who ran the FBI for a decade under one Democratic and one Republican president.)
"Presidential Harassment by 'crazed' Democrats at the highest level in the history of our Country," Trump tweeted Sunday night of the Nadler investigations. "Likewise, the most vicious and corrupt Mainstream Media that any president has ever had to endure - Yet the most successful first two years for any President. We are WINNING big, the envy of the WORLD, but just think what it could be?"
Trump's PR campaign against Mueller has worked -- to an extent. Mueller's approval ratings have dropped somewhat (although so, too, have Trump's) in CNN polling. In a December survey, 43% approved of the job Mueller was doing while 40% disapproved -- a far tighter margin than the 48% approval/36% disapproval for Mueller from CNN polling earlier, in the fall of 2018.
That same poll showed some waning in the public's desire for Trump to be impeached, as well. Fully 50% said they didn't think Trump should be impeached and kicked out of office while 43% favored those moves. That was down from a September 2018 poll, when 47% of people supported the impeachment and removal of Trump. As CNN pollster Jennifer Agiesta noted, however, that 43% number in the December poll is a higher mark than any of Trump's three most recent predecessors received when pollsters asked whether they should be impeached.)

CNN's Chris Cillizza cuts through the political spin and tells you what you need to know. By subscribing, you agree to our privacy policy.


Nadler, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (California) and every other Democratic leader will insist the investigations launched Monday are all about bringing accountability and oversight to the executive branch -- a role for the legislative branch laid out in the Constitution.

But make no mistake: This is Democrats' first major step toward the possibility of pursuing impeachment against the President. Impeachment is a process -- in Congress, yes, but more so in convincing the public (and even wavering Republican elected officials) that this is not a partisan exercise but rather a necessary defense of our democratic ideals.
That sales effort started today. Who knows when it ends -- and if it's successful.

Its finally happening. Took far too long to get here, but its finally happening.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't think the establishment Dems are going to push for impeachment. They'd much rather use the investigation proceedings as a spectacle to discredit Trump even further in the public eye.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think the establishment Dems are going to push for impeachment. They'd much rather use the investigation proceedings as a spectacle to discredit Trump even further in the public eye.

I might have been inclined to agree, until this latest development with the Judiciary committee. Due to:

1) The charges they're investigating Trump and his aids for (obstruction, corruption, and abuse of power) are all pretty much classic grounds for impeachment.

2) The Judiciary Committee is where any impeachment proceeding would have to begin.

3) This is widely being regarded as an opening move toward impeachment.

4) There is going to be increasing pressure from the progressive base on prominent Dems seeking the 2020 Presidential nomination to support impeachment.

5) There is enough evidence in the public record to make a good case against Trump for all of those charges, so unless the committee is willing to be utterly and publicly lacking in integrity, they pretty much have to find grounds for impeachment. Note also that the committee chair has said flat-out that he believes Trump is guilty of obstruction, and more or less acknowledged publicly that this is about wining over enough public support for impeachment (polls currently show that support for impeachment is between 40 and 50%- the Democratic leadership likely won't want to risk it politically without a clear public mandate to impeach.

Edit: That's not to say that anything is certain, of course. If nothing else, that ought to be apparent by now. But I'd lay better than even odds on this committee producing a recommendation/support for an impeachment vote sometime this year.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/rep- ... nt-process

U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib will ask her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings for President Trump.
Tlaib, a first-term Democrat from Detroit, said Wednesday she’ll introduce a resolution later this month. It will ask the Judiciary Committee to investigate grounds for impeaching the president.
Tlaib is already on the record as supporting impeachment. She says that by not fully divesting from his business interests, Trump has set up a situation where patrons can buy influence with the U.S. government— including foreign officials, in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“There’s a direct conflict of interest because he still has a vested interest in these businesses,” Tlaib said. “These are things that really jeopardize and taint our democracy. And we cannot allow a sitting president not to follow the United States Constitution. He is not above the law.”
Some fellow House Democrats have advised caution, and holding off on the possibility of impeachment proceedings until Special Counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
But Tlaib says some Democratic colleagues have approached her about potentially co-sponsoring the resolution, and the time to move is now.
“This is historic. This is unprecedented,” she said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There have been other resolutions calling for Trump's impeachment. Time will tell if this one has greater success.

Again, please call your representatives and the House leadership and urge them to support this resolution.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't think the establishment Dems are going to push for impeachment. They'd much rather use the investigation proceedings as a spectacle to discredit Trump even further in the public eye.

I might have been inclined to agree, until this latest development with the Judiciary committee. Due to:

1) The charges they're investigating Trump and his aids for (obstruction, corruption, and abuse of power) are all pretty much classic grounds for impeachment.

2) The Judiciary Committee is where any impeachment proceeding would have to begin.

3) This is widely being regarded as an opening move toward impeachment.

4) There is going to be increasing pressure from the progressive base on prominent Dems seeking the 2020 Presidential nomination to support impeachment.

5) There is enough evidence in the public record to make a good case against Trump for all of those charges, so unless the committee is willing to be utterly and publicly lacking in integrity, they pretty much have to find grounds for impeachment. Note also that the committee chair has said flat-out that he believes Trump is guilty of obstruction, and more or less acknowledged publicly that this is about wining over enough public support for impeachment (polls currently show that support for impeachment is between 40 and 50%- the Democratic leadership likely won't want to risk it politically without a clear public mandate to impeach.

Edit: That's not to say that anything is certain, of course. If nothing else, that ought to be apparent by now. But I'd lay better than even odds on this committee producing a recommendation/support for an impeachment vote sometime this year.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/rep- ... nt-process

U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib will ask her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings for President Trump.
Tlaib, a first-term Democrat from Detroit, said Wednesday she’ll introduce a resolution later this month. It will ask the Judiciary Committee to investigate grounds for impeaching the president.
Tlaib is already on the record as supporting impeachment. She says that by not fully divesting from his business interests, Trump has set up a situation where patrons can buy influence with the U.S. government— including foreign officials, in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“There’s a direct conflict of interest because he still has a vested interest in these businesses,” Tlaib said. “These are things that really jeopardize and taint our democracy. And we cannot allow a sitting president not to follow the United States Constitution. He is not above the law.”
Some fellow House Democrats have advised caution, and holding off on the possibility of impeachment proceedings until Special Counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
But Tlaib says some Democratic colleagues have approached her about potentially co-sponsoring the resolution, and the time to move is now.
“This is historic. This is unprecedented,” she said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There have been other resolutions calling for Trump's impeachment. Time will tell if this one has greater success.

Again, please call your representatives and the House leadership and urge them to support this resolution.

I like how you're like "I think the establishment Dems will push for it."

Then just hours later are force to post "Non-establishment Dem starts push for impeachment."

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think the establishment Dems are going to push for impeachment. They'd much rather use the investigation proceedings as a spectacle to discredit Trump even further in the public eye.

I might have been inclined to agree, until this latest development with the Judiciary committee. Due to:

1) The charges they're investigating Trump and his aids for (obstruction, corruption, and abuse of power) are all pretty much classic grounds for impeachment.

2) The Judiciary Committee is where any impeachment proceeding would have to begin.

3) This is widely being regarded as an opening move toward impeachment.

4) There is going to be increasing pressure from the progressive base on prominent Dems seeking the 2020 Presidential nomination to support impeachment.

5) There is enough evidence in the public record to make a good case against Trump for all of those charges, so unless the committee is willing to be utterly and publicly lacking in integrity, they pretty much have to find grounds for impeachment. Note also that the committee chair has said flat-out that he believes Trump is guilty of obstruction, and more or less acknowledged publicly that this is about wining over enough public support for impeachment (polls currently show that support for impeachment is between 40 and 50%- the Democratic leadership likely won't want to risk it politically without a clear public mandate to impeach.

Edit: That's not to say that anything is certain, of course. If nothing else, that ought to be apparent by now. But I'd lay better than even odds on this committee producing a recommendation/support for an impeachment vote sometime this year.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/rep- ... nt-process

U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib will ask her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings for President Trump.
Tlaib, a first-term Democrat from Detroit, said Wednesday she’ll introduce a resolution later this month. It will ask the Judiciary Committee to investigate grounds for impeaching the president.
Tlaib is already on the record as supporting impeachment. She says that by not fully divesting from his business interests, Trump has set up a situation where patrons can buy influence with the U.S. government— including foreign officials, in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“There’s a direct conflict of interest because he still has a vested interest in these businesses,” Tlaib said. “These are things that really jeopardize and taint our democracy. And we cannot allow a sitting president not to follow the United States Constitution. He is not above the law.”
Some fellow House Democrats have advised caution, and holding off on the possibility of impeachment proceedings until Special Counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
But Tlaib says some Democratic colleagues have approached her about potentially co-sponsoring the resolution, and the time to move is now.
“This is historic. This is unprecedented,” she said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There have been other resolutions calling for Trump's impeachment. Time will tell if this one has greater success.

Again, please call your representatives and the House leadership and urge them to support this resolution.

I like how you're like "I think the establishment Dems will push for it."

Then just hours later are force to post "Non-establishment Dem starts push for impeachment."

I like how you try to frame a post about why Democratic leadership may ultimately support impeachment, followed by a sepparate post about a progressive supporting impeachment, as me being "forced" to make concession, in an obvious attempt to score cheap points over an unrelated debate in a different thread. That's honestly one of the more impressively absurd misrepresentations of my arguments I've encountered on this board, so kudos.

Besides, I thought you didn't believe there was such a thing as non-establishment Dems?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I like how you try to frame a post about why Democratic leadership may ultimately support impeachment, followed by a sepparate post about a progressive supporting impeachment, as me being "forced" to make concession, in an obvious attempt to score cheap points over an unrelated debate in a different thread. That's honestly one of the more impressively absurd misrepresentations of my arguments I've encountered on this board, so kudos.

They're not unrelated, the liberal propensity for enforcing normality and moderation are behind both of these issues. The leadership has been reticent to push for impeachment, has been since they got the House Majority back and Pelosi said they would not be. Rashida Tlaib is a Justice Democrat and part of the DSA, they're an insurrectionary entryist minority group of freshman dems whose goal is to subvert and ultimately usurp control of the Democrats from corporate ghouls like Pelosi and Schumer. You don't get to claim her as "average Dem" when her and the other DSA members have been vocally and visibly in opposition to the pro-Corporatist state of the Democratic Party since their orientation program turned out to be a lobbyist meet and greet where they went and stage a literally staging a walkout in protest.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ ... ing-backed

She's not a Comrade, but her and the other SocDems are more palatable to people like me.

Besides, I thought you didn't believe there was such a thing as non-establishment Dems?

Quote me on that then.

[The Romulan Republic]

I like how you try to frame a post about why Democratic leadership may ultimately support impeachment, followed by a sepparate post about a progressive supporting impeachment, as me being "forced" to make concession, in an obvious attempt to score cheap points over an unrelated debate in a different thread. That's honestly one of the more impressively absurd misrepresentations of my arguments I've encountered on this board, so kudos.

They're not unrelated, the liberal propensity for enforcing normality and moderation are behind both of these issues. The leadership has been reticent to push for impeachment, has been since they got the House Majority back and Pelosi said they would not be. Rashida Tlaib is a Justice Democrat and part of the DSA, they're an insurrectionary entryist minority group of freshman dems whose goal is to subvert and ultimately usurp control of the Democrats from corporate ghouls like Pelosi and Schumer. You don't get to claim her as "average Dem" when her and the other DSA members have been vocally and visibly in opposition to the pro-Corporatist state of the Democratic Party since their orientation program turned out to be a lobbyist meet and greet where they went and stage a literally staging a walkout in protest.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ ... ing-backed

She's not a Comrade, but her and the other SocDems are more palatable to people like me.

I never claimed she was an average Democrat, but she is nonetheless a Democrat, campaigning under the Democratic Party banner- something for which you condemned me in your recent posts. It also underscores my point that the Democrats are a big tent party, with a wide range of positions, and cannot be fairly judged on the actions of their most conservative members. Hence, no doubt, your rapid backpeddling.

Quote me on that then.

In those exact words, no, but you made your collective condemnation of the party very clear.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I never claimed she was an average Democrat, but she is nonetheless a Democrat, campaigning under the Democratic Party banner- something for which you condemned me in your recent posts. It also underscores my point that the Democrats are a big tent party, with a wide range of positions, and cannot be fairly judged on the actions of their most conservative members. Hence, no doubt, your rapid backpeddling.

I'm not judging them on the actions of their most conservative members, I'm judging them on the actions of that bigot Schumer and the centrist shill that is Pelosi. I'm judging them by their average.

In those exact words, no, but you made your collective condemnation of the party very clear.

And? Just because I hate the party as a whole doesn't mean there aren't non-establishment Democrats. This is a blatant strawman on your part.

[The Romulan Republic]

I never claimed she was an average Democrat, but she is nonetheless a Democrat, campaigning under the Democratic Party banner- something for which you condemned me in your recent posts. It also underscores my point that the Democrats are a big tent party, with a wide range of positions, and cannot be fairly judged on the actions of their most conservative members. Hence, no doubt, your rapid backpeddling.

I'm not judging them on the actions of their most conservative members, I'm judging them on the actions of that bigot Schumer and the centrist shill that is Pelosi. I'm judging them by their average.

Pelosi showed real spine during the shutdown, at least. I'd also like you to explain why you apply the label of "bigot" to Schumer, preferably with a link to a credible source.

That said, I'm not sure either is that typical of the party now. Of Old Guard Congressmembers, yeah. But they're out of step with much of the party base (particularly the younger members) and a number of the Presidential nominees- you know, the people who will define the party going forward.

And? Just because I hate the party as a whole doesn't mean there aren't non-establishment Democrats. This is a blatant strawman on your part.

I mean, you made it pretty clear to me that in your book "supports/is a Democrat"=bad person. But this is way off-topic so I'll leave it at that.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Pelosi showed real spine during the shutdown, at least. I'd also like you to explain why you apply the label of "bigot" to Schumer, preferably with a link to a credible source.

And then applauded the idea of applauding a bigot for saying the magic word "bipartisan". It was the workers preparing a strike that ended that, if she wants credit she should've been calling for that Day 1.

As for Schumer:
https://972mag.com/chuck-schumer-thinks ... ah/133624/

Fuck that trash.

That said, I'm not sure either is that typical of the party now. Of Old Guard Congressmembers, yeah. But they're out of step with much of the party base (particularly the younger members) and a number of the Presidential nominees- you know, the people who will define the party going forward.

The party establishment is not the party base, that's my entire point, the party establishment are all corporate goons and ignoring that a demographic as large as the boomers are extremely skeptical of capitalism and their place in it.

I mean, you made it pretty clear to me that in your book "supports/is a Democrat"=bad person. But this is way off-topic so I'll leave it at that.

No I've made myself clear that in my book "supports/is a pro-corporate/establishment Democrat"=bad person. I'm registered as a Democrat, even though I'd rather vote for Socialist Labor Party of America, but in the mean time that's not viable so I'll support SocDems and DemSocs taking over the Democratic Party from the inside for the purpose of moving the Overton Window left while undermining and discrediting the establishment to help facilitate primarying them with people who won't fellate companies who make billions in dollars in profit paying zero in taxes.

[Proletarian]

That conception of the 'Overton Window' as some tangible thing that can be shifted almost at will, or at least by joining politically-engaged, active Parties en masse, is idealistic and essentially liberal.

The permitted discourse within a capitalist society flows naturally from its commanding. If the needs of its leading sectors change, the political speech allowed for follows on logically. For example, "welfare capitalism" became a mainstream, socially-acceptable political position to hold only after the Ford Motor Company and a few other pioneering interests demonstrated the viability of such a social arrangement. So too the 'mainstreamification' of green politics has gone hand-in-hand with the emergence of renewable energy as a real force in the economy.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The DoJ is the representation of the Judicial System in the US, and without the FBI, the Judicial branch has always relied on the 'good will' of either the executive and/or the legislative branches of the government. The FBI basically gave the Judicial branch the ability to be the check on power for the other two branches.

... sad but true.

Actually, this is not true.

The Department of Justice is NOT in any way the representation of the "Judicial System in the US". The the mandate of the Department of Justice is law ENFORCEMENT. This is quite plainly not the same thing as determining the constitutionality of laws (i.e. the Supreme Court(. While obviously there is a close working relationship between law enforcement agencies and the court system, they are completely separate systems belonging to completely different branches of government (something that should be obvious if you've seen literally any crime drama ever, which inevitably features scenes where the detectives are stymied by a stubborn judge).

[Ritterin Sophia]

Called it.

WASHINGTON — In throwing cold water on the idea of impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi in some ways was simply offering a cleareyed assessment of the state of politics today in the nation’s hyperpolarized capital: There are not enough votes to convict and remove President Trump from office.

And yet in declaring that impeachment therefore is “just not worth it,” Ms. Pelosi may also be setting a far-reaching new standard with implications long after Mr. Trump leaves office. By her reasoning, accusations of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other offenses — even if proved — do not rise to a level requiring action by the House of Representatives.

All of which raise fundamental questions: If Mr. Trump has done what he is accused of doing, and that would not qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors, then what would? If Congress opts against impeachment regardless of what the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, reports, would that set the bar so high that impeachment will no longer be a viable option? Will future presidents have license to cross all sorts of lines because of the precedent? In other words, if not Mr. Trump, then who?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/p ... trump.html