Noonan: The Impeachment Needle May Move Soon

[XenaLee]

The columnist I most admire,  Peggy Noonan of the WSJ,  lends a sober analysis to the predicament that President Trump faces:

The Impeachment Needle May Move Soon

In speaking to folks whose opinions I value this weekend,  the most startling event of the past week may well have been Trump's letter to Turkish leader Erdogan,  which the administration released to the public apparently in order to show how tough the President is.   But it's an almost juvenile-sounding compendium of schoolyard taunts,  and shocking evidence that there may no longer be adults in the room to help the President recognize and temper his most impulsive inclinations.   As I noted last week the most important question we should be asking ourselves is just who will want to work for this President?   If it's down to yes-men and relatives,  we are in for a wild ride as Trump decides to be an aerialist without a net.   

Well... it looks like the "source" whom you most admire has been trashed thoroughly....lololol.   Ooops.

[Jazzhead]

Well... it looks like the "source" whom you most admire has been trashed thoroughly....lololol.   Ooops.

Yeah, by fools.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, by fools.

Trashing fellow Briefers again, @Jazzhead?  "Fools?"

[Snarknado]

Impeaching without a thorough, independent investigation is an iffy proposition - they'll be going to the Senate with conclusions based on a one-sided, totally partisan process. I would expect Roberts to give the Senate wide latitude to get at the other side of the story. That could get pretty messy and take a long time, with daily opportunities to criticize the fairness of the way the House conducted its investigation. I think they need a lot more than they have now.

It will also be interesting to see if they bring in the Mueller report. They claimed that contained ample grounds for impeachment, which I think is now a liability for them. Leave it out and admit that their earlier rhetoric was empty partisan grandstanding, or bring it in and give repubs an easy slam dunk to dismiss it and portray their other claims as equally frivolous.

[Bigun]

For Peggy Noonan and her elitist pals…here’s a little plainspeak for you[/b]

I resent the hell out of Joe Biden on video bragging about the hold up of financial aid to the Ukraine until a prosecutor investigating his son was fired.  This is the textbook definition of a political quid pro quo.  On. Video.  I resent the hell out of a media that tries to tell me there is nothing wrong with this or that it has been ‘debunked’ or is ‘unsubstantiated’ or that the real culprit is President Trump for daring to engage in any action to get to the bottom of all aspects of 2016 election interference.

I resent the hell out of Joe Biden’s son securing $1.5B from China in the immediate aftermath of an Air Force Two trip with his father—because I have worked in corporate finance and this doesn’t happen for any reason other than the pay-off by China for China-favorable policy decisions by the Obama/Biden administration.  I resent the hell out of a media that won’t acknowledge the obvious or tries to tell me to look past the Biden corruption that is right in my face.

Probably most of all, I resent the hell out of a media and a Republican Party that would do absolutely nothing about any of these things because Barack Obama was the first President of color, and so these elites decided to pat Americans on the head, tell them to shut up with their concerns, and understand that Obama gets a free pass to destroy this country in the name of transforming it in accord with his leftist ideology.  In President Trump’s words, this is b*****t.  We the people are not too stupid to see what was done, and we don’t forget who did it.

[Victoria33]

@Jazzhead

Sent you a message, but I am blocked.

[skeeter]

Impeaching without a thorough, independent investigation is an iffy proposition - they'll be going to the Senate with conclusions based on a one-sided, totally partisan process. I would expect Roberts to give the Senate wide latitude to get at the other side of the story. That could get pretty messy and take a long time, with daily opportunities to criticize the fairness of the way the House conducted its investigation. I think they need a lot more than they have now.

It will also be interesting to see if they bring in the Mueller report. They claimed that contained ample grounds for impeachment, which I think is now a liability for them. Leave it out and admit that their earlier rhetoric was empty partisan grandstanding, or bring it in and give repubs an easy slam dunk to dismiss it and portray their other claims as equally frivolous.

What worries me is are there are enough cowards in the GOP who, while they don't openly say so, privately long to get rid of the outsider and are hoping the rats give them cover so they can participate in driving him out.

[XenaLee]

Yeah, by fools.

Oh my.   Did you just call Cyber Liberty a fool?    You better stop digging.... 

[PeteS in CA]

Criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment. Read and Learn.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,379806.0.html

Cute condescension. Read and learn:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”

Article 2 prescribes the grounds on which a President, etc., can be impeached: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". While nothing physically prevents the House from impeaching and the Senate removing Trump for breathing, it is a violation of the US Constitution, and would trigger a constitutional crisis in which US courts could be asked to rule on a removal that violates the Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

It will also be interesting to see if they bring in the Mueller report. They claimed that contained ample grounds for impeachment, which I think is now a liability for them. Leave it out and admit that their earlier rhetoric was empty partisan grandstanding, or bring it in and give repubs an easy slam dunk to dismiss it and portray their other claims as equally frivolous.

They are sure to bring in the Mueller report, the second part.  They are already claiming Obstruction of the basement hearings.

[OfTheCross]

Cute condescension. Read and learn:

Article 2 prescribes the grounds on which a President, etc., can be impeached: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". While nothing physically prevents the House from impeaching and the Senate removing Trump for breathing, it is a violation of the US Constitution, and would trigger a constitutional crisis in which US courts could be asked to rule on a removal that violates the Constitution.

A misdemeanor is not a crime.


Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 showed that misdemeanor by itself (as opposed to high misdemeanor) referred to a less serious offense:

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime

[Jazzhead]

Trashing fellow Briefers again, @Jazzhead?  "Fools?"

I'm sorry, CL, but folks whose lazy reaction to Ms. Noonan's column is to trash her as a leftist and worse,  and utter not a peep about the substance of her commentary, do not have my respect.   If her analysis is wrong, then say why.   Attacking the messenger is akin to a camel with its head in the sand.   And would anyone object that the camel's refusal to face reality is, well, foolish?   

[Cyber Liberty]

A misdemeanor is not a crime.


Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 showed that misdemeanor by itself (as opposed to high misdemeanor) referred to a less serious offense:

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime

No matter how much lipstick is applied, a pig is still a pig.

As was patiently explained to you before, the House could decide to impeach him because they don't like the length of his ties, but they won't because in practice, they'll be slaughtered by the voters if they do.  Upshot:  What you say may be technically true, but it's not relevant to the reality at hand. 

[Jazzhead]

Oh my.   Did you just call Cyber Liberty a fool?    You better stop digging.... 

My post wasn't directed at CL.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm sorry, CL, but folks whose lazy reaction to Ms. Noonan's column is to trash her as a leftist and worse,  and utter not a peep about the substance of her commentary, do not have my respect.   If her analysis is wrong, then say why.   Attacking the messenger is akin to a camel with its head in the sand.   And would anyone object that the camel's refusal to face reality is, well, foolish?   

I should remind:  There is a red line between calling Briefers' actions "foolish," and calling Briefers "fools."

[Cyber Liberty]

My post wasn't directed at CL.

Would not have mattered if you did, and I did not see it like that anyway.  It doesn't bother me personally, and I respect most of your opinions.

Unlike Noonan.  I respect nothing of what she writes.  If I accidentally agree with her about something, I find myself questioning my own premises because something in the Universe must be out of alignment.

[OfTheCross]

No matter how much lipstick is applied, a pig is still a pig.

As was patiently explained to you before, the House could decide to impeach him because they don't like the length of his ties, but they won't because in practice, they'll be slaughtered by the voters if they do.  Upshot:  What you say may be technically true, but it's not relevant to the reality at hand.

So, you agree that criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment.

The reason it doesn't happen flippantly is because they need a 2/3rds majority to convict and, yes, there may be political blowback.

Fear of that political blowback may be why Nancy Polosi was going against her base and not impeaching the president last year.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I support Trump and believe this impeachment is a load of crap....

But i also believe that it is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to decide what is a high crime or misdemeanor.  I would point out that if you think that is for the Supreme Court to decide, that would leave impeachment of Supreme Court justices to their own discretion as well, which is an absurd result.  I cannot believe the Framers would have given to the unelected third branch - appointed for life, no less -- the power to veto any attempt to remove either them or the President.

It may sound good to some that the Supremes could stop an unjust impeachment of Trump.  But if you give them that power, then you also give to that Court the power to stop a perfectly just impeachment of a future President AOC.

[Cyber Liberty]

So, you agree that criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment.

That is technically correct.

The reason it doesn't happen flippantly is because they need a 2/3rds majority to convict and, yes, there may be political blowback.

Fear of that political blowback may be why Nancy Polosi was going against her base and not impeaching the president last year.

The blowback is not a "maybe."  If they vote to Impeach based on something frivolous they will be severely punished for it.   So, in practical terms, it has to be a high crime or a high misdemeanor.  A plain old, vanilla flavored misdemeanor like disorderly conduct won't do.  Politics is an art of the possible (and practical), not the "technical."

[Cyber Liberty]

I support Trump and believe this impeachment is a load of crap....

But i also believe that it is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to decide what is a high crime or misdemeanor.  I would point out that if you think that is for the Supreme Court to decide, that would leave impeachment of Supreme Court justices to their own discretion as well, which is an absurd result.  I cannot believe the Framers would have given to the unelected third branch - appointed for life, no less -- the power to veto any attempt to remove either them or the President.

It may sound good to some that the Supremes could stop an unjust impeachment of Trump.  But if you give them that power, then you also give to that Court the power to stop a perfectly just impeachment of a future President AOC.

I cannot imagine SCOTUS getting involved, either.  The Justices have stated in several decisions they will not decide political issues.  That said, it's sometimes honored in the breach, like in Roe v. Wade.

[OfTheCross]

That is technically correct.

The blowback is not a "maybe."  If they vote to Impeach based on something frivolous they will be severely punished for it.   So, in practical terms, it has to be a high crime or a high misdemeanor.  A plain old, vanilla flavored misdemeanor like disorderly conduct won't do.  Politics is an art of the possible (and practical), not the "technical."

Welp, the Democrats are gathering information and we'll see if they make the political calculation to impeach.

It's going to be must see TV if they do 

[Cyber Liberty]

Welp, the Democrats are gathering information and we'll see if they make the political calculation to impeach.

It's going to be must see TV if they do 

You betcha!  Move over... 

[Snarknado]

I cannot imagine SCOTUS getting involved, either.  The Justices have stated in several decisions they will not decide political issues.  That said, it's sometimes honored in the breach, like in Roe v. Wade.

SCOTUS isn't involved, but the trial is presided over by the chief justice.

[txradioguy]

Criminal behaviour/activity is not necessary for impeachment. Read and Learn.


http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,379806.0.html

Like @skeeter said on the thread you linked to...your premise is laughable on it's face.

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"


Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office".[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.[6][1]

Ok Skippy...show me where he's done any of that.

[txradioguy]

Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 showed that misdemeanor by itself (as opposed to high misdemeanor) referred to a less serious offense:

MISDEMEANOR. Offence; ill behavior; something less than an atrocious crime

Ok...now how about something from the Federalist Papers...something more relevant to our actual Constitution.