Federal judge rules: Trump impeachment legal, DOJ to turn over grand jury info, no House vote needed

[OregonKnight]

DC Circuit Court judge issues a scathing ruling in favor of the House of Representatives, combating several White House and Trump talking points.

• Impeachment proceedings are legal
• No house vote required to open impeachment inquiry
• DOJ to turn over redacted grand jury materials to HoR

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...lease-grand-jury-material-from-mueller-report

 

[DaShuckster]

Well I'll be damned. What a shocker!!! Who would have ever thought that a Federal judge would rule in favor of the U.S. Constitution over Trump???!?

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm kind of 50-50 on this. I want the HOR to retake the authority that they have ceded to the executive branch, but at the same time it seems like it is granting exceptional power to a small committee as opposed the the body as a whole. This judge may be setting the precedent that the judiciary committee has more authority than it should have. In the future, it becomes possible for there to be a down vote from the HOR on investigating but the committee can act unilaterally for what may be only political rationale. Hard to say which side to fall on this one.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm kind of 50-50 on this. I want the HOR to retake the authority that they have ceded to the executive branch, but at the same time it seems like it is granting exceptional power to a small committee as opposed the the body as a whole. This judge may be setting the precedent that the judiciary committee has more authority than it should have. In the future, it becomes possible for there to be a down vote from the HOR on investigating but the committee can act unilaterally for what may be only political rationale. Hard to say which side to fall on this one.

The guy running the investigation is the guy who helped the whistleblower form his complaint, linked the whistleblower up with attorneys, and has his own issues with Ukraine. This would look far better if Schiff recused himself for the obvious conflicts of interest in this inquiry.

 

[Crazyhole]

The guy running the investigation is the guy who helped the whistleblower form his complaint, linked the whistleblower up with attorneys, and has his own issues with Ukraine. This would look far better if Schiff refused himself for the obvious conflicts of interest in this inquiry.

That's what I'm saying. This ruling may be taking power away from the executive, which I agree with, but its granting too much power to a committee and not the whole body. There shouldn't be a pyramid of power in the house, where a few have more authority than the rest.

 

[DaShuckster]

That's what I'm saying. This ruling may be taking power away from the executive, which I agree with, but its granting too much power to a committee and not the whole body. There shouldn't be a pyramid of power in the house, where a few have more authority than the rest.

COME ON! Too few have more authority than the rest? That's what your take away is from what's going on?

Like a Grand Jury, the charge of this House committee you deem to have "too much power" is to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant an actual impeachment indictment. If they do, THEN the whole body gets to examine it, review it, discuss it, and eventually vote yay or nay on it.

 

[sk8knight]

That's what I'm saying. This ruling may be taking power away from the executive, which I agree with, but its granting too much power to a committee and not the whole body. There shouldn't be a pyramid of power in the house, where a few have more authority than the rest.

Agree and we really don’t need the escalating arms race between the two parties either. The only loser will be the American people.

 

[Crazyhole]

COME ON! Too few have more authority than the rest? That's what your take away is from what's going on?

Like a Grand Jury, the charge of this House committee you deem to have "too much power" is to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant an actual impeachment indictment. If they do, THEN the whole body gets to examine it, review it, discuss it, and eventually vote yay or nay on it.

You keep comparing this to a grand jury, but a grand jury is by definition impartial. Politicians lack the ability to be impartial.

Would you feel this same way if you were accused of a crime and the grand jury consisted of 85, Sk8, Wayne, etc.?

 

[firm_bizzle]

I'm kind of 50-50 on this. I want the HOR to retake the authority that they have ceded to the executive branch, but at the same time it seems like it is granting exceptional power to a small committee as opposed the the body as a whole. This judge may be setting the precedent that the judiciary committee has more authority than it should have. In the future, it becomes possible for there to be a down vote from the HOR on investigating but the committee can act unilaterally for what may be only political rationale. Hard to say which side to fall on this one.

These are the rules that the Republicans created in 2015.

 

[Crazyhole]

These are the rules that the Republicans created in 2015.

It was before that, wasn't it? Needless to say, I'm not sure it's a good thing.

 

[UCFWayne]

These are the rules that the Republicans created in 2015.

it was terrible that the reps did that back in 2015. id like to see the judge overrule them and go back to what it was before.

 

[DaShuckster]

You keep comparing this to a grand jury, but a grand jury is by definition impartial. Politicians lack the ability to be impartial.

It's about collecting evidence to be considered by the full body. Both republicans and democrats interview the people brought in to testify.

 

[UCFBS]

I'm kind of 50-50 on this. I want the HOR to retake the authority that they have ceded to the executive branch, but at the same time it seems like it is granting exceptional power to a small committee as opposed the the body as a whole. This judge may be setting the precedent that the judiciary committee has more authority than it should have. In the future, it becomes possible for there to be a down vote from the HOR on investigating but the committee can act unilaterally for what may be only political rationale. Hard to say which side to fall on this one.

This will come back to bite the Democrats long-term. As always ... we'll see.

Frankly, I'm fine with Impeaching Trump. It's just going to set the bar rather low, especially since an independent counsel wouldn't, unlike with Starr and Clinton.

it was terrible that the reps did that back in 2015. id like to see the judge overrule them and go back to what it was before.

Republicans 'made their own bed,' including what candidates they offered to counter Trump. They could have had Gary Johnson in 2012.

 

[Crazyhole]

This will come back to bite the Democrats long-term. As always ... we'll see.

Frankly, I'm fine with Impeaching Trump. It's just going to set the bar rather low, especially since an independent counsel wouldn't, unlike with Starr and Clinton.

Republicans 'made their own bed,' including what candidates they offered to counter Trump. They could have had Gary Johnson in 2012.

The bar for impeachment should be low. That was how it was designed. Congress by definition should be the most powerful branch of government because they are charged with holding the other 2 branches accountable. Quite honestly, the only president since 1950 that shouldnt have been impeached is Eisenhower. Kennedy: Bay of Pigs. Johnson: Vietnam. Nixon: duh. Ford: Nixon. Carter: Iran. Reagan: sandinistas. Bush: maybe give him a pass. Clinton: perjury, obstruction, ineptitude as commander in chief. Bush2: iraq. Obama: FAF, IRS politicization. Trump: ukraine.

I'm not saying that all of those guys should have been removed from power but not enough of them were held accountable.

 

[UCFBS]

The bar for impeachment should be low. That was how it was designed.

Agreed. But too many Americans think it is a court-of-law. It's not.

But going forward, it will be this low. Americans need to understand that. But they don't stop to learn, just like they don't realize what Medicare-for-All really is as well.

 

[Crazyhole]

Agreed. But too many Americans think it is a court-of-law. It's not.

But going forward, it will be this low. Americans need to understand that. But they don't stop to learn, just like they don't realize what Medicare-for-All really is as well.

You could actually make the case that Nixon shouldnt have been impeached. He should have been charged criminally.

 

[UCFBS]

You could actually make the case that Nixon shouldnt have been impeached. He should have been charged criminally.

Yep. That's exactly what I was thinking of.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yep. That's exactly what I was thinking of.

Strangely, it's actually true. And now that I think of it, bush1 did start the Iraq war prior to congressional authorization which is impeachable, so Nixon may actually be the only president in 70 years who shouldnt have been subject to impeachment (although the gold standard thing is probably cloudy).