Impeachment question for experts

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Scott said:

Trump just approved $738 Billion in military spending for 2020.

We're already off the charts for military spending:

Maybe, maybe not.  Like I said, I don't pretend to know how much it cost to create a military to be the best in the planet that can respond to any and all threats today and in the future. 

This is my philosophy - I believe in a strong military.  This is the one and only thing I can think of that requires a Federal Government.  Everything else I side with the Libertarians.  How much does it cost to have this military - I don't pretend to know.

Social Welfare - This is something I do not believe belongs under the responsibility of the Federal Government.  Therefore, even if I don't know how much it cost to run a successful and meaningful Social Welfare it doesn't matter.  Spending more than $0 is too much.

So basically, what I'm trying to say is - I only care that the money is managed wisely and with the least corruption and that it is within the capability of the treasury (not debt).  Deciding how much to spend on a program I wholeheartedly support I leave to the experts.

 

17 hours ago, Scott said:

 

Even if the budget was cut, we'd still have the biggest, baddest, most powerful military in the world and more than enough to protect ourselves.

Yeah, ok.  I spent $400K on my house.  My sister spent $250K for her much bigger house.  Several of my family worldwide think I'm stupid because I paid almost twice more than my sister for a smaller house.  Of course, they don't know why my house cost more than my sisters.  They couldn't - they're just armchair quarterbacking what it takes to have a house in the USA.

In other words, I'll let the military decide how much it cost to have the biggest, baddest, and most powerful military in the world.

Now, if you're going to claim that the military is pocketing the money or spending it on crap... then that's a different topic.

 

17 hours ago, Scott said:

What we don't need is to spend billions on military operations that have nothing to do with protecting our country (or our true allies-if they truly needed it).

The war in Syria and trying to dispose of Assad is a good example.

Like this.  This is a different topic.  This is not anymore talking about whether $738B is too much or too little.  Now we're talking about spending the money on crap.

And this sentiment, I agree with.  Interestingly, Trump agrees with it too - he just hasn't figured out how to get out of it yet... I think he might have managed to figure it out.  We're pulling out of Iraq - if the mainstream news can be believed.

 

17 hours ago, Scott said:

it depends on who it is.  Trump has taken a hardline stance towards Europe, but not Israel or Saudi.  Saudi spends a lot on military, but they are reluctant to lift a finger when they should and want the US to do their fighting for them.

Israel has the same social programs that Europe does, but we still give them a lot of aid.  Trump hasn't said anything against Israel for that.

I don't know what Trump's plan for Japan is.    He says Japan should pay more, but the current treaty could be a roadblock for that.   I haven't heard of his plans for Japan other than saying they should pay more.

This statement is too vague to be useful.  Each country is its own foreign policy, so of course it depends on who it is.  You can't just put them all in a basket for a one-size-fits-all solution.

• Trump has taken a hard stance toward NATO and countries hosting US bases. 
• Trump is in a trade war against EU and China. 
• Trump pulled out of EU-supported globalist initiatives that cost the US a lot of money without direct benefit to the USA like the Climate Change agreements.
• Trump has made the US energy independent, but it still needs to have influence over the price of oil that the Saudis can directly impact or stabilize regardless of whatever else is happening in the Middle East. 
• Trump has overhauled trade with Mexico and Canada. 
• Trump overhauled immigration and asylum policy with Central and South America getting stable southern countries to take on a share of the burden of stemming illegal migration into the USA. 
• Trump built the Pacific Alliance, wining and dining Southeast Asian nations with economic trade and military support against North Korea.  Trump proceeded to alternately threaten and wine-and-dine Kim to fish him into negotiations.
• Israel is not just a bulwark in the Middle East with their nukes that can give the USA plausible deniability, it holds a historical/cultural/traditional/even religious importance to the USA.  Trump made big moves to show support for Israel to make all other countries in the region (and the political left in the USA) take notice.

 

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

So yes, some Europeans have confidence in Trump, but it is very few.  The vast majority do not.

Not Europeans but Australians:

 

[Guest Scott]

On 1/6/2020 at 9:58 PM, anatess2 said:

Iran is no worse than it was before unlike what you keep on claiming.

Iran just announced that all nuclear deals are off the table and that they will pursue getting nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

This isn't worse in your eyes?

Edited January 8, 2020 by Scott

[Guest Mores]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Iran just announced that all nuclear deals are off the table and that they will pursue getting nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

This isn't worse in your eyes?

All this means is that they're doing the same thing they've already been doing.  But now they're being open about it.

From one perspective, that could be a positive.  Better the devil you know.

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Iran just announced that all nuclear deals are off the table and that they will pursue getting nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

This isn't worse in your eyes?

It’s cute that you believe they haven’t continued to pursue weaponization after JCPOA.

[Guest Mores]

To bring us back to the OP, I have to wonder:

If there is no rule/law/Constitutional requirement for the House to send the articles to the Senate, is there any rule/law/Constitutional Requirement for the Senate to receive them before proceeding with the trial?

What's the beef?

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

To bring us back to the OP, I have to wonder:

If there is no rule/law/Constitutional requirement for the House to send the articles to the Senate, is there any rule/law/Constitutional Requirement for the Senate to receive them before proceeding with the trial?

What's the beef?

Yes.  The Senate has voted to follow the Senate rules used in the Clinton impeachment trial for the Trump impeachment trial and not draft a new one.  This rule require the receipt of the articles before they start the trial.

Edited January 9, 2020 by anatess2

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  The Senate rules require the receipt of the articles before they start the trial.

So, that's what's going on with the change in Senate rules.  I kept hearing all the talk but it didn't go into the reasoning and so forth.  Just a lot of yelling and blaming.

So, basically, they're doing what I had believed they should be doing.  Sounds good.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

So, that's what's going on with the change in Senate rules.  I kept hearing all the talk but it didn't go into the reasoning and so forth.  Just a lot of yelling and blaming.

So, basically, they're doing what I had believed they should be doing.  Sounds good.

I think Pelosi is just walking into one blunder after another.  She needs to do something about Schiff but she can't - she can't take him down privately.  And now with the Iran thing, Schiff is Thelma&Louise-ing her again and she's helpless about it.

[Traveler]

I started this thread on the notion that the Senate may dismiss the articles of impeachment on the grounds that the House refuses to present them to the Senate.  @Just_A_Guy who is much more the expert in such things than I - implied that such action was not just unlikely but lacked legal president or backing.  In other words the idea was uninformed.   As a follow up I am hearing of talk that the Senate may schedule a date for a hearing and invite the House to present the articles for impeachment along with all the evidence they would like to present for their action in creating the articles.    This would exclude the necessity for more testimony and based only on the evidence gathered by the house - or based on the house presenting the articles - determine if there is a need to proceed.  

I am not expert in law - but this sounds to be a good possibility.  It would put a great deal of pressure on those that pushed and voted impeachment in the upcoming election - if they refused to present their case.  I think it would be worse than loosing their case in the Senate - after all the testimony they are demanding for the Senate but were not interested in pursuing through the legal (supreme) court in the House. 

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I started this thread on the notion that the Senate may dismiss the articles of impeachment on the grounds that the House refuses to present them to the Senate.  @Just_A_Guy who is much more the expert in such things than I - implied that such action was not just unlikely but lacked legal president or backing.  In other words the idea was uninformed.   As a follow up I am hearing of talk that the Senate may schedule a date for a hearing and invite the House to present the articles for impeachment along with all the evidence they would like to present for their action in creating the articles.    This would exclude the necessity for more testimony and based only on the evidence gathered by the house - or based on the house presenting the articles - determine if there is a need to proceed.  

I am not expert in law - but this sounds to be a good possibility.  It would put a great deal of pressure on those that pushed and voted impeachment in the upcoming election - if they refused to present their case.  I think it would be worse than loosing their case in the Senate - after all the testimony they are demanding for the Senate but were not interested in pursuing through the legal (supreme) court in the House. 

 

The Traveler

Senator Hawley is trying to pass a resolution to amend the Senate Impeachment Rules to allow the Senate to dismiss the impeachment for lack of prosecution if the articles are not received by the Senate within 25 days.

[Grunt]

On 1/9/2020 at 6:33 PM, anatess2 said:

Senator Hawley is trying to pass a resolution to amend the Senate Impeachment Rules to allow the Senate to dismiss the impeachment for lack of prosecution if the articles are not received by the Senate within 25 days.

As well they should.

[estradling75]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

As well they should.

Indeed...  The House has the solo authority to impeach the president.  However the Senate has solo authority to try the case and act on the impeachment.  The fact that the House is trying to dictate how the Senate does its job needs to be smacked down hard.

 

[Colirio]

 

President Trump was acquitted by the senate. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Colirio
Added news article link

[anatess2]

 

[askandanswer]

This impeachment process took about 7 months. With about nine months to go until the next election, and the possibility of a second term, its possible that President Trump could be the only US President to be impeached twice. I'm not talking about degrees if likelihood, I'm just pointing out a possibility. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

This impeachment process took about 7 months. With about nine months to go until the next election, and the possibility of a second term, its possible that President Trump could be the only US President to be impeached twice. I'm not talking about degrees if likelihood, I'm just pointing out a possibility. 

Actually, I would find that funny. Trump is who and what he is, but TWO impeachments by a Democrap House with no Senate conviction would make the Democraps a laughingstock for at least a generation.

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Actually, I would find that funny. Trump is who and what he is, but TWO impeachments by a Democrap House with no Senate conviction would make the Democraps a laughingstock for at least a generation.

At least.

Ken Starr is still a laughingstock today... 20 years later.

[NeuroTypical]

Back a few years ago, Blue Colorado passed some insanely idiotic gun control bills, in an emotional reaction to the Aurora theater shooting.  It made people so mad, we launched a recall campaign against one of the state senators.  He had to run an election campaign in the middle of his term, and he lost, and replaced his democrat rear end with a republican.  Then we did the same thing to a second state senator, replacing her with a republican.  Then we launched a recall campaign against the speaker of the state senate.  If it had gone through, we would have turned the whole dang state from purple to red.  Instead of resisting the 3rd recall effort, they made her resign, and replaced her with a democrat we couldn't recall.  The whole thing made international news, and had a nationwide chilling effect on all further gun control legislation for the rest of Obama's term.

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-senate-president-john-morse-state-sen-angela-giron-ousted/

Someone might know offhand, can members of the house be recalled/kicked out by their own constituents in the middle of their term, if people get mad enough?  Because repeat impeachments in an election year becomes something so obvious, there may be enough bipartisan angry to pull it off.

Edited February 7, 2020 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

41 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-senate-president-john-morse-state-sen-angela-giron-ousted/

Paywall. Too bad; looks interesting.

42 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Instead of resisting the 3rd recall effort, they made her resign, and replaced her with a democrat we couldn't recall.

Ah, the irony. You can recall an elected official, but you can't recall an appointed official in the same position.

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Back a few years ago, Blue Colorado passed some insanely idiotic gun control bills, in an emotional reaction to the Aurora theater shooting.  It made people so mad, we launched a recall campaign against one of the state senators.  He had to run an election campaign in the middle of his term, and he lost, and replaced his democrat rear end with a republican.  Then we did the same thing to a second state senator, replacing her with a republican.  Then we launched a recall campaign against the speaker of the state senate.  If it had gone through, we would have turned the whole dang state from purple to red.  Instead of resisting the 3rd recall effort, they made her resign, and replaced her with a democrat we couldn't recall.  The whole thing made international news, and had a nationwide chilling effect on all further gun control legislation for the rest of Obama's term.

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-senate-president-john-morse-state-sen-angela-giron-ousted/

Someone might know offhand, can members of the house be recalled/kicked out by their own constituents in the middle of their term, if people get mad enough?  Because repeat impeachments in an election year becomes something so obvious, there may be enough bipartisan angry to pull it off.

There's no provision to recall a US House member.  They get re-elected or voted out every 2 years.

US Senators might be recalled by its State government because Senators represent the State government and not the people and there is no Federal law that prevents a State from recalling its Senators in the middle of the term.  Therefore, State Law is supreme in this case and so a State can put into law a recall provision for their State's US Senator.

[NeuroTypical]

52 minutes ago, Vort said:

Paywall. Too bad; looks interesting.

Here's another:  https://www.westword.com/news/john-morse-angelo-giron-recalled-celebrating-conservatives-lamenting-progressives-5880273

And here's where it made international news: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24055400

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

There's no provision to recall a US House member.  They get re-elected or voted out every 2 years.

US Senators might be recalled by its State government because Senators represent the State government and not the people and there is no Federal law that prevents a State from recalling its Senators in the middle of the term.  Therefore, State Law is supreme in this case and so a State can put into law a recall provision for their State's US Senator.

To what degree is this theory still true in the wake of the 17th Amendment?  I mean, I get (and agree with) the theory that the Senate should be somewhat insulated from public opinion; but now that senators are elected directly, how can we say that they are answerable to state legislatures in a way that house members are not?

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To what degree is this theory still true in the wake of the 17th Amendment?  I mean, I get (and agree with) the theory that the Senate should be somewhat insulated from public opinion; but now that senators are elected directly, how can we say that they are answerable to state legislatures in a way that house members are not?

There are states for written ways to recall, but I'd have to do more research to see if those have ever been taken to challenge.  Looking at the constitution we see...

Article I Section 3

Quote

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

I would point to the Vacancies by resignation OR otherwise, indicating that it could be done via other methods than resignation...

And

Article I Section 4

Quote

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Which indicates that it may be times and such no in sync with the normal election periods...

but then we also have the Seventeenth Amendment which reads...

Quote

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution

Interestingly enough, Utah made a request to repeal the 17th amendment.

I think it could be done (recall of a Senator in Utah for example), but if parties were concerned, they may bring it up as a case to Federal Court which then would rely on the whims of the political leanings of the sitting Judges.

With the rapid sense of Courts today, it may be the terms are over before the case is actually resolved.

[anatess2]

On 2/7/2020 at 7:53 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

To what degree is this theory still true in the wake of the 17th Amendment?  I mean, I get (and agree with) the theory that the Senate should be somewhat insulated from public opinion; but now that senators are elected directly, how can we say that they are answerable to state legislatures in a way that house members are not?

Remains true.  The method of election of a Senator does not change the fact that a Senator represents the State Government. The 17th amendment does not provide limitations on the State Governments to recall their Senators.  Therefore, that remains the right of the State Government.