Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
New Impeachment Poll: 68% support impeachment - Lawfareblog.com

The latest University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll fielded by Nielsen Scarborough finds this could spell major trouble for the president's public standing ahead, including among Republicans: We asked: "In general, do you believe it is an impeachable offense if the president of the United States invites foreign leaders/entities to interfere in U.S. elections?" Two thirds of respondents, including 46 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Independents said yes.


Poll was conducted after Mulvaney's press conference on Thursday.
Before Mulvaney's statement this week, the president appeared to have succeeded in persuading many, including a majority of Republicans, that there was no such quid pro quo. In a follow up we asked: "Do you believe that President Trump has invited foreign interference into a U.S. election?" A slight majority, 52 percent, said yes, but 79 percent of Republicans said no....

So, while two thirds of respondents say the offense of asking foreign leaders to intervene in our election is impeachable, only 52 percent agree the president committed such an offense. But there is reason to believe this gap will continue to narrow, including among Republicans and Independents. In fact, Independents are more than four times as likely as partisans to express uncertainty about whether the president invited foreign interference into a U.S. election.

As multiple polls have shown since the revelation about Trump's conversation with Ukraine's president, there is a steady shift in opinion toward supporting impeachment. In our poll, we probed this shift directly, asking respondents how the revelations shifted their attitudes on impeachment. Overall, 16 percent of respondents said they changed their position from opposing impeachment or being unsure, to supporting it. Importantly, this includes 8 percent of Republicans, suggesting that the controversy over Ukraine is much more parsimonious and salient than other scandals that have embroiled President Trump and his administration during the past two years.



"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Oct 19th, 2019 at 01:56:09 AM EST
Yes, I agree. that would be an impeachanle offense. But there is no evidence that that happened except for an anonymous letter. The US 6th amendment gives citizens the right to face their accusers and cross-examine. Anonymous charges are not allowed in courts of law. This impeachment smacks of election interference! By Democrats trying to overthrow the legally elected President. I agree the Trump is a crawling worm, but HE IS THE LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT!
This is an attempt at coup de etat without convincing evidence
by StillInTheWilderness on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 01:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENTS are still subject to impeachment. Trump's own transcript of his telcon with Zelinski is an admission of extortion for the purpose of furthering Trump's reelection and a felony. Mulveney's statement on TV, affirmed two more times in short order, is confirmation of that attempt at extotion for political gain. Then there is the testimony of Ambassador Taylor today, Tuesday, October 22. More confirmation and more misdeeds are sure to follow.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 02:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No it is not! It says nothing about furthering his re-election. Joe Biden is condemned out of his own mouth. BIDEN is the criminal.
by StillInTheWilderness on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 09:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm impressed that ET is considered important enough to attract this kind of attention, but disappointed that it isn't of higher quality.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Oct 24th, 2019 at 11:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Still in the Wilderness is a (former?) Boomantribune commenter who came over about the time when Booman changed to progresspond.
by fjallstrom on Mon Oct 28th, 2019 at 10:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, former.
Thank you fjallstrom for remembering. I remember you there too. One of the voices of sanity.

It's disheartening that politics has degenerated into primitive poo-flinging "my side right or wrong" tribalism. I despise Trump and everything he stands for, but, silly me, I still beleive in Right and Wrong, and Truth vs Lies, no matter what the political result.

by StillInTheWilderness on Sat Nov 2nd, 2019 at 06:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is an abuse of executive power to use the government to dig up dirt on opponents. However, I am not sure what the felony is.

Zelensky does not seem hard pressed to agree to what Trump suggest, rather he seems ethusiastic. And the arms support does not seem to have been contingent on an agreement. So if this is extortion, it is only in the sense that when the sole super power calls the threat is always present. And I doubt the US wants to criminalise that.

Zelensky is not invited to meddle in the US election as such, but encouraged to investigate possible foul deeds in Ukraine (with repercussions on US politics). Having been elected on a anti-corruption platform this is a natural fit for his stated politics. It will interesting to see if it goes anywhere, considering the rumours of connections between Burisma and the oligarch Kolomoyskyi, who also supported Zelensky's career. Anyway, as Ukrainian president I would assume that can (obeying the proper forms) order the prosecutors to investigate foul deeds in Ukraine. Asking a foreign president to investigate crimes in accordance with their laws (including investigations that have political consequences) is also something the US does and probably doesn't want to criminalise.

So, I do get the abuse of power aspect - the president has to be prevented from bringing the full weight of the govenrment apparatus on his opponents - but I don't get what the felony is.

by fjallstrom on Mon Oct 28th, 2019 at 10:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The President of the United States takes an Oath of Office to faithfully execute the duties of his office according to the laws of the country. Those laws specifically forbid self enrichment - see emoluments clauses. Perverting the conduct of US foreign policy to serve the personal needs of the president for election or re-election is an especially egregious violation of the oath of office. Anything that aids a politician to be elected or re-elected is a 'thing of value'. It is the equivalent of or worse than receiving a bribe and it is a gross abuse of power.

It is clear from the writings of the founders of the nation that it was specifically to remedy such acts, seen as potentially fatal to the survival of the nation as a representative republic, that the impeachment clauses were ADDED to the Constitution before it was submitted for ratification. Bribery is specifically enumerated as a cause of impeachment.

The term 'High crimes and misdemeanors' is not limited to specifically illegal acts. It also covers actions that are detrimental to the good governance of the nation. The fact that such acts may have been committed but not prosecuted in previous administrations is no defense. It also covers acts such as obstruction of justice that are also criminal offenses.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 29th, 2019 at 03:57:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately written in 18th Century prose and lacking important detail, thus open to argument across all three branches of government.
by asdf on Tue Oct 29th, 2019 at 05:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My understanding is that an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. And all the House is doing now is gathering evidence and putting together a case which may be presented later.
But this not a criminal or civil action in a court of law in any event. This is just a process of government, determining if someone should remain in office. And there is no right of appeal except possible reelection.
by Andhakari on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 03:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The impeachment process in the US appears pretty cut and dried, but like anything political, there are significant untested gaps. Especially when the text was written 230 years ago.

For example, per Article 2, Section 3, the president can adjourn congress. The exact rules have not been tested because previously impeached presidents have not pushed the envelope to its full extent.

All Trump has to do is issue an executive order to this effect and the whole system goes up for grabs.

by asdf on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 03:19:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, this is a problem when the House and Senate are split - as now.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 23rd, 2019 at 05:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series