January 19, 2020

"The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatever..."

"... let alone 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness. Nothing in these Articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected President or warrant nullifying the election and subverting the will of the American people."

So reads the second paragraph of the "Answer of President Donald J. Trump" "In Proceedings Before the United States Senate."  My link goes to the PDF at the White House website. I couldn't find a text document of the 6-page letter so there's nothing to cut and paste. The White House website does have this text introduction, which, you can see, stresses the politics:
The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election—now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.
Other than the word "he," that sounds like something Trump could say at a rally. It's all about the motivations of the House Democrats, which, I'd like to point out, corresponds exactly to the House Democrats' argument against Trump: He/They took the powers of government and used them for personal advantage and only personal advantage. The legitimate, governmental purpose of that power was completely absent.

If we knew for a FACT that the House Democrats acted solely for their own personal, political advantage AND that Trump acted solely for his own personal, political advantage, do the 2 transgressions cancel each other out? But we don't know these things as facts, and the Democrats are calling on the Senate to answer the question about Trump, but they can't shield themselves from the question about themselves.

I see 3 ways to untangle these parallel problems: 1. The question of the House Democrats' political motivation must be answered first, and if they are appropriating the mechanisms of government solely for political benefit, they must be stopped in the act and denied the use of the Senate, or 2. When there is a legitimate governmental purpose, it's acceptable that a desire for political gain is also present, and that should let the Democrats over the threshold but will also set up the absolution of President Trump, or 3. The political component of impeachment is inherent, open, and part of the constitutional design, entirely different from turning federal spending and foreign policy into a personal, political tool.

But I've been talking about website text introducing the 6-page Answer. In the formal Answer, Trump certainly isn't arguing So what if I'm political too?

The document says he has "not in any way 'abused the powers of the Presidency.'" Everything he did was "perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of the national interest." He did "nothing wrong." The call was so perfect that "Mr. Schiff created a fraudulent version" of the call, and that proves the Democrats "knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with that call." As for what they call "obstruction of Congress," the Democrats didn't go to court to resolve the dispute over whether Trump's claim of executive privilege was valid, so they can't turn that into a basis for impeachment.

The Answer concedes nothing. Nothing was personally political. It was all on the highest level. Of course, that's what the House Democrats say about themselves too.

457 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 457 of 457
walter said...

If you weren't consumed by TDS, you'd recognize the similar entrenched actors employing process as punishment against Walker and Trump.

Crazy World said...

Why does that C person always post here if he doesn’t care about us? So odd...

Rusty said...

Mike Sylwester said...
"Chuck at 2:47 PM
AG Barr's confirmation in early 2019 was 54-45 and was a near-party-line vote. It was not a 2/3 vote.

Thanks for your correction.

I learn from and appreciate your comments, and I am sure that many other readers do too."
Mike. I've known too may lying sociopaths. Don't give him too much credit or he'll try and turn it around on you.

Remember when Garr was first appointed and shortly after the impeachment proceedings started? I said that the impeachment wasn't so much to get Trump out of office, but to steer the investigation of corruption away from certain democrats. It seems I was correct. I'm wonder how much Schiff is into the Russians and or Chinese for. Trump really has interrupted the flow of graft. That must really piss Pelosi off. I wonder how much tribute she gets.

Original Mike said...

I guess Chuck is embarrassed by his complaint against Barr.

Chuck said...

Aunty Trump said...
"Then why not vote for Bernie Sanders? “

I have said in these pages many times that I would have, were that the choice in ’16. But Trump is walking the walk, and Sanders is being forced and has been forced to repudiate many of his cross party appeal positions by the litmus testers in the primaries.


Ahhh! One of the elusive "Trump is my guy but Bernie is my backup" voters! Closely related to the "Bernie is my guy but Trump will be my backup" voters.

I actually want to hear from people like you. All about your policy preferences, past voting, all of it. Trump, or Bernie. wtf.

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck: "Because I was one of Althouse's ardent defenders of Walker (and the Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court)."

That was 1 of the 2 times LLR-lefty Chuck clearly figured that if he was going to successfully pose as a conservative he needed to at least put in a bit of efgort to appear that way.

I remember that time well and you could tell LLR-lefty Chuck was really struggling with what he could say that would sound like a conservative. It was all so contrived and forced and unnatural for him that it was actually hilarious.

You can tell when Chuck is posting from his deeply held beliefs (as an operational leftist aligned with the dems) becayse it all flows so much more smoothly and effortlessly and happily.

I would advise readers to make note of that next very rare occurrence where LLR-lefty Chuck attempts to play "real conservative" and take notice of the night and day difference in his insincere posting.

tim in vermont said...

He’s deaf, walter. His mind was made up yonks ago. “Never” is a long time. Going “Never” anything is like having a rontal lobotomy.

Drago said...

ARM: "I am pretty comfortable with the idea that the whole fucking senate is compromised by graft."

LOLOLOLOLOL

Ah yes! Here we go again. Invariably when ARM or Chuck or any other leftist finds themselves backed into a corner their next response us always "everybody does it so lets not just blame dems!"-Mode.

How tediously predictable.

hombre said...

Time for Barr to indict a Democrat or two using USAs from their home districts. Clearly, Dems and the leftmediaswine need something else to whine about.

Michael K said...

This is because your elite has collapsed into decadence and indiscipline, and entirely lost its virtue. And that virtue among the elite is the only thing that keeps a banana republic away. It isnt "law", or any words on paper.

This is why, at least for me, Trump was a brick through their window. I have been most pleasantly surprised by the results.

Drago said...

hombre: "Time for Barr to indict a Democrat or two using USAs from their home districts."

Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck would immediately demand that be added to the Articles of Galactic Sham-Wow-peachment as an abuse of power.

Guar-an-teed.

Chuck said...

Orignial Mike;
I'd say that this story at least scratches the surface of my now-reversed views on Bill Barr:

NYT: Barr's legal views come under fire from conservative-leaning lawyers

I am not a member of Checks and Balances. I'd be honored to join if they invited me.

tim in vermont said...

"All about your policy preferences, past voting,”

I once said that I didn’t give a shit if Trump bulldozed the White House and built a casino on Lafayette Square. Does that answer your question?

I want us to stop pretending to protect our kids whom we have sent to Iraq to “fight for our country” while ignoring that the leader of an army that is killing them stalks the country and our purported allies turn a blind eye. That would be one. We seem to be fighting a holding action for Europe’s faded crypto empires.

Another is to gain control of our borders, which Trump is at least trying to do, while being undermined at every turn by the deep state. You say on the one hand that Trump’s small delay of aid, within the parameters of the law, is an impeachable crime, but did I ever hear a peep about Obama’s wholesale disregard for our immigration laws? I don’t think so. American labor should not be forced to compete with cheap labor that doesn’t have protections.

I think that we should be energy independent, which was once dismissed as a crackpot dream, mostly so that we can disentangle from foreign wars, but also so that we can keep so many billions of dollars that come out of the pockets of working Americans within the borders of the United States.

Fewer laws the better. As the queen said in South Pacific, “Too many laws make people unhappy."

Original Mike said...

Unfortunately, I can't read the NYTs.

tim in vermont said...

"Trump was a brick through their window. I have been most pleasantly surprised by the results.”

Yes.

Drago said...

Checks and Balances!!

LOLOLOLOL

Its all the same pro-dem hacks including Conway!!

Its the same FakeCons over and over again with all these groups!!

Speaking of which, isnt it about time for Max Boot to "officially" (LOL) leave the republican party again?

By my count he has done that about 57 times since January of 2017.

George Conway!!!

I'll be laughing about that for the rest if the day!!

Awesome.

Hey Chuck, why not have those cats do an appearance in a swing state or 2?

Could be very powerful..........LOL

tim in vermont said...

New York Times is the house organ of the FBI and CIA deep state when they are not polishing the knob of some Democrat. You would think that Chuck had learned that with the Iraq War.

narciso said...

a blunt instrument as I say, reading most of these publications is like 'the blank pages' in they live, they are manifestly incomplete,

tim in vermont said...

Up until I voted for Trump, the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter in 1980, if you are keeping score. Yes, I think Trump is a Democrat as I understood the term in 1980.

Beasts of England said...

It’s thrilling to come back to this thread and discover ARM calling Mitch McConnell a ‘traitor’ and Chuck labeling a two-time Attorney General of the United States as a ‘toady’.

Original Mike said...

I don't object to reading the NYT, but I won't create an account with them, which they're requiring me to do.

tim in vermont said...

Let me quote the relevant bit for you:

Checks & Balances is made up of Republican and conservative lawyers, including some who served in recent administrations. George T. Conway III, one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics and the husband of the White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, is one of the group’s most prominent members. - New York Times

Narr said...

Spent a few days with some old wargaming buddies--which means white professionals mostly, heavily weighted to the Ds and their notions of reality. The one (VN) veteran among the five of us there has always been a crochety neo-Reb, a big Trump guy; the other VN vet was not able to be there but is about as lefty as they come.

The topic of Tillerson-tattle came up, about which I knew nothing so I just kept my mouth shut beyond expressing the revulsion and scorn for our noblesse de la robe and now, our noblesse de l'epee, that any informed person must feel.

But to most of my old friends, it's as if everything learned since 1970 about the duplicities, mendacities, misjudgments, miscalculations, and general fecklessness of our leadership is not really relevant to anything--Orange Man Bad is the order of the day.

Narr
My group is probably lefter than most such

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Actually, to be fair to McConnell, the entire apparatus that sold out our industrial capacity to the China are traitors. McConnell just happens to be a particularly conspicuous part of that apparatus, who profited obscenely from his actions.

Drago said...

Beasts of England: "It’s thrilling to come back to this thread and discover ARM calling Mitch McConnell a ‘traitor’ and Chuck labeling a two-time Attorney General of the United States as a ‘toady’."

Oh its MUCH better than that.

First, LLR-lefty Chuck pretended he never heard of ANY democrat/lefty charging McConnell with being a russian asset even though Pelosi and her minions have been doing that nonstop in every press conference.

Chuck assured us he would not put up with that (laughter and mirth followed that!)

THEN, in this very thread ARM called McConnell a traitor and LLR-lefty Chuck responded that ARM had never said anything mean to him (Chuck)!!

As if lefties are in the habit of attacking other lefties!!

So, once again, LLR-lefty Chuck has been exposed as a complete lying and smearing lefty hack within hours of his transparently false assertions.

And its glorious as as ever!

Birkel said...

Nobody cares how many fake conservative dicks Chuck sucks.
Or pretends to suck.
Or pretends not to suck.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

ARM - how can you say sold out to China without mentioning the Clintons or the Bidens?

Original Mike said...

"George T. Conway III, one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics and the husband of the White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, is one of the group’s most prominent members."

Ugh.

tim in vermont said...

"McConnell just happens to be a particularly conspicuous part of that apparatus, who profited obscenely from his actions.”

If we are including family, Joe “China is not our enemy” Biden is no slouch. Bill Clinton put us under the threat of Chinese ICBMs for campaign contributions, for that matter.

Jon Ericson said...

You two jokers are entertaining.
Don`t ever change.

tim in vermont said...

There was this: olanda Hill, a business partner and confidante of the Clinton then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown testified in a court hearing during the litigation that the Clinton White House told Brown to “delay the [Judicial Watch] case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections and to devise a way not to comply with the court’s orders.”

She also testified that Brown, who died in a plane crash during a trade mission to Bosnia, told her that Hillary conceived of the scheme to sell trade mission seats. Brown complained of being “Hillary’s blankety-blank tour guide.”


Then there is this:

Judicial Watch brought the case on behalf of shareholders of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. They transferred sensitive US missile technology to China in the 1990s. The CEO Bernard Schwartz gave $1.5 million to various Democratic Party entities including Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.

At the same time Schwartz and Loral convinced the Clinton Administration to transfer technology export licensing authority from the State Department to the more politically-influenced Commerce Department. Schwartz and Loral then obtained licenses from the Commerce Department that were needed to launch Loral-manufactured communications satellites into orbit from China.

They ended up advancing China’s missile program which is a threat to US national security much as the Clinton-Russian uranium deal is..


But denying Hillary the presidency has led to our descent to Hell from our formerly pure politics per ARM

tim in vermont said...

n 2016, Schwartz donated US$1 million to Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC supporting Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.[10] Schwartz is also in the $5 million - $10 million bracket of donors to the Clinton Foundation.[11] - Wikipedia

Original Mike said...

I imagine Chuck's problem with Barr is that he hasn't arrested Trump yet.

tim in vermont said...

https://nypost.com/2019/05/11/the-troubling-reason-why-biden-is-so-soft-on-china/

So per ARM, we should throw out Trump for negotiating trade agreements with China that China might not honor and replace him with Biden because McConnell is bad.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Aunty Trump now doing a passable Drago impression.

Beasts of England said...

There’s an interesting interview with David Rivkin on War Room Impeachment today (Episode 122, with Rivkin starting about nine minutes in). He argues that the Dems case is so constitutionally flawed that it shouldn’t even be rebutted. He advises to let Schify & Co. present their opening arguments and then move for dismissal.

Drago said...

ARM: "Aunty Trump now doing a passable Drago impression."

You should read more, stop listening to Rachel Maddow (and, by extension, LLR-lefty Chuck), and get over your pee tape hoax depression.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

"Aunty Trump now doing a passable Drago impression.”

When you devolve to name calling, I know you are beat.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Saying you sound like Drago is name calling? Them sounds like fighting words to me Drago.

What exactly is it about being likened to Drago that you view as unacceptable?

Michael K said...

The whole thread is amusing. I even described it at Ricochet.

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

ARM: "Saying you sound like Drago is name calling? Them sounds like fighting words to me Drago."

I am going to have to reject your assessment based on your years of getting everything wrong.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Now that the Lev Parnas lie about Nunes being in Vienna has collapsed, should the dems/LLR's reintroduce the Michael Cohen met with Russians in Prague lie again?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Got to be honest Drago. Aunty Trump seems to have (inexplicably??) developed the impression that a comparison to you is an insult. Not a good situation. Not good at all.

Personally, I feel very uncomfortable being in this position - revealing underlying conflicts between two commentariat partners.

Original Mike said...

I figured out how to read Chuck's NYT article and found it completely unpersuasive. They're outraged that Barr doesn't sign on to their view that Trump obstructed justice in the Russian Hoax "investigation"? These Checks & Balances people are just democrat shills.

iowan2 said...

It's almost impossible to watch football and keep current on the comments. Whew! make it!

Concluded, of the three options as described by our cruelly neutral constitutional Professor, retired, There is no basis to impeach President Trump. Obstruction of Congress is clearly laughable. That leaves using the power of the Office of President for personal gain. To which, no evidence exists, and more importantly, all actions taken are well within Article II powers.

Moving on. AG Barr is, after almost 40 years of exemplar public service, is now evil, because...same opinion piece in the NYT. In short not a single action taken by AG Barr is under question, but because he was a President Trump choice.

So please be specific. Exactly what has AG Barr done, to be so vilified?


Jon Ericson said...

iowan2:

There were a couple of guys here earlier who could answer your question, but I think they get their information from the pillow press, so be advised.

Drago said...

ARM: "Personally, I feel very uncomfortable being in this position - revealing underlying conflicts between two commentariat partners."

I am sure you spend a great deal of your time feeling uncomfortable for a variety of reasons.

I wish you well with that.

ken in tx said...

Democrat lawfare doesn't seem to work against Trump. His popularity has not suffered for it. It's because he is not really a Republican. He does not roll over on his back and whimper when attacked. He fights back. He's really a NYC real estate developer, moderate Democrat. He only ran as a Republican because he saw that the Democrat nomination process was rigged. Many, if not most, Republicans hated him for that. Some of them still do. Now he is re-inventing the Republican party. We'll see what happens.

Jon Ericson said...

Chuck's hero

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Blogger ken in tx said...
His popularity has not suffered for it.


Hard to go down when you are rock bottom already.

Drago said...

ARM: "Hard to go down when you are rock bottom already."

Another stellar "hot take".

You were doing better with your moronic "Great Awakening".

Tsk tsk

iowan2 said...

Blogger ken in tx said...
His popularity has not suffered for it.

blogger ARM
Hard to go down when you are rock bottom already.


Higher than Obama's.

Sebastian said...

As Narr said upthread, "But to most of my old friends, it's as if everything learned since 1970 about the duplicities, mendacities, misjudgments, miscalculations, and general fecklessness of our leadership is not really relevant to anything--Orange Man Bad is the order of the day."

And that's all there is to it. Nothing means anything. Think about it: decades of prog hate for the FBI and CIA, decades of prog Russian sympathies, out the door as soon as OMB appeared on the scene. History means nothing. Logic means nothing. Nothing means anything, and anything goes.

Progs live with it happily. They could not care less. They are trying to degrade the culture so that we must all join in their nihilism. We aren't there yet. But we are close.

Nichevo said...

Aunty Trump said...
"Ah, so he only followed the law in attempt to avoid breaking the law?”

Obstruction of Congress! Impeach and remove!




You know what would really be Obstruction of Congress? A veto! Amazing that PDT hasn't blundered into one of those.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 457 of 457   Newer› Newest»