Schiff: "The president misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box"

Of all the years that I have studying, learning and observing the US politics, I find myself totally surprised by the words of Adam Schiff, right there on the Senate floor, as he tries to make a case for impeaching President Trump.

He said: "The president misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won".

Does he mean that he is presuming that the US voters will not decide on the right president in 2020? Isn't he already interfering with the 2020 election--much more so than other outside interferences whether Russia, Ukraine, China, etc.?

I hope he does not mean that the Congress can take down any sitting President--at any time--depending on the political party in the majority. I think this is a dangerous path for democracy. It's like he's saying we (Congress) should not trust the voters in 2020 to decide their next President; so we should take action to clear the field of candidates. Scary!

«1

Comments

  • What is scary is that Trump was elected by a minority of voters and only with help from Russia's interference in the election process.

    What is even scarier is that Trump tried to force Ukraine to help him get re-elected in 2020.

    What is scarier yet is that Trump is hiding evidence of his unconstitutional and criminal behavior by refusing to provide documents and by ordering government witnesses not to testify.

    What is the scariest of all is that some people - fortunately not the majority of Americans - have no problem with Trump's constant lying, cheating, and efforts to transform the U.S. from a democracy into a mafia-like dictatorship.
  • FM, most of what you are stating have either been proven false (such as Russia's interference for Trump) or are being pushed by the Democrats during this impeachment.

    But my issue is deeper than these: are you saying that the results of the people's votes in 2020-- in an election might not count as may be determined now by the political process; by Congressmen/women?.

    I thought for the US Constitution, people are the ones to decide--whether thru direct counting or votes or whether their number of votes authorizes the state to cast its vote toward the president.

    I don't want to argue with you about the voting system of the US since I am not an American. All countries have different ways they count their votes--especially the different parliamentary systems. But as a Micronesian, we've always been taught by American teachers including Peace Corp teachers that people's votes are the most important determinant in the US political process. How is it that it appears that Schiff--and you now--are conveniently suggesting or being amenable to a different ways you view the value of the votes?
  • Thos words sound sooooooo wrong...image
  • edited January 24
    Lets bombard @FactsMatter with facts. Watch after this she will run to a her safe space corner and chill?

    Schiff: Trump will win in 2020

    <<u>1Trump was elected by a minority of voters and only with help from Russia's interference in the election process./b>

    The US is a Constitutional Republic. A form of Democracy that allow the citizens to vote for those who will follow their opinion. Pure DEMOCRACY is what FM wants. Pure DEMOCRACY is a lion and a lamp deciding whats for dinner. Think about that. A lion and lamp deciding what's for dinner. The lamp ends up being the dinner.

    And lets fact-check FM.

    She said Trump won because of russian interference. 64 million Americans voted and 300+ electorates voted for Trump. Check and balance! And Mueller.said on t.v that no votes were altered!!! And influenced by Russia. Lol

    Hit em with facts.>
  • What the congressman was saying is way more then just his words which I think some of you completedly missed his point let me put it this way, what the congressman Schiff was saying is the fact that Trump is way to dangerous for the country to wait until election to remove him from office,, plain and simple
  • edited January 24
    History has taught us that democracies tend to morph into tyrannies. Look at the democracies in asia or even in Micronesia. Our leaderships tend to hoard more power over time. This is why the USA is a republic and not a democracy. Unfortunately, we have Democrats in their advanced state of transformation....socialist tyrants. XOXOXOXOXO
  • hey moron z, get a life!
  • Democracy Republic ey? is that coined by the same guy who called socialism, "Democratic Socialism?"
  • and your history is outdated too, you like Trump stuck in the past history. very sad.
  • Yes, I realize the Democrats tend to update their history.
  • more like they evolved with history. not stuck in the past. MAGA.. my foot!!~
  • Did they really stopped using and lynching their so-called "niggers?"
  • This entire impeachment is partisan. The party that controls the house impeached Trump not because the evidences are overwhelming but rather because they have the majority in the house and have overwhelming hate for Trump because he is undoing most of the policies set up by a previous Democrats President.

    Dangerous precedent set in the house by Democrats just like they did with the nuclear option in the Senate. They never learned from the that mistake. Now in the future if ever the Republicans control the house they can impeach a Democrat President just because they have the majority in the House.

    As for the impeachment, well its a lost cause for the Dems. But admire Dems for this. They know they lost but they keep on fighting. No can't deny them that.
  • One of Trump defense attorneys summarized one of the problematic consequences of asking the Senate to impeach a President who has not done anything illegal that could be considered impeachable by the intent of the Framers.

    He said the House impeachment managers are asking the Senate to remove a President. It's asking the Senate to tear up all the ballots that will have the name of Trump ahead of time prior to the 2020 election. By asking the Senate to remove Trump from 2020 ballots, they are saying that the votes of millions and millions of Trump supports will be null and void--even prior to the election day.

    They want the US Senate, the US Congress, to act like a parliamentary system where the members of the Congress--can change the Prime Minister by changing side--if or whenever they want to.

    If the US Senate were to remove the President before the election, I think the lessons will have negative impact for the US political process in the future--for years to come.

    I would predict that the FSM and RMI will get their cue from such an act; and will be able remove the President, at any time, even with the flimsiest of charges. I hope it does not come to that. I think the US Senate will not allow itself to be used by the House managers to remove the president and his name from the 2020 ballot.
  • after todays argument by the Presidents defense, republican cacuas are acting like molecules on high temperature.. radical and nervous.. the fact is the defense lawyers for Trumps fall short on truith and evidents to their arguments..and the saka countinues on by republicans false theories and empty rethorics.
  • visa, on the contrary. I see and hear a methodical approach by Trump's defense lawyers--making great political, philosophical, ethical and legal points--to refute Democrat's House managers wild and undefined assertions. Please take a moment to listen and learn the substance and importance of this moment.

    America as we know it is at its own crossroad. Impeaching a sitting President with such flimsy trumped up charges means the downfall of the constitutional republic.

    It means the votes of the everyday people will no longer count and will become meaningless in future elections depending on the whim of politicians in the Congress.

    It means any of the political parties that holds a majority in the House can impeach any future President--without regards to the seriousness, or lack thereof, of real and serious crimes.

    I am hoping that the Senate will not be a party to the action that will kill America as we know it--that will cause the beginning of the downfall of the republic as caused by internal dissent like a metastasizing cancer that will eat up the republic from inside.

    Senate and the Senators are supposed to be the cool-headed chamber in the Congress; sacred in its deliberations; and is the stabilizing force in the US separation of powers doctrine. I am hoping that it will do its part; and will show to the world that it continues to be the part of the Congress that is more subdued, deliberative, thoughtful of history and future, mindful of holding the republic together. So, I hope.
  • excuse eh marc, this is about Trump abusing the power of office and abstracting congress period! the bogus methodical approach really what it dose is making a fool out of so called professor Alan D and Kent star on international stage.. talking about flip flopping like a cat on a hot tin roof? it was a disaster!
  • If Trump is innocent, why has he blocked all witnesses and evidence?

    Just ask his former National Security Advisor, John Bolton.

    (P.S. You don't need a law degree to see how guilty he is. He's made it perfectly clear.)
    image
  • FM, it is the moral and legal obligation of a sitting US President to make sure that decisions he makes during his term will not tie up the hands of any future presidents--whether Republicans or Democrats. No President would set a precedent that would weaken the hands of the Executive Branch (President).

    Remember that President Obama did the same thing; and so as the Presidents before him. President O instructed his Attorney General Holder not to release documents to the Congress when the Congress was investigating that case involving the federal agents selling guns illegally (gun running) to the Mexican cartel members--with the hope that the guns would be confiscated from the cartel members later; and used as a means to identify them having committed a crime with such guns that had identification numbers.

    But if the Congress wants to challenge the President about his claim to executive privileges, they (Congress) could bring the case to the court against the sitting president. Let the court make a decision--one way or another.

    My feeling is that the reason the Congress did not want to bring it to the Supreme Court is because Trump will win. The justices will side with Trump's position.

    Congress only makes laws. President implements the laws that Congress makes. In addition, the President has many other responsibilities as mandated by the US Constitution such as to protect the citizens, carry-out foreign affairs matters, health, security, military, etc.

    Most likely the Supreme Court will say that a lawsuit by the Congress against the President--one branch against another branch--is a "political" matter to be decided by politics, NOT by the Supreme Court. I think this is the reason the Congress did not want to wait for the lower court's decision about the question of executive privileges that the House had filed in the DC court.

    A decision by the court was about to be made public, but the House decided to go ahead and go for the impeachment; so the court's expected decision became moot. The House knew that they would lose--if they were to sue the President for his executive privilege claims.

    It's not a matter of hiding something on the part of the President. It's a matter of the President having the full authority to conduct the affairs of the nation; in talking to his staff and other people; whatever he wants to say; however he wants to say it. It's a management principal well grounded with being able to get the best advice and/or opinion by people you talk to. That's how it goes, FM.
  • marc said: "Remember that President Obama did the same thing."

    Wrong. Obama was never impeached so witnesses were not needed for any impeachment trial.

    As a matter of fact, there was not a single White House scandal during Obama's eight years.

    Now with Trump, we get a scandal every week.

    Your 'what-about-him' argument falls flat, marc.

    marc also said: "It's a matter of the President having the full authority to conduct the affairs of the nation"

    Wrong again. VERY wrong. That is the definition of a monarchy or a dictatorship, not a democratic republic like the U.S. with three co-equal branches of government.

    Whether Trump likes it or not, the legislative branch (Congress) has oversight responsibility over the executive branch (the President.)

    It's a constitutional system of checks and balances, my friend, not a monarchy where the king has absolute power.

    Trump is trying to re-make the U.S. into a monarchy. That is why president #45 has been impeached, only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached.

  • FM, the "gun-running project"--its failure, its cause of an American killed by the US guns used, etc, was a scandal. But Obama's AG, claiming President O's executive privileges, refused to provide the documents the Congress was seeking. But the Congress did not charge Obama with "obstruction" the way it is charging Trump. So how fair is that?

    As for your claim of a scandal-free administration, I can put together a list for you if you are interested. You're trying to white wash all the problems some of which listed below including Bengazi, allowing Iran to cross Obama's red line, etc.

    What about when he assured Russia's prime minister that he (Obama) would have more freedom to give what Russian President Putin wanted regarding missile negotiations--after the election (of Obama).

    That pales in comparison to Trump requesting a foreign government to look into the corruption by the highest level in the US government. Remember how VP Biden, on TV, saying that he would withhold billions of aid until an official looking into corruption of Burisima was fired. He said "And "son of a gun" he was fired"-- as VP Biden boasted. But these are ignored by Democrats.

    I can understand that you are a Democrat; so you have to toe the Democrat's line. My feeling is that you are not being fair. But I think you can be a Democrat but also try to be fair--to see both sides of the argument. There are Democratic leaders who do that.

    There will be some Senators who will side with the Republicans when it comes to the final vote in the Senate. I hope you won't be too disappointed.

  • marc, Obama had nothing to do with "the gun running project," as you call it. Nor did he have involvement with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

    You fell for Fox "News" misinformation again, not surprising for a Trumpist Republican.

    Trump's disgraceful presidency will forever be an embarassing stain on America's history, sad to say.
  • Marc,

    Regarding what you mentioned or
    Adam Schiff's statement: "The president misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won"

    Yout shouldn't be surprised.The reason why you're surprised is because

    # 1) You misunderstood Adam Schiff's statement

    #2) You're confused about the real purpose of Trump's impeachment

    Marc, with all due respect, I know you've been studying, learning & observing US politics for a long time, and I commend you for that.

    And I know that if you studied, learned, & observed US politics, then you & I, or we all can agree that the US Govrnment has the Checks and Balances, meaning
    --The US Constitution divided the Government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; the point or purpose of checks and balances is to make sure no one branch would be able to control too much power, and this creates a separation of powers.

    With that said,

    As an educated person who studied US politics,

    I would think you will be informed & fair enough to be willing to accept or let the Checks & Balances mechanism of the US Gov takes its course..... US House Impeach a President & US Senate either Acquit or Remove a President.

    I would think you know that Trump's Impeachment case is about the Trump's Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Justice as Visafree correctly pointed out

    I would think by now you know that the US is the only democratic country that has an weird, unfair election system....the Electoral College which has its problems, from the increasing frequency of presidents winning the election while losing the popular vote, to the outsize and anti-democratic influence of battleground swing states, to the millions of voters in dozens of states who know that their votes make no practical difference in the election.

    One great example is former VP Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral vote to Bush.

    Why are all the above relevant to Adam's statement?

    It is because it is a mandated,constitutional duty of the US Congress to impeach & remove a President for any impeachable misconduct instead of letting US voters decide because the US elections is not always a fair election due to the Electoral College system.

    Whether Trump is acquitted or not, it is the US Senate that should or will decide not the US elections or voters.

    Whether there is an upcoming election or not, the Checks and Balances should be in place or utilized whenever needed.

    Marc,
    I would think that by now you already know that
    Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that
    “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    I want to emphasize that the meaning of the last clause, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” has been widely disputed for centuries.

    It’s still not obvious or clear but legal scholars generally agree that misdemeanor in this context doesn’t refer to petty offenses in the criminal law sense, but to any serious malfeasance that interferes with presidential duties and endangers the nation.

    Some argue that Trump's misconduct(s) fall under the "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" and that his misconduct is a serious malfeasance that interferes with presidential duties and endangers the nation.

    This is exactly where both parties, both the Defense & Prosecution teams or managers disagree on ---whether Trump's misconduct are IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

    What do you think?

  • Marc, I think you are going to have to begin providing sources for your statements of fact, so that those of us who have a little education can know where you find your bullshit. You state above, in criticizing FM for making false statements:

    "FM, most of what you are stating have either been proven false (such as Russia's interference for Trump)".

    What is your source for the statement that Russia's interference in the 2016 election did not happen? That the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 election "has been proven false"? Russia? RT Today, Russians media outlet in the US? FOX News? Who PROVED it false? Sources, please!

    Russia interfered in the US election. Even Putin admitted it. Look it up. Oh, and by the way, Ukraine did NOT interfere in the 2016 US election. The source of that lie was a disinformation campaign begun by the Russian Intelligence Services early in 2017, and publicly pushed by Putin.

    From now on, Marc, anytime you make a statement of fact, please provide sources. So we can all know where you find this shit, and avoid it.
  • This whole political interference is bullshit because

    #1) If there is one country that interferes in the US Elections more than any country, it is Israel

    Israel Has Interfered More in U.S. Politics Than Russia, but Don't Expect a Probe of Israelgate

    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/israel-has-interfered-more-in-u-s-politics-than-russia-but-dont-expect-a-probe-of-israelgate/

    By Robert Parry

    The other day, I asked a longtime Democratic Party insider who is working on the Russiagate investigation which country interfered more in U.S. politics, Russia or Israel. Without a moment’s hesitation, he replied, “Israel, of course.”

    Which underscores my concern about the hysteria raging across Official Washington about “Russian meddling” in the 2016 presidential campaign: There is no proportionality applied to the question of foreign interference in U.S. politics. If there were, we would have a far more substantive investigation of Israelgate.

    The problem is that if anyone mentions the truth about Israel’s clout, the person is immediately smeared as “anti-Semitic” and targeted by Israel’s extraordinarily sophisticated lobby and its many media/political allies for vilification and marginalization.

    So, the open secret of Israeli influence is studiously ignored, even as presidential candidates prostrate themselves before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both appeared before AIPAC in 2016, with Clinton promising to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship “to the next level” — whatever that meant — and Trump vowing not to “pander” and then pandering like crazy.
    Congress is no different. It has given Israel’s controversial Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a record-tying three invitations to address joint sessions of Congress (matching the number of times British Prime Minister Winston Churchill appeared). We then witnessed the Republicans and Democrats competing to see how often their members could bounce up and down and who could cheer Netanyahu the loudest, even when the Israeli prime minister was instructing the Congress to follow his position on Iran rather than President Obama’s.

    And I know, some of you would be quick to label me a " Anti-semitic" just like all those who try to speak or bring up the truth about Israel



    #2) US has interfered or meddled in more elections of other countries more than any other nation in the world

    US Interfered in Elections of at Least 85 Countries Worldwide Since 1945
    America has a long history of meddling in the elections of foreign countries, new research shows
    By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh

    https://www.sott.net/image/s20/409675/large/2016_12_29_USinterferenceForei.png

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-at-least-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481

    #3) Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We (US) Do It, Too.

    Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate’s Church Committee, says Russia’s 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote.

    “We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,” said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia. “We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.”
    The United States’ departure from democratic ideals sometimes went much further.

    The C.I.A. helped overthrow elected leaders in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and backed violent coups in several other countries in the 1960s. It plotted assassinations and supported brutal anti-Communist governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia. More recently US just skipped or screwed US elections & toppled/ killed toppled Saddam Hussen, Gaddafi, overthrew the Ukranian & Venezuelan democratically elected leaders.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html


  • I meant to say.....More recently US just skipped or screwed the elections of other countries & toppled/ killed toppled Saddam Hussen, Gaddafi or overthrew the Ukranian democratically elected leader & tried to overthrow the Venezuelan democratically elected leader.
  • SC, the Muller report, after millions of dollars and thousands of investigators and lawyers, says that they could not establish a link between Russia and the Trump campaign people regarding interferences in the 2016 election. So my source is the Muller report. You can google it; and read it for your self.

    AntiC, I agree that US past administrations had done many things against foreign countries and leaders that the US did not agree with. You are right about interference and assassinations of foreign leaders.

    This is why Trump's position in saying that the US will not serve as world policeman is a breath of fresh air. He wants to bring the US military home; not stationed in other countries as if the US is a guarantor of governments future. He does not believe in Regime change.

    I think he can live with Iran's mullahs, N. Korea's Kim, Syria's Assad, Russia's Putin, China's Xie--as long as they don't cause trouble to their people; and other people in other countries.

  • Marc, that is exactly what I was hoping Trump would do - bring home the US soldiers & stop the US from acting like the World policeman & pay more close attention to US domestic issues.

    Unfortunately, that’s not the case & has always not been always the case.

    If you look at the US history for the past 50 to 60 years, Presidents come & go whether Democrat or Republican but this freakin Deep State/Military-Industrial Complex & their Washington DC Neocon war hawks have been successful in perpetuating wars for their own interests.

    Realistically speaking, I think it would be impossible for one President to come in & upend the status quo mainly because even the US Congress is corrupt, backed & funded by special interest groups and the US general population is too impotent to stand up, speak up and take back the Government.

    If miraculously we have a President who comes in and do the unthinkable, I wouldn’t be surprised if he or she gets taken out or removed

    That’s just my thoughts

    What are your thoughts?

  • From the first sentence of the second paragraph of the first page of the Introduction to the Mueller Report, Volume I:

    The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
    systematic fashion.


    From the sixth paragraph of the first page of the introduction to the Mueller Report, Volume I:

    As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J . Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

    Contrary to your FOX News interpretation of the Mueller Report, the Report itself says that Russia "interfered
    in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

    And contrary to your further bullshit disinformation, Mueller did in fact find over 150 individual contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russia. It did not find evidence sufficient to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal conspiracy existed between the Russian government and the Trump campaign:

    Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that , the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

    Maybe if you just read the first page of Volume I of the Report you might get a closer understanding than you were spoon fed by FOX News and your other bullshit sources.

    Maybe you should read up on conspiracy and the burden of proof that Mueller felt he was bound to. How many pages did you read, anyway?
Sign In or Register to comment.