Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Mountain Man]

Labour were hopeless. I did not vote for them, not have I ever voted for them. My own politics are centre-right.

That's a European "centre-right", correct? So would you say you're more aligned with Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin?

[JimL]

That's a European "centre-right", correct? So would you say you're more aligned with Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin?

[seer]

He's Scottish. I think he wants to vote for Scottexit.

I toured Scotland in 1975, there used to be men there...

braveheart2_758_427_81_s.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Don't worry your little head, Jimmy... I'm sure firstfloor appreciates my sense of humor.

[Mountain Man]

I toured Scotland in 1975, there used to be men there...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41605[/ATTACH]

But they wear skirts!

[Teallaura]

Show me a subpoena power over the Exec by the Legislature in the Constitution. I said 'extraconstitutional' not 'unconstitutional.


Few things are in American jurisprudence.

Not exactly - national security could still override the subpoena.

The Supreme Court begs to differ - this is established case law from the Nixon inquiry. The Court presumes it has the power to settle disputes between branches even in impeachment - but that its power to do so is limited.

The Court has ALREADY established this jurisdiction. This is established case law which carries precedent. You're simply wrong here.

[firstfloor]

That's a European "centre-right", correct? So would you say you're more aligned with Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin?

[rogue06]

Easily resolved if this is seen to be a problem (it really isn't), namely Trump can unblock key witnesses.

As we now see the House Democrats obviously didn't think they were very important.

[Watermelon]

Show me a subpoena power over the Exec by the Legislature in the Constitution. I said 'extraconstitutional' not 'unconstitutional.


Few things are in American jurisprudence.

Not exactly - national security could still override the subpoena.

The Supreme Court begs to differ - this is established case law from the Nixon inquiry. The Court presumes it has the power to settle disputes between branches even in impeachment - but that its power to do so is limited.


The Court has ALREADY established this jurisdiction. This is established case law which carries precedent. You're simply wrong here.

[Teallaura]

No, I think you're looking at the wrong case. In the Nixon inquiry the exact same issue arose. The House appealed both the claim of exec privvilege and the defiance of the (actually valid) subpoenas. The Court decided it could decide the dispute, exec privilege did exist BUT the House's subpoenas in that case were superior. Nixon subsquently obeyed the subpoena, released the tapes and resigned.

[Watermelon]

No, I think you're looking at the wrong case. In the Nixon inquiry the exact same issue arose. The House appealed both the claim of exec privvilege and the defiance of the (actually valid) subpoenas. The Court decided it could decide the dispute, exec privilege did exist BUT the House's subpoenas in that case were superior. Nixon subsquently obeyed the subpoena, released the tapes and resigned.

[Tassman]

Right... Democrats are so worried about Trump delaying impeachment that they have put the articles on indefinite hold instead of sending them immediately to the Senate.

Why would the Democrats send the articles immediately to the Senate when the leaders of the Senate have publicly stated that they will NOT be impartial - in direct violation of their oath.

[Tassman]

As we now see the House Democrats obviously didn't think they were very important.

The reverse is true. The WH unblocking key witnesses is SO important that Pelosi is reluctant to allow the Senate trial to proceed until it does unblock key witnesses.

[firstfloor]

[JimL]

71% of americans believe that the president aides should have to testify. I'm assuming many of those are republicans. I wonder what percentage of tweb republicans agree.