Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post


    So? The incredibly partisan Democrats, lacking an actual crime, consulted with focus groups and came up with a vague accusation.
    The second impeachment article, Obstruction of Congress, is based on Trump’s stonewalling of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Nothing vague about that. The White House has refused to provide documents to congressional investigators and has instructed top advisers and government officials to defy subpoenas and refuse to testify.

    Which goes back to the Constitution giving them absolute authority to run it as they see fit.
    The Constitution does NOT give the Senate “absolute authority” to run a crooked trial.

    “The Constitution stipulates that senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation” (Article III, section 3, clause 6). That oath is more specific than the general one to uphold the Constitution. Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of [in this case, Donald J. Trump] now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...o-help-you-god

    The senate leader and others have specifically and publicly stated they will refuse to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Yes it does and you know it. It is very dishonest for you to say otherwise and hide behind a claim that they both have subpoena powers.

    Nobody disputes that both committees have subpoena powers. What is at question is whether Schiff, as he has shown he is prone to do, screwed it up. Nadler, OTOH has at the very least, a veneer of competence and the validity of the subpoenas from his committee has not been drawn into question.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Sweety, it’s not the Senate’s job to do the houses job. If they did such a sloppy job with their inquiry, that’s in them. Democrat incompetence will not save the day.
    So, you don't think that new evidence whether exculpatory or inculpatory should ever be admissable at trial? Or is it just dependent upon your agenda whether it is admissable or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • DivineOb
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    We have laws in place for a reason. Democrats need to follow the rules laid out, if they can follow the rules and get proper court approval, I have no problem listening.
    So do I have it right that you *aren't* curious?


    That’s why entertainers need to stick to entertainment because of silly quotes like that. Riddle me this, did the Nazi’s deserve to hear about the Jews that were being hidden away, in the basement?
    No, and I think those who denied them that information did so because they believed themselves to be morally superior over the Nazis. *next*

    Leave a comment:


  • DivineOb
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Why?
    Answer my questions and I'll tell you.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    So you agree that Moscow Mitch should allow those previously obstructed witnesses and documents be admissable at trial?
    Sweety, it’s not the Senate’s job to do the houses job. If they did such a sloppy job with their inquiry, that’s in them. Democrat incompetence will not save the day.

    Ironic, coming from the person that couldn’t be bothered to read a dictionary.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    We have laws in place for a reason. Democrats need to follow the rules laid out, if they can follow the rules and get proper court approval, I have no problem listening.
    So you agree that Moscow Mitch should allow those previously obstructed witnesses and documents be admissable at trial?


    That’s why entertainers need to stick to entertainment because of silly quotes like that. Riddle me this, did the Nazi’s deserve to hear about the Jews that were being hidden away, in the basement?

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    My question for Trump defenders is this: Putting politics aside for a moment don't you want to know what these witnesses and documents say? Aren't you *curious*? We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs"). Shouldn't we, in an ideal world, turn over every rock if there is even a 1% chance it will reveal that Trump has done something seriously wrong?
    We have laws in place for a reason. Democrats need to follow the rules laid out, if they can follow the rules and get proper court approval, I have no problem listening.

    Unrelated, here's an awesome quote from a video game: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    That’s why entertainers need to stick to entertainment because of silly quotes like that. Riddle me this, did the Nazi’s deserve to hear about the Jews that were being hidden away, in the basement?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs").
    Why?

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    My question for Trump defenders is this: Putting politics aside for a moment don't you want to know what these witnesses and documents say? Aren't you *curious*? We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs"). Shouldn't we, in an ideal world, turn over every rock if there is even a 1% chance it will reveal that Trump has done something seriously wrong?

    Unrelated, here's an awesome quote from a video game: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    The problem is that they can't put the politics aside, that they don't care if Trump did something seriously wrong, and they don't want it revealed if Trump did do something seriously wrong. They pretend to be Constitutionalist, to respect the law, to be moralists, but when it comes down to it they show that they don't respect any of that. Apparently the only thing they respect is winning, regardless of what that says about them or what it might mean for their country, or the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • DivineOb
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Lets just cut to the chase, we all know, including those here in denial, that the fact of the matter is that all those defending the president are in fear of what a fair trial, i.e. a trial with testimony of direct witnesses and previously blocked documents might expose. That's all there is to it!
    My question for Trump defenders is this: Putting politics aside for a moment don't you want to know what these witnesses and documents say? Aren't you *curious*? We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs"). Shouldn't we, in an ideal world, turn over every rock if there is even a 1% chance it will reveal that Trump has done something seriously wrong?

    Unrelated, here's an awesome quote from a video game: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Lets just cut to the chase, we all know, including those here in denial, that the fact of the matter is that all those defending the president are in fear of what a fair trial, i.e. a trial with testimony of direct witnesses and previously blocked documents might expose. That's all there is to it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Doesn't matter: Judge Jackson made no distinction between congressional committees, since they all have subpoena power.

    Source:

    B. House Committees Have The Power To Enforce Their Subpoenas In Federal Court When Executive Branch Officials Do Not Respond As Required

    For all its talk about the limited authority of the Judiciary and the Legislature under the Constitution, DOJ does not appear to contest the fact that duly authorized committees of Congress have the power under Article I to issue enforceable legislative subpoenas—in the sense that, when a House committee issues an authorized legislative subpoena in the context of a congressional investigation, that act gives rise to a legal right to compel the recipient’s performance.

    © Copyright Original Source



    --Sam
    They have subpoena power so long as they are acting within their granted authority, which is why Turley suggests that Democrats could have settled the matter once and for all by simply making the impeachment inquiry official with a vote, which they refused to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Did Schiff's committee issue that subpoena or was it Nadler's?
    Doesn't matter: Judge Jackson made no distinction between congressional committees, since they all have subpoena power.

    Source:

    B. House Committees Have The Power To Enforce Their Subpoenas In Federal Court When Executive Branch Officials Do Not Respond As Required

    For all its talk about the limited authority of the Judiciary and the Legislature under the Constitution, DOJ does not appear to contest the fact that duly authorized committees of Congress have the power under Article I to issue enforceable legislative subpoenas—in the sense that, when a House committee issues an authorized legislative subpoena in the context of a congressional investigation, that act gives rise to a legal right to compel the recipient’s performance.

    © Copyright Original Source



    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Look, I'm not here to insult anyone's intelligence but the validity of the subpoena was exactly the focus of the McGhan case that, at the time the Kupperman subpoena was dropped, was about to be ruled on by Judge Jackson. House counsel said at the time that it expected Kupperman and any other executive branch official to take the McGhan ruling as precedent.

    Unbelievable.

    --Sam
    Did Schiff's committee issue that subpoena or was it Nadler's?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:47 AM
2 responses
9 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by whag, Yesterday, 04:54 PM
10 responses
62 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
12 responses
68 views
1 like
Last Post MaxVel
by MaxVel
 
Started by seer, 01-25-2021, 09:49 AM
17 responses
116 views
2 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 01-25-2021, 08:47 AM
62 responses
441 views
2 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Working...
X