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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    I don't think you've been reading what I actually write.

    Your argument is that impeachment is a criminal trial and so Trump is afforded 6A protections as a constitutional right. I have demonstrated, by referencing the Congressional Research Service report, the historical record, and your own reliance on White's concurrence in Nixon v. USA that this is false. It's not a poor reading of the Constitution, necessarily, but it is fighting against the historical precedent, scholarly interpretation and case law.

    Your second argument is that if the Senate gets to define its own rules then it can do what it wants, waiving or granting constitutional or statutory protections at will. This is also false: it's simply a category error, as I described earlier. Trump's lack of 6A protections as a constitutional right does not stem from the Senate deeming it to be so but because the Senate trial is not a criminal trial and 6A therefore does not apply.

    Your argument fails on those two points. To your depiction of my argument:

    [1] The court has a place in affirming that Congress has the power to issue lawful subpoenas and that this power is broad. Since this is the case, contempt of a subpoena can be a criminal offense. While the court will not force compliance of a subpoena, the fact that contempt can be a criminal charge means that failure to comply can be prosecuted by this or a subsequent DOJ.

    But I imagine we'll have to look toward Congress' power of inherent contempt before this is over.

    [2] See above.

    [3] See above.

    [4] See Paragraph 2 above.

    [5] See Paragraph 1.

    --Sam
    I wish you would be honest with yourself Sam, the only reason you agree with the total lack of transparency is because you hate Trump and don’t care how he is impeached, even if it’s through dishonest means.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      I don't think you've been reading what I actually write.

      Your argument is that impeachment is a criminal trial and so Trump is afforded 6A protections as a constitutional right. I have demonstrated, by referencing the Congressional Research Service report, the historical record, and your own reliance on White's concurrence in Nixon v. USA that this is false. It's not a poor reading of the Constitution, necessarily, but it is fighting against the historical precedent, scholarly interpretation and case law.

      Your second argument is that if the Senate gets to define its own rules then it can do what it wants, waiving or granting constitutional or statutory protections at will. This is also false: it's simply a category error, as I described earlier. Trump's lack of 6A protections as a constitutional right does not stem from the Senate deeming it to be so but because the Senate trial is not a criminal trial and 6A therefore does not apply.

      Your argument fails on those two points. To your depiction of my argument:

      [1] The court has a place in affirming that Congress has the power to issue lawful subpoenas and that this power is broad. Since this is the case, contempt of a subpoena can be a criminal offense. While the court will not force compliance of a subpoena, the fact that contempt can be a criminal charge means that failure to comply can be prosecuted by this or a subsequent DOJ.

      But I imagine we'll have to look toward Congress' power of inherent contempt before this is over.

      [2] See above.

      [3] See above.

      [4] See Paragraph 2 above.

      [5] See Paragraph 1.

      --Sam
      Sam first, no one here can define any crime that Trump committed. Second, are you really suggesting that no President has any recourse against any impeachment inquiry no matter how unfounded and partisan?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Good, don't give these snakes a damn thing, fight them to the Supreme Court.
        It is the duty of every loyal citizen of the United States to ensure that the millions of dollars, Putin loving Trump, is spending on Facebook advertising is wasted.
        Listen out for Molly McKew.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Sam first, no one here can define any crime that Trump committed. Second, are you really suggesting that no President has any recourse against any impeachment inquiry no matter how unfounded and partisan?
          Obstruction of justice, felony campaign finance violations, conspiracy to defraud the USA, tax evasion, abuse of NSC classification system, Presidential Records Act violations, unlawful detention of families.

          I mean, the list goes on but the idea isn't to question what crimes Trump may have committed but to try and handwave away any suggestion that such allegations merit even investigation.

          The President has no lawful recourse to refuse compliance with an impeachment proceeding. To argue that he does places the President not only above the law but above the Constitution itself. The President can make his defense, both in public and during the Senate trial, but he cannot simply refuse to comply with lawful subpoenas as some kind of executive right.

          Y'all wouldn't even be arguing this point if the (R) wasn't tacked on to the back of Trump's name.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            I don't think you've been reading what I actually write.

            ....
            Since you don't even bother to read what I write, I don't see where you have a complaint.

            You presented a load of convoluted special pleading that admits a point only when it suits you and denies the same point when it doesn't. The Senate cannot apply the Sixth Amendment, according to you, but it must abide statutory law - all with no judicial oversight. Impeachment is a criminal trial - but even if it weren't, the Senate set its own rules in impeachment trial so there's literally no legal reason not to apply the Sixth and a boatload of political reasons to apply it.

            The alleged whistle blower and his congressional cronies are seeking to remove a legally elected President - and you think that you get to do that with NO public witnesses? Get real. You can have your coup attempt or secrecy, not both.

            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sam View Post
              Obstruction of justice, felony campaign finance violations, conspiracy to defraud the USA, tax evasion, abuse of NSC classification system, Presidential Records Act violations, unlawful detention of families.

              I mean, the list goes on but the idea isn't to question what crimes Trump may have committed but to try and handwave away any suggestion that such allegations merit even investigation.

              The President has no lawful recourse to refuse compliance with an impeachment proceeding. To argue that he does places the President not only above the law but above the Constitution itself. The President can make his defense, both in public and during the Senate trial, but he cannot simply refuse to comply with lawful subpoenas as some kind of executive right.

              Y'all wouldn't even be arguing this point if the (R) wasn't tacked on to the back of Trump's name.

              --Sam
              I wonder if your tune would be the same if this was President Clinton and the Republicans we’re trying to impeach her by closed door meetings, demand letters, and no house vote...

              You’re as partisan as them come Sam. This is just yet another example of democrats still trying to win the 2016 election with the last minute Hail Mary pass.
              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Obstruction of justice, felony campaign finance violations, conspiracy to defraud the USA, tax evasion, abuse of NSC classification system, Presidential Records Act violations, unlawful detention of families.

                I mean, the list goes on but the idea isn't to question what crimes Trump may have committed but to try and handwave away any suggestion that such allegations merit even investigation.

                The President has no lawful recourse to refuse compliance with an impeachment proceeding. To argue that he does places the President not only above the law but above the Constitution itself. The President can make his defense, both in public and during the Senate trial, but he cannot simply refuse to comply with lawful subpoenas as some kind of executive right.

                Y'all wouldn't even be arguing this point if the (R) wasn't tacked on to the back of Trump's name.

                --Sam
                How, exactly, do you enforce this? Judicial review? The Court will want to know why the House didn't act as a body, per the Constitution - exactly what the Democrats are scrambling so hard to avoid. If the Court doesn't just toss it on "not our job' grounds.

                Better yet - ask the President to enforce it - it would be his job, if he thought it was actually law - which you'd need the Court to rule since the House isn't voting...



                And face facts - you wouldn't be pushing for impeachment if it weren't for that R, either.

                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  Obstruction of justice, felony campaign finance violations, conspiracy to defraud the USA, tax evasion, abuse of NSC classification system, Presidential Records Act violations, unlawful detention of families.
                  Are you kidding, show me where any of these happened, quote the actual laws he broke, and when he actually did these evil acts. If not it is just an unfounded rant. But I'm speaking of the crime that lead to this present investigation.

                  The President has no lawful recourse to refuse compliance with an impeachment proceeding. To argue that he does places the President not only above the law but above the Constitution itself. The President can make his defense, both in public and during the Senate trial, but he cannot simply refuse to comply with lawful subpoenas as some kind of executive right.

                  Y'all wouldn't even be arguing this point if the (R) wasn't tacked on to the back of Trump's name.

                  --Sam
                  Right so according to you no matter how unfounded and partisan the inquiry no President has any legal protection. Somehow that doesn't seem right, a normal citizen has more rights...And BTW I didn't support the Clinton impeachment even though there were ACTUAL crimes.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    I wonder if your tune would be the same if this was President Clinton and the Republicans we’re trying to impeach her by closed door meetings, demand letters, and no house vote...

                    You’re as partisan as them come Sam. This is just yet another example of democrats still trying to win the 2016 election with the last minute Hail Mary pass.
                    Yes, if Clinton had done any of these things, to say nothing of all of them, I'd expect her to comply with lawful subpoenas and undergo an impeachment proceeding.

                    --Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Are you kidding, show me where any of these happened, quote the actual laws he broke, and when he actually did these evil acts. If not it is just an unfounded rant. But I'm speaking of the crime that lead to this present investigation.



                      Right so according to you no matter how unfounded and partisan the inquiry no President has any legal protection. Somehow that doesn't seem right, a normal citizen has more rights...

                      I don't feel the need to dive into US Code for exact provisions, nor do I remotely believe it would matter.

                      The President, by virtue of his office, is subject to constitutional limitations that are not shared by "normal citizens" ... because they're not the president. Impeaching someone who isn't a public official doesn't make much sense, you see.

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Again, this deals with none of the points in my post. It's just repeating yourself (and adding in things I never argued, like "no public witnesses" to the mix).

                        You can deal with the substance or not but just regurgitating the lines doesn't have effect.

                        --Sam

                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Since you don't even bother to read what I write, I don't see where you have a complaint.

                        You presented a load of convoluted special pleading that admits a point only when it suits you and denies the same point when it doesn't. The Senate cannot apply the Sixth Amendment, according to you, but it must abide statutory law - all with no judicial oversight. Impeachment is a criminal trial - but even if it weren't, the Senate set its own rules in impeachment trial so there's literally no legal reason not to apply the Sixth and a boatload of political reasons to apply it.

                        The alleged whistle blower and his congressional cronies are seeking to remove a legally elected President - and you think that you get to do that with NO public witnesses? Get real. You can have your coup attempt or secrecy, not both.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          I don't feel the need to dive into US Code for exact provisions, nor do I remotely believe it would matter.
                          Right because you are talking out your butt again...
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Yes, if Clinton had done any of these things, to say nothing of all of them, I'd expect her to comply with lawful subpoenas and undergo an impeachment proceeding.

                            --Sam
                            It’s too bad none have been issued, but no you wouldn’t. You’re right now, attempting to defend Warren’s changing story on why she’s resigned from teaching in 71. If it was Trump, you’d be calling him a liar.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Trump's letter to Congress:

                              ...As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

                              For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue....

                              Your contrived process is unprecedented in the history of the Nation 4, and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.5

                              4 Since the Founding of the Republic, under unbroken practice, the House has never undertaken the solemn responsibility of an impeachment inquiry directed at the President without first adopting a resolution authorizing a committee to begin the inquiry. The inquiries into the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton proceeded in multiple phases, each authorized by a separate House resolution. See, e.g., H.R. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 525, 105th Cong. (1998); III Hinds’ Precedents §§ 2400-02, 2408, 24 12. And before the Judiciary Committee initiated an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, the Committee’s chairman rightfully recognized that “a[n] [inquiry] resolution has always been passed by the House” and “is a necessary step.” III Deschler’s Precedents ch. 14, § 15.2. The House thien satisfied that requirement by adopting H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974).

                              5 Chairman Nadler has recognized the importance of taking a vote in the House before beginning a presidential impeachment inquiry. At the outset of the Clinton impeachment inquiry — where a floor vote was held — he argued that even limiting the time for debate before that vote was improper and that “an hour debate on this momentous decision is an insult to the American people and another sign that this is not going to be fair.” 144 Cong. Rec. H10018 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler). Here, the House has dispensed with any vote and any debate at all.

                              https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...peachment.html
                              Last edited by seer; 10-09-2019, 10:38 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Good, don't give these snakes a damn thing, fight them to the Supreme Court.
                                Yes, we understand you'd like an imperial presidency, seer. Unfortunately for you we have a democracy with 3 co-equal branches and a Constitition which Trump and his White House councel are falsely accusing the House of not following in order to continue the cover-up of his own unconstitutional activities.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Whateverman, Today, 04:39 PM
                                1 response
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Maranatha  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 03:30 PM
                                2 responses
                                27 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post LiconaFan97  
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 08:11 PM
                                4 responses
                                38 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 07:16 PM
                                28 responses
                                119 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 12:47 PM
                                17 responses
                                73 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X