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

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    So now you are appealing to God?
    No, not me, but those hypocritical republicans that you conservative christians elect. Glad to see you don't take an oath to god seriously either.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      No, not me, but those hypocritical republicans that you conservative christians elect. Glad to see you don't take an oath to god seriously either.
      Jim, just like a judge can toss out a case that has no actual evidence, so can the Senate. They already know what the articles say and what evidence the Democrats have presented (i.e. none) and so McConnell can say that it is going nowhere. That is not ignoring his oath. That is upholding the constitution.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Jim, just like a judge can toss out a case that has no actual evidence, so can the Senate. They already know what the articles say and what evidence the Democrats have presented (i.e. none) and so McConnell can say that it is going nowhere. That is not ignoring his oath. That is upholding the constitution.
        Can they really just toss it out without having compelled testimonies from witnesses who reputedly have the most significant knowledge about this matter but have not yet testified?

        Do you think a judge or anyone that’s actually interested in the truth would be ok with that? Sounds like oath is being ignored........ and a mistrial.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
          Can they really just toss it out without having compelled testimonies from witnesses who reputedly have the most significant knowledge about this matter but have not yet testified?

          Do you think a judge or anyone that’s actually interested in the truth would be ok with that? Sounds like oath is being ignored........ and a mistrial.
          If these witnesses have evidence that would convict Trump, why didn't the House call them?

          It is up to the House to provide the evidence to support their case. If they can't then the case drops.

          They haven't proved anything.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
            Can they really just toss it out without having compelled testimonies from witnesses who reputedly have the most significant knowledge about this matter but have not yet testified?

            Do you think a judge or anyone that’s actually interested in the truth would be ok with that? Sounds like oath is being ignored........ and a mistrial.
            Just like the House is the sole owner of "Impeachment", and can make their own rules, the Senate is the sole owner of "Convict and Remove", and can make their own rules.

            US Senate: Impeachment

            The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              If these witnesses have evidence that would convict Trump, why didn't the House call them?

              It is up to the House to provide the evidence to support their case. If they can't then the case drops.

              They haven't proved anything.
              They did call some of them. They refused to show up because Trump commanded them not to come. And the legality of that obstruction is one component of the articles against him, and part of a case to be heard by the Supreme Court.

              But closer to home, can you not see what is wrong with

              (1) supporting trump interfering with the investigation by commanding witnesses not to honor the subpoenas
              (2) claiming it is the Houses fault that they were unable to get stronger evidence
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Even we accept this as true for the sake of argument, so what? Challenging a subpoena in court is a legally legitimate course of action and therefore not obstruction.
                The obstruction of congress in these articles of impeachment is specifically congressional impeachment subpoenas which isn’t one of the cases in the Supreme Court.

                The subpoena that’s challenged is a legislative subpoena. Even though trump lost and will very likely lose again in the Supreme Court, a key argument of Trumps defence and the dissenting view was that it wasn’t an impeachment subpoena and therefore didn’t have the authority to demand financial records in part to investigate potential illegal conduct by Trump.

                It was considered well established by all judges (unanimous Supreme Court decision and every supporting case referenced) that the president must comply with congressional impeachment subpoenas.

                You can read it at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/20C16C3C5721030C85258490004DE33C/$file/19-5142-1810450.pdf#page=16

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Just like the House is the sole owner of "Impeachment", and can make their own rules, the Senate is the sole owner of "Convict and Remove", and can make their own rules.

                  US Senate: Impeachment

                  The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.
                  I don’t dispute that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                    I don’t dispute that.
                    I think it just goes to show what a political animal impeachment has become.

                    The Democrats are moving forward on an ENTIRELY partisan basis, using focus groups to try to figure out how to sell their message. The MSM is in lockstep with them to sell this impeachment, so it's AMAZING that support for impeachment isn't closer to 80%! And the Republicans in the Senate know that they have the votes to shut this thing down.

                    The Democrats have, obviously, made a political calculation that, even though they know they can never prevail in removing Trump, it somehow benefits them politically to stay in power in the House, and maybe gain the Senate and the Executive.

                    It's nuts!
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                      The obstruction of congress in these articles of impeachment is specifically congressional impeachment subpoenas which isn’t one of the cases in the Supreme Court.

                      The subpoena that’s challenged is a legislative subpoena. Even though trump lost and will very likely lose again in the Supreme Court, a key argument of Trumps defence and the dissenting view was that it wasn’t an impeachment subpoena and therefore didn’t have the authority to demand financial records in part to investigate potential illegal conduct by Trump.

                      It was considered well established by all judges (unanimous Supreme Court decision and every supporting case referenced) that the president must comply with congressional impeachment subpoenas.

                      You can read it at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/20C16C3C5721030C85258490004DE33C/$file/19-5142-1810450.pdf#page=16
                      The source you linked to says:

                      In 1832,for example, the House vested a select committee with subpoena power “to inquire whether an attempt was made by the late Secretary of War...[to] fraudulently [award]...a contract for supplying rations” to Native Americans...

                      The rest doesn't matter because the key point is in the first few words, that the House must vest a committee with subpoena power. This never happened during the impeachment inquiry because the matter was never put up for a vote.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        The MSM is in lockstep with them to sell this impeachment, so it's AMAZING that support for impeachment isn't closer to 80%!
                        Ironically, it was the televised hearings that actually decreased public support for impeachment.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Ironically, it was the televised hearings that actually decreased public support for impeachment.
                          In some polls, it's 'rocketed' back up to .... um..... 50%. What leader in his right mind makes important decisions with HALF support?
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            In some polls, it's 'rocketed' back up to .... um..... 50%. What leader in his right mind makes important decisions with HALF support?
                            Less than 50 % of the voters supported Trump, so....
                            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Charles View Post
                              Less than 50 % of the voters supported Trump, so....
                              News Flash --- the election wasn't decided on popular vote, and both sides knew that, and campaigned accordingly. It is absolutely moronic to keep going back to "Well, GOSH, our team had a lot more hits, so just because the other team got more runs scored....." Moronic, I say.

                              Did I mention it's moronic?

                              People who keep bringing that up need to be tied to a wagon wheel and peed on by stray dogs.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                If these witnesses have evidence that would convict Trump, why didn't the House call them?

                                It is up to the House to provide the evidence to support their case. If they can't then the case drops.

                                They haven't proved anything.
                                I wouldn’t trust what Trump has to say about the strength of a legal case. Apparently Trump has lost 94% of court cases as president and looks like he has a few more losses coming soon. That’s a terrible record but I think it’s compounded by trump appealing obvious losses.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X