Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Take This Impeachment And Shove It...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, 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 Sparko View PostJim, 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.
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 PostCan 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.
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 PostCan 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.
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 PostIf 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.
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 evidenceMy 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 PostEven 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 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 PostJust 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Watermelon View PostI don’t dispute that.
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 PostThe 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
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 PostThe MSM is in lockstep with them to sell this impeachment, so it's AMAZING that support for impeachment isn't closer to 80%!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 PostIronically, it was the televised hearings that actually decreased public support for impeachment.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIn some polls, it's 'rocketed' back up to .... um..... 50%. What leader in his right mind makes important decisions with HALF support?"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 PostLess than 50 % of the voters supported Trump, so....
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 PostIf 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
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
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment