Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

For @bigbird @DKW 86 @Salty Tiger @AU64 @AUFAN78 And others:

And yet, no charges against Trump...that seems to be quite odd...

[AUFAN78 3,894]

43 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Well, I called the Russian-Collusion as BS three long years ago and I am about to make another bold prediction. The Cataclysmic Waste of time that is about to be the end of the Impeachment debacle will end up making DJT even harder to beat. The American People are bored to damn death with Investigations. 

And there is this: The Harvard-Harris Poll 

 

Russia scam, Kavanaugh scam and now an impeachment scam. At lease dems are consistent right? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Russia scam, Kavanaugh scam and now an impeachment scam. At lease dems are consistent right? 

When HRC, as damaged and as much baggage as she has rates #1 on a HHP Poll...basically the dem candidates arent exciting anyone.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

21 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

When HRC, as damaged and as much baggage as she has rates #1 on a HHP Poll...basically the dem candidates arent exciting anyone.

[bigbird 60,498]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

For @bigbird @DKW 86 @Salty Tiger @AU64 @AUFAN78 And others:

When did I ever say he was innocent?

[bigbird 60,498]

The president, as head of the executive branch, is entitled to challenge in court legislative subpoenas that demand material that may be subject to claims of privilege. He is also entitled to insist that the legislature obtain a court order before the executive branch complies. That is how checks and balances work.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15247/trump-congress-checks-balances

 

 

[bigbird 60,498]

So you disagree, ICHY? 

Why exactly is that? I'll wait for a response.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

The president, as head of the executive branch, is entitled to challenge in court legislative subpoenas that demand material that may be subject to claims of privilege. He is also entitled to insist that the legislature obtain a court order before the executive branch complies. That is how checks and balances work.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15247/trump-congress-checks-balances

 

 

Sure he can challenge it. But why do so? One need not exercise every right they have. His purpose in this instance is too obstruct. He calls it a sham daily but won’t put it to rest by having folks testify under oath?

Nixon exercised his right to challenge a subpoena of the tapes— the Supreme Court unanimously ruled he had no right to withhold them. Checks and balances didn’t extend to obstruction. There is precedent on this issue.

BTW, quoting Dershowitz— Trump’s Epstein buddy. He’s compromised as all hell.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Dershowitz— Trump’s Epstein buddy. He’s compromised as all hell.

Some of us prefer facts over fiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

[AURex 1,994]

It does not matter if he has violated the U.S. Constitution. It does not matter if he has broken laws pertaining to U.S. security, integrity or policy. It does not matter if he is in the pocket of foreign countries. It does not matter if he spills U.S. security secrets to our enemies. It does not matter if his sole goal is foreign profits for his personal businesses. It does not matter if he alienates our allies and kisses butt of our enemies. It does not matter. It does not matter if his nose is in Putin's butt .....

It just Does. Not. Matter!

The country be damned, the future be damned, the world be damned.

The only important thing is retaining Republican power in Congress. That is all that matters. Period. The End.

 

[sandyclawedtiger 206]

"Shall we stop this bleeding "?........Abraham Lincoln 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Some of us prefer facts over fiction.

But you’re not one of those guys.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 12/14/2019 at 11:37 AM, TexasTiger said:

“One thing I’d like to say right now at the outset is that I’d like the House managers who will prosecute the case in the Senate to ask Chief Justice John Roberts to demand the presence of John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Pompeo. These witnesses, and a few others at the State Department and Office of Management and Budget, are key to understanding the full parameters of the Ukraine scandal, and there is no reason that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who presides as the judge of a Senate impeachment trial, cannot unilaterally enforce congressional subpoenas on the spot. He can also rule on any executive privilege claims on the spot.”

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/05/pelosi-will-impeach-and-john-roberts-role-will-loom-large/

The Supreme Court has ruled previously on this issue. John Roberts will be in a position to rule consistent with the Constitution. Still, there are two articles of impeachment to consider. They can reject one and still find abuse of power, which is the most serious of the two.

Hopefully this will happen.

Schumer calls for testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton in proposal to GOP on parameters for Trump impeachment trial

The top Senate Democrat on Sunday called for subpoenaing several senior Trump administration officials who have yet to testify in the House’s impeachment probe as witnesses for President Trump’s likely trial — part of an opening salvo in negotiations that could determine the parameters for the Senate proceedings next month.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) outlined a number of procedural demands that Democrats say would make the Senate trial fair and able to be completed “within a reasonable period of time.”

That includes subpoenas issued by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; former national security adviser John Bolton; and Michael Duffey, a top official at the Office of Management and Budget. Mulvaney, Blair and Duffey had been subpoenaed by the House committees and defied the summons; Bolton has not been subpoenaed but indicated he would fight one in court.

“The trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly; it must also pass the fairness test with the American people,” Schumer wrote to McConnell in the letter sent Sunday. “That is the great challenge for the Senate in the coming weeks.” ...........................

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-gop-defends-trump-despite-oath-to-be-impartial-impeachment-jurors/2019/12/15/1dd9ed8a-1f49-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

[homersapien 11,362]

On 12/14/2019 at 1:17 PM, bigbird said:

Do you think that public opinion would have been helped with it?

What do you mean?

I think such additional testimony/evidence would strengthen the opinions of people who already believe Trump is guilty as charged and perhaps add a few more to that number.

I don't think it would convert any of Trump's base supporters who are beyond reasoning regardless of the facts.

The real question is what would the overall political impact be if the court process played out, which presumably is the reason the house didn't enforce the subpoenas.

[bigbird 60,498]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What do you mean?

I think such additional testimony/evidence would strengthen the opinions of people who already believe Trump is guilty as charged and perhaps add a few more to that number.

I don't think it would convert any of Trump's base supporters who are beyond reasoning regardless of the facts.

The real question is what would the overall political impact be if the court process played out, which presumably is the reason the house didn't enforce the subpoenas.

If the court process plays out, then there is only black and white. There is no gray area for either side to play in.  The independent, free thinking democrats and Republicans, and others that are open to the idea of impeachment could be swayed. I for one, if the Courts ruled against Trump and he continued his blockade, would be all on board the impeachment train.

[bigbird 60,498]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The real question is what would the overall political impact be if the court process played out, which presumably is the reason the house didn't enforce the subpoenas.

That's a great question and one, that from the outside looking in, makes it look like a calculated political move rather than one in the best interest.

[bigbird 60,498]

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/house-democrats-abandon-crimes-impeachment-articles

[homersapien 11,362]

37 minutes ago, bigbird said:

That's a great question and one, that from the outside looking in, makes it look like a calculated political move rather than one in the best interest.

One could just as easily surmise that not obeying the subpoenas was a calculated political move to force the practical results of enforcing them, particularly this close to the next election.

[bigbird 60,498]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

One could just as easily surmise that not obeying the subpoenas was a calculated political move to force the practical results of enforcing them.

Very true but that's the thing though...if the Dems felt so strongly that it was cut and dry, then force the issue and be vindicated and the political fallout is all on Trump for obstructing. Plus, we get to hear any testimonies that would help prove the abuse article.

One thing I admire about Nancy is she knows which way the wind is blowing all the time. She doesn't extend herself unless she knows the outcome will be beneficial for her. So, knowing that, did she not feel like they would win in the court? I don't know. To me, an impeachment should be black and white, incontrovertible, and like I said earlier taking it to the Court would've made it that way. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

But you’re not one of those guys.

More irony. You're laughable.

[bigbird 60,498]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/impeachment-warranted-also-bad-idea/603616/

[DKW 86 7,419]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Hopefully this will happen.

Schumer calls for testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton in proposal to GOP on parameters for Trump impeachment trial

The top Senate Democrat on Sunday called for subpoenaing several senior Trump administration officials who have yet to testify in the House’s impeachment probe as witnesses for President Trump’s likely trial — part of an opening salvo in negotiations that could determine the parameters for the Senate proceedings next month.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) outlined a number of procedural demands that Democrats say would make the Senate trial fair and able to be completed “within a reasonable period of time.”

That includes subpoenas issued by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Robert Blair, a senior adviser to Mulvaney; former national security adviser John Bolton; and Michael Duffey, a top official at the Office of Management and Budget. Mulvaney, Blair and Duffey had been subpoenaed by the House committees and defied the summons; Bolton has not been subpoenaed but indicated he would fight one in court.

“The trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly; it must also pass the fairness test with the American people,” Schumer wrote to McConnell in the letter sent Sunday. “That is the great challenge for the Senate in the coming weeks.” ...........................

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-gop-defends-trump-despite-oath-to-be-impartial-impeachment-jurors/2019/12/15/1dd9ed8a-1f49-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

After Schiff and Nadler wouldnt allow testimony from Rep. witnesses, how does anyone think that the Dems will get witnesses?

Politics is a two way street. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

One could just as easily surmise that not obeying the subpoenas was a calculated political move to force the practical results of enforcing them, particularly this close to the next election.

But the subpoenas were enforceable if they had waited, just like in Nixon. Why did they not wait?

[bigbird 60,498]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

But the subpoenas were enforceable if they had waited, just like in Nixon. Why did they not wait?

They may have been or ruled the other way. Like I said though, it's not obstruction until the Court says what Trump was doing was illegal. 

Read this article this morning. It says basically the same and that the Dems overreached.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment?amp

 

 

[bigbird 60,498]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

After Schiff and Nadler wouldnt allow testimony from Rep. witnesses, how does anyone think that the Dems will get witnesses?

Politics is a two way street. 

That's exactly what I thought.  Why not get all the testimony, FROM BOTH SIDES, before deciding to head to a trial?

It'd sure look bad if some of the Republican witnesses had any exculpatory evidence.