Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[TexasTiger 12,950]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, I admit I haven't followed this thing as closely as others, but it sure seemed cut and dried to me.  Trump suggested that certain aid the Ukraine needs would be held up/denied unless they dug into a political opponent's family for dirt.  This wasn't like regular negotiations where a POTUS extracts promises or concessions from a country that furthers US interests in exchange for our help.  It wasn't "if we can't get you to lower your tariffs on these US imports, then we might be forced to withdraw our financial support."  It was for his own personal and political gain.  That seems pretty straightforward.

The corrupt side story is Rudy pushing out the ambassador to help his corrupt oligarch criminal client. This is a pretty clear story of Trump, Putin and Firtash’s interests taking priority over US interests.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

15 minutes ago, bigbird said:

If so, why do they feel the need to hold the articles so they can hear more witness testimony?

To cut thru the noise and distortion that has dominated up until now. Let the American people hear witnesses for and against in a trial-like process.

[DKW 86 7,426]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

To cut thru the noise and distortion that has dominated up until now. Let the American people hear witnesses for and against in a trial-like process.

Why couldnt we hear witnesses for and against during the House hearings? Asking for a friend....

[TexasTiger 12,950]

34 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Why couldnt we hear witnesses for and against during the House hearings? Asking for a friend....

Trump obstructed. Glad I could help.

[bigbird 60,567]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump obstructed. Glad I could help.

It could only be obstruction if the court said it was. Legislative branch can't make that determination.

[ToraGirl 5,498]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

It could only be obstruction if the court said it was. Legislative branch can't make that determination.

That fuzzy checks-and-balances thing. I keep thinking the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing...🤨😉😁...we've changed as a nation, especially in a diversity-sense. I respect that. Every nation has, from its own inception and charter-development. Still, despite the "evolvement", got to be careful with wanting to rewrite, reinterpret, throw out because of it. 

[bigbird 60,567]

Wife just showed me this and it made me laugh

 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

16 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Wife just showed me this and it made me laugh

 

My gosh! I had no idea she was so articulate! 🤮

 

[TexasTiger 12,950]

36 minutes ago, bigbird said:

It could only be obstruction if the court said it was. Legislative branch can't make that determination.

They can. You can argue it’s not.

[bigbird 60,567]

Interesting opinion from professor of law at Harvard University and former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats?__twitter_impression=true

[bigbird 60,567]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They can. You can argue it’s not.

Please explain how

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Please explain how

They did last night.  Second article of impeachment is "Obstruction of Congress".  It's a charge levied by the House.

[bigbird 60,567]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

They did last night.  Second article of impeachment is "Obstruction of Congress".  It's a charge levied by the House.

They claimed obstruction due to Trump not allowing testimony because of his claim of executive privilege. Only the court can say if it fell under privilege or not. Until they rule one way or the other it cant be considered obstruction. The charge should have been excluded.

By not taking it to the court, the Democratic members of the House are saying they definitively know that the testimonies aren't covered by privilege. They don't get to make that call. That's not their role. That power solely resides with the Judiciary.

If the court ruled that it wasn't covered by privilege and Trump continued to block the testimonies, then you have obstruction.

[ToraGirl 5,498]

10 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Interesting opinion from professor of law at Harvard University and former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats?__twitter_impression=true

Need the WOW reaction button. Serious reminder of why our ever-changing national demographic and future stewards must be students of national/world history and US government. The snippet/soundbyte preference that has captivated and characterized our present and upcoming generations keeps the challenge before us.  

[DKW 86 7,426]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump obstructed. Glad I could help.

And that proves the point, the witnesses were going to come available. So why not wait? 

To generate another bogus charge?

Win it at the ballot box. This is not going to end well.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

58 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Please explain how

Congress has few well defined limits on impeachment. You can argue that they have to exhaust all court options no matter how long it takes, but the Constitution specifies it’s the province of Congress.

[bigbird 60,567]

30 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Congress has few well defined limits on impeachment. You can argue that they have to exhaust all court options no matter how long it takes, but the Constitution specifies it’s the province of Congress.

Specifies what is the province of Congress?

[TexasTiger 12,950]

42 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Specifies what is the province of Congress?

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

[DKW 86 7,426]

20 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

And if they choose to not wait on the courts, that's their choice.

[bigbird 60,567]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

100% correct.

However they can't determine if something is legal or illegal such as not testifying. The legislature makes the laws. The judiciary evaluates and interprets them.

 

Obstruction of Congress can't be determined by the legislature.

 

Also, The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. The House has zero say in that aspect. 

[AU64 10,122]

39 minutes ago, bigbird said:

100% correct.

However they can't determine if something is legal or illegal such as not testifying. The legislature makes the laws. The judiciary evaluates and interprets them.

 

Obstruction of Congress can't be determined by the legislature.

 

Also, The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. The House has zero say in that aspect. 

Thanks....some folks just don't understand the constitutional "balance of powers" that our founders established. 

Problem with our educational system I guess is that many/ most students do not study civics ….otherwise the House leaders would not able to so easily hoodwink the majority of Americans into believing some of the stuff being spouted by NP and others in the Dem leadership. 

JMO but I'm happy that DT is pushing back....and future presidents will be thankful that he did not allow the House to set precedence on some of these issues of the relative power of the three branches of government.   I mean..."abuse of power" could be claimed when any President ignores the law and issues Executive Orders to circumvent them.  ...exercising executive privilege …..a long standing practice which NP and media sycophants are trying to discredit. 

[DKW 86 7,426]

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

They claimed obstruction due to Trump not allowing testimony because of his claim of executive privilege. Only the court can say if it fell under privilege or not. Until they rule one way or the other it cant be considered obstruction. The charge should have been excluded.

By not taking it to the court, the Democratic members of the House are saying they definitively know that the testimonies aren't covered by privilege. They don't get to make that call. That's not their role. That power solely resides with the Judiciary.

If the court ruled that it wasn't covered by privilege and Trump continued to block the testimonies, then you have obstruction.

Wow. Deadly accuracy there....

[TexasTiger 12,950]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

100% correct.

However they can't determine if something is legal or illegal such as not testifying. The legislature makes the laws. The judiciary evaluates and interprets them.

 

Obstruction of Congress can't be determined by the legislature.

 

Also, The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. The House has zero say in that aspect. 

They are not charging him with a statutory offense that’s more readily subject to judicial interpretation. Given the Constitutional language on impeachment, I suspect the  Court would be very deferential— it’s a political process.

[bigbird 60,567]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

They are not charging him with a statutory offense that’s more readily subject to judicial interpretation. Given the Constitutional language on impeachment, I suspect the  Court would be very deferential— it’s a political process.

So what is the obstruction charge based off of?

[TexasTiger 12,950]

31 minutes ago, bigbird said:

So what is the obstruction charge based off of?

My best suggestion is to read their actual report.