Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Just now, bigbird said:

Seperation of powers and the process of checks and balances

Clarify— how specifically?

[bigbird 60,567]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Clarify— how specifically?

When a constitutional crisis arises between the Congress and the president, such as use and coverage of executive privilege, then the Court makes the determination.

In this impeachment inquiry, one if the articles drawn  is obstructing Congress, that was over the refusal of the president to let some testify. He claimed executive privilege, Congress claimed it didn't fall under executive privilege. At that moment it should've been taken to the courts for a ruling, just like they did with Nixon.

If the Court had ruled it was not covered by privilege and he continued to block the testimonies, then that would be obstruction of Congress and impeachable. As is, without a ruling by the Court saying one way or the other, it shouldn't be impeachable.

[homersapien 11,388]

20 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

That is correct it says they don't have absolute immunity it does not say they don't have any immunity. Each case is different that is why in some cases the President has won when using executive privilege and in other congress has won. Not going to court and getting a ruling is where Congress dropped the ball.

Congress issued subpoenas for documents and testimony.  The Trump administration is the one who refused to act on the subpoenas.  That denial is now in the courts.

I don't see how that constitutes congress "dropping the ball".

But to TT's point, that doesn't mean congress has to wait on a ruling in order to secure additional evidence to impeach.  There is already enough evidence to impeach.

Be honest with yourself.  Trump is withholding this additional evidence - obstructing justice - not because of any particular reason of national security.  He is withholding it because it further adds to the case for his impeachment. 

Furthermore, by obstructing the release of this additional evidence, it provides an excuse for him and his supporters - to (falsely) claim the impeachment is based on inadequate evidence or is somehow illegitimate.

Bottom line, Trump is guilty of what he is being impeached for.  If he wasn't, he wouldn't be trying to obstruct the release of more evidence.

Republicans know this.  They know he's guilty.  That's why they keep arguing procedure instead of the facts.  They don't want the facts, which is exactly why they are arguing for Trump's presumed right (which doesn't exist) to ignore the subpoenas - so that testimony will not be released.  

If it were released, they would have no more excuses or rationale to (falsely) claim there is inadequate or "hearsay" evidence.  They would be forced  to take a stand on the facts as being sufficient to justify impeachment.

I have to believe there are at least some Republicans who would find it difficult to rule that withholding aid that impacts our own national security to coerce a foreign country to trash a personal political rival doesn't merit impeachment.  All it would take is 4 or 5.

 

[bigbird 60,567]

I'm not saying he's innocent of what he's being accused of. I'm saying it hasn't been proven and the opportunity to force the testimonies that might have proven it was skipped by Congress.

[homersapien 11,388]

22 minutes ago, bigbird said:

That's not what he's being impeached for. The articles are abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

 

 

Those charges are based on the specific acts I related - withholding military aid from Ukraine in order to get them to announce an investigation of Biden's son (abuse of power) and refusing to submit to subpoena regarding information on that (obstruction of Congress).

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I'm not saying he's innocent of what he's being accused of. I'm saying it hasn't been proven and the opportunity to force the testimonies that might have proven it was skipped by Congress.

It was not "skipped by Congress".  Trump has refused to comply with their subpoenas to obtain it.

Nevertheless, they have obtained enough evidence and testimony to impeach. 

[bigbird 60,567]

Just now, homersapien said:

 

Those charges are based on the specific acts I related - withholding military aid from Ukraine in order to get them to announce an investigation of Biden's son (abuse of power) and refusing to submit to subpoena regarding information on that (obstruction of Congress).

 

 

 

You can't prove abuse of power without the Court saying what he is doing is illegal.

Without those testimonies that have not been heard, all you have is hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion. That's not proof of a crime.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

8 minutes ago, bigbird said:

When a constitutional crisis arises between the Congress and the president, such as use and coverage of executive privilege, then the Court makes the determination.

In this impeachment inquiry, one if the articles drawn  is obstructing Congress, that was over the refusal of the president to let some testify. He claimed executive privilege, Congress claimed it didn't fall under executive privilege. At that moment it should've been taken to the courts for a ruling, just like they did with Nixon.

If the Court had ruled it was not covered by privilege and he continued to block the testimonies, then that would be obstruction of Congress and impeachable. As is, without a ruling by the Court saying one way or the other, it shouldn't be impeachable.

“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.

[bigbird 60,567]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

It was not "skipped by Congress".  Trump has refused to comply with their subpoenas to obtain it.

Sure it was. If they wanted them and it was so clear, then they would've gone to the Court to force the issue. It would've strengthened their case against Trump. They didn't. They skipped the step that would force testimony that might've proven their case. That's either dropping the ball or deliberately skipping the Court for a reason

[TexasTiger 12,949]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

You can't prove abuse of power without the Court saying what he is doing is illegal.

Without those testimonies that have not been heard, all you have is hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion. That's not proof of a crime.

There’s ample evidence without that testimony. Additional testimony would just make it stronger. Trump’s admission. Trump’s doctored transcript. Vindman’s first hand knowledge of the call. Text messages, etc. There’s plenty of evidence already.

[bigbird 60,567]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s ample evidence without that testimony. Additional testimony would just make it stronger. Trump’s admission. Trump’s doctored transcript. Vindman’s first hand knowledge of the call. Text messages, etc. There’s plenty of evidence already.

The house should have forced those testimonies in the impeachment inquiry not the Senate trial. To move forward to trial without them reeks of political bias and weakens the process and case against Trump.

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s ample evidence without that testimony. Additional testimony would just make it stronger. Trump’s admission. Trump’s doctored transcript. Vindman’s first hand knowledge of the call. Text messages, etc. There’s plenty of evidence already.

Hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion. The opportunity to prove those things true was missed.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

The house should have forced those testimonies in the impeachment inquiry not the Senate trial. To move forward to trial without them reeks of political bias and weakens the process and case against Trump.

Hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion. The opportunity to prove those things true was missed.

There is ample first-hand evidence. You’re just repeating talking points and haven’t looked at it. Partisanship will be McConnell not allowing witnesses. Trump denied that opportunity and wanted to delay for years. McConnell can do his bidding in the Senate but if both sides call relevant witnesses at trial, what’s the complaint?

[homersapien 11,388]

58 minutes ago, bigbird said:

So what I think is that if there is a conflict between two branches,( in this case the use of executive privilege and the testimony of those near Trump) then they should take it to the Court and have a ruling on it. That's how it works. Are you saying you that they shouldn't seek the Court's ruling?

No I am saying congress is not legally precluded from passing articles of impeachment based on the evidence they do have.

There is no legal or constitutional requirement that congress must wait for any particular evidence that is being withheld or blocked by the executive in order to "indict" the president.

This is a procedural argument without any legal basis.  It's being made because the facts show that Trump is guilty as charged.

Finally, the courts are considering the requirement of the executive to ignore such subpoenas. 

 

 

[LakeBum 187]

They could have skipped the last mind-numbing weeks and voted on this a month ago.  The results were already predetermined. Everybody is going to vote along party lines.  Same with the Senate. They should just put it to a vote and don't waste weeks of "testimony" that will not change anyone's mind or how they will vote.  This is all a huge waste of time and done to placate their constituents and pretend to be someone important.  I guess, since we have zero legislators in Washington that want to work with "the other side, that they wouldn't do anything anyway, but they should have all gone home and started campaigning to get re-elected, which is their primary goal anyway.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 12/14/2019 at 11:39 AM, bigbird said:

Sure it was. If they wanted them and it was so clear, then they would've gone to the Court to force the issue. It would've strengthened their case against Trump. They didn't. They skipped the step that would force testimony that might've proven their case. That's either dropping the ball or deliberately skipping the Court for a reason

Your're right. Apparently the Democrats refused to enforce their subpoenas for testimony. Apparently on the basis of the time it would take?   I think this was a mistake.

So you make a good point.

But I don't agree that the subject testimony/evidence is really necessary to prove the factual case of what Trump did, at least to objective "jurists". 

But it would certainly undermine what passes for arguments that he was innocent.

 

[bigbird 60,567]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your right. Apparently the Democrats refused to enforce their subpoenas for testimony. Apparently on the basis of the time it would take?   I think this was a mistake.

So you make a good point.

But I don't agree that the subject testimony/evidence is really necessary to prove the factual case of what Trump did, at least to objective "jurists". 

But it would certainly undermine what passes for arguments that he was innocent.

 

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

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

The house should have forced those testimonies in the impeachment inquiry not the Senate trial. To move forward to trial without them reeks of political bias and weakens the process and case against Trump.

Hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion. The opportunity to prove those things true was missed.

Those are all facts and proof in the eyes of many liberals these days.   All those witnesses thinking and feeling  and disagreeing about DT's comments on a phone call they did not hear?   Yep....an iron clad case. 

[DKW 86 7,426]

Allowing witnesses? Witnesses to testify to what? Hearsay evidence? 

If a witness is going to go  up there and talk about hearsay evidence, then for the sake of every president in the future, i hope they stop them dead cold.

Hearsay is not evidence in any sense of the word. I would also expect that every witness thaty comes forward is likely going to get other witnesses testifying as to their character and veracity. This is what happens when you are so butthurt you have to run a trial off of Page Six, People Magazine, TMZ and E!  accusations.

Truth be known, i grow more and more skeptical of this crap every day. We should have focused on beating him at the ballot box.

I know God has a sense of humor. When the American people are so tired of this that no one will listen is exactly when we will have a case where we need everyone top be on board and no one will care to listen. 

[AU64 10,122]

36 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

We should have focused on beating him at the ballot box.

Yep....and yet three years later, most of the dem leadership still does not see that as their answer....desperately trying to get him out of office now....less than a year from the next election ….and offering little in the way of a platform that will attract the number of Electoral  College votes to defeat him.   

Seems to me at least that most dems in the capital have already conceded that they can't beat DJT in an election....so willing to go to any length to disqualify him and take their chances with some defenseless schnook like McClain or Romney who will just sit back and let them destroy and diminish his character and life accomplishments without fighting back.

[bigbird 60,567]

I have to say, when I see a reaction from ICHY it makes me smile. He routinely proves my point about political Blindness. I couldn't do it alone, thanks, ICHY.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

5 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Allowing witnesses? Witnesses to testify to what? Hearsay evidence? 

If a witness is going to go  up there and talk about hearsay evidence, then for the sake of every president in the future, i hope they stop them dead cold.

Hearsay is not evidence in any sense of the word. I would also expect that every witness thaty comes forward is likely going to get other witnesses testifying as to their character and veracity. This is what happens when you are so butthurt you have to run a trial off of Page Six, People Magazine, TMZ and E!  accusations.

Truth be known, i grow more and more skeptical of this crap every day. We should have focused on beating him at the ballot box.

I know God has a sense of humor. When the American people are so tired of this that no one will listen is exactly when we will have a case where we need everyone top be on board and no one will care to listen. 

Law is not your strong suit.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Law is not your strong suit.

Other than recognizing what laws to abide by not the strong point of of most Americans Brother Tex. 

Anti Trumpers have screwed this deal and you realize it. 

[TexasTiger 12,949]

38 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Other than recognizing what laws to abide by not the strong point of of most Americans Brother Tex. 

Anti Trumpers have screwed this deal and you realize it. 

Can’t really screw it up when the Senate refuses to follow their oath before the trial.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

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

[DKW 86 7,426]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Law is not your strong suit.

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 

Quote

 

Hillary Clinton takes the lead in Democratic presidential poll for 2020. She’s not running.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Hillary Clinton has surged in public popularity, taking the lead in the most recently published Harvard-Harris poll, beating out many popular contenders. The problem is she hasn't announced her candidacy.

Clinton scored 21 percent of the vote among Democratic voters in the most recent Harvard-Harris poll, which is released monthly. Right behind Clinton was Joe Biden with 20 percent, followed by Bernie Sanders (12 percent) and Elizabeth Warren (9 percent).

The sample was taken on the premise of if Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Bloomberg decided to join the race. Kerry actually tied current candidate Pete Buttigieg with 5 percent. Bloomberg scored 4 percent.