• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
I watched the oral arguments just now in the Federal court hearing on revealing the Mueller Grand Jury testimony because the House Judiciary Committee believes there is evidence of Trump's perjury in it.

While this is not yet the SCOTUS hearing, the justices questions were polite to the House attorneys and rude to the Justice Department (Trump's) ones. Not always significant.
Click to expand...

Bumper sticker seen this weekend:
"Lock him up in Mexico
Make Russia pay for it"
 
a_unique_person said:
What's the point of stacking courts of they won't rule in your favour?
Click to expand...
Huh?

It's confusing because there are three cases.

The McGhan subpoena case: stayed until the appeal is heard. That's standard. Usually the judge that ruled will also stay the case. The only difference is SCOTUS stayed it. Not only will they not overturn the case tomorrow, there's no way the case will be heard that quick.


Re the taxes released, also a ruling in the lower court against Trump:

Supreme Court puts a hold on releasing Trump’s taxes
Earlier Monday, the House said that it would endorse a 10-day delay to give the justices more time to consider legal arguments...
Earlier Monday, the House said that it would endorse a 10-day delay to give the justices more time to consider legal arguments.

House General Counsel Douglas Letter suggested in a letter Monday he could file briefs on Friday outlining why a subpoena to Trump’s accounting firm for financial information should be allowed to go into effect.
Click to expand...


The third case is a request to allow the House to see Mueller's Grand Jury testimony because they think it will show Trump perjured himself in his Mueller testimony. The House Judiciary Committee is seeking that.
From the WA Po Oct (sorry my StartPage link can't be shared apparently but it's easily found).
The Justice Department got a reprieve Tuesday when a federal appeals court in Washington said the Trump administration does not have to immediately release to Congress certain grand jury materials from Robert S. Mueller III’s special counsel investigation.

The court order temporarily puts on hold a ruling from last week that required the department to hand over materials the House Judiciary Committee is seeking as part of its impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Click to expand...
That one is still on hold.


So which court stacking-up are you talking about?

BTW, so far all these cases are leaning against Trump. I don't expect Roberts to give Trump a pass. He is not a Trump controlled puppet.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Almost at the same time, SCROTUS put a hold on releasing Trump's taxes. They'll probably overturn McGahn's testimony by this time tomorrow.
Click to expand...


According to Chuck Rosenburg, that is pretty much SOP to prevent one side from releasing before the other side has a chance to appeal... you can't unring the bell.



ETA: Ninja'd by many!
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
But Ukraine had already been cleared in May after the Pentagon had done a second corruption check.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that he had good reason to withhold the aid nor that he withheld it for any reason other than his own political self-interest.

I'm only saying that he did not admit that he withheld the aid in order to persuade (extort, if you prefer) Ukraine to announce either of the investigations.

I'm sure you and I agree that's why he did it. My question is whether he's actually publicly admitted to it.
 
phiwum said:
I'm not saying that he had good reason to withhold the aid nor that he withheld it for any reason other than his own political self-interest.

I'm only saying that he did not admit that he withheld the aid in order to persuade (extort, if you prefer) Ukraine to announce either of the investigations.

I'm sure you and I agree that's why he did it. My question is whether he's actually publicly admitted to it.
Click to expand...

I think the Fox news thread is about that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340492
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Huh?

It's confusing because there are three cases.

The McGhan subpoena case: stayed until the appeal is heard. That's standard. Usually the judge that ruled will also stay the case. The only difference is SCOTUS stayed it. Not only will they not overturn the case tomorrow, there's no way the case will be heard that quick.


Re the taxes released, also a ruling in the lower court against Trump:

Supreme Court puts a hold on releasing Trump’s taxes



The third case is a request to allow the House to see Mueller's Grand Jury testimony because they think it will show Trump perjured himself in his Mueller testimony. The House Judiciary Committee is seeking that.
From the WA Po Oct (sorry my StartPage link can't be shared apparently but it's easily found).That one is still on hold.


So which court stacking-up are you talking about?

BTW, so far all these cases are leaning against Trump. I don't expect Roberts to give Trump a pass. He is not a Trump controlled puppet.
Click to expand...


According to Fox, the Extreme Left judge is to blame.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-levin-blasts-mcgahn-ruling-calls-judge-a-disgrace


Radio host Mark Levin on Monday slammed a D.C. federal judge's ruling that former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress pursuant to a subpoena issued earlier this year.
"She's a radical leftist and this is truly outrageous," Levin said on his radio show.


....

The host of "Life, Liberty & Levin" called the judge, who was appointed by former President Obama, a "disgrace" and noted the signifcance of the ruling.

"So, what she's doing is she's tilting the balance of power far away from the president to the Congress. Changing the structure of our government," Levin said. "And the ability of the chief executive to function, to function. There is a circle of advice that a president gets in the inner circle that should be unmolested by these subpoenas."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
1/ Impeachment is going forward to establish a historical record of what happened, and to tell future presidents "You can't do this without consequences." Even if Trump doesn't get removed, he will have been impeached and tried, a fate most normal Presidents would try hard to avoid.

2/ A trial in the Senate will require every Senator to cast a vote. For the ones who are up for re-election in purple states in 2020, a vote for Trump will work against them and might cost them their job.
Click to expand...

This. I really do not underestimate the value of the second part, in the long term. If, as I suspect will happen, the process passes the House then dies in the Senate, in future years it will be possible to go back to the record and see where those people stood, when it came down to the tough call - where were they? You get a chance to be on the right side of history. (this is slightly over-dramatic, but I'm slightly over-dramatic ;) )
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I wonder if the argument would be the same were Obama still in the White House...
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that if Obama did even 1% of the crimes that Trump did, the Republicans would have him impeached. What's not talked about is the fact that Democrats would support such an impeachment because Democrats tend not to defend criminal actions by anyone, including their own.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The argument is literally that the president and the president's inner circle should be above the law.
Click to expand...

Yes, or more specifically, because what Donald Trump's inner circle is doing a fantastic job of Making America Great Again (or Keeping America Great Again) any time they run up against a legal impediment - by definition the law is at fault and therefore, for the good of the country, the law should be ignored.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I wonder if the argument would be the same were Obama still in the White House...
Click to expand...

Of course not, Obama was working to destroy the US and implement both communism and Sharia law. Because of this any law preventing this is beneficial and indeed if you have to break the law to thwart him, that's your patriotic duty.
 
The Don said:
Yes, or more specifically, because what Donald Trump's inner circle is doing a fantastic job of Making America Great Again (or Keeping America Great Again) any time they run up against a legal impediment - by definition the law is at fault and therefore, for the good of the country, the law should be ignored.



Of course not, Obama was working to destroy the US and implement both communism and Sharia law. Because of this any law preventing this is beneficial and indeed if you have to break the law to thwart him, that's your patriotic duty.
Click to expand...

That's basicly the 🦊 Propoganda 9/11No Planer Network mantra,anything good for Trump is good for the country anything bad for Trump is bad for the country.
 
Stacyhs said:
As expected, the DOJ is appealing Judge Jackson's ruling. So predictable.
Click to expand...

Again, that’s what I find infuriating.

I believe the lawyers that brought this case knew going in that any concept of “Absolute Immunity” was doomed to fail and smacked of “Divine Right Of Kings”.

But winning in court was never the goal. Trump has for decades found that with enough money and the right lawyers, just outcomes can be delayed interminably - enough to wear down most opponents financially over time. And I think it’s obvious that’s what his legal team was tasked with here: delay, delay, delay. He’s taken a judicial system designed to give rights to the accused and to punish lawbreakers, and weaponized it and twisted it to serve his own ends.

And we keep hoping that in the long run, justice will be served. But don’t forget the old maxims: “Justice delayed is justice denied” and “In the long run we’re all dead”.

Regardless, Judge Jackson’s ruling is excoriating. Last night Rachel Maddow read highlights, and that show - available as a podcast - is worth a view.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
But winning in court was never the goal. Trump has for decades found that with enough money and the right lawyers, just outcomes can be delayed interminably - enough to wear down most opponents financially over time. And I think it’s obvious that’s what his legal team was tasked with here: delay, delay, delay.
Click to expand...



Which of course highlights how Trump being a "businessman" doesn't help him run the government. Delay tactics might work against Bob's Gold Plumbing Co., because Bob is a small businessman who has limited resources for going to court. But this time he's not suing Bob, he's suing one part of the US government. They have as close to unlimited resources as exists in the real world. So let him delay it right up to the Supreme Court. After that, there's nowhere else to go.
 
Horatius said:
But this time he's not suing Bob, he's suing one part of the US government. They have as close to unlimited resources as exists in the real world. So let him delay it right up to the Supreme Court. After that, there's nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...

Except that he could still just ignore the judgment. What is Congress going to do? Arrest the President?
 
Horatius said:
Which of course highlights how Trump being a "businessman" doesn't help him run the government. Delay tactics might work against Bob's Gold Plumbing Co., because Bob is a small businessman who has limited resources for going to court. But this time he's not suing Bob, he's suing one part of the US government. They have as close to unlimited resources as exists in the real world. So let him delay it right up to the Supreme Court. After that, there's nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...

Trump is a conspiracy theorist will money that is all he is, he would sacrifice anyone else for political or financial gain.
 
CNN Poll: No change in views on impeachment after public hearings


So that poll found 50% still saying Trump should be impeached and removed, versus only 43% -- Trump's irredeemable base -- saying no. 53% say Trump used the presidency improperly (but apparently some 3% don't think that is disqualifying). 56% say Trump's pressure on Ukraine was about benefiting himself politically (but apparently some 3% don't think that was improper), while only 36% say Trump cared about fighting corruption (i.e. not even all of his cult).

So I suggest that our resident pessimists stop worrying about impeachment backlash -- it ain't gonna happen. Trump's one and only hope of winning re-election is voter apathy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom