• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trump pundit is on France 24 now claiming the House didn't give Trump due process because the subpoenas needed to go through the courts.

#1) Trump has made it very clear, regardless of the court ruling, he still wouldn't follow the subpoenas.

#2) There is enough evidence without the subpoenas.

#3) If Trump had a case rebutting the evidence, he as the ability to present it.

#4) Add in the standard reply to the BS, the GOP was represented, Trump lawyers had an opportunity, the only witness they weren't allowed were ones they wanted to put on for show trial.

Sigh, but the person debating the Trump pundit has not used #1.
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous since Congress has been issuing subpoenas for 230 years. The courts have nothing to do with Congressional subpoenas.
 
acbytesla said:
I didn't even understand whatever you wrote.
Click to expand...

Anti Abortion radical Birthers attacked the man who debunked Jerome Corsi's 9/11No Planer book, to keep him from publishing Corsi emails and the fact Sean Hannity knew Corsi was a 9/11No Planer.
 
Trump: "There is no evidence!!!! Its all just hearsay!!!

Democrats: "You blocked everyone you could from complying with a subpoena".

Trump: "So what!!! Its all a witchhunt!! I had no Due Process!!"

Democrats: "You refused to participate in ANY of the hearings."

Trump: "waaaaaaa wa wa wa!!!"

:)
 
acbytesla said:
It's ridiculous since Congress has been issuing subpoenas for 230 years. The courts have nothing to do with Congressional subpoenas.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the courts have everything to do with resolving a dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches over the question of whether the Executive is required to comply with Legislative subpoenas.
 
theprestige said:
On the other hand, the courts have everything to do with resolving a dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches over the question of whether the Executive is required to comply with Legislative subpoenas.
Click to expand...

House has the authority to impeach.

Their authority to also issue subpoenas to all but WH senior aids and cabinet members, should be obvious
 
theprestige said:
On the other hand, the courts have everything to do with resolving a dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches over the question of whether the Executive is required to comply with Legislative subpoenas.
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't need to ask the courts every time they want to issue a subpoena. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the court is the arbiter of conflicts arising between the Executive and Legislative branches. NOWHERE.

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility of overseeing the administration of our government including foreign policy. Congress is impeaching POTUS because they see his blanket order to deny documents and testimony as OBSTRUCTION.

The House also has a remedy for such obstruction. It's called impeachment.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment

The House was very clear on this issue when they started the impeachment process. Refusal to comply with the House inquiry would be viewed as obstruction.
 
theprestige said:
And yet it is not obvious to me.

Nor is it obvious to me that the dispute can be resolved in Congress favor simply by asserting the obviousness of their claim.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't think Congressional oversight is not a Constitutional requirement?

230 years of oversight and you want to eliminate it? Seriously?

How about the power of impeachment?

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Given the way McConnel had run the senate so far you can guarantee he will do anything he wants. People have just mentioned several ways he can screw with the process. Expect plenty of unfair tactics.
Click to expand...

Not that it matters as far as a verdict goes. No way in hell they were ever going to convict Trump.
 
dudalb said:
Not that it matters as far as a verdict goes. No way in hell they were ever going to convict Trump.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It doesn't matter what evidence there is against Trump, however overwhelming, the GOP senators will never vote against him. Even before the testimonies during the hearings, they made that quite clear. There will be a farce of a trial with a foregone verdict. To even call it a trial would be a joke.
 
CapelDodger said:
It hasn't eliminated corruption in politics after 230 years so what practical purpose is it serving? :cool:
Click to expand...

Prestige's argument is absurd. He doesn't even believe it. I know because I've been reading his posts for years.

For 230 years Congress has been asking and receiving documents and testimonies from the Executive branch about the details and administration of our government and its its foreign policy. Congress authorized 391 million dollars in military aid for Ukraine. It has every right to question why the aid was withheld. There is no right of the Executive to withhold information just because it might incriminate POTUS. This isn't a criminal inquiry.

These are meant to be co-equal branches that work together to run the country. The founders would never have given the House the responsibility of impeachment without giving it the right to investigate.
 
I saw an interesting bit of speculation the other day - that the Democrats' plan might be to try to enforce the subpoenas that are being ignored when this moves to the Senate. That way the presiding judge can rule on them and that will carry with it the weight of a Supreme Court judgement.

How legally sound that is I don't know, but IIRC the argument originated on a legal podcast.
 
theprestige said:
On the other hand, the courts have everything to do with resolving a dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches over the question of whether the Executive is required to comply with Legislative subpoenas.
Click to expand...

In the past, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it has nothing to do with Impeachment.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trump pundit is on France 24 now claiming the House didn't give Trump due process because the subpoenas needed to go through the courts.

#1) Trump has made it very clear, regardless of the court ruling, he still wouldn't follow the subpoenas.

#2) There is enough evidence without the subpoenas.

#3) If Trump had a case rebutting the evidence, he as the ability to present it.

#4) Add in the standard reply to the BS, the GOP was represented, Trump lawyers had an opportunity, the only witness they weren't allowed were ones they wanted to put on for show trial.

Sigh, but the person debating the Trump pundit has not used #1.
Click to expand...

I think this is exactly why the Senate will dismiss that particular Article. I honestly think that it would fail in a non-partisan Senate, too. That someone intends to abuse the system and wouldn't comply with a court ruling if it went against them doesn't imply that they're not entitled to take that matter to court. It doesn't even mean that they shouldn't be allowed to.

2-4 don't address the actual Article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom