Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
What I'm saying is that because there is a right not to comply with subpoenas and a mechanism for forcing people to comply with them which wasn't followed, that I think that Article would be challenged in a non-partisan Senate. In this partisan Senate it's a slam-dunk for the Republicans that not only will instantly be dismissed as invalid, but also feeds in to the Republican narrative that Trump is the victim of a political witch-hunt.
Click to expand...

Much as I only listened to some of the arguments today I did hear this one repeated.

Nadler's answer was that Trump's attorneys sent a letter saying no one will cooperate claiming the House did not have the authority to impeach. Literally, that is what Trump's lawyers claimed. Nadler said if Trump had claimed Executive Privilege they would have had something to take to court.

You seem to have bought the argument the House should have put up with every stalling tactic the POTUS put forward just like the GOP House members are doing now. Subpoena everyone, wait a year for it to work it's way through the courts and hope the SCOTUS isn't as corrupted as the GOP.

Then when the subpoenas were court ordered, all those witnesses might simply claim the 5th. After all, Sonland said everyone was in on it.All you would have is Trump successfully stalling the whole thing.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Much as I only listened to some of the arguments today I did hear this one repeated.

Nadler's answer was that Trump's attorneys sent a letter saying no one will cooperate claiming the House did not have the authority to impeach. Literally, that is what Trump's lawyers claimed. Nadler said if Trump had claimed Executive Privilege they would have had something to take to court.

You seem to have bought the argument the House should have put up with every stalling tactic the POTUS put forward just like the GOP House members are doing now. Subpoena everyone, wait a year for it to work it's way through the courts and hope the SCOTUS isn't as corrupted as the GOP.

Then when the subpoenas were court ordered, all those witnesses might simply claim the 5th. After all, Sonland said everyone was in on it.All you would have is Trump successfully stalling the whole thing.
Click to expand...

When you put it that way, I support Trump's attorney on this. Take it to court like prosecutors have to and suck it up.

I was on your side until you brought up the 5th as anything other than an important protection.
 
BobTheCoward said:
When you put it that way, I support Trump's attorney on this. Take it to court like prosecutors have to and suck it up.

I was on your side until you brought up the 5th as anything other than an important protection.
Click to expand...

That's not what SG said. She said "all those witnesses might simply claim the 5th". That is no judgment but only a possible action taken.
 
Trebuchet said:
My wife has had the "debate" on all morning. Every time I go in the room it's just another Republican shouting and lying. It's pointless. The committee will pass the articles; the full House will pass the articles; The Senate will have a one-day trial and Trump will be acquitted.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how anyone can listen to it.
 
Stacyhs said:
That's not what SG said. She said "all those witnesses might simply claim the 5th". That is no judgment but only a possible [probable] action taken.
Click to expand...
ftfy. IMO of course.

With the exception of Bolton. I do wish they would have subpoena'd him. But even then, 8 months to work through the courts? Even 6 months it would have been very problematic.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy. IMO of course.

With the exception of Bolton. I do wish they would have subpoena'd him. But even then, 8 months to work through the courts? Even 6 months it would have been very problematic.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters what those documents might have revealed. The GOP would still not convict. They've dug the hole so deep, they'd rather be buried alive in it than climb out by admitting what Trump did was illegal.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy. IMO of course.

With the exception of Bolton. I do wish they would have subpoena'd him. But even then, 8 months to work through the courts? Even 6 months it would have been very problematic.
Click to expand...

What you call problematic is the daily lives of many, many people involved in the justice system. It sounds weird to bring it up now.,
 
JoeMorgue said:
The entire concept of checks and balances is "going against" the election officials and trying to "undo the election" by this logic.

The voters elected Congress as much as the elected the President. Retorting everything with "Well he got elected" is incorrect.

You can be elected, even removing the shadiness of the election, and still do things wrong that require you to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

The House Democrats are not repeating this point as much as they should be. In fact I haven't heard it once.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fascinating how McConnell referred to the House Impeachment hearings as a "trial".

Has this man NEVER read the Constitution??

And now they are arguing that its not Obstruction to ban all witnesses and all documents.

The GOP really has lost its mind and all sense of country.
Click to expand...

That's clearly on purpose to corroborate all the widdle Trumpies whining that poor widdle Trump isn't getting a fair trial.

This is another thing the Democrats are not pointing out when they could be.
 
Stacyhs said:
I don't think it matters what those documents might have revealed. The GOP would still not convict. They've dug the hole so deep, they'd rather be buried alive in it than climb out by admitting what Trump did was illegal.
Click to expand...
Which is another reason not to accept Trump's stalling.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy. IMO of course.

With the exception of Bolton. I do wish they would have subpoena'd him. But even then, 8 months to work through the courts? Even 6 months it would have been very problematic.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why this is. There should be a way to fast track to SCOTUS. That happened in Bush v Gore. Why doesn't impeachment merit the same fast track?

This needs to be reformed. Trump has proven it's too easy to run out the clock.
 
varwoche said:
I don't understand why this is. There should be a way to fast track to SCOTUS. That happened in Bush v Gore. Why doesn't impeachment merit the same fast track?

This needs to be reformed. Trump has proven it's too easy to run out the clock.
Click to expand...


Reform what? How?

We have got to rethink how we conceptualize "rules" at the highest level.

If 5 of the 9 SCOTUS judges, 51 (or 66 in some cases) of the Senators, a Majority (or supermajority if some cases) of Representatives and the President all belong to the same group (or even 3 of the 4 like now) the veneer of what they have to do falls away because they don't have to do anything because there is no force to make them.

There is no higher authority to appeal to when you're dealing with this highest level of government. There's no referee to make the call. The other guy in the ring with you is going to keep low blowing you until one of you wins the fight, nobody is going to ring a bell to stop the match and tally up punches thrown versus punches landed and declare a winner.

The system worked for so long because the people in it all either had some hint of decency or at least shame or at least felt the need to pretend to. Trump has neither. He is only going to do what is he forced to do and nobody in any position to force him to stop wants to and vice versa.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
ftfy. IMO of course.

With the exception of Bolton. I do wish they would have subpoena'd him. But even then, 8 months to work through the courts? Even 6 months it would have been very problematic.
Click to expand...

IMO, Bolton is drooling to testify. He's like a kid in class who knows the answer and is dying for the teacher to call on him. But he'd rather be compelled to do it. Maybe it's insane to volunteer for that kind of role, but I think he'd like to.

As far as I can tell, the House has decided to drop efforts to compel testimony. And maybe that's the right decision. Maybe the whole Congress could stipulate that everything went down pretty much as presented and still not vote to remove. But if I were a Russia hawk like Bolton, it would bother me see a real threat swept under the rug. Some of those senators are Russia hawks too. I have a hard time believing there will be no further testimony.
 
varwoche said:
I don't understand why this is. There should be a way to fast track to SCOTUS. That happened in Bush v Gore. Why doesn't impeachment merit the same fast track?

This needs to be reformed. Trump has proven it's too easy to run out the clock.
Click to expand...
There is a risk to forcing the issue. SCOTUS could rule that Trump is right - a president has no duty to cooperate. IMO it would be a very weird ruling, because if a president can't be indicted, and can legally stonewall any congressional query, you're creating an asinine precedent that puts a president almost completely out of the reach of the law. I don't think that would happen, but for whatever reason the House is not pushing it.

Strange times. I'm hoping that more will be revealed. I don't know what the mechanism would be, though.

Maybe it's the right thing to do; to leave things as they are for the next few weeks. You never know what could happen.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Reform what? How?

We have got to rethink how we conceptualize "rules" at the highest level.

If 5 of the 9 SCOTUS judges, 51 (or 66 in some cases) of the Senators, a Majority (or supermajority if some cases) of Representatives and the President all belong to the same group (or even 3 of the 4 like now) the veneer of what they have to do falls away because they don't have to do anything because there is no force to make them.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think you've kind of nailed it. But like I said - who knows what might happen? I don't listen to Trump rallies but heard some clips from last night. He sounded angry and bitter. Maybe he's hurting. I think the House has done a pretty good job getting the 2 articles through even though there will be more speeches. Then just let it be. For now.
 
Oh, I do hope The PDJT is superstitious. The House committee leader unexpectedly recessed the hearing final vote for a delay until tomorrow, Friday the 13th.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom