Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

plague311 said:
No, it's not difficult at all. Well, maybe for you.

It's been well documented from previous employees of Trump's that his staff has kept him in check in a bunch of different situations. That's why the those people aren't there anymore, because he got sick of them talking him out of things.
Click to expand...
Yeah, remember when Trump tried to fire Mueller (as well as do some other shady things) and those who were supposed to carry out the orders just ignored him.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-sections-blacked-out-released-public-n990191

So yeah, the idea that Trump might give an order but not have it carried out immediately is not without precedent.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, remember when Trump tried to fire Mueller (as well as do some other shady things) and those who were supposed to carry out the orders just ignored him.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly one of his lawyers threatened to quit over it.
Click to expand...
The article goes into some detail about it.

It was white house lawyer Don McGahn who was told to get Rosenstein to fire Mueller. McGahn decided instead to pack his office, and was about to submit his resignation letter to the Chief of Staff.

It should be noted that McGhan was with Trump since his campaign (so he wasn't some sort of new addition). You figure he would have had some loyalty. Says something about Trump if he can actually act in a way that alienates someone who has been with him that long.
 
Segnosaur said:
During the hearings, a member of the Democrats talked about "FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuits", and how they are no substitute for proper congressional oversight.
Click to expand...
I know this isn't your point, but sometimes I think FOIA is a better mechanism for oversight than Congress. It can't directly remove a president, but Congress never seems to have the will to do that anyway.

pgwenthold said:
Where is the judge in this situation? Did he correct the record?
Click to expand...
I wasn't watching so I don't know how big of an issue this is but sometimes I feel like this stuff is barely worth correcting. Thinking of all the B.S. that's already on record, I'm not sure it's even worth correcting what I'm pretty sure is an obvious brain fart or hearing glitch.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Also, he's not a judge in this role. He's the acting President of the Senate.
Click to expand...

He is presiding over the impeachment trial. That's what the constitution tells him to do. The person who presides over a trial is the judge.

If he is just watching and only there to break ties, he is not presiding
 
pgwenthold said:
He is presiding over the impeachment trial. That's what the constitution tells him to do. The person who presides over a trial is the judge.

If he is just watching and only there to break ties, he is not presiding
Click to expand...
Rehnquist knew exactly how seriously to take the chief justice's role in an impeachment trial.
 
pgwenthold said:
He is presiding over the impeachment trial. That's what the constitution tells him to do. The person who presides over a trial is the judge.

If he is just watching and only there to break ties, he is not presiding
Click to expand...

The person who presides over the Senate is the President of the Senate. They don't magically become a judge when the Senate is trying an impeachment.

The closest thing to a judge in this process is the Senators, collectively.
 
theprestige said:
The person who presides over the Senate is the President of the Senate. They don't magically become a judge when the Senate is trying an impeachment.

The closest thing to a judge in this process is the Senators, collectively.
Click to expand...

The constitution does not direct the CJ to preside over the senate, he presides over the impeachment trial.
 
dudalb said:
Foxnews….really?????



More and more I think we are being trolled here.
Click to expand...
If you both read to the end there is an interesting comment from the reporter.

While Sekulow is correct that Hamilton's message was not about impeachment, Schiff and Nadler were careful to note in their remarks that the Hamilton quote was about the type of leader that would be most harmful to the American government and not*about impeachment.

"The framers worried then, as we worry today, that a leader might come to power not to carry out the will of the people that he was elected to represent, but to pursue his own interests," Schiff said Wednesday. "A fear that a president would subvert our democracy by abusing the awesome power of his office for his own personal or political gain."
Click to expand...
 
Segnosaur said:
So an awkward moment for Trump's legal team...

During the hearings, a member of the Democrats talked about "FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuits", and how they are no substitute for proper congressional oversight.

Trump defender Jay Sekulow seized on the comment, but misunderstood, thinking the speaker said "Lawyer lawsuits". He then began a rant:

“Lawyer lawsuits? We’re talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members, the managers, are complaining about lawyer lawsuits?” Sekulow said. “The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits.”

Umm, first of all, nobody used the term 'lawyer lawsuits' (except Sekulow).

Secondly, nobody was suggesting FOIA lawsuits (or 'lawyer lawsuits') don't have their place, just that they aren't as effective in proving congressional oversight.

ETA: Sorry, forgot link.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...awyer-sekulow-may-have-misheard-foia-lawsuits
Click to expand...


What's all this I hear about "lawyer lawsuits"?!? I think it's horrible that President Trump wants to get rid of lawyer lawsuits! What are we supposed to do when we slip and fall? Go to court by ourselves? We need people to help us! I don't know how to talk to a judge all by myself, my lawyer has to...

(Chevy Chase whispers in ear....)

Oh.....never mind.
 
Meadmaker said:
If so, it went over the rest of the country's head as well.
Click to expand...

The rest of the country as in Trump's 30-40% of his followers, yes.

The rest of the country as in the rest of us, no.

Let's see, you want people to give you money but there are rules. So have them donate millions to Trump's inauguration fund then you dole that out to yourself NPR: District Of Columbia Sues Inaugural Committee For 'Grossly Overpaying' At Trump Hotel
The District of Columbia is suing President Trump's inaugural committee, the Trump Organization and the Trump International Hotel in Washington, accusing them of "grossly overpaying" for event space at the hotel to enrich the president's family during the 2017 inauguration.

The funds to rent the hotel space came from the inaugural committee. As a nonprofit, the committee was not legally allowed to use "any portion of its funds to be spent in a way that are designed to benefit private persons or companies," according to the lawsuit. The committee spent more than a million dollars to rent the hotel space, a cost that D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine says is far above market rate.
Click to expand...


The evidence list is endless. Do you need more?
 
Judging from Trump's minions repeating the argument Biden did something corrupt, as if they are going to focus on that BS as Trump's defense, the Democrats should have put more emphasis on the fact the prosecutor Biden got removed was protecting Burisma not prosecuting them.

They covered it, but not enough IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom