• 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.
dudalb said:
Yeah, if he testified he could claim lawyer/client privilege or just plead the fifth.
Click to expand...
Didn't a stable genius once claim only guilty people plead the fifth? Can't remember who said that though.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
 
Even *if* the Ukraine things turns into nothing (which I sincerely doubt), the House now has super-subpoena power to get everything on their Christmas wish lists: Trump taxes, financials, DNA, everything. This will ultimately destroy 45, if for nothing else than revealing the complete failure 45 truly is.
 
...except that they've already established that if you ignore a subpoena they do nothing to you for that, which makes subpoenas exactly the same as a Pelosi "sternly-worded letter".
 
acbytesla said:
They subpoenaed all documents/notes he has related to the Ukraine. Not his testimony. His refusal would go against US v Nixon. A unanimous Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

That verdict was overturned in the landmark "Trump can do anything he wants vs who's gonna stop me" case of 2016-2019 onward.

Trump's not afraid of a Supreme Court with 5-4 conservative majority including two of his hand picked toadies on it.
 
Last edited:
The Greater Fool said:
Even *if* the Ukraine things turns into nothing (which I sincerely doubt), the House now has super-subpoena power to get everything on their Christmas wish lists: Trump taxes, financials, DNA, everything. This will ultimately destroy 45, if for nothing else than revealing the complete failure 45 truly is.
Click to expand...
They can only go after relevant evidence. If impeachment is limited to Ukraine, they can't go after his taxes. This is why I think they should tack on emoluments.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That verdict was overturned in the landmark "Trump can do anything he wants vs who's gonna stop me" case of 2016-2019 onward.

Trump's not afraid of a Supreme Court with 5-4 conservative majority including two of his hand picked toadies on it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be that confident they would rule in his favor. In fact, I would bet big money they wouldn't. It wouldn't even shock me that they would quickly rule against the President saying "stare decisis".
 
varwoche said:
They can only go after relevant evidence. If impeachment is limited to Ukraine, they can't go after his taxes. This is why I think they should tack on emoluments.
Click to expand...
There is already a subpoena that Trump is fighting to get his financial records from Deutsche Bank and his tax records are part of that. Then there was that NY State investigation looking at his state tax records. That is also tied up in the courts which is Trump's modus operandi.

There is still one of the emoluments cases in the courts. They weren't both stalled under a no standing charge. So no need to add that to the impeachment. The Brookings panel this morning thought the emoluments issue was weak in terms of impeachment. Take a look at the link to that panel discussion in my post upthread. You can click on any segment in the transcript and that part of the discussion will play.

One of the issues they pointed out is too many subpoenas and you risk Trump tying it up in the courts until after the election. While that may seem OK, think about it, do we want Pence for half a year or four years? :eek:
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Can an impeachment inquiry compel immunity?

The Power to Compel Testimony and Disclosure
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. But these notes don't belong to Giuliani. They are either from his work as President Trump's personal attorney and as we have seen with Michael Cohen there are many limitations to attorney client privilege. Or they belong to the United States of America because Rudy was working for the government. I don't buy that liasing with foreign governments in a matter that POTUS and SOSUS were involved can be credibly called the work of a private attorney.

the rule that documents which are part of the official records of government are wholly outside the scope of the privilege; public records are the property of government and are always accessible to inspection. Because government requires certain records to be kept to facilitate the regulation of the business being conducted, so the reasoning goes, the records become public at least to the degree that government could always scrutinize them without hindrance from the record-keeper.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power-to-compel-testimony-and-disclosure.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is already a subpoena that Trump is fighting to get his financial records from Deutsche Bank and his tax records are part of that. Then there was that NY State investigation looking at his state tax records. That is also tied up in the courts which is Trump's modus operandi.

There is still one of the emoluments cases in the courts. They weren't both stalled under a no standing charge. So no need to add that to the impeachment. The Brookings panel this morning thought the emoluments issue was weak in terms of impeachment. Take a look at the link to that panel discussion in my post upthread. You can click on any segment in the transcript and that part of the discussion will play.

One of the issues they pointed out is too many subpoenas and you risk Trump tying it up in the courts until after the election. While that may seem OK, think about it, do we want Pence for half a year or four years? :eek:
Click to expand...
Impeachment has the potential of fast-tracking the tax return. Those other cases are likely to drag on past the election.

Emoluments has the important added benefit of being relatively easy for the public to understand. Did the panel consider the PR aspect, or just legal?
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
Impeachment has the potential of fast-tracking the tax return. Those other cases are likely to drag on past the election.

Emoluments has the important added benefit of being relatively easy for the public to understand. Did the panel consider the PR aspect, or just legal?
Click to expand...

From the link:
.... WE HAVE SOME AREAS IN WHICH THERE IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING. THE STORMY DANIELS PAYMENTS, PRE-PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT THAT IMPLICATES CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LAW. WE HAVE A CLEAR EVIDENTIARY RECORD BUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PRE-PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT STARTS TO BECOME MORE DIFFICULT. THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE'S VIOLATION, VERY SERIOUS EMOLUMENT'S CLAUSE'S VIOLATION, VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS, SOME OPEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS IS NOT YET TAKEN STEPS TO MAKE THE LAWS. GENUINE POLICY DIFFERENCES, EVEN THINGS WE MIGHT FIND PERSONALLY ABHORRENT LIKE FAMILY SEPARATION WHICH IS A POLICY DISAGREEMENT, YOU DON'T GET TO IMPEACH FOR THAT. THERE IS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY WHICH IS UNSATISFYING TO LEAVE THAT ON THE TABLE. THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY OF PLAINLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT IN WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT QUITE STRONG ENOUGH. TO PRESIDENT
Click to expand...
So the assessment was, good evidence but is it an impeachable offense?

I think we sometimes don't step back and look objectively at things we find abhorrent and I think that is what the panel participant was saying.
 
So the Russian Probe lead to the Mueller Report which lead to Impeachment which, the plan is, will lead to Trump's tax return which will finally and this time we mean be the thing that will take down Trump... until it doesn't and then I'm sure we're gonna be assured in no uncertain terms and we mean it this time that whatever we find in tax return is going to need to be investigated and when we investigate that I'm sure we'll finally find the thing that's gonna take down Trump...
 
JoeMorgue said:
So the Russian Probe lead to the Mueller Report which lead to Impeachment which, the plan is, will lead to Trump's tax return which will finally and this time we mean be the thing that will take down Trump... until it doesn't and then I'm sure we're gonna be assured in no uncertain terms and we mean it this time that whatever we find in tax return is going to need to be investigated and when we investigate that I'm sure we'll finally find the thing that's gonna take down Trump...
Click to expand...

Don't you find that things are a bit different this time, though?
 
JoeMorgue said:
So the Russian Probe lead to the Mueller Report which lead to Impeachment which, the plan is, will lead to Trump's tax return which will finally and this time we mean be the thing that will take down Trump... until it doesn't and then I'm sure we're gonna be assured in no uncertain terms and we mean it this time that whatever we find in tax return is going to need to be investigated and when we investigate that I'm sure we'll finally find the thing that's gonna take down Trump...
Click to expand...




Oh, but whining about what Democrats are doing--Now that is sure to work!

:rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
From the link:So the assessment was, good evidence but is it an impeachable offense?

I think we sometimes don't step back and look objectively at things we find abhorrent and I think that is what the panel participant was saying.
Click to expand...
I wish I had time to view the presentation you cited. Alas.

My take-away is the panel is looking at things strictly from a legal perspective. I think the PR perspective needs to be prioritized. It's not like the Senate will actually convict on anything.
 
varwoche said:
I wish I had time to view the presentation you cited. Alas.

My take-away is the panel is looking at things strictly from a legal perspective. I think the PR perspective needs to be prioritized. It's not like the Senate will actually convict on anything.
Click to expand...

Since it takes 2/3's majority, yeah, I'm not holding my breath on conviction.

The process itself would be valuable though. Hell, even just a 51 vote majority for conviction would be politically damning, even if not causing removal.

Get these goons on the stand and have them go over their various misdeeds in excruciating detail. Especially on the emoluments stuff, detailing all the petty grifts would be quite instructive.
 
Cabbage said:
Oh, but whining about what Democrats are doing--Now that is sure to work!
Click to expand...
The biggest oddity about JM's post is not the whininess. It's that he's pretending that there have been any efforts at all to "take down Trump" or promises that they would do so. In reality, they've been doing nothing and promising nothing from it. And given how absurdly gigantic Trump's been making the case against himself, "nothing" is actually less than nothing; it's going out of their way to protect him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom