Topic: [POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It? - page 12. (Read 2167 times)

The quote you gave undermines your argument that "impeachment" and "criminal investigation" is one in the same. "So the analogy is not entirely apt" = criminal investigations aren't impeachment proceedings. The case of "U.S. v. Nixon" wasn't an impeachment, it was a criminal investigation.

Impeachments can be carried out on the basis of criminal proceedings but do not necessarily have to be. They are not themselves criminal proceedings, as the president isn't being charged with a crime through the determination of an impeachment.


You were wrong. Just admit it.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.



No, the point is they are not comparable. You used it as an example and claimed Trump could be impeached on this fact alone, when in fact he was not legally subpoenaed, which requires force of law with a penalty for defiance. The two situations are not at all comparable. The precedent says, as I documented above, that there first needs to be a vote before a subpoena with force of law can be issued. What the democrats are doing is unprecedented in an impeachment process.



"“There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas,” the piece, published Thursday, began.

“You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued,” he said. “The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.”

“What is portrayed as an ‘impeachment inquiry’ is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.”
Do you think that Donald Trump will be impeached?

McCarthy pointed out something we’ve noted and most the establishment media hasn’t: An impeachment inquiry is a very specific thing usually requiring a vote in the House Judiciary Committee to commence. That vote hasn’t happened and presumably won’t."

"The committees aren’t using their subpoena power — in part or in whole, McCarthy says, “because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object.”

“Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court,” he wrote. “They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply ‘shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.’ What a crock.”


“In criminal proceedings, prosecutors demand information all the time and witnesses often resist — just as congressional Democrats encouraged the Justice Department and FBI to resist when Republican-controlled committees were trying to investigate such matters as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse,” he wrote.

“Presumptively, resisting an information request is not evidence of obstruction. It is evidence that the recipient of the demand believes he or she has a legal privilege that excuses compliance. The recipient can be wrong about that without being guilty of obstruction.”


“Congressional Democrats know this, of course — many of them are lawyers. They are issuing partisan letters that pose legally offensive threats, rather than subpoenas, because this is a show, not an impeachment inquiry.”"

"“Every presidential impeachment inquiry, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, has been the subject of bipartisan consultation and debate. The House has recognized that its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its most solemn actions, must be based on the consideration of the whole body, not the diktat of a few partisan bosses,” he wrote.

“Not this one. This one is a misadventure in exactly the bare-knuckles partisanship the Framers feared. To be sure, no one has the power to prevent willful House leadership from misbehaving this way. But we’re not required to pretend the charade is real.”"


"Ex-Fed. Prosecutor McCarthy: Despite Dem Antics, No Impeachment Inquiry Happening"

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

I dont even know what to say to this.   Because I never thought I'd see the day when the far left had an un-censored platform to spew:
    Hatred of human decency
    Screwing children
    Hatred of America
    Approval of narcotic use
    Forcing children to believe they are opposite sexes
    Hatred of police
    Advocating physical violence against anyone who disagrees with them
    Hating men
    Hating white people (yeah, apparently thats not racist)
    Supporting illegal activity (illegal border crossings)
    Shooting cops
     
I could go on.

In the 1990s I used to wonder what would happen if the far right had a voice on the internet. I just didn't realize they would be so many, and that they would be able to say so much nonsense. It's incredible

You really think that because the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon must comply with the House subpoenas makes the current subpoenas unenforceable because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on them?

Did you come up with this on your own or read it in a conspiracy blog?

That's just not how it works.  It's not the Supreme Courts job to sign off on every House subpoena. The rulings they make set a precedent.  The Nixon case actually proves that the House does have the power to subpoena Presidential records to provide oversight of the executive branch.  This is why Trumps lawyers tried to argue to a judge that the 1974 ruling  (which was unanimous) was wrongly decided.  The judge basically laughed in Trumps face.

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

I was making a direct reply to this argument.


The subpoenas issued to Nixon were based upon criminal proceedings upon which the articles of impeachment against him were based. There are no such criminal proceedings on which the subpoenas issued to Trump are based. You keep struggling for that W, no mater how small it is thirsty boi.

As usual, you accuse others of that which you are guilty of... zzzzz...... Wake me up when you develop an original thought.

You sure are a thirsty boi now aren't you?

"The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

The subpoenas were issued based upon a criminal proceeding.

Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious."


Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it.

Thanks Captain Obvious. The point is it was based on criminal activity of which Nixon was involved in, which was of primary relevance to their oversight ability. What criminal act is this current impeachment based on? Oh right, 3 years and not a shred of evidence of criminal activity on Trump's part has been presented. Even Nixon had a vote for his subpoenas to be issued. This investigation and resulting subpoenas are a farce.

Congress can not indict or convict a someone with of a crime.  Just because they are investigating a crime doesn't make it a criminal proceeding.

If Nixon was actually impeached and convicted, he still wouldn't have a criminal record until the DOJ indicted him and he either plead guilty or was found guilty by a trial.

Like the FBI, they can recommend someone get indicted.  But they can't actually charge anyone with a crime.

Are you capable of an original thought, or do you have to wait for me to have one first so you can repeat it back to me? The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding. I gave well sourced documentation of why this is not only unprecedented but outside of their authority. You, you just repeated yourself.


I often wonder what kind of morons buy this kind of empty sophistry, then I only have to look at you two screaming over and over...

Still, Lock Her Up!!!

You never cease to amaze me with how shallow your attempt at a logical argument is.  You really think a US president has the right to judge impeachment proceedings as invalid?

The constitution doesn't specify how impeachment is initiated and processed.

Congress (house and senate) can absolutely unseat a sitting president whenever they want.

The currently issued subpoenas are valid.

The Nixon impeachment wasn't a criminal proceeding (it wouldn't have been if it happened).  Congress does not have the power to charge someone with a crime.  The DOJ would have to do that.

Congress absolutely has oversight authority, but it does in fact specify how impeachment is initiated and processed, otherwise congress could simply unseat any sitting president any time they liked by inventing an inequitable process. The idea that there are no rules or protocols for impeachment is totally asinine and nonsensical. This authority exists within the protocol of law, it can't just be invented as they go along, this is not oversight, this is outside of their authority. The currently issued subpoenas have ZERO AUTHORITY under the law because they are issued OUTSIDE of this protocol, unlike the Nixon impeachment, which was a criminal proceeding, unlike the current investigation.

"Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations."

"The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” the president in question."

"Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member “acting jointly.” If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship.”"

"The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”"

"Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. The resolutions authorizing both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings granted the judiciary committee this authority."

"It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive."

"The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

As you can see, the house is operating outside of its authority, and furthermore these actions are completely unprecedented in any previous impeachment proceedings. This is not due process, this is just more of the same endless and basel3ss politically motivated investigations.

This is false.

The constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.  It doesn't specify how Impeachment proceedings should be initiated and it certainly does not give the president the right to decide whether or not his own impeachment hearings are valid.

Trump took an oath to defend the constitution.  By not complying with House oversight he is violating that oath and will rightfully get another impeachment article for doing so.

Lindsey Graham was right:

“Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon was based on the idea [he] failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back at that time said, ‘You’re taking impeachment away from us. You’re becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.”

Killery only escaped prosecution because of the complicity in corruption of those leading the organizations responsible for investigating and prosecuting her. Also, she was required to testify under the law, the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

As usual your argument...

The impeachment for trump is all about bringing chaos and fear to the people, as we all know people behind this is going to take profit for the result, just like what happen to other countries from.middle east to asia, people who are hungry for power will do anything to make it to the position that they want, remember that no matter who sits on the whitehouse its hard for them to do what they wan't because there will be someone who will them again want the position of power its is just a cycle, what a country really needs is a people who has one goal and not personal because once personal goal mixed in that will be the end of it, and thats what humans are made of it will keep on happening, its a disease there is no cure for it

Big Pharma is smart. Drive the impeachment process, but make it look like everybody else is doing it. Go to the article and click the links.


President Trump says Big Pharma could be driving impeachment hoax