Topic: [POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It? - page 7. (Read 2194 times)

This is what he said a couple days ago.

“I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell said in a CNBC interview. “How long you are on it is a different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up based on a Senate rule on impeachment.”










I'm confident that if Hillary were elected and she pulled all the shit Trump has pulled, and then said she couldn't be impeached because of 'traditional rules' I'd have the exact same stance.  Are you?

Interesting you would say that. I just heard Mitch McConnel Fox News say that if Trump was "impeached" with the Pelosi method he wouldn't pay any attention to it. Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to it to have an exact quote.

And there we are. Hypocritical stern moralizing about how the House can break their traditional rules, but the Senate cannot.

Wrong on that, buddy. Gamble on that outcome, you are going to lose, and lose bad.

This is very debatable.  

It's obvious the guys that wrote the constitution were very concerned about future presidents having too much power, abusing that power, being above the law,  and also other countries interfering in our election.

Anyone that's able to look at this situation without considering Trumps policies or his political opponents' policies surely sees that Trump is absolutely, without a doubt, checking all of these boxes.

But, the founders didn't say explicitly that the senate must have a trial.

Mitch has come out and said if the House impeaches, he would have no choice but to try Trump.  Who knows what he'll actually do though.  Maybe he'll hold the trial and then just immediately call a vote to end it.  Seems like the best move would be to have the trial as long as he's sure there won't be a conviction.

I just wish you guys that are Trump fans and fighting tooth and nail to defend everything he does (tecshare) would take a step back and realize you're arguing to give future presidents who have control of either the Speaker of the House or Senate majority leader to be a King.  That's all it takes.  The president and the leader of the House or Senate.  The President can't be indicted or impeached.  Can ask foreign countries for help and  do whatever the fuck they want.

When it comes to the impeachment and ethics stuff, your stance should not be swayed based on which party is in power.

"Kimberley Strassel: “How Trump Haters Are Breaking America” | American Thought Leaders"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSMxQHqHYI0

Correct as to the House.

And the Senate will have the sole right to try.

BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO!

No, the process was designed to have the trial in the Senate, not in the House. The House can adopt the articles of impeachment with as much investigation as they want, or none at all.

That's correct, and I don't see why people are arguing with you. No right-winger has even claimed the House could not have impeachment hearings against Trump, or whoever. That's part of their job.

But the specter of a small cabal in the House hijacking that Constitutional right has many glaring problems, and few if any advantages, either long or short term.

Even if they did issue an actual subpoena, if it is done outside of an official impeachment hearing, it still is issued from a co-equal branch, and the executive still has every right to exercise executive privilege and not comply. Once the hearing is voted on and official, this executive privilege is severely limited and the subpoena would then have the force of law, allowing it to be ruled on by the judiciary in the form of a suit, which would then give them enforcement ability.

Briefly stated, you have "subpoena" correct and those you argue with do not. I don't know WHY this argument is going on. This is very simple stuff.

As mentioned, a congressional body / committee might issue a request - a letter - and then if they didn't get what they want, they could issue a subpoena.

Again, as far back as I know, you or I or virtually any US citizen could walk right into one of these committee hearings, sit down and watch all of it. Meanwhile, all of it is put on CSPAN and is available right then. The exceptions of course involve classified material hearings.

Going "secret" is a major, major change.

It's ironic that people are now complaining about the confidential hearings.  The republicans have bitched and moaned about hearings being public many times as recently as last month.

It does makes sense to not want the person you're investigating, or the witnesses you're questioning to know what you know until all the facts have been gathered.  This makes it a lot more difficult to know what you can get away with lying about.  Not to mention the witnesses don't have to worry being attacked by the president, his army of trolls and right wing media for being a "rat".

FYI, the guy describes himself as libertarian, not Republican, and I've followed him for twenty years.

And gave you my opinion of some recent changes he's shown.

Of course you and your ilk would say that. As soon as someone doesn't tow the party line you pile on. Hey. That's exactly what the left does. Go figure. You're all the same.

Side note.. He does have some "interesting" ideas on some things that's for sure.

Not because of this issue, but over the last two years he's gone off the deep end.

Meanwhile back in the real world (comparatively)...

https://babylonbee.com/news/republican-national-committee-raising-money-to-help-democrats-televise-5-live-debates-a-week

Found a copy of the Napolitano video that didn't have some left or right wing commentary guy spouting off their own take on things.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/the-house-gets-to-write-its-own-rules-on-the-impeachment-process-judge-andrew-napolitano-says/vi-AAIVEUP

And his article

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-is-the-impeachment-process-fair

Take it all for what you will.

I don't have a team.

Republicans sit on the committees and so are taking part in the interviews asking questions as well. But I guess there could be in on some
mass conspiracy if that's what you're proposing. Or maybe you're just blissfully unaware of what's actually going on.

Oh? I don't see anything backfiring at all. I do see the right running around not knowing what the hell to do.


You're not arguing anything so there's nothing to win. At least Tecshare can come up with some stuff that can be looked into. You just spout off nothing of value. And no, there really aren't any that I've seen so far. Not one can come up with a solid legal argument. It's funny. Judge Andrew Napolitano was on Fox and Friends saying all the same sort of stuff I and others have been pointing out. Google shows the videos being on fox news but it appears Fox has removed them lol.

She's not breaking any rules. If you have proof she is, then provide it or just stop wasting our time with "opinion". As for what the senate does, that's perfectly fine as that's within their authority.

Actually, it matters a great deal whether committee meetings are open or secret. Now you are arguing something like "Whatever my team does is right and I'll defend it."

Most likely the reasoning behind secret is to amass a pack of lies and then dump it at a strategic moment for political effect. Since this has been backfiring on the Dems now they will try doing it covertly and dumping the package at a carefully timed moment. Say three days before the election, with insufficient time to respond. That's what your lying liars do and what you defend.


What is she doing that isn't ok? Care to provide some information. And I don't mean "opinion" as to what may or may not be wrong. I mean actually legally wrong. Cause as far as the political optics of it, one can sit here and point fingers at both sides on a whole lot of different things over the years cause they all suck.

Tecshare has made a bunch of claims, all so far based on opinion. We're discussing those claims.
[/quote]

You are not going to be able to win that argument by taking refuge in what is "legal." As you have seen, there are various forum members that can easily debate the details of the legal arguments.

As I pointed out, the obvious outcome of Pelosi breaking all the rules is the senate with the "sole ability to try the impeachment" just giving Pelosi one big raised middle finger.

And that's not "an opinion," rather it's a POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

^^^ All US politics is doing one major thing against the people. It is hiding the fact that government is not king, and that the people can use jury nullification to toss out any laws that they don't like.

Ok, if you say so. My perspective is that if I can read a transcript or whatever after the fact then I don't view it as secret. Fact is, I prefer they do things behind closed doors cause as soon as they do it for the cameras, it just becomes a circus wasting everyones time. The only thing that matters is seeing the transcripts after the fact.

What is she doing that isn't ok? Care to provide some information. And I don't mean "opinion" as to what may or may not be wrong. I mean actually legally wrong. Cause as far as the political optics of it, one can sit here and point fingers at both sides on a whole lot of different things over the years cause they all suck.

Tecshare has made a bunch of claims, all so far based on opinion. We're discussing those claims.