Topic: REEE: Donald Trump Hasn't Yet Been Impeached. What's Next? [serious discussion] - page 2. (Read 1227 times)

I think the House was thinking more about the case they were presenting to the country than the Senate.

Also, they put a lot of republican senators in swing states in an undesirable situation by making them actually pick a side on something they have always defaulted to political non-answers when asked about.  It's pretty common in congress to propose and force a vote on something that you know doesn't have a chance of passing just to get a record of it. (The Republicans did that often during the House Impeachment hearings, and the Democrats are doing it right now with amendment propositions, for example)

The whole trial was on whether or not Trump did something bad, and how bad it was.

During the House hearing, Bolton said he would challenge any subpoena in court, which could take over a year.

Before the Senate trial Bolton said he would not fight a subpoena, and that he had information that had not yet been made public.

'all hearsay, no direct evidence' had been repeated over and over in defense of the President.  Bolton would be able to provide direct evidence.

By refusing to hear any witnesses, and the fact that Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were all considered 'democrat witnesses', is evidence that there is a cover up happening.

....
No one is saying Congress can't enforce its subpoenas in court. The subpoenas HAVE TO be sent through the courts in order to be enforced. The president is exercising executive privilege. Until it goes through the court, The President has every constitutional right to exercise executive privilege. Since he has every right to do this, simply exercising his constitutional authority is in no way able to be construed as obstruction. That is why the subpoenas must be decided in court. To do otherwise would be to strip the executive branch of its power, giving all authority to The Congress, which is a co-equal branch. You cry about congress supposedly being stripped of oversight in the very same breath that you try to strip the executive of its authority. The office of the president was not meant to be a parliamentary system serving at the pleasure of the Congress. The Congress can not issue a subpeona, then unilaterally decide upon the validity of the subpoena they just issued. That is asinine.

I'm not totally confident here, but I think whats constitutional and legal is theoretical in these cases (subpoena and house vote examples). Just because you can find one way to thread the unprecedented needle doesn't mean that it is or is not legal or constitutional.  It would be one thing if there was already a ruling that 'a congressional subpoena is not valid if impeachment is mentioned but the House hasn't voted to begin an inquiry.'  And if that were the case, they could've just not mentioned impeachment.

If you only consider this argument: 'We sent them subpoenas, they didn't respond.'   
Then it's not that unreasonable to defend with: 'We didn't think the first few were valid because there was no vote, and we granted total immunity on the other ones'

But if the argument includes:

A) The President told us he would not respond to any request no matter and ordered the entire executive branch not to cooperate with us.
B) He was planning to drag every single subpoena through multiple courts, multiple times, making it impossible to get a ruling within X amount of time.
C) There is a valid reason that this trial needs to take place before X amount of time or The President will greatly benefit directly from what he's being tried for in X amount of time.

Then that's a pretty strong argument, although unprecedented, that the President is literally stripping Congress of their power to provide oversight. 

side note: I really don't get how it's possible for someone to make it take so long to get a ruling for something that could be incredibly urgent.  Seems like something the needs to be fixed, otherwise a President has free range to do whatever the hell he wants 12 months before the election, including literal crimes to influence the election, as long as he's successful at getting reelected and getting 34 of his friends in the Senate he can't be held accountable.

---

Funny moment in the trial just now.

Schiff claimed there's a subpoena going through federal court right now, as in like literally this very moment.

"So the judge says, 'Well if the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there? And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is: 'Impeachment. Impeachment.' You can’t make this up!"

""Impeachment REQUIRES a Crime" - Lawyer Explains Dershowitz's Argument - Viva Frei Vlawg"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ky8DGKsfhY

us is a democracy after all

well trump was elected to do that. democrats should better follow orders.

they won't likely survive 2020 election though.

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.
Yeah! Serves him right for conducting US foreign policy exactly as he is supposed to be doing!

by who?

cnn and new york times?

cnn has still not paid 275 million for accusing a catholic student of racism its still alive

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.

Then Trump will actually be impeached.

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

- How long does Nancy sit on the articles if Mitch doesn't budge?