Senate Trial of Impeachment Articles to Start

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by LoneStarGal, Jan 14, 2020.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't recall anyone making this claim. Can you provide an example?
     
  2. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,132
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "You must have an IQ of 85 or above to be at the Senate Door"

    I'm afraid he won't be there. Maybe he'll be somewhere ignoring the molestation of collegiate wrestlers instead.
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Aw - did I hit a nerve?
    And if that's true, the articles of impeachment will never arrive.
    :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is Congress that would take it to SCOTUS and they didn't because they knew they would lose. There has always been the existence of executive privilege in matters between the Executive and the Congress. And of course the attorney client privilege that protects us all. There is no crime here to seek an exception to that. If there was a crime then a Special Prosecutor should be named and he can seek that testimony and the court would most likely grant it.

    You seem to not want to consider this is about the PRESIDENCY and established precedent and Article 1 and Article 4. We do not have an imperial Congress that is above the law and the Constitution.
     
  5. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope.. they chose not to waste a year+ fighting the fight, even when winning at every step in the process so far.. when the process is redefined in the future, things might be smoother..

    After all, I hear Donald Trump Jr. Might carry the next generation of the Grumpy Old Party..

    If it took his dad 3 years to get here, Junior wouldn't get off the inauguration stage before committing an act..
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And thus, you agree - they --chose-- to not hear the testimony. Thank you.

    Tell us:
    Why do you think it will take less than that year, should those witnesses be subpoenaed by the senate and Trump re-asserts executive privilege?
     
  7. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (1) Sondland directly testified that straight out of the President's mouth was "No QPQ" and that "Trump wanted nothing".
    (2) Even if there was a request (there was not), it would be legal. Biden does not get immunity because he is running for President.

    You're welcome.
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct
    The actions of an elected federal official, especially those taken while in office, are always open to federal scrutiny - those who mindlessly parrot the "political rival" talking point do so in the hopes of preying on the emotions of the ignorant.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
    mngam, HB Surfer and LoneStarGal like this.
  9. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,132
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. It's all over the forum. And it's coming from the WH.

    Suggesting that the House "has to go to court" to compel people to honor a subpoena, while at the same time not recognizing that there's no such thing as executive privilege (or absolute immunity! *LOL*) constituting a complete bar to testimony is facially ridiculous.
     
  10. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump has finally been impeached.
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So... no examples. Thanks.
    When the executive branch claims executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena, their recourse is to take it o court.
    The court may very well compel a response to said subpoena, but as the Democrats chose to not take the steps necessary to get there, that point is moot.
    Nothing will change the fact the Democrats impeached Trump for a legal exercise of EP.
     
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did Nancy deliver it herself?
    If so, it negates the claim that "You must have an IQ of 85 or above to be at the Senate Door".
     
    LoneStarGal likes this.
  13. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,132
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "No examples"? Really? Don't waste my time trying to deny posts made with ridiculous frequency here.

    And, no, what Bonespurs did, tried to do, and is doing now is not remotely a valid use of an EP objection. You cannot bar witnesses from complying with subpoenas by calling all potential questions as being within the privilege. If a question is covered by EP, it can be objected to and ruled upon then and there. I just won an issue like that, and the court stated exactly what I'm telling you now.

    There's just no such thing as an outright bar to testimony.
     
    Cubed and MrTLegal like this.
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again, Trump has not asserted Executive Privilege. He has asserted Absolute Immunity.

    And then he told the Court - where Democrats are actively challenging his claim of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY - that the federal courts can never intervene.

    Also, once again, every single impeachment trial before the senate includes new evidence.
     
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, they did.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you can provide examples, let me know, else your claim is meaningless.
    If true, the court would have compelled an answer to the subpoenas -- had the Democrats chosen to take it there.
    The Democrats chose to NOT go to court to enforce their subpoenas, so the point is moot.
    I'm sorry you don't like the cold, stark reality of this, but the cold, stark reality it remains.
     
  17. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I explicitly asked that you address the fact that his denial came after he learned about the whistleblower complaint. Do so now.

    And even if there was a request (and there were multiples), it is an impeachable offense. Trump does get immunity despite telling everyone, including the federal courts, that he is absolutely immune from criminal and congressional investigations.

    Thank you.
     
  18. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cant wait for this to be broadcast daily by every news station like anybody cares.
     
  19. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, not what I said... if the choice is moving forward with an excellent case vs waiting an unspecified time for an uncertain verdict, I know which way I go..

    The only way you can make your claim is if there was certainty they'd get everybody they wanted (plus documents) at some time in the future vs moving forward now. You cannot make that claim.

    I believe between Roberts and a sitting Senate ready to vote, they can clear up any questions regarding testimony and documents essentially on the fly.

    It they cannot, that process is also broken... remember, Trump's DOJ says the courts are not the place to settle those disputes... perhaps an impeachment trial will be the place.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing here changes the fact the Democrats chose to not press their rights by taking the subpoenas to court, and thus, chose to impeach the President w/o the testimony they wanted, and now seek.
    You can give whatever excuses you want, but this basic fact is irrefutable.
    My claim -has- been made, and stands sound.

    So again - tell us:
    Why do you think it will take less than that year, should those witnesses be subpoenaed by the senate and Trump re-asserts executive privilege?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  21. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ROFL! If it was an Impeachable offense, then why didn't the Democrats list it in their articles. Your argument is laughable.
     
  22. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait, so your saying even though Trump isn't likely legally allowed to do it; it still automatically stands because the Dems didn't push the issue in the Courts?
     
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said he's not legally allowed to do it? Where? When?
    Certainly not a court, because the Democrats chose to not go there.
    The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

    Until the court overrules the claim of EP, it stands.

    The Democrats impeached Trump for a legal exercise of executive privilege.
     
  24. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said 'Likely' not allowed. It hasn't gone before the courts to say One way or the Other.
    They also said in that same case

    Trump can't proclaim EP if Military and Diplomatic Secrets aren't at risk. I've yet to see any reasoning from the Trump admin as to 'why' EP was invoked, unless I missed any specific reasoning?
     
  25. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They did explain Trump's abuse of power in their articles.
     

Share This Page