Impeachment does NOT require a crime

"Criminal like behavior" is not the same thing as saying impeachment requires a crime. Thread remains an absurd straw man, not surprised.

Has ANYONE related to this process said that impeachment -requires- a crime? I haven't seen it anywhere, said by anyone. Can't find it on Google. If an actual instance of someone qualified claiming it doesn't exist, thread premise of "unlimited power" is just more hogwash.

The actual argument is that there is no statutory crime accused, so this WEAKENS the case for impeachment, and it does.

 

Because the WH would not violate separation of powers and let officials testify before a tribunal that followed no due process aka a Soviet style inquiry. It remains to be seen if any appear for a Senate subpoena.

 

He broke the Impound Control Act.

So, why are GOP members of the Senate blocking witnesses and documents from being used in the Senate trial?

 

What a coincidence. That's the same blatant l............ falsehood the Conman-in-Chief's lawyers repeated yesterday.

 

No, he did not.

Because the Senate has no authority to impeach which is what the Dems' demand for witnesses is wanting them to do. If the Senate later feels additional witnesses might help clarify the impeachment case, they will call them. But the Senate is not about to do for the House what the House failed to do, let alone violate the Constitution.

 

Sure he did.

In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

 

You're going to have to explain that one.

 

You had me convince after the third "blah".

 

A quicky quiz: describe how the House committees' processes followed due process. And I mean in actuality not in the bloviating propaganda spouted by the house people. Like "I allowed the Republicans to call witnesses..... as long as I approved of them."

 

*LOL*

Umm, refusing to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry is damaging to the separation of powers in and of itself. It also constitutes obstruction of Congress, because the House has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sold power to try the issue of removal. The House is not obligated under the Constitution to scamper off to federal court when a scofflaw president refuses to honor its constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

The subject of the inquiry does not have the authority to judge the credibility of the inquiry or whether they will cooperate with it. That's facially ridiculous.

 

Explain what process the WH was due. Yet another bogus argument with no legal basis meant to appeal to people without any legal knowledge or experience.

 

Is your position then that the Senate has no authority to call for new witnesses and documentation that was withheld from the House? And, have you read the Impound Control Act? Seems clear to me that the Act requires the President to inform Congress of his intent to withhold appropriated funding PRIOR to withholding those funds, plus how long he intends to withhold funds and the reason why. He didn't do that.

 

This is yet another pretend legal argument. The Senate tries the impeachment. It is farcical to pretend that the Senate has no authority to introduce testimony and documentary evidence into the record AT THE TRIAL that it conducts. Not only is that counter intuitive, it's inherent nonsense.

If the Senate was stuck with the record from the House, then why isn't the Senate using that record and incorporating that record into the trial record?

I'll give you a chance to answer before I present you with the sad truth.

 

Plus, he abused his authority and obstructed Congress by refusing to allow several witnesses and withholding documentary evidence.

 

Really??!!?? NEWSFLASH: The House has the sole power of impeachment, Article 1, Section 2. The Dems' demand for evidence and witnesses before the Senate trial is prima facie a request that the Senate supplement the House's impeachment. The Senate is not allowed to do that per the Constitution. However, enforcing the Constitution in an impeachment process is dicey at best, hence the votes in the Senate and the shenanigans pulled by the House.

 

Agreed.

 

Yes, the House has the sole power of impeachment. It has the authority to demand records and witnesses to appear before it under that constitutional authority.

By illegally withholding witnesses and documents from the body with SOLE AUTHORITY in that arena, Bonespurs obstructed that constitutional authority. He obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and it is not the House's obligation to obtain court orders when it has the SOLE AUTHORITY to carry out an impeachment inquiry.

 

The Constitution gives the House "the sole power of impeachment." That means they are the only body that can impeach anybody. It does not mean they can do whatever the hell they want or that the president has to relinquish his independent power. In fact the framers would scream to high heaven over that very prospect which was their greatest concern in writing the impeachment clauses. There is no such actual thing as obstruction of congress by the executive branch. That is all made up in the macho fanciful minds of the House

 

Due process means the defense is allowed unfettered to call their own witnesses and evidence and to question unfettered the persecution witnesses, for starters.

 

Do "Soviet style" inquiries allow for the opposition to question witnesses during depositions, use the opposing party's rules for the inquiry, invite the defendant's legal team to participate in the proceeding, allow for PERTINENT witnesses to be called by the opposition, have the prosecution publish transcripts of closed door testimony?

Don't bother bringing up the WB again. We both know nothing he/she would testify to was going to help the Groper-in-Chief.

 

If the Senate calls witnesses that the House and Dems want before the trial that is prima facie and self evidently conducting -- not trying -- an impeachment. The House is the only body that can impeach per the Constitution. The Senate is prohibited from impeaching. So, yes, clearly per the Constitution. the Senate does not have such authority.

 

The framers would turn over in their graves if they witnessed a prez compromising the nation's defense for his own political gain, lying, and obstructing the authority they gave to the legislative branch to act as a check on abuses of executive power.

 

It means that they have the authority to conduct their investigation, not "whatever the Hell they want", which is an histrionic description of making demands for witnesses and documents well within that constitutional authority.

The scofflaw "presuhdint" has no legal basis to obstruct that constitutional authority by using absurd, phony and ridiculous arguments. He has no authority to refuse witnesses and documentary evidence on a fiat basis; he is obstructing Congress by doing so.

I hope that you realize and grasp the significance of allowing Bonespurs to get away with this; it means that no president will cooperate with impeachment inquiries in the future because Bonespurs and those complicit in this bullshit charade have made that "acceptable". That's shameful.

 

No, it doesn't. As I have posted many times the sole power of impeachment does not give the House the authority to demand any witnesses or evidence it wants and does not obligate the president to succumb to such demands. The House has no authority or power to abrogate due process, destroy the separation of powers, or do anything else illegal or unconstitutional in their pursuit of impeachment.

 

That's a ridiculous and unfounded argument. Every presidential impeachment trial in our history has consisted of additional witnesses.

Just what do you think a "trial" is made up of?

The GOP isn't even using the House record, so WTF record is it using in a "trial" anyway?