The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Dec 10, 2019.

  1. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, that's partly the thing... he didn't hold back "pertinent" documents.. he held back all requested documents and witnesses, whether they would have turned out to be truly pertinent or not.

    He certainly cannot turn around in a trial and then only allow documents and witnesses that he thinks help his case...

    It's all or nothing...
     
  2. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks... that bolded rocks.... Can I quote you??
     
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. Oh I see the problem.

    I said "pronouns". That always confuses the left.
     
  4. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    109,657
    Likes Received:
    37,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m skeptical there are any that help his case
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  5. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    have some truth..

     
  6. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    109,657
    Likes Received:
    37,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like you’re also advocating for a full review of trumps business dealings to make sure there’s nothing that could be used against him. Is that why he’s hiding his financials?
     
  7. glitch

    glitch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    13,607
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No President should ever "go before Congress." They are separate but equal branches of government and that would be a messy theatrical situation that would accomplish nothing.
     
  8. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clinton Vs Jones was a civil suit that landed in the Supreme Court because Clinton was arguing that he, as president, couldn't be sued (since it was a distraction). The SCOTUS never weighed in on the Impeachment process.
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html

    Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was a political question and could not be resolved in the courts.[1]

    Neither establishes that the executive can appeal "any effort" by the legislative branch, neither establishes that the president has a mechanism for blocking or overturning an Impeachment Vote by the house.

    I'm no constitutional scholar though. If you don't mind backing your assertions with something verifiable?
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    The Mello Guy, mdrobster and MrTLegal like this.
  9. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Double check and make sure that he does not mean the Supreme Court of India.
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  10. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the original court decided he was immune. This is why we have checks and balances.

    The SCOTUS ruling in the Nixon case I was talking about was his requirement to turn over the tapes. They were involved more than once.

    The Constitution defines what a POTUS can be impeached for, quite specifically. Who interprets Constitutionality?

    It's also the Legislative branches sole power to create law. Can they create an un-Constitutional law?
     
  11. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doesn't sound anything like that. Sounds like Joe Biden extorted Ukraine to get his coke snorting son millions of dollars. That is exactly what it sounds like. :)
     
  12. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your referring to a the original court ruling being appealed? That's how courts work, it has nothing to do with checks and balances.

    That's why its important to be clear about what you are talking about. ;)

    US Vs Nixon?
    It looks like Nixon brought the matter to Judge John Sirica to quash the Houses "smoking gun tape" subpoena.

    That doesn't show precedent for the POTUS blocking or reversing the house's impeachment on constitutional grounds.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

    (fun bit of trivia though, US vs Nixon and Nixon V. US were both things that happened.)

    So there is no president for blocking or reversing an impeachment vote from the house, at least not immediately.

    Well, they can't Create law, they can create bills, an unconstitutional bill will hopefully be vetoed by the president or struck down in the courts if it later becomes law.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    MrTLegal likes this.
  13. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly I was talking about the Nixon case that applied.

    And yes, it shows that there is a clear precedent for SCOTUS making the decision between the two branches. History is replete with them, and not just regarding impeachment.

    Thanks for the fine detail on law creation, but it's not necessary to get to the point.

    The point is, while Congress may have sole power over the creation of what will eventually become laws (short version ok?) as well as impeachment, they can not do so in a way that is un-Constitutional.

    The Constitution is specific in what constitutes an impeachable offense. "Obstructing Congress" isn't one of them.

    This is just Andrew Johnson all over again.
     
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 1993 Nixon case is the only that dealt with the validity of the impeachment proceeding.

    And yes, Obstructing Congress is an impeachable offense. But if you need further confirmation of that fact, wait about 10 days.

    Also, if you think "high crimes and misdemeanors" is specific, then you should be able to give us the definition. And I feel the need to specify that a link to a Supreme Court from India is not going to qualify as a good source.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    Marcotic likes this.
  15. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet is not the only case that deals with a) disputes between the branches and b) enforcement of subpoenas and c) Constitutional questions

    Tick-tock. 2020 is going to bring 4 more years of impotent leftist tears either way.
     
  16. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your argument started here -


    Moved to here-

    And finally lands on something that's right but that no one was denying.

    Nixon tried that (to get the SCOTUS to weigh in) in Nixon V United states. It was eventually handled by the SCOTUS in 93' (not immediate) and the majority hold(s)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
    Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include fact finding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.

    At that precedent some time in around 2040 Trump may be (un)impeached, but that would be an overturn.

    Of course I'd be happy to see any source to the contrary, I'm no Constitutional Scholar.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    MrTLegal likes this.
  17. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's the legitimate legislative purpose for wanting those records?
     
  18. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sweet, bring them up so we can discuss them?
     
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did a job covering for yourself. So...yea....

    Anyways, did you actually make a post about the topic of this thread - the fact that the GOP in the Senate is likely not going to call a single witness during the impeachment trial?
     
  20. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    deleted - was mean
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  21. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,283
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, what I meant to say, was, Barr speaking about Biden.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  22. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,283
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't that a question that some reporter should ask Barr? He just did a sit down interview with NBC News yesterday and to my knowledge that was never asked, even though that seems to be key to the panty wetting you guys have been doing about the Trump phone call?
     
  23. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My thoughts on this is nobody (Trump/Barr anybody) has been truly clear on what either Biden should be investigated for... which is obviously by design.

    Did Hunter break US law by failing to report income?? Or did he break Ukraine law by ? (being unqualified for a job)?

    Did Joe break US law by ? Or did he break Ukraine law by ?

    Neither really has anything to do with the phone call, since there is currently no credible accusation against either in either country.

    IE.. it was a bill of goods... Sold by Rudy..... Bought by Trump
     
    Marcotic and MrTLegal like this.
  24. Mrlucky

    Mrlucky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,964
    Likes Received:
    3,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not entirely sure what the Senate's procedure is for this type of trial. I believe it will begin in the Judiciary Committee chaired by Lindsey Graham. There may be a motion to dismiss in his committee. McConnell probably won't allow dismissal at that point. I expect more than one motion to dismiss during the full floor proceedings. As the trial comes before the full senate for a floor vote, I would expect another motion to dismiss early on after opening statements. I doubt any witnesses will be called.

    I would expect the entire trial to take some time, all politicians like to have their time at the mic. It might take a total of about 2 weeks from committee to the full floor. After it reaches the floor, I give it maybe a week.

    Depending on procedure and finding in the committee(s), it will either be dismissed as invalid or voted on and the President will be acquitted. GOP has the majority with 53 seats. There is some probability that 1 or 2 republicans may vote to convict. There is also an equal possibility that 1 or more democrats will not vote to impeach. The GOP also has the VP in the event of a tie.

    Either way, that should be the end of this nonsense until Trump is reelected. It would not surprise me if dems like Greene try again after 2020 but their actions it will go no where.

    I predict dems won't learn a thing from the beatings they have already taken. If Clinton wants back in before the elections, I'll really feel sorry for dems. Until then, I'm bored with most of this so my comments will be few unless there is new news.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    Bluesguy likes this.
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You think the the players at the FBI and DOJ were vindicated by his report? Did you even listen to his testimony today and maybe want to revise your statement?
     
    glitch, mngam, Mrlucky and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page