To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

You did not disagree with my opinion. You made uncomplimentary generalizations lacking specifics. Like all of Trump's fans, you either don't know the difference or you recognize the truth when you see it and you can't criticize the truth.

Both posts are dominated by facts, not opinion, which is another reason you couldn't question anything in posts 575 and 625.

Yes, I know. Deal specifically with post 625. I am anxious to hear your explanations and why you will vote for Trump in view of his decisions that benefit Russia.

 

Benefits Russia? Your hyperbole not withstanding Trump has done more to thwart Russia than Obama ever did. Of course you ignore inconvenient facts.

 

I did disagree with your opinion. If you'd like we can agree or disagree with each other over whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. That's how things appear to roll with you. Of course, you might disagree. Or agree.

One of your posts (575) is mainly facts and direct quotes. I responded by saying that people can see the same "facts" and form a different response to those facts. I didn't question anything you posted because I have no questions for you. I understand your position clearly.

I also believe I did respond that Trump has earned my vote in 2020 because of his policy positions and policy track record versus those of any of the Democrat contenders. My choice to support Trump has nothing to do with any partisan gobbledygook over "Russsia, Russia, Russia" or "Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine".

 

If the Senate removes Trump -- not likely under current circumstances -- it would be good riddance to an incompetent President.

Allow me to illustrate with a few examples, in a matter of speaking, the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Trump Mideast policy is so favorable to Israel, the U.S. can no longer be trusted. The U.S. has been tossed out as a Mideast broker, replaced by Russia.

After a year and a half of Trump's trade war with China, Wall Street is finally recovering because it appears that the tariffs Trump caused are going to be removed. Millions of dollars were lost during that year and a half period.

Iran is closer to making a nuke. Why? Because in May 2018, Trump removed the U.S. from a working agreement with Iran called the JCPOA that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke. Iran has resumed her nuclear research, destroyed the largest oil refinery on the planet, seized and mined ships, and even shot down a very expensive American aircraft all because of Trump's incomprehensible decision and his harsh economic sanctions.

Trump is anti-Earth. He is removing the U.S. from the Paris Accord, joining thirteen other nations who have not signed the accord, some, like Iran and Turkey, are the largest emitters. He appoints EPA directors who are disenchanted with EPA policies. His appointments are industry friendly, kind of like the fox in the hen house scenario.

Trump's policies with respect to NATO, Ukraine, Turkey, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Middle East strongly favor Russia. Trump has never admitted that Russia interfered in our 2016 election, and he is severely critical of our intelligence agencies and the FBI.

In short, Trump gives new meaning to the term, incompetence.

You have no idea who Trump's opponent will be. Therefore, you have no idea what his position will be.

Conclusion, you are a diehard Trump fan who couldn't care less who Trump's opponent will be.

Which is exactly what I said.

 

Okay. You win.

 

Actually they are equal. They each have powers that other branches do not have and they all have ways of nullifying each other. I'd give examples but am on my phone atm...and typing on phones sucks....

 

We had a good discussion. Thank you.

 

Return at a better time.

 

What a bunch of left wing nonsense.

 

It's just a cry for attention and to stay on the front of this forum. If the OP were really serious he/she/alphabet would question on even commenting on this based one of the best weeks President Trump has had to date.

Let's just look at Trump's last week,

1. House approves USMCA

2. New Government budget including $1.3 billion for THE WALL

3. House approves a new branch of the military The Space Force.

4. Agreement on Government family leave program.

4. Tentative agreement on trade with China.

5. Approval of the 50th Federal Appeals judge, flipping the 9th circuit from far leftie to moderate.

6. New FDA chief.

7. Wall Street sets a new record high.

8. Comey trips all over his dick on national television.

 

Judiciary Branch vs Legislative Branch: SCOTUS can render any law that Congress passes as unconstitutional. Effectively nullifying them.
Judiciary Branch vs Executive Branch: SCOTUS can order the President to obey Congressional Subpoena's or strike any executive order that they make as unconstitutional.

Executive Branch vs Legislative Branch: The President can Veto any law that Congress passes (though Congress can override... if they have the votes). The President also has sole power to negotiate with foreign countries and controls our Armies. The President also has executive privilege meaning that the President can ignore Congressional Subpoena's under the right circumstances.
Executive Branch vs Judiciary Branch: At certain times, usually in cases of Emergency and War, the President may suspend parts of the Constitution. Effectively able to ignore SCOTUS rulings. Example of this is Japanese Internment Camps in 1942.

Legislative Branch vs Judiciary: Congress can write laws detailing how the courts are made and even what they can and cannot rule on. And can even remove judges.
Legislative Branch vs Executive Branch: Can impeach President and most importantly is in control of the Purse. Meaning even if the Congress gets a law struck down by SCOTUS Congress can simply withdraw money that the Executive Branch depends on. Ex: Can't supply an army without money to buy supplies...get my drift?

This is a general gist and there are nuances to each. But generally all of these are things that one branch can do that the other cannot. Each has its own powers that the others do not and each can override the other under certain circumstances.

 

True...but your caveats belie your claims. "If they have the votes," "at certain times." Plus you acknowledged the "power of the purse," which negates the rest. The President may "negotiate" with foreign countries, but the outcome of negotiations must be approved by the Senate, in the form of treaties. Of course, there have been times when Presidents have exceeded their authority. I'd put Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War as one. I'd put FDR's establishment of the Japanese Internment Camps as another. You may impeach them retroactively if you can find the votes.
Two wrongs do not equal one right.

 

Which just goes to show that each of our branches equal. No one branch as more power than the other....just different powers. It may seem like one branch has more power than the other at times. But that is really just a matter of perception. For example not long ago, during the Obama administration, there was lots of talk how the Judicial Branch had more power than the other two branches at a previous forum I was at. I wasn't around PF at the time but I wouldn't doubt that I could go through the history of posts/threads and even find some discussions on it. Assuming that the PF mods keep threads from that far back. I don't know.

 

The Congress is the only branch that may remove virtually anyone from office in the other two branches, via impeachment. With sufficient votes, Congress is by far the most powerful of the three branches...as was intended.

 

It's like you didn't even read what I stated. Oh well. Your choice.

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. specifically asked that four witnesses be called during Trump's Senate trial: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff; Robert Blair, a senior Mulvaney adviser; John Bolton, the former nation-security adviser; and Michael Duffey of the Office of Management and Budget.

Throughout the impeachment inquiry Republicans consistently claimed that the evidence presented was second-hand and hearsay. “These are the four who have the most direct contact to the facts that are in dispute -- most particularly, why was the aid to Ukraine delayed?” Schumer said. “There is no reason on God's green earth why they shouldn't be called and testify unless you're afraid of what they might say.”

McConnell is arguing against witnesses giving testimony in the expected impeachment trial of President Trump.

The Republican response to Schumer is so breathtaking in its faulty logic it is laughable. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate GOP leadership team, rejected Chuck Schumer's demands for the four witnesses, saying that the Senate is the "jury" and that we "shouldn't be sort of trying to retry it or redo something that they've already had a shot at."

In other words, these witnesses should have been called during the impeachment proceedings in the House. Trump prevented that from happening, resulting in one of the Articles of Impeachment, Obstruction of Congress.

Senate Republicans feel that Trump should benefit from the crime of obstruction. Also, they know that if the House pursued these witnesses in the courts, the impeachment would have dragged on until Christmas -- Christmas, 2020.

Voters will be reminded of all this come November 3, 2020.

 

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

I know you won't listen to me. But maybe you'll listen to another person that doesn't like Trump so feel free to read the link.

 

The Republican defense of Trump is puzzling. The Republicans lost control of the House in 2018 because of Trump. The GOP lost key state elections as well. They have lost important elections this year largely because of Trump.

So, why are they making complete fools of themselves by defending a guilty President? They know he is guilty because they go out of their way to avoid the evidence against Trump, trying desperately to change the subject to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower, and assertions that Democrats hate Trump and wanted to impeach him since 2017. They tried everything to avoid talking about the powerful evidence and testimony against Trump.

And for what? So they can lose more elections in 2020 because of Trump? They are saying that it is perfectly okay for the President to ask for foreign interference in our elections on his behalf, use bribery as an incentive, and obstruct Congress in its oversight role as defined in our Constitution.

As I said, voters will remember what happened come November.

Perhaps it is time for Republicans to reassess their position on this matter.

 

Alan Dershowitz, opinion contributor. I would like a second opinion. This guy has been protecting Trump for three years. Many experts have questioned his opinion.

The Supremes better hurry. The Senate trial will be happening soon.

 

This has to do with Trump's tax returns.

President Trump no doubt welcomed the news that the Supreme Court will review three separate decisions in which lower courts have ruled against him, upholding subpoenas calling for banks and accountants to turn over financial records pertaining to him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...eme-court-will-give-trump-resounding-victory/

Trump never claimed executive privilege when refusing to turn over documents or ordering his staff to violate court ordered subpoenas. The President cannot use executive privilege to cover up his crimes. Just ask Nixon.

 

Actually as the article points out Trump; CAN use executive privilege to refuse to turn over documents. And that it is not up to Congress whether or not he has that ability. It is up; to the Judicial Branch.

I'd like to bring your attention to the following paragraph:

Now, I don't know about you but that seems right to me. At least from my understanding of the law. The only ones that has the power to determine the validity of whether or not executive privilege is applicable is the judiciary branch. That is literally what they are there for. To settle disputes between the other two branches. Because of that Congress has no authority to determine if any Presidents use of Executive privilege is valid or not. Otherwise they're trying to arrogate the Judicial Branches authority.

And Trump; doesn't have to say "I am claiming executive privilege". He simply just has to refuse. Unless you can tell me the law that requires otherwise?

 

Actually he is no friend of Trumps. He's been critical of him and even helped campaign against him. Of course he is not a die hard Trump hater so any even perceived defense of Trump would no doubt be considered "suspect" and a claim to being a supporter of Trump.

 

The Senate GOP should allow the Democrats exactly the same level of participation in the trial that the Democrats in the house afforded the GOP during the impeachment.
Why do you disagree?

 

Never make the mistake of giving an inch and losing by a mile. They (the republicans) been there and done that many times. Do it again and they become the unforgiven.

 

Tactically, I think it would be a good move for McConnell to show much more respect to the Senate minority than the House Dems showed to Republican reps. Of course, showing more respect isn't hard. "Much more respect" would be one iota. It wouldn't be hard for the Senate to make Republicans look like the party of tolerance and fairness...against the angry mob in the left's leadership. Not that I think it will go that way. Republicans are justifiably angry and will most likely play tit-for-tat on partisanship. I just hope they don't overplay that hand. It's Independent voters who need to be "impressed", not Republicans or Nationalists. Most of the country wants good leadership, not revenge where both sides look equally bad.