Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Trump is obstructing Congress, absolutely.

That article in the impeachment farce has collapsed totally and should be stricken and any of the dims constitutional law consultants know it but hubris bars the way

The Supreme Court granted certiorari last week in a case where the trump administration went to court rather than obey a congressional subpoena

They recognized the legitimacy of an equal branch of government right to use the courts to settle that argument

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

That article in the impeachment farce has collapsed totally and should be stricken and any of the dims constitutional law consultants know it but hubris bars the way

The Supreme Court granted certiorari last week in a case where the trump administration went to court rather than obey a congressional subpoena

They recognized the legitimacy of an equal branch of government right to use the courts to settle that argument

Tran gets his "law" from the dumb-ass "Mad Cow" TV EXspurt!

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

someone has disputed shokin's account. I think it was the UKR prosecutor who replaced him... not sure.

theres some CYA here.


so obviously, some one is lying about what happened in this instance.

Knowing that this was to come you would expect that the powers who be would want to discredit Shokin ahead of time. That is why the three witnesses are important. They back each other's account from various levels of the Ukrainian government.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Knowing that this was to come you would expect that the powers who be would want to discredit Shokin ahead of time. That is why the three witnesses are important. They back each other's account from various levels of the Ukrainian government.

Is that a basis to have a trial in the Senate over NOTHING!

The POTUS can deny foreign aid if he doesn't like they way THEIR PRESIDENT doesn't comb his hair .... clearly addressing an effort to end verified corruption can be a contingency on the release of foreign aid to another country. That's his CONSTITUTIONAL discretion.

Much Ado About Nothing!

How much BRIBE money did Obaminable hand over to our enemy the Iranians?

[the_real_Barleycorn]

You have a trial for one of two reasons. You want totally exonerate the president that a dismissal would not accomplish or you can be proactive and bring the leaders of the coup in front of the American people answer questions and justify their actions.

[Jacuzzme]

No point to witnesses when there’s no crime to witness, nothing even close. SCOTUS already dismissed one ‘charge’, McConnell should summarily dismiss the other.

[dilbert firestorm]

I haven't seen anyone mention this, pres. James Buchannan (D). I was surprised to find him in the list of people who went thru the impeachment process.

apparently President James Buchanan (Lincoln's predecessor and nations 1st gay president) was brought up on impeachment charges in the House on corruption charges. House decided that he was "corrupt" and the "corruption" charge wasn't enough to impeach him, so his impeachment was voted down in the committee; it never made it to the house floor.


Parallels - 1860 vs. 2019

Majority House Dems today are saying Trump is corrupt (bribery, collusion etc.)...

in 1860, Majority House Republicans accused Buchanan of corruption. Covode Committee noted his was the most corrupt since 1789.

Interesting to note at this point in 1860, party politics were evolving. There were 3 main parties at this stage.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I'm struggling to keep from being rude, sir. Abuse of Power. Obama wasn't impeached because it wasn't politically expedient.


Keep up the struggle and so will I.


The current POTUS withheld the funds for a personal gain. Not for any other reason.


Says you and that's the point. There is an argument going on, perhaps you missed it where Democrats, like in Adam Schiffs Parody, are changing the word Trump used to suit their narrative which you have obviously taken to heart. Trump said do "us" a favor, not "me". Now Democrats can debate the meaning of "us" as one of the Professor's tried to do explaining the "royal us" what ever the Hell that means but there it is clear as day, "us" not "me" giving any court or fair minded person the ability to have "reasonable doubt" as to what Trump was saying but reasonable doubt sir goes to Trump as it does to any defendant.



It could easily be argued as I will do here, that Trump had the legal authority given to him by Constitution and by treaty, to call for an investigation into the possible corruption and malfeasance of VP Biden, whether he was an opponent of Trump in an upcoming election is secondary to the argument.



Nobody is able to do what they want without reprisal. Current case in point. IMHO, impeaching the first black president would have been worse than impeaching the next gay president. But it all depends on which liberal you ask. No stain on a dress, but a neck tie.

You can't hide you skin color. Unless you use a bronzer or something.



But you are doing what all good Liberals do, making skin color the point of the argument when skin color has nothing to do with whether Obama abused his power and I clearly gave you evidence that he did as well as many other Presidents. So if the clear evidence of Obama abusing his power were made, all good liberals would go directly to skin color as a defense even if it weren't called for. You are so helpful to me making my point.



It is a fact the president is obstructing Congress. It has the right to demand witness testimony from executive staff.

No sir, it is not a fact untill the SC says it is a fact and in the words of Ronald Reagan "there he goes again" claiming a "right" but providing no statutory proof of what you say. I've already admonished you once or was it twice about this. If you are going to insist on saying something is legal and compelled, offer the proof with words other than your own. Please provide the statutory language that says a President must allow testimony from executive staff and can not exert executive privileged as all Presidents have done. In US verses Nixon, the SC made what some would call a narrow ruling that Nixon had to turn over the tapes and documents related to his case. The court did not and has never gave a sweeping opinion that a President has no such privileged with regard to executive staff unless of course I missed it and you will now provide "us" with this SC ruling.



I and others have now offered proof of our side of the argument. Congress demanded bank records from the President and subpoenaed those records saying as you just did that the President must comply. The SC stepped in and said "they" will decide if Congress has this "right". The SC may very well say that a President must in all cases do what ever the Congress tells him to do. If you believe that, you don't understand the separation of powers given in the Constitution but until the SC says as much any "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment, is now moot until the court rules against Trump. Don't hold your breath. We'll get answer about June.

[oeb11]

HF - +1


usual hypocritical DPST's - it is the house and NY AG obstructing the legitimate functions of the Executive branch - they lost Nov 2016 - and so are trying to tsake over the functions of Administration under Trump by the "Oversight committees" functions. They have far over-reached - and set a terrible precedent for the Constitutional separation of powers .
Foolish DPST's cannot consider consequences of actions in their hatred TDS

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

No sir, it is not a fact untill the SC says it is a fact and in the words of Ronald Reagan "there he goes again" claiming a "right" but providing no statutory proof of what you say. I've already admonished you once or was it twice about this. If you are going to insist on saying something is legal and compelled, offer the proof with words other than your own. Please provide the statutory language that says a President must allow testimony from executive staff and can not exert executive privileged as all Presidents have done. In US verses Nixon, the SC made what some would call a narrow ruling that Nixon had to turn over the tapes and documents related to his case. The court did not and has never gave a sweeping opinion that a President has no such privileged with regard to executive staff unless of course I missed it and you will now provide "us" with this SC ruling.



I and others have now offered proof of our side of the argument. Congress demanded bank records from the President and subpoenaed those records saying as you just did that the President must comply. The SC stepped in and said "they" will decide if Congress has this "right". The SC may very well say that a President must in all cases do what ever the Congress tells him to do. If you believe that, you don't understand the separation of powers given in the Constitution but until the SC says as much any "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment, is now moot until the court rules against Trump. Don't hold your breath. We'll get answer about June.

Sometimes it's just this simple. Supreme Court is superfluous.

Impeachment

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...11/impeachment

In the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were attempting to craft a mechanism that would allow for the disciplining of a President who abused his constitutional responsibilities without creating a weapon by which the President would be prevented from carrying them out. At bottom, it was a question of how to refine and make effective the separation of powers.

Call me an originalist.

In this case.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

You have a trial for one of two reasons. You want totally exonerate the president that a dismissal would not accomplish ....

#1: You will never get a "total exoneration" ... one doesn't even get that in a trial. A dismissal "as a matter of law" is more of an "exoneration" than is a trial in which the evidence for and against is weighed based upon a standard imposed for that particular piece of litigation. For instance: OJ Simpson. He's not guilty criminally for the death of his ex-wife and her boy-toy, but he was found liable civilly for her death. Different standard of proof.

A dismissal as a matter of law concludes that no offense was alleged, which "totally exonerates" Trump of the charges alleged in the articles. IMO it bars any other claims that could have been brought, but were not even though they were previously raised in commentary but not charged. Trump is then innocent of the allegations based upon the "presumption of innocence" that is the standard in this country.

[HoeHummer]

Bullstein. Sounds like yous want to “fix Trump’s” ticket. Maybe the cop who issued it spelled his names wrong. LOLLING! The colostomy bag is getting impeached. What happens next reflects on your country’s honour and integritys

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: You will never get a "total exoneration" ... one doesn't even get that in a trial. A dismissal "as a matter of law" is more of an "exoneration" than is a trial in which the evidence for and against is weighed based upon a standard imposed for that particular piece of litigation. For instance: OJ Simpson. He's not guilty criminally for the death of his ex-wife and her boy-toy, but he was found liable civilly for her death. Different standard of proof.

A dismissal as a matter of law concludes that no offense was alleged, which "totally exonerates" Trump of the charges alleged in the articles. IMO it bars any other claims that could have been brought, but were not even though they were previously raised in commentary but not charged. Trump is then innocent of the allegations based upon the "presumption of innocence" that is the standard in this country.

A preponderance of evidence.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

u

The SC stepped in and said "they" will decide if Congress has this "right". The SC may very well say that a President must in all cases do what ever the Congress tells him to do. ....

A distinction should be drawn between the substantive issue and the procedural issue. In the case of whether any particular documents are "required" to be produced each case before the SCOTUS will stand on its own factual subject matter and decision regarding those particular and specific facts. But ....

The "obstruction" allegation has to do with whether or not the POTUS has the right to challenge the request by declining to respond and thereby putting the "ball" in the court of Congress to go to court and seek a court order requiring the POTUS to honor the request FOR THOSE PARTICULAR REQUESTS ... which will vary from time to time and President to President...and which has nothing to do with the substance or subject matter of the request.

(Which explains why the LOONS don't want a court opinion on it!)

The significance of the most recent case involving Trump's tax records and "support" for his returns is that the SCOTUS has now by at least 5 justices concluded that Trump does in fact have THE RIGHT to object to the request and thereby put Congress in the position of walking away (as they have done) or filing a lawsuit to obtain a court order compelling Trump to produce the information/documents/persons Congress sought by the request.

And SINCE Trump is exercising his right to object, there IS NO OBSTRUCTION.

Trump has NEVER been ordered by a Court to produce anything or anyone for the investigation to establish sufficient FACTS to support the issuance of articles of impeachment.

Since MadCow's Loony Faithful ON HERE adopt her speculative fantasies, I will make a safe assumption that the reason why PissLousy and her Loony idiots in the House did not pursue litigation to enforce any requests against Trump is: #1 they would lose, and #2 the litigation would not be final until after the 2020 elections ... AND LOSE WHEN A FINAL CAME DOWN FROM THE SCOTUS... irrespective of their forum shopping! And if their attorneys didn't tell them that 100% as a collective body ... they should be fired ... LIKE THOSE WHO HIRED THEM!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

A preponderance of evidence.

= 51% OF THE EVIDENCE in his favor .... or another way ...

= 49% of the evidence was against his favor!!!

A dismissal "on the law" means no law supports the charge: 100% INNOCENT AS CHARGED. A dismissal based on "lack of evidence" to support the CHARGES means no evidence to support the allegations or what is called only a "scintilla" of evidence, which amounts to a sliver so thin you can't see it. ... again 100% no evidence to support the allegations.

For the future of this country a dismissal "on the law" would be precedent for future House majority who are sour grapes about the election of the then seated POTUS and will "Trump up" (pun intended) charges in an effort to overturn the election results, which is exactly what this is all about!!!!!!!!