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

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

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!

All that bullshit just to say the the prez is playing hot potato with his case? And bitch about procedure? Every branch has the power to check the other.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

= 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!!!!!!!!

Seven exclamation marks? Get your feelings out of this. The law speaks for itself. The law support all charges. You don't proceed unless you know the law is on your side. C'mon man! I like you. But you're on the wrong side of the law this time. I'm betting of course. He hedged HIS bet with the two SCOTUS nominees. Let's litigate that when we get to that bridge.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

All that bullshit just to say the the prez is playing hot potato with his case?..........

Actually, what I was reciting to you was the historical experience of the "tug of war" between the legislative and executive branch of government. Based upon our Constitution (the states have them also!) the court system is the arbiter between the two: President and Congress. That's because we are country of laws! Otherwise the CIC of the military (a part of the executive branch) could simply order the military to invade Congress, take all the offending Reps into custody, warehouse them in an abandoned military base, and let them rot until they agreed to resign and go home to pout.

Now, if you would rather this country not be civilized ....

... just say the word. I know what side I'll put my money on!!!!

The only problem: The other side only has other people's money!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Seven exclamation marks? Get your feelings out of this.

You get your opinions out of it. You don't know "the law."

Or do you just choose to ignore it when it doesn't suit you?

There existed no "law" that said Trump had to give the Ukrainians squat!

I recognize you might be spawned from the "entitlement culture," but the Ukrainians are NOT ENTITLED TO EVEN A SLINGSHOT! THEY ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING!

Are you sure you want to create the crime of "quid pro quo"?

ECCIE Worldwide > Other US Hotspots > Washington DC
Reload this Page Encounter Reports - Washington DC

Sgt @ Arms? ...... ?????

I do believe I "see" the problem with you.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, what I was reciting to you was the historical experience of the "tug of war" between the legislative and executive branch of government. Based upon our Constitution (the states have them also!) the court system is the arbiter between the two: President and Congress. That's because we are country of laws! Otherwise the CIC of the military (a part of the executive branch) could simply order the military to invade Congress, take all the offending Reps into custody, warehouse them in an abandoned military base, and let them rot until they agreed to resign and go home to pout.

Now, if you would rather this country not be civilized ....

... just say the word. I know what side I'll put my money on!!!!

The only problem: The other side only has other people's money!

And a Sergeant at arms. Don't fuck with the people who have the money. First blood? Are we, or are we not, in the middle of a constitutional crisis?

What Does the Sergeant at Arms Do?

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...rgeant-arms-do

This is not a ceremonial task. In 1988, Senate SAA Henry Giugni led a posse of Capitol police to find, arrest, and corral Republicans missing for a Senate vote. One of them, Republican Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon, had to be carried to the Senate floor to break the filibustering over a vote on senatorial campaign finance reform.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You get your opinions out of it. You don't know "the law."

Or do you just choose to ignore it when it doesn't suit you?

There existed no "law" that said Trump had to give the Ukrainians squat!

I recognize you might be spawned from the "entitlement culture," but the Ukrainians are NOT ENTITLED TO EVEN A SLINGSHOT! THEY ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING!

Are you sure you want to create the crime of "quid pro quo"?



Sgt @ Arms? ...... ?????

I do believe I "see" the problem with you.

Opinions are what the law is all about. I am a child of the eighties. I don't think that was the generation of entitlement. More like dog-eat-dog. What problem do you "see" within me? I'd honestly like to know. For self realization.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You get your opinions out of it.

You don't know "the law."

Or do you just choose to ignore it when it doesn't suit you?

Repeat .... the lower grades find that effective.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Repeat .... the lower grades find that effective.

You don't know the law if you think opinions should be dismissed.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Seems like the trial is a done deal. If so, who should Trump/The Republicans call and why? It's my understanding that they'll only the power to call witnesses.

No personal attacks, please.

Call the whistleblower, Schift, Biden’s, the Pope, if Moscow Mitch is going to let the Senate start a daytime soap opera with his approval ratings at 30% then it’s a whitewash. Let’s get on with it.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You don't know the law if you think opinions should be dismissed.

in my opinion you don't know the law.


BAHHAAAAAAA

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Call the whistleblower, Schift, Biden’s, the Pope, if Moscow Mitch is going to let the Senate start a daytime soap opera with his approval ratings at 30% then it’s a whitewash. Let’s get on with it.

if you say so.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

in my opinion you don't know the law.


BAHHAAAAAAA

That's fine. All I have are my opinions. Which take into account the greater good. Not self interest. All I can do is use the law to support my opinion. I know right from wrong. Others may disagree with what is right and wrong.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

That's fine. All I have are my opinions. Which take into account the greater good. Not self interest. All I can do is use the law to support my opinion. I know right from wrong. Others may disagree with what is right and wrong.

Sir, by my count, you have never once cited a law to support your opinion, not once.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Sir, by my count, you have never once cited a law to support your opinion, not once.

Au contraire mon ami. I've bought up the Constitution many a time.

[oeb11]

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.

Second paragraph - first sentence - I believe you meant to write"no offense was committed" - rather than "alleged".

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Au contraire mon ami. I've bought up the Constitution many a time.

Please provide the posts as proof.

Like DPST's - you view the Constitution and Bill of Rights as flexible to your "feelings" about what should be, not what is written and confirmed by legal precedent.

One who relies on memes of Robespierre and his French revolution. Looking to bring back the guillotine for non-DPST's - are "WE"?