Jump to content
modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Well at least then we’d have a crime and better argument for removal.

Congress can issue charges of contempt of congress, which are considered offenses against the US, and issue contempt citations. Still no way to really enforce but there's your crime.

This "crime" prerequisite is a false and goalpost on a poor foundation anyway. High crimes and misdemeanors is the criteria.  Trump did those.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-houses-contempt-powers-explained

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Congress can issue charges of contempt of congress, which are considered offenses against the US, and issue contempt citations. Still no way to really enforce but there's your crime.

This "crime" prerequisite is a false and goalpost on a poor foundation anyway. High crimes and misdemeanors is the criteria.  Trump did those.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-houses-contempt-powers-explained

 

The executive can also assert privilege. Disputes over it go to the courts, but that’s not what we’re doing here. So no, there’s no crime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toonkee said:

Let’s continue down the congressional subpoena thought exercise. Congress subpoenas Pence. Pence and Trump say no. Congress goes to court. Court tells Pence and Trump to comply. Pence and Trump say no. Who’s enforcing now? 

End scene.

The same people that enforced the order when Holder was held in contempt.

The same people that were unable to force the Obama administration to produce any documents in the IRS scandal or the Fast and Furious Scandal or any of the rest.

This is not new., the only thing that has changed is that some of you now care.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The same people that enforced the order when Holder was held in contempt.

The same people that were unable to force the Obama administration to produce any documents in the IRS scandal or the Fast and Furious Scandal or any of the rest.

This is not new., the only thing that has changed is that some of you now care.

I’m not sure they care. They just want to dump Trump for any possible reason, legal or otherwise. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The executive can also assert privilege. Disputes over it go to the courts, but that’s not what we’re doing here. So no, there’s no crime.

This discussion has become wholly nonsensical as it revolves around a faulty premise that a crime is required for impeachment or that even the court ordering the president to do something validates a "crime". 

Maybe we'll try again later.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, toonkee said:

This discussion has become wholly nonsensical as it revolves around a faulty premise that a crime is required for impeachment or that even the court ordering the president to do something validates a "crime". 

Maybe we'll try again later.

The premise is not that a crime is needed for impeachment. I said having one to point to would strengthen the argument for removal. That’s all I said. Defying a court order is a statutory crime. You don’t need windbag professors wasting a day of hearings making esoteric arguments to make the case for it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Just curious have you read Turley’s statement?   I have and found it pretty thoughtful and worth considering.  He doesn’t argue the Trump’s conduct is unimpeachable.   He argues that it shouldn’t be done in a rush without key evidence from key people like Bolton etc. Its hard to disagree with that point.   

It's hard to disagree? Not to me. Turley ignores that "Bolton etc" have been subpoenaed but refused to comply with that subpoena. In the case of Mulvaney, Pompeo and a couple others it's because their boss, the president and guy who the impeachment is about, has ordered them not to. In the case of Bolton the reason is because so doing could cost him a yuge amount of money by rendering his impending book largely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

They do if they want the legal authority to enforce it.

Otherwise you have a separation of powers dispute like we have here. Congress says show up or else, the executive branch says no. Then Congress says well you’re in contempt and has to refer the matter to...the executive branch. 

The executive branch doesn't enforce subpoenas. The JUDICIAL branch enforces subpoenas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The premise is not that a crime is needed for impeachment. I said having one to point to would strengthen the argument for removal. That’s all I said. Defying a court order is a statutory crime. You don’t need windbag professors wasting a day of hearings making esoteric arguments to make the case for it either. 

Well that's just your opinion, man, but again not required or advised by the constitution.  That's your goalpost, not prescribed by the FF.

R's in the senate would just say he hasn't been convicted of a crime by any court (although we know that's a faulty premise the dummies will still accept that) and it wouldn't matter if Trump defied a judicial order anyway.

The R's and their voters either have a come to jesus moment about what Trump did or they don't.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still fighting to keep things hidden while claiming to be the most transparent president in history - He's fighting like hell to hide his financials for a reason and this is where trump's going to maybe have issues when he gets the trial he wants in the US Senate - remember the trump lawsuit / trial history...........he blusters that he will fight it to the bitter end, then as the trial date nears, he suddenly realizes much of his BS will be exposed, and he suddenly settles out of court............so will trump really want to go to full depositions & testimony in a US Senate trial or will he fold his tent as he usually does and bail out ?!?!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

The executive branch doesn't enforce subpoenas. The JUDICIAL branch enforces subpoenas.

Lol no it doesn’t. Do they send bailiffs to arrest people? Do they imprison them in the courthouse?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Well that's just your opinion, man, but again not required or advised by the constitution.  That's your goalpost, not prescribed by the FF.

R's in the senate would just say he hasn't been convicted of a crime by any court (although we know that's a faulty premise the dummies will still accept that) and it wouldn't matter if Trump defied a judicial order anyway.

The R's and their voters either have a come to jesus moment about what Trump did or they don't.   

They won’t. And it’s going down in probably a bipartisan fashion in the senate, just like it will probably be opposed by a bipartisan minority in the House.

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump released a "transcript" of his telephone conversation with the Ukraine president.  In that "transcript" Trump asked the Ukraine president to launch an investigation of a political rival, Joe Biden.

So, the only issue for the American people is whether they want to invite foreign participation in our domestic elections.  If you don't see that as a problem then Trump's conduct is "perfect".  Obviously, Trump believes leveraging his public office to get foreign influence into a U.S. political campaign is acceptable to most Americans.  I think a large number of Americans agree with him.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, sandiegopete said:

Trump released a "transcript" of his telephone conversation with the Ukraine president.  In that "transcript" Trump asked the Ukraine president to launch an investigation of a political rival, Joe Biden.

So, the only issue for the American people is whether they want to invite foreign participation in our domestic elections.  If you don't see that as a problem then Trump's conduct is "perfect".  Obviously, Trump believes leveraging his public office to get foreign influence into a U.S. political campaign is acceptable to most Americans.  I think a large number of Americans agree with him.  

We have video of Obama asking for Russian help in an election and you didn't care?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I’m not sure they care. They just want to dump Trump for any possible reason, legal or otherwise. 

Otherwise?

Are you insinuating that this process isn't "legal"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

 

We have video of Obama asking for Russian help in an election and you didn't care?

No you don't.  In fact, don't you agree that Putin is basically the leader of an organized crime organization and that the world and most Russians would be better off if Putin was killed?

In any event, Trump is on record.  Obama is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, toonkee said:

the executive told them not to comply. The senate will decide the guilt of the executive.

Two different items.   As Turley said if Trump disobeys a court order to comply then you have a stronger obstruction case.   But I would agree the courts operate too slow and allow the Executive Branch to just run out the clock.  An issue @thelawlorfaithful has failed to address. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×