Jump to content
modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

There is no clock for impeachment. Unless of course you mean things drag on past the election and Trump is defeated, at which point it’s all moot anyway.

I also think you’re either misunderstanding Turley’s point, or misrepresenting them. He’s saying Trump asserting executive privilege is not grounds for an article of impeachment regarding Obstruction. From page 39:

Most recently, the members have focused on an obstruction allegation centering on the instructions of the White House to current and former officials not to testify due to the expected assertions of executive privilege and immunity. Notably, the House has elected not to subpoena core witnesses with first-hand evidence on any quid pro quo in the Ukraine controversy. Democratic leaders have explained that they want a vote by the end of December, and they are not willing to wait for a decision from the court system as to the merits of these disputes. In my view, that position is entirely untenable and abusive in an impeachment. Essentially, these members are suggesting a president can be impeached for seeking a judicial review of a conflict over the testimony of high-ranking advisers to the President over direct communications with the President. The position is tragically ironic. The Democrats have at times legitimately criticized the President for treating Article II as a font of unilateral authority. Yet, they are now doing the very same thing in claiming Congress can demand any testimony or documents and then impeach any president who dares to go to the courts.

His reference to Fast and Furious was not an example of an Impeachment inquiry being obstructed by the courts either. Obama was never seriously considered for impeachment by the house because the voters demanded he was not, though some of the more right wing elements advocated for it. Rather, it’s an illustration of the hypocrisy of some members of the Judiciary Committee who stood by Presidential assertion of privilege and letting the courts have their say, and then disregarding it and in fact making it an impeachable crime.  

If this Committee elects to seek impeachment on the failure to yield to congressional demands in an oversight or impeachment investigation, it will have to distinguish a long line of cases where prior presidents sought the very same review while withholding witnesses and documents...Congress, justifiably so, began an oversight investigation. Some members called for impeachment proceedings. But President Obama invoked executive privilege and barred essential testimony and documents...Judge Amy Berman Jackson, ruled that “endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.”...Nevertheless, President Obama had every right to seek judicial review in the matter and many members of this very Committee supported his position.

You’re also ignoring the very next paragraph which summarizes the entire case he was making in bringing up Fast and Furious

Basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power . . . by Congress. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set for future presidents and Congresses in making an appeal to the Judiciary into “high crime and misdemeanor.”

So let's say Dems seek judicial review and courts tell Trump to turn over docs, allow exec staff to testify, etc. and Trump defies. In your opinion does it make a difference in the end result? Does it cause enough R senators to vote to remove. @sactowndog I'll take your thoughts as well please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most people, even most Democrats, see this impeachment for what it is - a political hit job.  Dems are going to foolishly use this stuff in election campaign and nobody is going to give it much heed.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goody, Stunner is back for more spam. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 10:10 AM, toonkee said:

I post tweets [and video clips] in hopes someone such as yourself will read them, discuss them and even critique them, so we may all learn and grow together.

 

6 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Oh goody, Stunner is back for more spam. :D

 

 

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

 

 

You've posted 20 of them in the last hour, and your chosen "title" here includes the word "spammer". 

Bvi9MnC.png

I know, how dare I point out what you're doing. Are you going to throw another tantrum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 10:09 AM, retrofade said:

 

For the record, I posted that tweet in here because it was relevant... not everyone is able to watch the hearings, but they might see the tweet.

 

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

You've posted 20 of them in the last hour, and your chosen "title" here includes the word "spammer". 

Bvi9MnC.png

I know, how dare I point out what you're doing. Are you going to throw another tantrum?

 


Stop trolling.

This is not an echo chamber---you've even stated as much. 

This is a place for posting media related to the impeachment process.

If you prefer to read the tweets and videos that you post on here, rather than the tweets and videos that I posted on here, then simply ignore my posts.   Not sure why you believe that only you are allowed to post Democrat related videos and tweets on here, and that everyone else isn't allowed to do the same.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tantrum it is.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

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.

×