Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Maybe shut off fox news.  The Democrats subpoenaed many, many, documents and witnesses.  The white house refused ALL congressional subpoenas for EVERY inquiry for anything.  That is why he is facing obstruction of justice.  He never asserted executive privilege at that time and still has not.  Furthermore, executive privlege doesn't allow a blanket coverup and the witness still should appear and assert the privlege to specific questions.  It cannot be used to coverup a crime.

The senate process is a farce.

So the House had no means of compelling this stuff during the impeachment process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

So the House had no means of compelling this stuff during the impeachment process?

Yes, they can send him to the senate for impeachment and the senate can say he has to produce the documents and witnesses or else he is kicked out of office.  There has never been a president who has obstructed congress to this extent and there has never been a more cowardly congress who won't support the idea that the administration needs to submit to congressional subpoenas and oversight.  They are complicit in the coverup.

The House has been trying for months and months to get the testimony from Don Mcghan and it still hasn't secured the testimony regarding the Russia investigation.  How can anyone argue the courts are the remedy when they wouldn't be able to act quickly enough to prevent the cheating in the 2020 election?

If you dont' believe that the the courts have no oversight just ask Donald Trumps Attorneys---just before they argued the opposite:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720

After arguing in court for months that federal judges should stay miles away from disputes between Congress and the White House — for fear that they become political actors in a divisive impeachment probe — the president’s lawyers spent the first working day of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial arguing the exact opposite, and suggesting that those who disagree are hostile to the Constitution.

Story Continued Below

“The president’s opponents, in their rush to impeach, have refused to wait for judicial review,” said Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, who is working alongside White House counsel Pat Cipollone on the president’s impeachment defense. Sekulow also echoed law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently warned against “making a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts.” Turley testified against Trump’s impeachment during one of the House’s public impeachment hearings.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Yes, they can send him to the senate for impeachment and the senate can say he has to produce the documents and witnesses or else he is kicked out of office.  There has never been a president who has obstructed congress to this extent and there has never been a more cowardly congress who won't support the idea that the administration needs to submit to congressional subpoenas and oversight.  They are complicit in the coverup.

The House has been trying for months and months to get the testimony from Don Mcghan and it still hasn't secured the testimony regarding the Russia investigation.  How can anyone argue the courts are the remedy when they wouldn't be able to act quickly enough to prevent the cheating in the 2020 election?

If you dont' believe that the the courts have no oversight just ask Donald Trumps Attorneys---just before they argued the opposite:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720

After arguing in court for months that federal judges should stay miles away from disputes between Congress and the White House — for fear that they become political actors in a divisive impeachment probe — the president’s lawyers spent the first working day of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial arguing the exact opposite, and suggesting that those who disagree are hostile to the Constitution.

Story Continued Below

“The president’s opponents, in their rush to impeach, have refused to wait for judicial review,” said Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, who is working alongside White House counsel Pat Cipollone on the president’s impeachment defense. Sekulow also echoed law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently warned against “making a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts.” Turley testified against Trump’s impeachment during one of the House’s public impeachment hearings.

There are probably ways they could have compelled what they want through the courts, but they didn't because it fouled up their preferred time line.  Now, following a highly partisan House impeachment investigation (which I don't remember you complaining about), the Democrats are looking for the Republicans to help them out during the Senate process.  It's not going to happen.  The trial is a charade, but the whole process from the very beginning has been a partisan political show.  You have already posted that you thought the process has been fair up until this point which says everything anyone needs to know about your complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

There are probably ways they could have compelled what they want through the courts, but they didn't because it fouled up their preferred time line.  Now, following a highly partisan House impeachment investigation (which I don't remember you complaining about), the Democrats are looking for the Republicans to help them out during the Senate process.  It's not going to happen.  The trial is a charade, but the whole process from the very beginning has been a partisan political show.  You have already posted that you thought the process has been fair up until this point which says everything anyone needs to know about your complaining.

I have provided evidence that I provided on why they did not go through to the courts.  I have given examples of why the courts wouldn't consider it in time for the election that he was trying to steal.  You have brought talking points.

You have made up your mind that the president is not guilty REGARDLESS of the facts and witnesses.  You are afraid of just shining light on this and letting people make their own decisions based on the facts.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Yes, they can send him to the senate for impeachment and the senate can say he has to produce the documents and witnesses or else he is kicked out of office.  There has never been a president who has obstructed congress to this extent and there has never been a more cowardly congress who won't support the idea that the administration needs to submit to congressional subpoenas and oversight.  They are complicit in the coverup.

The House has been trying for months and months to get the testimony from Don Mcghan and it still hasn't secured the testimony regarding the Russia investigation.  How can anyone argue the courts are the remedy when they wouldn't be able to act quickly enough to prevent the cheating in the 2020 election?

If you dont' believe that the the courts have no oversight just ask Donald Trumps Attorneys---just before they argued the opposite:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720

After arguing in court for months that federal judges should stay miles away from disputes between Congress and the White House — for fear that they become political actors in a divisive impeachment probe — the president’s lawyers spent the first working day of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial arguing the exact opposite, and suggesting that those who disagree are hostile to the Constitution.

Story Continued Below

“The president’s opponents, in their rush to impeach, have refused to wait for judicial review,” said Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, who is working alongside White House counsel Pat Cipollone on the president’s impeachment defense. Sekulow also echoed law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently warned against “making a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts.” Turley testified against Trump’s impeachment during one of the House’s public impeachment hearings.

The McGahn ruling comes at the end of the month. It was expedited by the courts when the House voted it into the impeachment investigation on Halloween. All it took was less than 3 months to move it from the district through the appeals court, 1/3 of which the desperately vital or Russia is gonna steal the election impeachment was basically tabled to gain (lol) leverage.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

So the House had no means of compelling this stuff during the impeachment process?

You mean let the investigation draw out for another year while the requests make their way to the Supreme Court?  

Here's a better idea.  Why doesn't the Senate just interview the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they think the House should have?  Problem solved.  If there is nothing to hide, and the House came to the wrong conclusion, show the American people and clarify for us what we missed with the testimony and evidence provided already.  They won't do that, and we all know why.  They just want this to go away with as little effort as possible.  I give you the Republican party in a nutshell.  Tax cuts for the rich,  no health care plan, no plan to balance the budget, and unlimited funding for the military.  Onward and upward we go.  Oh, and protect Trump at all costs.  By the way,  did you know it was Ukraine that interfered in our election and not Russia.  Putin told Trump and he believes him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Akkula said:

I have provided evidence that I provided on why they did not go through to the courts.  I have given examples of why the courts wouldn't consider it in time for the election that he was trying to steal.  You have brought talking points.

You have made up your mind that the president is not guilty REGARDLESS of the facts and witnesses.  You are afraid of just shining light on this and letting people make their own decisions based on the facts.  

It's not talking points.  Lawlor just posted how you are wrong.  I think he definitely pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  I wish they would have.  It is curious to me that in your crusade to uncover corruption, you are not the least bit interested in how Biden's partying crackhead baby daddy son got a job on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.  I know, I know....the NYT investigated it.  The Gray Lady is famous for the gusto with which they go after Democrats.  NYT: did you hire crack head Hunter to gain influence with his dad?  Burisma: Of course not.  NYT to the world:  Nothing to see here.  It all checks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist these days but it seems to me that's the only way to put a scare into two parties which have come to be much too influenced by their lunative fringe.

Whatever happened to governing from the center ?

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, alum93 said:

You mean let the investigation draw out for another year while the requests make their way to the Supreme Court?  

Here's a better idea.  Why doesn't the Senate just interview the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they think the House should have?  Problem solved.  If there is nothing to hide, and the House came to the wrong conclusion, show the American people and clarify for us what we missed with the testimony and evidence provided already.  They won't do that, and we all know why.  They just want this to go away with as little effort as possible.  I give you the Republican party in a nutshell.  Tax cuts for the rich,  no health care plan, no plan to balance the budget, and unlimited funding for the military.  Onward and upward we go.  Oh, and protect Trump at all costs.  By the way,  did you know it was Ukraine that interfered in our election and not Russia.  Putin told Trump and he believes him.

I think we both know the answer....because this is a partisan process and it looks like they don't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The McGahn ruling comes at the end of the month. It was expedited by the courts when the House voted it into the impeachment investigation on Halloween. All it took was less than 3 months to move it from the district through the appeals court, 1/3 of which the desperately vital or Russia is gonna steal the election impeachment was basically tabled to gain (lol) leverage.

Playing fast a loose with the facts may work for the impeachment lawyers of Trump as they address the senate but not MWCboarding!!!  That subpena was issued on April 18, 2019.   He hasn't testified yet!

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016c-6dc6-d14f-ad7e-6fd7372c0000

60. On March 14, 2019, the House of Representatives approved H. Con. Res. 24, calling for the release to Congress of the full Report, once completed, by a vote of 420-0.136 On April 18, 2019, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for the Report and underlying evidence and investigative materials.137

On July 26, 2019, McGahn made clear that he will follow the President’s directive and will not comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for public testimony. The accommodations process is therefore at an impasse.

The goal of the cons has always been for a coverup until after the elction...just like with the tax returns that were promised but have never been provided.  If they could tie this thing up in court until after the election that would be great.  If not they would wait until the court decison and then scream "executive privledge" and wait another year for the courts.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

It's not talking points.  Lawlor just posted how you are wrong.  I think he definitely pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  I wish they would have.  It is curious to me that in your crusade to uncover corruption, you are not the least bit interested in how Biden's partying crackhead baby daddy son got a job on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.  I know, I know....the NYT investigated it.  The Gray Lady is famous for the gusto with which they go after Democrats.  NYT: did you hire crack head Hunter to gain influence with his dad?  Burisma: Of course not.  NYT to the world:  Nothing to see here.  It all checks out.

You've got to be kidding me if you buy that is the reason he held up millions in military aid after all the testimony provided, not to mention the phone calls.  If you truly believe that, than i guess you aren't interested in having honest conversations about the topic.  Which is fine.  It's a message board and to each their own.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Playing fast a loose with the facts may work for the impeachment lawyers of Trump as they address the senate but not MWCboarding!!!  That subpena was issued on April 18, 2019.   He hasn't testified yet!

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016c-6dc6-d14f-ad7e-6fd7372c0000

60. On March 14, 2019, the House of Representatives approved H. Con. Res. 24, calling for the release to Congress of the full Report, once completed, by a vote of 420-0.136 On April 18, 2019, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for the Report and underlying evidence and investigative materials.137

On July 26, 2019, McGahn made clear that he will follow the President’s directive and will not comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for public testimony. The accommodations process is therefore at an impasse.

The goal of the cons has always been for a coverup until after the elction...just like with the tax returns that were promised but have never been provided.  If they could tie this thing up in court until after the election that would be great.  If not they would wait until the court decison and then scream "executive privledge" and wait another year for the courts.  

Duh, Impeachment wasn’t announced until late August so there was no need to expedite this Mueller related fishing expedition in April.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-appeals-court-lawsuits-087708

McGahn’s testimony was initially sought by the House Judiciary Committee in connection with an investigation that was not at its outset formally linked to impeachment, but was formally converted to an impeachment probe in October by a House floor vote. The Mueller report redactions were sought as part of the same inquiry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/19/impeachment-mcgahn-subpoena-071653

Jackson had sharp questions for Trump administration officials during oral arguments in the case on Oct. 31 and she ended the hearing telling the House and Justice Department lawyers that she’d consider an “expedited ruling” if anyone asked for one. 

Tuesday’s request from House counsel Doug Letter indicates they’ll take Jackson up on her offer.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/trumps-impeachment-legal-team-doj-101720

A federal appeals court panel could decide any day whether the House can legally force McGahn to testify, while the president continues to assert that he is “immune” from speaking to lawmakers. House lawyers have indicated that they would seek to make immediate use of potential testimony from McGahn — a star witness in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — in the impeachment trial, to show what they say is a pattern of efforts by Trump to obstruct investigations into his conduct.

Fast and loose alright -_-

giphy.gif

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, alum93 said:

You've got to be kidding me if you buy that is the reason he held up millions in military aid after all the testimony provided, not to mention the phone calls.  If you truly believe that, than i guess you aren't interested in having honest conversations about the topic.  Which is fine.  It's a message board and to each their own.  

Of course I think his reasons were politically motivated.  That is the nature of the beast.  Was Obama interested in investigating Democrats?  I am not a Michael Savage fan, but I heard him say once that a bird needs a left wing and a right wing to fly straight.  Trump's motivations don't change the fact that Joe Biden is dirty as hell.  And spare me your crocodile tears about holding up military aid to Ukraine.  Your boy Obama ignored Ukraine's pleas for military aid and sat on his hands while the Russians rolled their tanks into Odessa and annexed the Crimea.  You didn't care then.  You don't care now.  You are just like Trump.  Politically motivated to get what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BYUcougfan said:

The Gray Lady is famous for the gusto with which they go after Democrats.  

Run: LexisNexis

Search: Senator Hillary Clinton

Search: Gary Condit

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BYUcougfan said:

There is an exception to every rule.  It was extraordinary at the time.

The longstanding antipathy between Clinton and the New York Times? Yes, I would call it extraordinary. But when something lasts decades, I consider that a rule not the exception.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spaztecs said:

Whatever happened to governing from the center ?

 

34 minutes ago, Rocket said:

That went away about 40 years ago.

 

2 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

That went in the trash when someone quoted “elections have consequences”. 

 

In a nutshell, everyone. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...