"I'm going to take my cues from the president's lawyers," said McConnell
The Senate members are to serve as the "Jury" during the proceeding, and this idiot says he is working with the accused's lawyers. Would Conservative citizen accept this behavior in any other court?
The Hill ""Everything I do during this I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this," McConnell told Fox News on Thursday night"
Heritage Discussion of Impeachment Trial
The Senate members are to serve as the "Jury" during the proceeding, and this idiot says he is working with the accused's lawyers. Would Conservative citizen accept this behavior in any other court?
The Hill ""Everything I do during this I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this," McConnell told Fox News on Thursday night"
Heritage Discussion of Impeachment Trial
30 comments:
This will allow all future Presidents to ignore to Constitution
Not really... It was not resolved...
Sure, the President refused to participate.
However the DEMs refused to wait for the courts to rule.
Senators can do what they want, but it is a part of a larger problem, the undermining of the legitimacy of our political system. The constitution had a decent enough run, but it is now pretty through as a viable political instrument. Two of the three branches of our government have become effectively dysfunctional, leaving only an unbalanced and unchecked executive. Perhaps this isn't unexpected. The world has changed a lot since 1787.
--Hiram
I sure would not blame the Constitution for this problem...
Let me repeat:
- The President refused to participate.
- The DEMs refuse to wait for the courts to rule.
- The citizens only listen to news they like.
Funny Comic
Impeachment is a plenary power of Congress. Courts have no role in it.
--Hiram
In this case they had / have a HUGE ROLE...
2 of the 3 branches of our government disagreed.
The courts are there to break the tie. However the DEMs were too impatient.
"- The DEMs refuse to wait for the courts to rule."
You sound just like the lunatic Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. And you call yourself a moderate? No
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States reads,
"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Notice it doesn't say anything about either of the other branches of government. They do not need to involve the courts. If someone ignores a subpoena from Congress, Congress has the right hold them in contempt. No court needed.
Understanding
Your Rights in Response to a Congressional Subpoena
Moose
Did you read your source?
Put simply, Congress can compel the production of documents and sworn testimony from almost anyone at almost any time.
And unlike the judicial process overseen by the courts, the congressional system offers
relatively few procedural protections for those individuals or companies who find
themselves subject to, what founder and early Supreme Court Justice James
Wilson called, “the grand inquest of the state.”1
As an independent and coequal branch of government, Congress’s investigative power is largely unchecked by the courts, as a matter of constitutional design.
Thus, the true limitations upon Congress’s authority are pragmatic and based upon institutional and political power dynamics.
Apparently the President just "Saying NO" is one of those untested areas.
You are correct that they do not need to involve the courts, but I am pretty sure they have not got the support to get him removed...
RCP Impeach Poll Summary
Congress can compel the production of documents and sworn testimony from almost anyone at almost any time.
No, or at least not without the cooperation of the executive. And that's what we are seeing. The check on congressional, and judicial power for that matter is that neither branch has power to enforce it. To the extent this problem was anticipated by the founders, they gave plenary power to congress to impeach, but what they didn't expect was that Congress would further it's own demise by refusing to use it.
A question I used to get asked a lot is "why should I bother voting?" Given that we now have an unelected president, defying an elected Congress without consequence, I have to say, I don't really have a satisfactory reason to offer.
--Hiram
Maybe the GOP folks are correct...
Are the DEMs just trying to overturn the 2016 election results since they deem Trump "unelected"?
Can the DEMs truly not accept our form of government and it's rules?
The rules seem pretty straight forward to me. To win the Presidency a candidate and party must appeal to a substantial number of voters across the whole country...
Are the DEMs just trying to overturn the 2016 election results since they deem Trump "unelected"?
This is one of those things Republicans say to each other with absolute conviction which doesn't bear even the slightest scrutiny outside that political bubble. where shall I start?
To begin with, if Trump was unelected, he was unelected from the day the votes were tabulated back in 2016. If that was the motivation, why didn't Democrats start impeachment proceedings when Trump assumed office? He was just as unelected then as he is now.
The fact is, despite the conviction universally held among Democrats, and I am sure a substantial number of Republicans, that Trump is unfit for office and guilty of many crimes and more than a few misdemeanors, Democrats have held off impeachment proceedings. The Mueller Report described quite clearly a basis for impeachment. Indeed, Mueller seemed to think impeachment proceedings would be brought. But Democrats, supposedly obssessed with overturning the 2016 election outcome, mysteriously chose not to impeach. Had Trump not gotten pretty far out of his way to blackmail a foreign government in order to secure their intervention in our 2020 election, no impeachment proceedings would have been brought all. Clearly the notion that they are being brought to overturn the election of 2016 could not be more obviously wrong.
--Hiram
Can the DEMs truly not accept our form of government and it's rules?
Sure we can and we did. As I noted previously, Democrats universally agree that Trump is unfit for office. We may not talk much about it, but it's pretty much the case that every Democrat believes that Trump may well be under the influence of Russian oligarchs who launder money through his business organization. But because we accept our form of government and it's rules, we have pretty much let that sleeping dog lie. Indeed, our respect for process is why impeachment proceedings weren't brought on Trump's first day in office.
But speaking of rules, while how we elect our president is the result of a set of rules, so is impeachment. And the plenary power of impeachment is given to Congress, and more specifically to the House of Representatives. Bringing proceedings in the house is an exercise of power under those rules as established by the Congress. With respect to impeachment, who is it, exactly who has violated rules, both constitutional and statutory. Well, in the most immediate way, it's the president who has defied subpoenas, in clear and direct violation of statutes, and who has hindered the impeachment process, something which Article II gives him no power to do. The fact is, in terms of high crimes and misdemeanors, there is no question that the president's obstruction of impeachment proceedings is an impeachable offense, one that easily provides a sufficient reason for his removal from office.
--Hiram
Then I would think you would remind the people that ask:
Trump was fairly and legal elected by the will of the people of the USA and according to its rules.
And reminding them that using the word "unelected President" strengthens the words of the GOP accusation. :-)
Trump was fairly and legal elected by the will of the people of the USA and according to its rules.
Well, no. The will of the people expressed through their votes was that Hillary Clinton should be president.
Because the president is not elected by the voters, unlike every other elected official in Washington, I would argue that his action should be to an extra level of scrutiny. I have no doubt his lack of political legitimacy was one reason why the framers made him subject to impeachment.
And reminding them that using the word "unelected President" strengthens the words of the GOP accusation
What can I say? Some GOP accusations are accurate. I am amused when baffled when GOP leaders say that impeachment will overturn the will of 63 million voters. They don't seem at all concerned that the faceless and arbitrarily chosen 500 electors overturned the will of 65 million voters.
--Hiram
I will correct my statement
"Trump was legally elected by the will of the people of the USA according to the election laws of the country."
Again... Maybe you should move to a country with different laws. :-) Trump whether you like it or not has full political legitimacy.
I agree that it is stupid when the GOP folks state a total number of voters like they do, since we know many more citizens voted for Clinton. However I guess that is just more of their hypocritical behavior I have been venting about lately.
I may make that into a post. :-)
"Trump was legally elected by the will of the people of the USA according to the election laws of the country."
So which elected him? The people or the laws?
--Hiram
When 2 teams compete, let's say the Vikings and Packers...
Is it the rules that one win or their performance on the field?
Well some DEMs asking McConnell to recuse himself after his biased comments makes sense to me. Graham should also if he can not take his oath seriously.
"“If articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, every single senator will take an oath to render ‘impartial justice,’" Schumer said. "Making sure the Senate conducts a fair and honest trial that allows all the facts to come out is paramount.""
Graham's statement
""I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here," Graham said, adding, "What I see coming, happening today is just a partisan nonsense.""
Can we impeach him next?
Graham's Hypocrisy Video
What Trump teaches us is that if a law isn't enforceable, you don't have to obey it. Trump has no sense that there is a concept of law independent of power. Given a choice between people lined up against a wall, and the people who would shoot them, Trump always prefers the latter. It helps explain his affinity for political monsters.
--Hiram
Hiram,
The DEMs did not give the courts time to work, that was their choice.
"The DEMs did not give the courts time to work, that was their choice."
Meanwhile, the tampering with the 2020 election continues unabated. The DEMs have no choice but to act quickly. They have been doing everything within their power to protect our elections. Trump and Republicans are obstructing at every turn. Why?
Moose
They made a choice...
Now we will see if they made the correct choice...
They chose to protect our Democracy.
They chose correctly, political ramifications be damned.
Moose
They are not protecting our democracy by going to the Senate with a "ho hum" case... I mean public opinion really has not budged...
Therefore it is likely that he will be acquitted.
Schumer Understands
It seems the GOP is still determined to not demand that the Executive branch answer what they were doing under oath.
It is amazing...
"I mean public opinion really has not budged..."
Public support for impeachment has nearly doubled since the start of 2019 (it's also double the support that impeaching Clinton had).
I stand corrected, since 9/1/19 it has barely budged.
Post a Comment