Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, what happens if the Executive (President) and Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) have a conflict, they seek resolution at the 3rd branch: Judicial. The judicial branch can either enforce a subpoena or confirm executive privileges. This was done for example during the Nixon impeachment process.
However, Nancy Pelosi, Schiff and house democrats didn't want to WAIT for the judicial branch to enforce the subpoena, since time is of essence. However, now Pelosi is sitting on the same articles?
In other words, since Pelosi/Schiff/Dems rushed the process and didn't to follow the correct procedures, why would the Senate take over the House job with calling witness? The sole job of the Senate during impeachment is to declare a verdict over the House articles of impeachment.
If you're upset with anyone, be upset with the house dems. They may have well won the legal case to enforce the subpoenas.
Perhaps Nancy will "sit on the articles" while she seeks resolution at the 3rd branch: Judicial. The judicial branch can either enforce a subpoena or confirm executive privileges.
Sondland talked to trump himself on the phone. About the money, if a armed robber drops the money on the way out of the bank because he sees the cops, does not mean he is innocent of armed robbery?
Sondland admitted he had no factual basis for his testimony and was merely repeating presumptions and opinion. Saying that it's your opinion that someone robbed a bank is not evidence of guilt, especially when the facts show the bank was not robbed in the first place and no one is even accused of having robbed it.
You can always claim that the innocent woman shouldn't fear the witchcraft trial, but I'm sure you know that's not true, you just want to justify continuing the sham with the hopes of scoring political points.
Are you thinking that the Senate would hold a witch trial?
Sondland admitted he had no factual basis for his testimony and was merely repeating presumptions and opinion. Saying that it's your opinion that someone robbed a bank is not evidence of guilt, especially when the facts show the bank was not robbed in the first place and no one is even accused of having robbed it.
Sondland talked directly to trump about this on the phone. It is the phone call that Sonland testified about during which Sondland said trump wanted the investigation announced from he "who loves trump's ass."
You can always claim that the innocent woman shouldn't fear the witchcraft trial, but I'm sure you know that's not true, you just want to justify continuing the sham with the hopes of scoring political points.
The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to get Trump impeached, so your subjective opinion on whether or not the process has been a "sham" is meaningless, particularly since more than half the country appears to disagree with you. I am not interested in "justifying" anything. I want the truth to come out and let the chips fall where they may and the best way to have the truth come out is to hear from the witnesses and see the documents blocked by Trump at the impeachment level. The only possible reason someone would want the testimonial and documentary evidence to remain hidden is because their partisan proclivities compels them to seek a predetermined outcome, so perhaps it is best for you to refrain from accusing others of looking to score political points...
Are you thinking that the Senate would hold a witch trial?
Well that's what the demand by Democrats is. They want a witch trial or they are threatening to continue obstructing Congress indefinitely by preventing an authorized impeachment from ever taking place. Will the Senate actually bow to their ridiculous demands? Of course not. The Senate are the adults in the room, they won't do the wrong thing no matter how long or loudly the children in the House throw a tantrum.
Well that's what the demand by Democrats is. They want a witch trial or they are threatening to continue obstructing Congress indefinitely by preventing an authorized impeachment from ever taking place. Will the Senate actually bow to their ridiculous demands? Of course not. The Senate are the adults in the room, they won't do the wrong thing no matter how long or loudly the children in the House throw a tantrum.
No witch trial. In fact, the House welcomed any witnesses trump would provide.
Sondland talked directly to trump about this on the phone. It is the phone call that Sonland testified about during which Sondland said trump wanted the investigation announced from he "who loves trump's ass."
Again that was merely his presumption, it was not factual in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey
The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to get Trump impeached
That's an indictment of the House Democrats who disgraced themselves and their office by voting to authorize flawed impeachment articles without evidence.
This is all political theater, but if one applies logical consistency to the construct as the US Constitution and US history defines it, then the impeachment is an indictment based on the investigation, evidence and hearings included therein. An indictment is a specific accusation relevant to all of the evidence presented to that point.
The House impeached with the facts, evidence and testimony they had up the point the impeachment left the Judiciary committee for a floor vote. That is their case. They have the sole power to impeach, and they did.
Now, the sole power of how to adjudicate that impeachment lies with the Senate. The House has literally zero say whatsoever in how the Senate must or should proceed. The Senate majority, on the other hand, has exactly 100% of the say in same. They can simply dismiss the charges if they so choose. That would be perfectly constitutional, legal and not without precedent. They can allow whatever witnesses, testimony, questioning periods, etc they want if they actually hold some version of a trial. They can make a rule that every Senator in attendance has to wear green lapel pins that say "the truth is out there" and that would actually be perfectly constitutional.
Sole power.
If McConnell and the majority of senators agree that they based their accusation on Sondland, therefore Sondland is sufficient without any new witnesses, investigation, etc...then that's that. Perfectly constitutional, legal and not without precedent.
I have always understood this because I have always been a non-partisan observer of the actual rules and procedures under the US Constitution and historical precedent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
