Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-01-2020, 11:29 AM
 
46,281 posts, read 27,099,738 times
Reputation: 11126

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna-501 View Post
Katyal, who served as acting Solicitor General of the United States during the Obama administration, said that it was “striking” that the McConnell-led Senate would block key witnesses from testifying at a trial of a sitting president when that president was impeached for blocking witnesses.

Why don't they want the truth to come out? Everyone should want that.



The truth is out there, because you don't like it, nobody's fault but your own....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2020, 11:34 AM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,533,837 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by spider07 View Post
Couple of things.

1. Either the House feels their impeach articles are strong enough to remove the President or they don't. If they don't, then they shouldn't have voted for them. If they do, then why would anything else be needed?

2. We heard over and over again how Impeachment is not a criminal undertaking, but a Political one, which was used to not allow Trump's lawyers to be present or question any witnesses during the impeachment inquiry. Now it's different in the Senate?

The house could have taken the steps necessary to get the interviews they sought, they chose not to go that route. Now they want a do over because they know the American people see this for it is and they are hoping if they can get more people to testify, it will help them. To bad, you had your shot, you took it and you missed.

And just for the record, none of those people brought up are under lock and key. They can testify anytime they want to. Especially Bolton, he doesn't even work for the administration anymore.

The senate should and would have every right to dismiss this as soon as it is sent over. Its been a sham from the start and needs to be done with.
Yes. The trial is in the Senate! That is different than the inquiry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 11:47 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,925,181 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
You have to have done something to think that you are above the law. He's done nothing wrong, other than hurt a few peoples feeling because he is not playing their game......
This is a circular argument & is not a legitimate defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 11:59 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,925,181 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donna-501 View Post
Katyal, who served as acting Solicitor General of the United States during the Obama administration, said that it was “striking” that the McConnell-led Senate would block key witnesses from testifying at a trial of a sitting president when that president was impeached for blocking witnesses.

Why don't they want the truth to come out? Everyone should want that.
It's not only not a defense, & crazy & ironic, it's not as if it wasn't stated very clearly in the articles of impeachment:

Quote:
...These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment—and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives. ...
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/78657...resident-trump

How is it that any POTUS claims the right to determine the propriety, scope, & nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct?

How is this not abuse of the power of the office?

& how is the unilateral denial of any & all information not an obstruction of congress?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 12:04 PM
 
2,495 posts, read 867,239 times
Reputation: 986
A Senate trial is not a court trial where some House 'DA' prosecutes a defendant from inside Senate chambers. The Senate is free not to call witnesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 12:24 PM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,925,181 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastriver View Post
A Senate trial is not a court trial where some House 'DA' prosecutes a defendant from inside Senate chambers. The Senate is free not to call witnesses.
Can this trial assign the President the right to determine the propriety, scope, & nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct?

If so, this will likely be not only the third impeachment trial, it will be the last.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 01:25 PM
 
46,281 posts, read 27,099,738 times
Reputation: 11126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
This is a circular argument & is not a legitimate defense.



There is nothing to defend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 01:38 PM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,925,181 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
There is nothing to defend.
There is nothing to defend because the President has the right to determine the propriety, scope, & nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct?

Going forward, every POTUS will claim this right. Going forward every POTUS will claim there is "nothing to defend".

When did we become a monarchy?

Quote:
Monarchy is a form of government which was very common during ancient and medieval times.

Supreme power is bestowed on an individual and it can be absolute or nominal.

The ‘head of state’ of a land with this kind of government often holds the title for life or until abdication.

The leader, who is called a monarch, is wholly set apart from all other members of the state.

The monarch typically makes all the law and decisions (legislative, judicial, and executive).
Difference Between Monarchy and Democracy

http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...#ixzz64tE0TtI1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 01:48 PM
 
46,281 posts, read 27,099,738 times
Reputation: 11126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
There is nothing to defend because the President has the right to determine the propriety, scope, & nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct?

No, there is nothing to defend, because nothing rose to the level of actually breaking any laws....


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Going forward, every POTUS will claim this right. Going forward every POTUS will claim there is "nothing to defend".

Going forward, every president will have to wonder, if he is not liked, will he be impeached for that. The left set an extremely bad precedence.....Remember, the left tried for 3 years and the top 2 FBI agents in the United States found nothing, and someone did not like the words that were said on a phone call.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
When did we become a monarchy?



Difference Between Monarchy and Democracy

http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...#ixzz64tE0TtI1

Well, since the house made it own rules, the senate also gets to make their own rules...why are you mad at that?



No, we are not a monarchy, but the house sure thinks they are...they want to make the rules for the senate.....so, you are right, when did we become a monarchy? They want to ensure what type of trial will be given, or no articles of impeachment....so basically, do it my way (the houses) or nothing....


You know, quid pro quo...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2020, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Free State of Florida
25,736 posts, read 12,815,111 times
Reputation: 19298
None of this is a legal process, its a political process. That is why wax lady can hold the articles for day after day after day..forever if she decides to.

You are all applying legal standards to something that is not legal.

Let the Turtle smackdown begin!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top