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.
The House Judiciary committee filed suit in August seeking to enforce its April subpoena for Mr. McGahn to testify about Mr. Trump's efforts to impede former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that documented Russian interference in the 2016 election & numerous contacts between his campaign & Moscow.
On November 25, 2018, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that Mr. McGahn must comply with the subpoena.
On January 3, 2020, the D.C. Court of Appeals panel heard oral arguments on the McGahn case & another related case:
Two separate panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard nearly three hours of oral argument on two committee cases related to former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Both were filed months before the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on his dealings with Ukraine.
House counsel warns of ‘gun battle’ in fight for Trump info
Letter said there’s no case that comes anywhere close to saying Congress cannot go to court to enforce its investigatory powers
The house voted on impeachment...they should have waited...to bad....get over it, it's in the senate hands now.....well, if quid pro quo nancy will ever deliver the articles.....
The house voted on impeachment...they should have waited...to bad....get over it, it's in the senate hands now.....well, if quid pro quo nancy will ever deliver the articles.....
The impeachment vote...waited for the courts to make a final ruling....
The D.C. Court of Appeals may not have a decision until the end of the month. The White House can then ask the SCOTUS to review those cases & seems probable considering other Trump-related cases already on the calendar:
Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Trump Subpoena Cases
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court said late Friday that it will review three lower court decisions upholding congressional and grand jury subpoenas for financial records from President Trump's longtime personal accountants and from banks he did business with.
The high court's order sets the stage for a constitutional battle over the limits of presidential power.
All three involve Trump's personal and business finances, not anything he has done as president. Trump has lost all three cases in the lower courts, and in each case, Trump's private attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court.
Personally, I'm uncertain why the House took up the vote when they did. Also uncertain why the House & Senate cannot agree on the rules to proceed with the impeachment trial.
Although it does appear that decisions on presidential power have broader implications & significant value & precedents going forward.
The D.C. Court of Appeals may not have a decision until the end of the month. The White House can then ask the SCOTUS to review those cases & seems probable considering other Trump-related cases already on the calendar:
Personally, I'm uncertain why the House took up the vote when they did.
Well, I think every single dems during their time prior to the votes clearly stated it was because of national security....or not...screw it, lets go on Christmas vacation....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Also uncertain why the House & Senate cannot agree on the rules to proceed with the impeachment trial.
The house has ZERO to say about the rules, period end of story. But, if' you'd like, please tell us what rules the senate got to make for the house trial? prid pro quo nancy screwed the pooch.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Although it does appear that decisions on presidential power have broader implications & significant value & precedents going forward.
Personally, I'm uncertain why the House took up the vote when they did. Also uncertain why the House & Senate cannot agree on the rules to proceed with the impeachment trial.
Perhaps Pelosi thought having "impeached" next to his name would somehow hinder Trump in acting as President in the meantime? Because you know, in liberal fantasyland, an impeached President cannot issue executive orders, nominate federal judges, or order military strikes.
My points are simple; there has never been such a broad-scale defiance of a congressional request for information in our history, nor has there ever been such unjustified claims of absolute immunity from Constitutional law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Well, I think every single dems during their time prior to the votes clearly stated it was because of national security....or not...screw it, lets go on Christmas vacation....
I'm personally uncertain of any of these claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
The house has ZERO to say about the rules, period end of story. But, if' you'd like, please tell us what rules the senate got to make for the house trial? prid pro quo nancy screwed the pooch.....
There are very few instances of Presidential impeachment proceedings so few precedents.
As per the Constitution: the Senate is required to have a trial; the Chief Justice must preside; it takes a 2/3 vote to convict; there is no standard of evidence set for conviction (unlike a criminal trial where the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
The defendant does not 'make the rules', he is not a Monarch.
My points are simple; there has never been such a broad-scale defiance of a congressional request for information in our history, nor has there ever been such unjustified claims of absolute immunity from Constitutional law.
When it's known that something is not-provable, there is no reason to provide anything. Unless of course, you're saying that you're guilty until proven innocent
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I'm personally uncertain of any of these claims.
I watched many hours of it....nearly all of them said it in their 5 minutes....all about national security...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
There are very few instances of Presidential impeachment proceedings so few precedents.
As per the Constitution: the Senate is required to have a trial; the Chief Justice must preside; it takes a 2/3 vote to convict; there is no standard of evidence set for conviction (unlike a criminal trial where the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
Which does not answer my question....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
The defendant does not 'make the rules', he is not a Monarch.
I did not know trump was part of the senate? The senate makes the rules, not the house. Again, tell us what rules the senate made for the house to follow.....
When it's known that something is not-provable, there is no reason to provide anything. Unless of course, you're saying that you're guilty until proven innocent
Not sure where you're getting the "guilty until proven innocent" from any of this?
Do you mean 'due process'?
As per the Fifth Amendment:
Quote:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
While the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment says:
Quote:
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Mr. Trump has not been denied due process. No one is above the law, not even wannabe monarchs like the IM-POTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I watched many hours of it....nearly all of them said it in their 5 minutes....all about national security...
If so, one would think there would be some sort of evidence of this?
Or is this an example of what you said above? "When it's known that something is not-provable, there is no reason to provide anything." Seems sortof nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Which does not answer my question....
I'm doing the best I can however you seem to be a tad overwrought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I did not know trump was part of the senate? The senate makes the rules, not the house. Again, tell us what rules the senate made for the house to follow...
Your deflection is getting pretty bad.
The IM-POTUS is not part of the Senate. I was referring to the words of his loyal lapdog:
Quote:
Appearing on Hannity Thursday night, McConnell dished on his strategy for a Senate impeachment trial.
“Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel,” McConnell said. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this — to the extent that we can. We do not have the kind of ball control on this — a typical issue, for example, comes over from the House. If I don’t like it, we don’t take it up. We have no choice but to take it up. But we’ll be working through this process, hopefully in a short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people representing the president in the well of the Senate.”
He later added, “I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers.”
McConnell Says He’ll Take His ‘Cues’ From Trump Lawyers During Impeachment Trial: ‘No Chance’ He’ll Be Removed
I still say Shucmer and the Democrats should walk out of the Senate and go home if McConnell does side with the President. Hell, ask the Republicans who don't like it too. AFAIK, you need 51 people to have a vote in the Senate without changing the rules. With the amount of Republicans questioning the process, that shouldn't be too hard.
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.
