What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (6 Viewers)

Biff84 said:
They went to court to fight to get McGahn to testify...in April and are still fighting in courts now. That’s the entire goal - makeup a fake privilege that would take months in court to fight. Then when they finally get resolved, claim that it’s too close to the election and the voters should just decide.
Click to expand...
So...instead they want the Senate to fight McGahn and others in court? 

I know everyone keeps posting "Roberts can decide," but it seems clear that's not going to be the way it works.  And so the outcome becomes:  The Senate has to go and fight in the courts. 

And if that's the end result:  The House should have had the court battle.  And if it took until November, it took until November.  Saying they couldn't wait until November--then putting the Senate in a position to have to battle it until November makes no sense.

 
jm192 said:
The Senate is also the Senate.  And If they don't want to help the House make their case..
Click to expand...
The Senate has a responsibility.  You are correct that it is not their responsibility to help the House make their case.  But the Senate should not be able to shirk that responsibility and thwart the House from making the case if they "feel like it".    

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Senate has a responsibility.  You are correct that it is not their responsibility to help the House make their case.  But the Senate should not be able to shirk that responsibility and thwart the House from making the case if they "feel like it".    
Click to expand...
Again:  The end result appears to be that in order to have certain witnesses:  one side of Congress has to battle the President in the courts. 

The House chose not to do it, and they now ask the Senate to do it. 

It's a great thought that Roberts can slam the gavel and demand Mulvaney show up...but it seems like this is going to get muddied up in months of federal court battles.

 
So how many Democrats are going to cross over and vote with the Republicans like the 3 brave Democrats did in the House?

Looks like Manchin, Jones and probably Sinema. Will the Democrats lose any more votes in this debacle? 

 
jm192 said:
So...instead they want the Senate to fight McGahn and others in court? 

I know everyone keeps posting "Roberts can decide," but it seems clear that's not going to be the way it works.  And so the outcome becomes:  The Senate has to go and fight in the courts. 

And if that's the end result:  The House should have had the court battle.  And if it took until November, it took until November.  Saying they couldn't wait until November--then putting the Senate in a position to have to battle it until November makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Help me understand this.  The Trump administration is breaking the law by defying the subpoenas, so why is the House being dinged for moving forward with impeachment instead of dragging this out endlessly in court when any reasonable person would say that ignoring subpoenas is unacceptable?

 
jm192 said:
Again:  The end result appears to be that in order to have certain witnesses:  one side of Congress has to battle the President in the courts. 

The House chose not to do it, and they now ask the Senate to do it. 

It's a great thought that Roberts can slam the gavel and demand Mulvaney show up...but it seems like this is going to get muddied up in months of federal court battles.
Click to expand...
I thought the Senate has the ability to override Roberts on decisions during the Impeachment. I could be wrong.

 
jm192 said:
So...instead they want the Senate to fight McGahn and others in court? 

I know everyone keeps posting "Roberts can decide," but it seems clear that's not going to be the way it works.  And so the outcome becomes:  The Senate has to go and fight in the courts. 

And if that's the end result:  The House should have had the court battle.  And if it took until November, it took until November.  Saying they couldn't wait until November--then putting the Senate in a position to have to battle it until November makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Senate should fight them in court either, but they should issue subpoena's.  Bolton has already said he will comply with a subpoena from the Senate but not from the House, maybe others will as well.   If not, and if Roberts can't rule on it then you move forward and bring it to a vote with the testimony you have and let the public make up their minds about why the others refuse to testify.

 
Phil Elliott said:
I thought the Senate has the ability to override Roberts on decisions during the Impeachment. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
They do. All legal issues would be dealt with in the Senate trial itself and if they didn't like Roberts' ruling then the Senators could vote to overrule his judgement, regardless of how bad the optics would be of doing that. 

 
Dickies said:
Help me understand this.  The Trump administration is breaking the law by defying the subpoenas, so why is the House being dinged for moving forward with impeachment instead of dragging this out endlessly in court when any reasonable person would say that ignoring subpoenas is unacceptable?
Click to expand...
No.  They're fine with moving forward.

But it seems as if they now want the Senate to drag it out endlessly in court.  And THAT makes no sense.

 
TheMagus said:
They do. All legal issues would be dealt with in the Senate trial itself and if they didn't like Roberts' ruling then the Senators could vote to overrule his judgement, regardless of how bad the optics would be of doing that. 
Click to expand...
The answer is very bad. 

 
jm192 said:
No.  They're fine with moving forward.

But it seems as if they now want the Senate to drag it out endlessly in court.  And THAT makes no sense.
Click to expand...
They're not going to court. They ARE the court. There's nowhere else to go but here. They have the most powerful judge in the nation presiding, why go anywhere else but to cause confusion and delay?

 
Phil Elliott said:
I thought the Senate has the ability to override Roberts on decisions during the Impeachment. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Hypothetical - 

The Senate subpoenas a witness.   The witness either directly or through the White House refuses to comply to the subpoena.  Roberts rules that the subpoena  is valid and the witness must appear.   But now the Senate is going to overrule Roberts?  

 
Dickies said:
Who wants the Senate to drag this out in court?
Click to expand...
Schiff and Nadler:  If you don't vote for witnesses, you're involved in a cover up.

Republicans:  Voting for witnesses means we have to fight the President in court.

We're not getting certain witnesses without court.

 
Kal El said:
They're not going to court. They ARE the court. There's nowhere else to go but here. They have the most powerful judge in the nation presiding, why go anywhere else but to cause confusion and delay?
Click to expand...
You guys can repeat this until you're blue in the face.  It won't be decided that way.  They've made it clear. 

 
:lmao:  at  :tinfoilhat: Cruz and Graham for asking hypothetical questions.

"What if Obama, Mitt Romey and his son..."

Mitt should ask "What if Cruz and Graham took this trial seriously..."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
Schiff and Nadler:  If you don't vote for witnesses, you're involved in a cover up.

Republicans:  Voting for witnesses means we have to fight the President in court.

We're not getting certain witnesses without court.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Roberts could rule on the validity of the subpoenas.  Regardless, if fighting the President in court is required, wouldn't the Law & Order Party want to make sure that people comply with subpoenas?  If they ignore Roberts' decision then maybe we can just lock them up and be done with the impeachment.

 
jm192 said:
You guys can repeat this until you're blue in the face.  It won't be decided that way.  They've made it clear. 
Click to expand...
Ok, let's say it does for some illogical reason go to the courts. I'll need the answers to these next 3 questions:

1. Where would this case eventually end up after making its way through the court system?

2. Who would be presiding over that court?

3. Where is that judge right now?

The answers are: the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts, and he's in the Senate chamber. So instead of wasting time, effort, money and way too much paper, how about we just let the Judge in the Senate make a ruling?

 
Dickies said:
My understanding is that Roberts could rule on the validity of the subpoenas.  Regardless, if fighting the President in court is required, wouldn't the Law & Order Party want to make sure that people comply with subpoenas?  If they ignore Roberts' decision then maybe we can just lock them up and be done with the impeachment.
Click to expand...
Lots of "we can do this, we can do that"  But the reality is it'll be months of federal court battles. 

 
Kal El said:
Ok, let's say it does for some illogical reason go to the courts. I'll need the answers to these next 3 questions:

1. Where would this case eventually end up after making its way through the court system?

2. Who would be presiding over that court?

3. Where is that judge right now?

The answers are: the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts, and he's in the Senate chamber. So instead of wasting time, effort, money and way too much paper, how about we just let the Judge in the Senate make a ruling?
Click to expand...
Sure man.  You've made that point 10 times now.  Others have made it dozens of times. 

But it will not go down that way.  It's been said over and over by the Senate that this will be a prolonged court battle.  You can go offer them your suggestion, though.

 
jm192 said:
Schiff and Nadler:  If you don't vote for witnesses, you're involved in a cover up.

Republicans:  Voting for witnesses means we have to fight the President in court.

We're not getting certain witnesses without court.
Click to expand...
I think Neal Katyal has the correct answer. The Senate, having the sole authority over trials for impeachment would have sole authority to determine admissibility.   As privilege is an admissibility argument, federal courts would lack the jurisdiction to rule on the issue of admissibility. 
 

im sure it would still spawn a court challenge, but just a limited one centered on courts’ jurisdiction to hear the objection. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I think Neal Katyal has the correct answer. The Senate, having the sole authority over trials for impeachment would have sole authority to determine admissibility.   As privilege is an admissibility argument, federal courts would lack the jurisdiction to rule on the issue of admissibility. 
 

im sure it would still spawn a court challenge, but just a limited one centered on courts’ jurisdiction to hear the objection. 
Click to expand...
The Defense explained this:

The House having sole authority over impeachment doesn't mean they get to demand whatever they like of the President.  I'm not saying I agree with it or it's right.  But the Senate will view it this way. 

 
jm192 said:
Sure man.  You've made that point 10 times now.  Others have made it dozens of times. 

But it will not go down that way.  It's been said over and over by the Senate that this will be a prolonged court battle.  You can go offer them your suggestion, though.
Click to expand...
Luckily for me I get to offer my suggestion by voting a Republican Senator out of office in November.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I think Neal Katyal has the correct answer. The Senate, having the sole authority over trials for impeachment would have sole authority to determine admissibility.   As privilege is an admissibility argument, federal courts would lack the jurisdiction to rule on the issue of admissibility. 
 

im sure it would still spawn a court challenge, but just a limited one centered on courts’ jurisdiction to hear the objection. 
Click to expand...
ya, that's the problem. You'd have to go through the process to get that answer. 

 
jm192 said:
I love how everyone here speaks in absolutes.  When the Senate has explained what it will mean, I believe them.  But keep thinking you know better.
Click to expand...
What does this mean?   You're the one who spoke in absolutes - "Voting for witnesses means we have to fight the President in court".   I'm just pointing out that statement is not true.  They don't have to fight the President in court.

 
Of course, the defense lawyers pointed out that Nixon’s privilege claim over the Watergate tapes took 3 weeks to resolve at SCOTUS level. Seems weird to credit that and fault Democrats for not seeking review while simultaneously claiming review would take months. 

 
Ok then. Did Trump go the FISA court to investigate Biden and Burisma? What a dumb comparison. I'm not a lawyer but these guys are epic failing all over the place.

 
Marauder said:
What does this mean?   You're the one who spoke in absolutes - "Voting for witnesses means we have to fight the President in court".   I'm just pointing out that statement is not true.  They don't have to fight the President in court.
Click to expand...
The Senate has declared voting for witnesses will mean they get tied up in court.  That is true. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
6K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top