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*** (12 Viewers)

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...
The only way this would go to the "courts" is if the Senate issued subpoenas, ruled on the relevancy of any privilege claims, and then the witnesses still refused to provide testimony and documents. At that point they could: 1.  hold those who refused to comply in contempt and/or jail them (unlikely) or 2. throw up their hands and say "sorry we tried" and move on to a vote  and then let the public see the obstruction in full view (hint: this is what would actually happen).

This narrative that the House wants the Senate to do their work for them is absurd when it is actually the WHITE HOUSE that wants the Senate to take a hit for them. By refusing witnesses it blocks out the horrible optics of the White House completely stonewalling and trying to cover everything up and puts all the heat on the Senators to take the hit by not forcing them to come forward.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheMagus said:
The only way this would go to the "courts" is if the Senate issued subpoenas, ruled on the relevancy of any privilege claims, and then the witnesses still refused to provide testimony and documents. At that point they could: 1.  hold those who refused to comply in contempt and/or jail them (unlikely) or 2. throw up their hands and say "sorry we tried" and move on to a vote  and then let the public see the obstruction in full view (hint: this is what would actually happening).

This narrative that the House wants the Senate to do their work for them when it is actually the WHITE HOUSE that wants the Senate to take a hit for them. By refusing witnesses it blocks out the horrible optics of the White House completely stonewalling and trying to cover everything up and puts all the heat on the Senators to take the hit by not forcing them to come forward.
Click to expand...
However we want to word it:

The House could have done it before it got to the Senate.  They didn't want to because they didn't want Trump on the ballot in 2020. 

Now they want the Senate to do it.

More accurately, they don't want the Senate to do it.   They're hoping people believe the "cover up" thing they're pushing and vote the Senators out.

 
jm192 said:
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 thought the point of having Roberts presiding is they don't go through multiple layers of courts to reach a decision on evidentiary disputes like the McGahn dispute has. I could be mistaken.

Any event, if part of the goal is to throw a bucket of water on Trump's efforts to corrupt the 2020 election, going through courts until November seems like a bad option. People are more aware now of the facts than they would be seeing news blurbs about legal briefs being exchanged. At least when the public hears dubious foreign news about his opponents now, they can put it into proper context, if nothing else. Also, this is really making Republican Senators look putrid, and they would not be in a hot seat themselves for running interference until after the November elections if Dems allowed themselves to get bogged down in courts. That was probably the best outcome that could be hoped for from the beginning, since everyone knows the last card to be played is "Acquit, because nothing amounts to abuse of power." More evidence and testimony is pointless given that reality, but Dems should keep pushing because Republicans look worse and worse with each passing day that they do.

 
jm192 said:
The Senate has declared voting for witnesses will mean they get tied up in court.  That is true. 
Click to expand...
Who said that?   The Senate is made up of 100 members.  Did they all say that, or are quoting a Senator?  There's no logical reason why they need to get tied up in court unless they want to.

 
Marauder said:
Who said that?   The Senate is made up of 100 members.  Did they all say that, or are quoting a Senator?  There's no logical reason why they need to get tied up in court unless they want to.
Click to expand...
McConnel said it multiple times, Graham said it, I'm pretty sure I've heard Cruz say it. 

 
jm192 said:
However we want to word it:

The House could have done it before it got to the Senate.  They didn't want to because they didn't want Trump on the ballot in 2020. 

Now they want the Senate to do it.

More accurately, they don't want the Senate to do it.   They're hoping people believe the "cover up" thing they're pushing and vote the Senators out.
Click to expand...
How is that possible when every human currently living knows the Senate will acquit?

 
BigJim® said:
I thought the point of having Roberts presiding is they don't go through multiple layers of courts to reach a decision on evidentiary disputes like the McGahn dispute has. I could be mistaken.
Click to expand...
Nobody really knows what the Founders meant by having the Chief Justice “preside” over the trial. Samuel Chase made some evidentiary rulings in the Johnson trial, but stopped when some Senators objected. Rehnquist seemed to view his role as largely ceremonial in the Clinton impeachment. 
 

 
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...
There’s precedent on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States

Courts have no jurisdiction over impeachment trials in the Senate.

 
jm192 said:
McConnel said it multiple times, Graham said it, I'm pretty sure I've heard Cruz say it. 
Click to expand...
So your statement is incorrect.   The Senate didn't say it, three republican Senators said it.  If they are saying they are required to go to court they are mistaken (or more likely being intentionally misleading).

Think about what you are saying logically.  The House issued subpoena's, some people did not comply and they chose not to challenge them in court.  The Senate can do the same.  They'll probably get more people comply than the House did (we know of Bolton for sure).  There's no logical reason why they have to challenge the others in court.   I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with this.

 
Marauder said:
Think about what you are saying logically.  The House issued subpoena's, some people did not comply and they chose not to challenge them in court.  The Senate can do the same.  They'll probably get more people comply than the House did (we know of Bolton for sure).  There's no logical reason why they have to challenge the others in court.   I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with this.
Click to expand...
More importantly, some did comply. Gordon Sondland, I think, was instructed by the State Department not to testify, but he did anyway. Same thing would happen with Bolton. If a witness wants to testify, and the Senate wants him to, the White House isn’t going to be able to stop him. It can file an action in court, but without a preliminary injunction (which would very likely be denied), the testimony would occur before a court got around to doing anything and the court action would then be moot.

If the Senate wanted Bolton to testify this Friday, he would very likely testify this Friday. It’s unlikely to be tied up whatsoever by any court.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
More importantly, some did comply. Gordon Sondland, I think, was instructed by the State Department not to testify, but he did anyway. Same thing would happen with Bolton. If a witness wants to testify, and the Senate wants him to, the White House isn’t going to be able to stop him. It can file an action in court, but without a preliminary injunction (which would very likely be denied), the testimony would occur before a court got around to doing anything and the court action would then be moot.
Click to expand...
Right. The question becomes arguably harder when you’re trying to compel an unwilling witness or get documents, but even then the Senate would have sole authority to decide the consequences of a failure to comply. Which could include granting an adverse inference or even just removal. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
More importantly, some did comply. Gordon Sondland, I think, was instructed by the State Department not to testify, but he did anyway. Same thing would happen with Bolton. If a witness wants to testify, and the Senate wants him to, the White House isn’t going to be able to stop him. It can file an action in court, but without a preliminary injunction (which would very likely be denied), the testimony would occur before a court got around to doing anything and the court action would then be moot.
Click to expand...
Schiff said the House asked Bolton to testify but he declined. Didn't Bolton say he was willing to testify? Regardless of what Trump wanted him to do?

 
The one that really annoys me is the fact Obama didn't send arms. Uh yeah. The President of Ukraine at the time was a Putin installed stooge. It would have been more or less shipping arms to Putin himself. Zelensky was a legitimate reformer and actively fighting Putin. Not to mention it was congress that approved the assistance during the Trump regime. 

But hey same thing amirite? 

They know the difference but its such bad faith attempt at bamboozling the public. I've heard the argument here many times. Makes me crazy. 

 
Okay, defense counsel just admitted to the aid having been held.  There must be purpose now, specific reasons for delay.  
 

What are these reasons and how were they resolved?

 
What a high water mark for those who believe they are entitled to their own facts.  That their opinions have to be respected because they hold them.  For those that insist that if they refuse to be convinced, or refuse to admit defeat, that they are not defeated.  Our constitutional experiment dies in a whimper at the hands of those who worship power and perfidy and not truth or principle or obligation.  Duty over party dies.  Honor and integrity die as duty is easy when one agrees or it is in ones interest, it only really has meaning when it is hard and at personal sacrifice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is no one interrupting and asking why in the hell is Donald J Trump the private citizen having his personal attorney “look into corruption” rather than President Trump having his DOJ do this?  What would Donald J Trump the private citizen do with whatever info Rudy might glean?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
What a high water mark for those who believe they are entitled to their own facts.  That their opinions have to be respected because they hold them.  For those that insist that if they refuse to be convinced, or refuse to admit defeat, that they are not defeated.  Our constitutional experiment dies in a whimper at the hands of those who worship power and perfidy and not truth or principle or obligation.  Duty over party dies.  Honor and integrity die as duty is easy when one agrees or it is in ones interest, it only really has meaning when it is hard and at personal sacrifice.
Click to expand...
It's been a run. Not a great one, what with the slavery, mistreatment of the Natives, and stuff like that, but maybe the next one can be better.

 
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
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Top