Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:50 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Any Senators who sit there during the trial and say, "Well, on the one hand what Trump did was very, very wrong, but on the other hand Biden is not *technically* a political opponent so I'm going to acquit" are bad people.
And so they were equally bad arguing over when a president's term ends or with Clinton's what "is" is and whether the standard of impeachable offences is different for presidents and judges?

Or is it bad because you think Trump should be convicted regardless of how the Articles of Impeachment are guilty? Would you convict a guy of murder if he did not violate the letter of the law?
  #52  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:50 PM
MikeF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Any Senators who sit there during the trial and say, "Well, on the one hand what Trump did was very, very wrong, but on the other hand Biden is not *technically* a political opponent so I'm going to acquit" are bad people.
The thing is that they will vote to acquit and not give any reasons. The majority of their constituents won't care and they have no obligation to explain the rest of the world.
  #53  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:54 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
2/3 is a purposely difficult bar to hurdle. No one, including Trump, was more deserving of the boot than Andrew Johnson and they couldn’t even get rid of him.
Honest question: was A. Johnson deserving of the boot for violating a law*? For disparaging Congress**. For being a bad President?






*That many Senators said under the letter of the law was not actually broken.
** Saying laws Congress passed were invalid since they did not allow the former Confederacy representation? Incidentally, the House thought this charge would be the one to win.
  #54  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:00 PM
Greathouse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
More than that it will not look good for Biden either. Regardless of what Trump did wrong having the son of a sitting Vice President get rich off of foreign business deals with a country as entangled as Ukraine when his only qualification was getting kicked out of the Navy for cocaine does not look good. If Trump were smarter he would have just saved that for the campaign ads. And Joe is not handling it well as it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com...ualifying.html
I don't think it would work in Trump's favor to bring up how the unqualified children of other elected officials benefited financially from the parent's office. If his opponent has a single hair on his (or her) ass the rebuttal commercials would be glorious to behold.
  #55  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciurophobic View Post
Can the President ignore the will of Congress? That is fundamentally what the charges are about. Does Congress have the power of the purse, or does it not? Does Congress have the power to investigate, or does it not? The Senate will be forced to choose between upholding over two centuries of its own authority and being nothing more than a President's lapdog.
So he's getting impeached over executive privilege?
  #56  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:04 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Hunter Biden's life seems to consist of an almost-endless array of bad decisions. I suspect President Trump realized that he'll almost certainly produce additional material for his campaign ads between now and the commencement of the general election season.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly do Hunter Biden's decisions have to do with Joe's candidacy? I mean, if someone has a ne'er-do-well child, that shouldn't necessarily disqualify them or even have anything to do with their political viability.

And really, how weak is it to dredge up some dumb stuff Hunter Biden did to discredit his dad? Especially when your own (GOP) candidate is a walking laundry list of crookedness, unethicality and sex scandals?
  #57  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:13 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Really? Even the ones in districts won by President Trump?
Absolutely. I'll grant you there are a lot of lost causes who will vote for Trump regardless of what happens.

But most people aren't that stupid. A lot of people voted against Trump in 2016 (more than voted for him) and even many of the people who voted for him in 2016 aren't hopeless. They'll vote against Trump if they see the evidence that he is a crook. And some people who voted for him in the past will drop him if they think he's losing support. So Trump is very vulnerable, even in places where he won in 2016. And the Democrats know this and will come out fighting.
  #58  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:15 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Or is it bad because you think Trump should be convicted regardless of how the Articles of Impeachment are guilty? Would you convict a guy of murder if he did not violate the letter of the law?
Check what you quoted, I said if someone thinks that what Trump did was very, very wrong (that is, if they recognize the corruption evident in his actions) but are A-OK with a corrupt president continuing on because someone wasn't careful with their words in the impeachment articles, then what's point of taking an oath to defend the constitution? You defend it by removing someone who's wiping their ass with it, full stop.

If you or they don't think that Trump is wiping his ass with the constitution, then fine, but that's not what I was addressing.
  #59  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:15 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So he's getting impeached over executive privilege?
No, he's getting impeached for committing crimes. Executive privilege is the defense he's claiming allows him to commit crimes.
  #60  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:18 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Johnson fucked the country for the next century or more with how he purposely mishandled Reconstruction.
Who's disagreeing? But a President should not be impeached over differences of policy. That's something I thought everybody understood regarding impeachment.
  #61  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:23 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly do Hunter Biden's decisions have to do with Joe's candidacy? I mean, if someone has a ne'er-do-well child, that shouldn't necessarily disqualify them or even have anything to do with their political viability. ...
I'd probably agree with you, more or less (the less part of that is because parenting can be a factor - one among several / many - in having ne'er-do-well children), but the reality is that Hunter's misdeeds will almost certainly be fodder for at least some campaign ads, if not by President Trump's campaign itself, then at least some other groups. That's a prediction, not a justification / defense of the actions.
  #62  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:26 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Having briefly read the articles, I'm concerned. I do not know, but I strongly suspect the Senate will hold a trial and then dismiss the articles, leaving Trump in office. Trump will almost certainly take that as more than a simple exoneration. I expect he will portray it as official endorsement and ratification of his actions, and future Presidents will see it as precedent allowing such conduct in the future.
I think this is a very likely scenario up to the last part. I feel that the only way the Republicans in the Senate will agree to remove Trump from office is if they see that there is a strong public movement for doing so. And I don't think that will happen.

What I think will happen will be that the public will see the evidence against Trump and realize he is guilty. And then they'll see the Senate Republicans refuse to act on this. So Trump will remain in office to continue his full term.

And then the real verdict will be rendered next November. I feel that there will be a backlash against both Trump, for committing crimes, and the Republicans, for condoning his crimes. And if they are voted out of office, that's the lesson that future Presidents will learn from.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 12-10-2019 at 03:27 PM.
  #63  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:29 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Check what you quoted, I said if someone thinks that what Trump did was very, very wrong (that is, if they recognize the corruption evident in his actions) but are A-OK with a corrupt president continuing on because someone wasn't careful with their words in the impeachment articles, then what's point of taking an oath to defend the constitution? You defend it by removing someone who's wiping their ass with it, full stop.

If you or they don't think that Trump is wiping his ass with the constitution, then fine, but that's not what I was addressing.
EXCEPT the House has the sole power of impeachment so if they say the President committed the crimes A and B and in the Senate's honest opinion he did not commit those crimes but DID commit the crimes C, D, E, ... , S, T then it is proper for them to acquit and place the blame on the House for not bringing him up on the correct charges.
  #64  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:31 PM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So he's getting impeached over executive privilege?
He hasn't been claiming executive privilege. He's been claiming a BS theory of "absolute immunity" that no one in the executive branch should respond to any subpoena whatsoever. As one of the many judges handling the subpoena battles ruled you can try to assert privilege, but you still have to respond.
  #65  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:39 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
EXCEPT the House has the sole power of impeachment so if they say the President committed the crimes A and B and in the Senate's honest opinion he did not commit those crimes but DID commit the crimes C, D, E, ... , S, T then it is proper for them to acquit and place the blame on the House for not bringing him up on the correct charges.
What you're describing here sounds like more than a technicality, which the definition of "political opponent" certainly is.
  #66  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:23 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
EXCEPT the House has the sole power of impeachment so if they say the President committed the crimes A and B and in the Senate's honest opinion he did not commit those crimes but DID commit the crimes C, D, E, ... , S, T then it is proper for them to acquit and place the blame on the House for not bringing him up on the correct charges.
Is this like a rule that you just made up? For the record, the senate is not bound by rules you just made up.
  #67  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:43 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post

And then the real verdict will be rendered next November. I feel that there will be a backlash against both Trump, for committing crimes, and the Republicans, for condoning his crimes. And if they are voted out of office, that's the lesson that future Presidents will learn from.
I hope you're right, but I spent a few minutes scrolling through the comments on the local TV station's coverage. Granted, that's a self-selected sample, but people are absolutely coming unglued already. They really do not care what Trump has done, only that those damn liberal demonrats (yes, that term is used with distressing frequency) are attacking "our" President.

When ya stab Caesar, ya better make it count. I think this is going to backfire, with lasting tragic results.
__________________
"Yes, but that's because you're a wild human, not a tame human. The likes of you would have to be kept in a zoo, and the keepers would be very careful to never put their tentacles inside the bars"--Lemur866 describing Oak, 11/13/09
Molon labe--Leonidas I
  #68  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:55 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I hope you're right, but I spent a few minutes scrolling through the comments on the local TV station's coverage. Granted, that's a self-selected sample, but people are absolutely coming unglued already. They really do not care what Trump has done, only that those damn liberal demonrats (yes, that term is used with distressing frequency) are attacking "our" President.

When ya stab Caesar, ya better make it count. I think this is going to backfire, with lasting tragic results.
Always, always question the veracity of the origin of such comments. This is a classic disinformation tactic frequently taken by the Russians or others hoping to influence public opinion.
  #69  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:57 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,537
Question: Is challenging a subpoena in the courts illegal?
  #70  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:03 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Always, always question the veracity of the origin of such comments. This is a classic disinformation tactic frequently taken by the Russians or others hoping to influence public opinion.
Not where I live. Trump really is bigger than Jesus here. And Russian trolls typically have better spelling and grammar.
__________________
"Yes, but that's because you're a wild human, not a tame human. The likes of you would have to be kept in a zoo, and the keepers would be very careful to never put their tentacles inside the bars"--Lemur866 describing Oak, 11/13/09
Molon labe--Leonidas I
  #71  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:15 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Not where I live. Trump really is bigger than Jesus here. And Russian trolls typically have better spelling and grammar.
Damn, I'm sorry.
  #72  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:16 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Question: Is challenging a subpoena in the courts illegal?
IANAL, but no, it's not illegal at all. Motions to quash subpoenas in court proceedings are brought all the time.
  #73  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:31 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
What has Trump done that is an unprecedented offense to the republic?
"Unprecedented"? I don't think that's a constitutional requirement. Presumably Andrew Johnson & Richard Nixon could provide precedents; not to mention Reagan & Harding, even if their high crimes didn't get them impeached.
  #74  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:08 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Is this like a rule that you just made up? For the record, the senate is not bound by rules you just made up.
So your logic is that a person should be convicted of crimes they didn't commit because they committed crimes they did not get charged with?
  #75  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:17 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
I guess we're establishing that there really aren't any rules for impeachment. That being said, I'm reasonably satisfied with Article 1's text.
  #76  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:35 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
IANAL, but no, it's not illegal at all. Motions to quash subpoenas in court proceedings are brought all the time.
Sure, but that's something someone and their lawyers do together as a normal legal procedure.

What Trump did is in effect a CEO of a company telling his workers to ignore subpoenas in a case against himself.

The legal system would come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on any private citizen who presumed to order such a thing, as well as any of the people who refused the subpoena.

So why is it somehow different because Trump is President and it's Congress doing the subpoena-ing? They definitely have that legal power, and he does not.
  #77  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:45 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So your logic is that a person should be convicted of crimes they didn't commit because they committed crimes they did not get charged with?
No. Not remotely.

My statement was straightforward and direct. The senate is not bound by rules you just made up. That's it. A simple statement of fact.
  #78  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:11 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Sure, but that's something someone and their lawyers do together as a normal legal procedure.

What Trump did is in effect a CEO of a company telling his workers to ignore subpoenas in a case against himself.

The legal system would come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on any private citizen who presumed to order such a thing, as well as any of the people who refused the subpoena.

So why is it somehow different because Trump is President and it's Congress doing the subpoena-ing? They definitely have that legal power, and he does not.
Has there been any legal subpoenas from the inquiry that have not been contested in court? Of the contested subpoenas, has there been a court ruling on any of them that has been ignored by the administration? I sincerely do not know the answer to these questions.
  #79  
Old 12-11-2019, 12:30 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Sure, but that's something someone and their lawyers do together as a normal legal procedure.

What Trump did is in effect a CEO of a company telling his workers to ignore subpoenas in a case against himself.

The legal system would come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on any private citizen who presumed to order such a thing, as well as any of the people who refused the subpoena.

So why is it somehow different because Trump is President and it's Congress doing the subpoena-ing? They definitely have that legal power, and he does not.
Oh, I get all that. I answered the question in the context I thought it was asked: "Question: Is challenging a subpoena in the courts illegal?" I suppose there are a couple different ways to read that. I simply meant that in regular courts, subpoenas are contested all the time.

And of course you're correct -- it's a really big crazy deal that Trump has blown off Congressional subpoenas and failed to produce either documents or witnesses. Congress does have this power of oversight. At least, they do according to the Constitution. That's why the obstruction of Congress article of impeachment is massively important. It's hard to overstate how important it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Has there been any legal subpoenas from the inquiry that have not been contested in court? Of the contested subpoenas, has there been a court ruling on any of them that has been ignored by the administration? I sincerely do not know the answer to these questions.
There have been legal subpoenas from the inquiry that have not been contested in court. All those career civil servants who appeared before the Intelligence Committee to testify complied lawfully with Congress's subpoenas, defying Trump's bogus assertion of "absolute immunity," which is a concept that exists only in the fevered minds of Trump, his henchmen and his followers but doesn't exist in law. Of the contested subpoenas, there have been a number of rulings by various courts on them. Dems are batting .1000. To date, there have been no adverse rulings for their positions.

At least one of the rulings by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson related to Don McGahn's failure to comply with Congress's subpoena to testify was quite critical of the positions taken by the DOJ. It's worth a read.
  #80  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:31 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
1.000.

That is all.
  #81  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:33 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
1.000.

That is all.
LOL, I knew I'd screw that up! Thanks.
  #82  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:48 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I hope you're right, but I spent a few minutes scrolling through the comments on the local TV station's coverage. Granted, that's a self-selected sample, but people are absolutely coming unglued already. They really do not care what Trump has done, only that those damn liberal demonrats (yes, that term is used with distressing frequency) are attacking "our" President.

When ya stab Caesar, ya better make it count. I think this is going to backfire, with lasting tragic results.
Yes, but we have to remember the biggest problem Donald Trump is facing; himself.

At some point in this impeachment process, Trump is going to have to appear live before the Senate and have to face some tough questioning. And there's a better than even chance he'll screw it up big time. He might commit perjury. He might start screaming. He might look stupid. There's a good chance he'll do all three. Trump could end up destroying his own Presidency.
  #83  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:52 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Think the Pubbies will vote to acquit when he refuses to show up and take the stand?
  #84  
Old 12-11-2019, 01:58 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I see a serious problem with Article I
The Senate takes their role of jury vary seriously and will acquit based on specific words. With Clinton there was the issue over the use of the word "is" and with Johnson many Senators wanted to vote for acquittal since the "term" covered by the Tenure of Office Act ended when Lincoln died. So I see a valid reason to vote for acquittal by basing the article on the 2020 election and characterizing Joe Biden as a "political opponent". Remember he hasn't won the primary yet so is not Trump's opponent and is not (yet?) a candidate in the Presidential election.

It may be a pedantic reading of the situation but the Senate is 2 out of 2 in splitting hairs like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So your logic is that a person should be convicted of crimes they didn't commit because they committed crimes they did not get charged with?
No, that's not the issue. You're not saying Trump didn't commit the crime. You're saying he did commit the crime but that the crime wasn't described properly in the charges.
  #85  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:41 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
At some point in this impeachment process, Trump is going to have to appear live before the Senate and have to face some tough questioning.
Cite, please.
  #86  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:42 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,475
How many misdemeanors is Trump going to be charged with? He has revealed military and intelligence secrets, deserted the Kurds, condoned assassination, insulted allies, broken law in the case of Stormy Daniels, fired officials charged with investigating his crimes, misused power for personal enrichment, and much more. The proceedings are not like criminal prosecutions where some evidence is disallowed and a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applies; indeed charged malfeasances need not even violate criminal code.

Wouldn't it be best if the impeachment charged him with a large and varied collection of his ugliest misdemeanors?
  #87  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:58 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
At some point in this impeachment process, Trump is going to have to appear live before the Senate and have to face some tough questioning. And there's a better than even chance he'll screw it up big time. He might commit perjury. He might start screaming. He might look stupid. There's a good chance he'll do all three. Trump could end up destroying his own Presidency.
This isn't going to happen. There are 3 facts that Republicans are going to hide from us at all costs:

1. Trump isn't a wealthy, self-made man. He runs spectacular con games using inherited and laundered money.
2. Trump isn't an intelligent, shrewd strategist. He's a bumbling incoherent ignoramus who needs to be handled by others.
3. Trump is a criminal, and numerous Republicans are inextricably entangled in his crimes.

Republicans may hate Trump, but they understand that their mythic house of cards comes tumbling down when these truths are exposed. There's no way they compel Trump to testify, and they will break laws to keep Trump's finances hidden.
  #88  
Old 12-11-2019, 08:01 AM
BeepKillBeep is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
This isn't going to happen. There are 3 facts that Republicans are going to hide from us at all costs:

1. Trump isn't a wealthy, self-made man. He runs spectacular con games using inherited and laundered money.
2. Trump isn't an intelligent, shrewd strategist. He's a bumbling incoherent ignoramus who needs to be handled by others.
3. Trump is a criminal, and numerous Republicans are inextricably entangled in his crimes.

Republicans may hate Trump, but they understand that their mythic house of cards comes tumbling down when these truths are exposed. There's no way they compel Trump to testify, and they will break laws to keep Trump's finances hidden.
This, oh such much, this.

The Republican party is 100% definitively linked to Trump. It is the party of Trump now. I think they thought they could control him as a useful idiot, but his popularity within the Republican party means he controls them. The time to get rid of Trump was when he joined the primaries or when he won the primaries. Oh sure, they would have been breaking their own rules, but so what. What a few party rules compared to laws. I don't even think they would have lost very many votes by going against the will of their internal electorate. I've seen nothing to suggest that anything will turn a die-hard Republican voter against the Republican party. But again, I think they saw Trump as candidate as a potential positive. Trump was a outsider with no political experience. Perhaps they believed Trump when he said he would get the best people as advisors. Perhaps they thought Trump would actually listen to advice. Boy, were they wrong. But they cannot reverse direction now without get obliterated at the polls. They only thing that can save the Republican party is Republican voters not voting for them. Let them get obliterated even without reversing course, so that they can reverse course (and get the message that they need to). There can be a debate on policy, but there cannot be a debate on the rule of law within the country. There cannot be a debate on proto-fascism that the Republicans represent now.
  #89  
Old 12-11-2019, 10:27 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
There is no reversal of course available to them. For the good of the species, the Republican Party must cease to exist.

Dibs on their financial assets.
  #90  
Old 12-11-2019, 10:42 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
At some point in this impeachment process, Trump is going to have to appear live before the Senate and have to face some tough questioning. And there's a better than even chance he'll screw it up big time. He might commit perjury. He might start screaming. He might look stupid. There's a good chance he'll do all three. Trump could end up destroying his own Presidency.
I posted this in the impeachment inquiry thread, but it might even apply to your point here:
"Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on the scope of executive privilege with respect to these high-ranking administration officials as well as any diplomats, national security staff or budget office staff barred up until now by the White House from providing evidence. Under the Senate rules, the chief justice’s decision would be final, subject only to a vote of the full Senate."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...7ci-story.html

Could Roberts actually compel Trump to testify if the Dems call him? I'd skip work to watch that live.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #91  
Old 12-11-2019, 12:29 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Could Roberts actually compel Trump to testify if the Dems call him? I'd skip work to watch that live.
That sounds an awful lot like a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. What happens exactly if Trump just says "No"? COuld they literally drag his ass kicking and screaming to the Capital? AFAIK, they can't imprison him for contempt. Who would do the dragging?
  #92  
Old 12-11-2019, 12:32 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That sounds an awful lot like a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. What happens exactly if Trump just says "No"? COuld they literally drag his ass kicking and screaming to the Capital? AFAIK, they can't imprison him for contempt. Who would do the dragging?
If the Executive branch isn't checked by the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch, then who, exactly is it that can check the Executive? Nobody? Sounds like an argument for unchecked king-like power for the President. We don't do that in this country.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #93  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:16 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
At some point in this impeachment process, Trump is going to have to appear live before the Senate and have to face some tough questioning.
I don't think he has to testify. I don't remember Clinton testifying during his impeachment, but I could be mistaken. I think most lawyers would advise against Trump testifying. He's a nightmare client, uncontrollable, unpredictable. I suspect if I were somehow hired to represent him, I'd last less than a day.

Last edited by Oakminster; 12-11-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #94  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:54 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,537
If you think Trump is going to testify in the senate trial, I have a bridge to sell you. My bet is this is over in weeks, if not days, with few or no fantasy witnesses called (e.g. the Bidens, Schiff, Trump, etc.) . Everyone on high is telegraphing they want this impeachment business over ASAP.

Last edited by Ashtura; 12-11-2019 at 02:57 PM.
  #95  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:03 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciurophobic View Post
Can the President ignore the will of Congress? That is fundamentally what the charges are about. Does Congress have the power of the purse, or does it not? Does Congress have the power to investigate, or does it not? The Senate will be forced to choose between upholding over two centuries of its own authority and being nothing more than a President's lapdog.
And, what he failed to do is send urgently needed money to Ukraine to help them defend themselves from Russian aggression. So, Trump benefits and his pal Putin benefits. Like everything else with this gang of thugs, all roads lead to Moscow.
  #96  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:16 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
3. Trump is a criminal, and numerous Republicans are inextricably entangled in his crimes.
The key point! GOP pols have taken support from, and given aid and comfort to, an enemy nation waging war on the US, as Tramp's UN ambassador and Putin's defense minister, both cabinet officers, have declared. If Tramp goes down, these traitors go down too. Yes, their submission now means they're okay with the next Dem president pulling the same shit as this one, but that's a long way off. Next month matters less than tomorrow, survival-wise.

Quote:
...they will break laws to keep Trump's finances hidden.
Tramp will likely provoke an excuse for a national state of emergency and martial law before he'll let his financials show how he's owned and controlled. This is the real danger of the impeachment process - the accused wields deadly power.
  #97  
Old 12-11-2019, 04:29 PM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
And, what he failed to do is send urgently needed money to Ukraine to help them defend themselves from Russian aggression.
And he wanted Ukraine to essentially help Russia by promising to investigate itself for the crime everyone knows Russia committed against us!

Even Senator Graham knows.

They opened up a counterintelligence investigation in July (2016),” Graham said. “We know the Russians are messing in our election. And it was the Russians, ladies and gentlemen, who stole the Democratic National Committee emails, Podesta's emails and screwed around with Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t the Ukrainians. It was the Russians.
  #98  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:23 PM
split p&j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 369
I agree, the articles are weak. The Dem's are scared of the Trump base and won't fight. They think that we can come back from the Trump presidency and want to be seen as statesmen. As I said before, there is no coming back from the fact that Trump was elected president of the US. It was over right then and there. We are a broken country and it can not and will not go back to the way it was before Trump. That's why Biden will lose.

The Dem's should have went all out.
  #99  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:40 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That sounds an awful lot like a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. What happens exactly if Trump just says "No"? COuld they literally drag his ass kicking and screaming to the Capital? AFAIK, they can't imprison him for contempt. Who would do the dragging?
I have no idea how it plays out, exactly, but if the CJ of the SCOTUS says you have to appear and you don't, then yes, I would have the Secret Service arrest him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
If the Executive branch isn't checked by the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch, then who, exactly is it that can check the Executive? Nobody? Sounds like an argument for unchecked king-like power for the President. We don't do that in this country.
Exactly. No one answers to no one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
I don't think he has to testify. I don't remember Clinton testifying during his impeachment, but I could be mistaken. I think most lawyers would advise against Trump testifying. He's a nightmare client, uncontrollable, unpredictable. I suspect if I were somehow hired to represent him, I'd last less than a day.
Just because Clinton didn't testify doesn't mean Trump won't have to if Roberts compels him to. And who cares what lawyers would advise him to do or not do? Of course he'd be terrible on the stand -- that's exactly why the Dems should call him as a witness -- but that has no bearing on whether he's legally bound to comply if Roberts says he is.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #100  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:49 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
That may be a bit murky. Roberts will preside over the Senate trial, but where does it say he can compel the President to respond to anything?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017