Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

I was watching OAN and they had three people in mind but the big one was the former Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden got fired. Shokin has contacted Adam Schiff but the chairman of the intelligence committee was not interested. Now he says he is available for the Senate hearing. He will testify that he was investigating Hunter Biden when he was told by the former president of the Ukraine to "slow down". When he didn't he was fired within six hours of Biden's threat to with hold the aid package. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

someone has disputed shokin's account. I think it was the UKR prosecutor who replaced him... not sure.

theres some CYA here.


so obviously, some one is lying about what happened in this instance.

Yeah, Black would be "uglier" than Orange any day. Quips aside, this is pretty damn ugly.


I guess we better not elect Buttigieg. What's the pecking order for Liberals? Would impeaching a Black over a Gay be worse or vice versa. Lord help us when the first Trans is elected. "It" will be able to do anything "it" wants without reprisal.


"You live by identity politics, you die by identity politics". Originally Posted by HedonistForever

a number of trannys have been elected to some state legislatures.


what they hell were they thinking to vote those sick puppies in.

Thanks for the respectability. I reciprocate.

As partisan as it may be, the manner, as you put it, has been within the rules of the majority. You're just "enraged" because the people spoke in 2018. I don't blame you. The House does not comport with your view of fairness. This impeachment is based on the fact that the president doesn't give equal stature to the people. Representative in the Congress. He continues to abuse his power.









Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You're just stating your opinion Which of course you have that right. Something Trump has no intentions of removing from the people of this country.

Levianon, how many Senate votes for acquittal would you consider total victory for trump?

Hypothetically trump can remain in office with 66 votes against him. I wouldn’t consider that a win for trump but he’ll remain in office. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

The whole goal in Impeachment is to ultimately remove the President from Office. If the President isn't removed from office it isn't exactly a loss.

I think this is the part that people such as yourself, no disrespect intended, don't understand. Show me the legal statute that says a President can not hold up funds already appropriated by Congress. If you can do THAT instead of your simplistic statement that a President can't legally do it, you might be persuasive but what you just said is not persuasive. But being the nice guy that I am, I'll see if I can help you out. Even though you didn't cite it, this seems to be what you are refereeing to.


https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press...ion-benchmarks





Now ask yourself which branch of government does the DOD fall under? In my opinion, that would be the Executive branch and who is in charge of the Executive branch of government and is Commander-in-Chief? That would be Trump. Does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the DOD over rule the President? But lets say my reasoning is no better than yours. What to do? The answer to that is to ask the SC to settle the matter just like the SC will now settle the matter of whether Trump must release his bank records. The Congress has now decided to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress for ignoring subpoena's ( like Obama did ) but the SC will now decide the matter, not Congress. You see, all of these matters can be determined by the courts like the Constitution provides. When the Executive and the Congress have a dispute, the SC settles it, you don't impeach a President because you think he has done something illegal but can't cite the legal statute he violated. Or can you? I'm always prepared to make an apology if it can be proven I'm wrong.







I have shown you a few times now that Obama abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress when he refused to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious case and his Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress with a bi-partisan vote. Why wasn't Obama impeached for obstruction of Congress?


Again, the purpose of "whataboutism" is to show hypocrisy. Why should I agree to punish one person, one party when the other has done the very same thing with no call from their party to punish? To me and many like me I'm sure, it really doesn't matter what Trump has done, OK that's a bit to broad, it doesn't matter in this instance because this so called abuse of power and obstruction of Congress was done by Obama and plenty of other Presidents without a call for impeachment. According to the polls, more Americans understand this better than you seem to and are saying "no impeachment" you want Trump out of office, vote him out. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The current POTUS withheld the funds for a personal gain. Not for any other reason. I'm struggling to keep from being rude, sir. Abuse of Power. Obama wasn't impeached because it wasn't politically expedient.

Yeah, Black would be "uglier" than Orange any day. Quips aside, this is pretty damn ugly.


I guess we better not elect Buttigieg. What's the pecking order for Liberals? Would impeaching a Black over a Gay be worse or vice versa. Lord help us when the first Trans is elected. "It" will be able to do anything "it" wants without reprisal.


"You live by identity politics, you die by identity politics". Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Nobody is able to do what they want without reprisal. Current case in point. IMHO, impeaching the first black president would have been worse than impeaching the next gay president. But it all depends on which liberal you ask. No stain on a dress, but a neck tie.

You can't hide you skin color. Unless you use a bronzer or something.

You're just stating your opinion Which of course you have that right. Something Trump has no intentions of removing from the people of this country. Originally Posted by Levianon17

It is a fact the president is obstructing Congress. It has the right to demand witness testimony from executive staff.

The current POTUS withheld the funds for a personal gain. Not for any other reason. I'm struggling to keep from being rude, sir. Abuse of Power. Obama wasn't impeached because it wasn't politically expedient.



Nobody is able to do what they want without reprisal. Current case in point. IMHO, impeaching the first black president would have been worse than impeaching the next gay president. But it all depends on which liberal you ask. No stain on a dress, but a neck tie.

You can't hide you skin color. Unless you use a bronzer or something.



It is a fact the president is obstructing Congress. It has the right to demand witness testimony from executive staff. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The only thing Trump is obstructing is the Democrats ability to beat him in an election. He's doing it with finesse and cunning something Democrats don't have a smidgen of. So they must rely on abusing the Impeachment Process in a lame attempt of getting him out of office.

Trump is obstructing Congress, absolutely.

what it comes down to though is this..

Trump's supporters think Congress is the Swamp, along with the media and deep state. it follows that they believe Trump should hit back and defy Congressional requests.. Period.

they don't care that a crude power imbalance shifts to the Executive, because Congress is "the swamp", and the enemy.

the Constitutional problem, is that the Framers didn't give a rat's ass about partisan Bullshit in 2019.

Trump is obstructing Congress, absolutely.

what it comes down to though is this..

Trump's supporters think Congress is the Swamp, along with the media and deep state. it follows that they believe Trump should hit back and defy Congressional requests.. Period.

they don't care that a crude power imbalance shifts to the Executive, because Congress is "the swamp", and the enemy.

the Constitutional problem, is that the Framers didn't give a rat's ass about partisan Bullshit in 2019. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Obama obstructed Congress. many presidents have defied Congress. like some posters in this forum you seem to think Congress has unlimited oversight of everything. does Congress have the authority to see Trump's tax returns simply to see what's in them? Ecky9.5k seems to think so. the Supreme Court says otherwise. oversight of the IRS? laughable. fishing for a crime for the sake of it? Nope.


news flash sparky. it's Congress who is abusing their authority. call them the swamp if you want, all politics today is corrupt. has been for far longer than Trump's adult life let alone his presidency.


who reigns in abuse of power by Congress? the other two branches of course. the Supreme Court can strike down an unconstitutional law, the President can veto it.


did the framers expect that Congress would impeach a president merely on partisan Bullshit? i don't think so. but that's exactly the abuse of power Congress is committing right now.


Trump is within his Constitutional authority to defy Congress and its abusive attempts to obstruct and overrule his legitimate election.

Watching Trey Gowdy. He believes the Senate should vote and the President can say what he wants about anyone afterwards. Trump has the biggest bully pulpit on the planet.

My issue about not calling anyone is there's very little pain for the Dims and the media. And it will just encourage them to try again.

Watching Trey Gowdy. He believes the Senate should vote and the President can say what he wants about anyone afterwards. Trump has the biggest bully pulpit on the planet.

My issue about not calling anyone is there's very little pain for the Dims and the media. And it will just encourage them to try again. Originally Posted by gnadfly

exactly. the Democrats have run a shameless smear on Trump. so smear them back. call the pencilneck. icig Atkinson, whose testimony has not been released by pencilneck Schiff, curious that eh? call Eric Ciaramella.


Ciaramella acted for the good of the nation! he had no bias, no agenda, right??







BAHHAHHAHHAAAAAAA


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...l-office-photo

The current POTUS withheld the funds for a personal gain. Not for any other reason. I'm struggling to keep from being rude, sir. Abuse of Power. Obama wasn't impeached because it wasn't politically expedient.



Nobody is able to do what they want without reprisal. Current case in point. IMHO, impeaching the first black president would have been worse than impeaching the next gay president. But it all depends on which liberal you ask. No stain on a dress, but a neck tie.

You can't hide you skin color. Unless you use a bronzer or something.



It is a fact the president is obstructing Congress. It has the right to demand witness testimony from executive staff. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Obstructing a co-equal branch of the government? I didn't see that in the Constitution. So if someone from the executive branch was trying to build a wall and the legislative branch was trying to stop it...wouldn't the representatives be guilty of obstructing the White House?

Trump is obstructing Congress, absolutely. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Unfortunately FOR YOU, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. Of course, I realize "the law" doesn't matter to you. (This is where you explain the legal basis for your putrid, ignorant conclusion.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...519zr_7l48.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 589 U.S.)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2019
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
19A545 TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL. V. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL.
The application for stay of the mandate presented to The
Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The
issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 19-5142, is stayed
pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
certiorari, if such petition is filed on or before December 5,
2019, by noon. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be
denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the
petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall
terminate upon the issuance of the judgment of this Court. If no
petition for a writ of certiorari is filed on or before December
5, 2019, by noon, the stay shall terminate

FYI: A petition was TIMELY filed.

The conclusion to be drawn from the "stay" of the lower court's order (like the travel ban issued by Trump) is that at least 5 justices agreed that Trump was entitled to oppose the subpoena and the SCOTUS will hear whether or not his opposition is appropriate within the law and authority of Congress. THE FACT that a majority of the SCOTUS believes that it is LEGAL for Trump to assert opposition to the subpoena from Congress PROVES that it is not A CRIME for the POTUS to oppose a Congressional subpoena.

My issue about not calling anyone is there's very little pain for the Dims and the media. And it will just encourage them to try again. Originally Posted by gnadfly

There is customarily "no pain" for those who cannot accept defeat.

HillariousNoMore proves that every day ... along with having no shame!

I suspect that a high majority of those who believe Trump "obstructed Congress" by defying a subpoena from Congress and committed "treason, a "high crime," and/or "a misdemeanor" by temporarily not delivering foreign aid to a foreign country also believe the "Sun rises in the East"!!!

The also can't read and are too ignorant to comprehend if they could read. Or too stupid to read.

See my response to Tran's worthless post.

Tran, before you embarrass yourself further by showing your ignorance ...

Supreme Court precedent “makes it plain that the mere semblance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face of the Bill of Rights.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957). Congress cannot “unjustifiably encroach upon an individual’s right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957). The Supreme Court warned “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957). The sole and whole goal must be “collecting information for a legislative purpose” which is limited to “obtaining facts upon which the full legislature can act.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957). This imposes “a jurisdictional concept of pertinency” that constricts inquiries to factual issues needed for legislation. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 206 (1957). This “scope of inquiry” must be “defined with sufficiently unambiguous clarity to safeguard a witness from the hazards of vagueness.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 217(1957).

Congress only has the power to issue a subpoena when three conditions are first met: “Congress has the power to investigate; the committee has a proper grant of authority to conduct the investigation; and the materials sought are pertinent to the investigation and within the scope of the grant of authority.” Bergman v. Senate Special Committee on Aging, 389 F.Supp. 1127, 1130 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). This means there must be an “unambiguous resolution from the Senate authorizing it” and the investigation must be concerning “a subject on which legislation could be had.” Eastland v. U.S. Servicemens Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 508 (1975). A subpoena activity that is “not essential to legislating” is not within the subpoena power. Eastland v. U.S. Servicemens Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 508 (1975).

“There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress…Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. Those are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated are indefensible.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 186 (1957).

The limitation on Congressional subpoenas stems from centuries of abuse of such power by the British Parliament. Clergymen imprisoned for remarks made in sermons. Confining witnesses to the infamous Tower. The experience of the HUAC reminded American courts of the dangers posed by politicians pretending to be prosecutors, investigators, and judges. Indeed, the Senate had no fact-finding investigation in aid of legislation for the first 70+ years of our Republic until 1859. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 192 (1957).

Indeed, this investigative power was “so sparingly employed,” the Supreme Court had “few cases” to review its use for most of our history. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 193 (1957). The Court early on rejected the power of Congress to inquire into the private affairs of a famous company connected to politics. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881).

....

https://humanevents.com/2019/05/22/o...-harass-trump/

I suggest you carefully read the following "dusty" opinion of SCOTUS:

https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep...srep418683.pdf

It's 45-year-old law ....

"To require a President of the United States to place himself in the posture of disobeying an order of a court merely to trigger the procedural mechanism for review of the ruling would be unseemly, and would present an unnecessary occasion for constitutional confrontation between two branches of the Government."

Trump is obstructing Congress, absolutely. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

That article in the impeachment farce has collapsed totally and should be stricken and any of the dims constitutional law consultants know it but hubris bars the way

The Supreme Court granted certiorari last week in a case where the trump administration went to court rather than obey a congressional subpoena

They recognized the legitimacy of an equal branch of government right to use the courts to settle that argument