Trump is obstructing Congress, absolutely. Originally Posted by Chung TranThat 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
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 wayTran gets his "law" from the dumb-ass "Mad Cow" TV EXspurt!
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 Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
someone has disputed shokin's account. I think it was the UKR prosecutor who replaced him... not sure.Knowing that this was to come you would expect that the powers who be would want to discredit Shokin ahead of time. That is why the three witnesses are important. They back each other's account from various levels of the Ukrainian government.
theres some CYA here.
so obviously, some one is lying about what happened in this instance. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Knowing that this was to come you would expect that the powers who be would want to discredit Shokin ahead of time. That is why the three witnesses are important. They back each other's account from various levels of the Ukrainian government. Originally Posted by the_real_BarleycornIs that a basis to have a trial in the Senate over NOTHING!
I'm struggling to keep from being rude, sir. Abuse of Power. Obama wasn't impeached because it wasn't politically expedient.
Keep up the struggle and so will I.
The current POTUS withheld the funds for a personal gain. Not for any other reason.
Says you and that's the point. There is an argument going on, perhaps you missed it where Democrats, like in Adam Schiffs Parody, are changing the word Trump used to suit their narrative which you have obviously taken to heart. Trump said do "us" a favor, not "me". Now Democrats can debate the meaning of "us" as one of the Professor's tried to do explaining the "royal us" what ever the Hell that means but there it is clear as day, "us" not "me" giving any court or fair minded person the ability to have "reasonable doubt" as to what Trump was saying but reasonable doubt sir goes to Trump as it does to any defendant.
It could easily be argued as I will do here, that Trump had the legal authority given to him by Constitution and by treaty, to call for an investigation into the possible corruption and malfeasance of VP Biden, whether he was an opponent of Trump in an upcoming election is secondary to the argument.
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.
But you are doing what all good Liberals do, making skin color the point of the argument when skin color has nothing to do with whether Obama abused his power and I clearly gave you evidence that he did as well as many other Presidents. So if the clear evidence of Obama abusing his power were made, all good liberals would go directly to skin color as a defense even if it weren't called for. You are so helpful to me making my point.
It is a fact the president is obstructing Congress. It has the right to demand witness testimony from executive staff. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
No sir, it is not a fact untill the SC says it is a fact and in the words of Ronald Reagan "there he goes again" claiming a "right" but providing no statutory proof of what you say. I've already admonished you once or was it twice about this. If you are going to insist on saying something is legal and compelled, offer the proof with words other than your own. Please provide the statutory language that says a President must allow testimony from executive staff and can not exert executive privileged as all Presidents have done. In US verses Nixon, the SC made what some would call a narrow ruling that Nixon had to turn over the tapes and documents related to his case. The court did not and has never gave a sweeping opinion that a President has no such privileged with regard to executive staff unless of course I missed it and you will now provide "us" with this SC ruling.
I and others have now offered proof of our side of the argument. Congress demanded bank records from the President and subpoenaed those records saying as you just did that the President must comply. The SC stepped in and said "they" will decide if Congress has this "right". The SC may very well say that a President must in all cases do what ever the Congress tells him to do. If you believe that, you don't understand the separation of powers given in the Constitution but until the SC says as much any "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment, is now moot until the court rules against Trump. Don't hold your breath. We'll get answer about June.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
In the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were attempting to craft a mechanism that would allow for the disciplining of a President who abused his constitutional responsibilities without creating a weapon by which the President would be prevented from carrying them out. At bottom, it was a question of how to refine and make effective the separation of powers.
You have a trial for one of two reasons. You want totally exonerate the president that a dismissal would not accomplish .... Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn#1: You will never get a "total exoneration" ... one doesn't even get that in a trial. A dismissal "as a matter of law" is more of an "exoneration" than is a trial in which the evidence for and against is weighed based upon a standard imposed for that particular piece of litigation. For instance: OJ Simpson. He's not guilty criminally for the death of his ex-wife and her boy-toy, but he was found liable civilly for her death. Different standard of proof.
#1: You will never get a "total exoneration" ... one doesn't even get that in a trial. A dismissal "as a matter of law" is more of an "exoneration" than is a trial in which the evidence for and against is weighed based upon a standard imposed for that particular piece of litigation. For instance: OJ Simpson. He's not guilty criminally for the death of his ex-wife and her boy-toy, but he was found liable civilly for her death. Different standard of proof.
A dismissal as a matter of law concludes that no offense was alleged, which "totally exonerates" Trump of the charges alleged in the articles. IMO it bars any other claims that could have been brought, but were not even though they were previously raised in commentary but not charged. Trump is then innocent of the allegations based upon the "presumption of innocence" that is the standard in this country. Originally Posted by LexusLover
uA distinction should be drawn between the substantive issue and the procedural issue. In the case of whether any particular documents are "required" to be produced each case before the SCOTUS will stand on its own factual subject matter and decision regarding those particular and specific facts. But ....
The SC stepped in and said "they" will decide if Congress has this "right". The SC may very well say that a President must in all cases do what ever the Congress tells him to do. .... Originally Posted by HedonistForever
A preponderance of evidence. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500= 51% OF THE EVIDENCE in his favor .... or another way ...
