Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
darkblue

Democrats Begin Impeachment of Trump

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

How did all those Nixon people end up in prison?  Including the Attorney General?

How was it possible then and not now?  Does enforcement of the law come down to politics as well.  

A sincere query.

The DOJ and the Court System - both are now firmly under the control or influence of Trump.  Most likely route is through courts, but that eventually gets to a judge appointed by Trump or the Supreme Court.  At SC, will likely be a 5-4 decision in favor of Trump that it is a "political" question and court cannot intervene.  Even if SC agreed, it is still up the Administrative branch to enforce the decision.

As I said before, the Nixon scenario was vastly different from where we are today.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

The DOJ and the Court System - both are now firmly under the control or influence of Trump.  Most likely route is through courts, but that eventually gets to a judge appointed by Trump or the Supreme Court.  At SC, will likely be a 5-4 decision in favor of Trump that it is a "political" question and court cannot intervene.  Even if SC agreed, it is still up the Administrative branch to enforce the decision.

As I said before, the Nixon scenario was vastly different from where we are today.

I don't doubt you but how in the hell did John Mitchell end up in prison the he was Nixon's AG and controlled the DOJ just like Bill does today?  There must be some mechanism that people are not discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

I don't doubt you but how in the hell did John Mitchell end up in prison the he was Nixon's AG and controlled the DOJ just like Bill does today?  There must be some mechanism that people are not discussing.

Mitchell was a private citizen working on Nixon's re-election campaign.    He resigned his A.G. job before taking this private sector job.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White House's impeachment letter was so wrong that even James K. Polk knew better in 1846

The caustic, meandering 8-page missive from counsel Pat Cipollone to the House was incorrect on the law, history and politics.

 

"......in a caustic and meandering 8-page letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House committee chairmen declaring that no administration officials will appear to testify or provide documents sought in the impeachment inquiry, claiming that the entire process is unconstitutional and a violation of due process, among other poorly-sourced legal and primarily political arguments.

The House Democrats’ immediate and blunt response was the issuance of a subpoena for Sondland to produce documents and give his deposition Oct. 16.

The White House is on thin ice.

The words of the Constitution, the history of prior American impeachments, the adoption in 1974 by the House Judiciary Committee of Article III of impeachment against President Richard Nixon and a 1993 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court refute the legitimacy of the White House’s battle plan to interfere with impeachment proceedings.......

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-house-s-impeachment-letter-was-so-wrong-even-james-ncna1064271?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

-_-

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I don't doubt you but how in the hell did John Mitchell end up in prison the he was Nixon's AG and controlled the DOJ just like Bill does today?  There must be some mechanism that people are not discussing.

He was not AG when he was tried for activities related to Watergate.  As I have said, the government, Congress, etc. during Watergate is nothing like what we have under Trump. The DOJ and soon Federal courts will all work for Trump, not the government and not America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

He was not AG when he was tried for activities related to Watergate.  As I have said, the government, Congress, etc. during Watergate is nothing like what we have under Trump. The DOJ and soon Federal courts will all work for Trump, not the government and not America.

I highly doubt the Federal courts will 'all work for Trump';   In fact what you're doing is echoing Trump here;  That the vasts majority of Fed employees are unprofessional partisan hacks.    E.g. how often has Trump implied that all the employees in the intelligence agencies are working against him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I highly doubt the Federal courts will 'all work for Trump';   In fact what you're doing is echoing Trump here;  That the vasts majority of Fed employees are unprofessional partisan hacks.    E.g. how often has Trump implied that all the employees in the intelligence agencies are working against him.

 

 

Trump, McConnell and the GOP Senate have done nothing but place hundreds of judges in federal judgeships.  Plus 2 on SCOTUS.  Some incredulous decisions on behalf of Trump have already been rendered, showing erosion of the co-equal branches of government.

Brent Kavsnaugh is just the most prominent of judges appointed  by this administration that will be partisan hacks in their rulings.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Arturo said:

Trump, McConnell and the GOP Senate have done nothing but place hundreds of judges in federal judgeships.  Plus 2 on SCOTUS.  Some incredulous decisions on behalf of Trump have already been rendered, showing erosion of the co-equal branches of government.

Brent Kavsnaugh is just the most prominent of judges appointed  by this administration that will be partisan hacks in their rulings.

So are all judges appointed by a Dem lead admin,  partisan hacks? 

I ask because I suspect you believe only right-leaning appointees are partisan hacks.

(hey,  maybe I'm clueless but I still wish to believe the majority are NOT, regardless of who was running the admin that appointed them).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the large majority of judges, of whatever political stripe, are fair and conscientious.  However, I think many of the Trump appointees may not be.  They were selected from a list compiled by the Heritage Foundation (?), and seem to be far more partisan generally.  I truly hope I am wrong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I highly doubt the Federal courts will 'all work for Trump';   In fact what you're doing is echoing Trump here;  That the vasts majority of Fed employees are unprofessional partisan hacks.    E.g. how often has Trump implied that all the employees in the intelligence agencies are working against him.

 

 

My intention was that by the time the cases get to court, they are likely to be heard by judges appointed by Trump and that is even more likely when they get to the appellate level.  The Supreme Court is a done deal as far as siding with Trump on this issue.  Roberts will decide that it is a political issue and therefore court cannot get involved, as he has in the past.

As Arturo pointed out, they are selected from a list compiled by the Heritage Foundation and comprise the most "conservative" judges in decades.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheCid said:

My intention was that by the time the cases get to court, they are likely to be heard by judges appointed by Trump and that is even more likely when they get to the appellate level.  The Supreme Court is a done deal as far as siding with Trump on this issue.  Roberts will decide that it is a political issue and therefore court cannot get involved, as he has in the past.

As Arturo pointed out, they are selected from a list compiled by the Heritage Foundation and comprise the most "conservative" judges in decades.

It will be interesting to see if they go so far as to strip the powers of Congress granted to them in the Constitution and forevermore make them an inconsequential arm of the U.S. government.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

It will be interesting to see if they go so far as to strip the powers of Congress granted to them in the Constitution and forevermore make them an inconsequential arm of the U.S. government.

The power to subpoena is considered an implied one not a specified one in the Constitution.  Therefore it is up for judicial interpretation every time it comes up.  Courts have previously ruled they would not get involved as it appeared to be a "political" issue in some cases.

Cited a couple of references below, but they are very unclear.  Eric Holder was subpoenaed in 2012, but the case drug on until 2019, seven years.  Note the House referred contempt citations to US Attorneys, who techincally are part of the Justice (Bill Barr) Dept.  However, the New York office seems pretty independent.  

This will get messy, but in the end (7 years from now), the Supreme Court will rule it is a political issue and neither the courts nor law enforcement will get involved in enforcing it.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/09/fast-and-furious-documents-holder-1313120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

It will be interesting to see if they go so far as to strip the powers of Congress granted to them in the Constitution and forevermore make them an inconsequential arm of the U.S. government.

Yes, you're making a good point here. And I'm sure Speaker Pelosi and others understand this 

This isn't about one president or one nutcase up there in the White House.

It's about whether or not the Constitution is going to hold onto its fundamental structure of checks and balances, a balance of power which is a necessity to our system.

The Republicans are accusing the Democrats of trying to throw a coup on the last election.

When in reality the Republicans are trying to overthrow our system of government in order to protect a criminal presidency.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Yes, you're making a good point here. And I'm sure Speaker Pelosi and others understand this 

This isn't about one president or one nutcase up there in the White House.

It's about whether or not the Constitution is going to hold onto its fundamental structure of checks and balances, a balance of power which is a necessity to our system.

The Republicans are accusing the Democrats of trying to throw a coup on the last election.

When in reality the Republicans are trying to overthrow our system of government in order to protect a criminal presidency.

Good background on contempt of Congressional subpoenas. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Constitution about Congress having an oversight

role in regards to the president. Maybe I missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Constitution about Congress having an oversight

role in regards to the president. Maybe I missed it.

From Wikipedia: 

Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.

The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress had the authority to consider a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Breaking News: Marie Yovanovitch, the recalled U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told Congress in scathing testimony
 
that President Trump pushed to have her removed based on "false claims"
 
and warned that private influences are undermining the nation's interests
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

From Wikipedia: 

Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.

The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress had the authority to consider a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

Yes I can see this. It is implied from the powers given Congress in the Constitution, though it is

not itself mentioned there. I have no problem with Congressional oversight, it was just curious that

with all the current back and forth about it, it is not actually mentioned in the Constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Yes I can see this. It is implied from the powers given Congress in the Constitution, though it is

not itself mentioned there. I have no problem with Congressional oversight, it was just curious that

with all the current back and forth about it, it is not actually mentioned in the Constitution. 

It is like so many other things, you can't write all the rules for every event in great detail.  More importantly, the Founding Fathers intended for The Constitution to be a living document, not only by amendment but also by interpretation.

They also intended for Congress and the Supreme Court to watch over the president, as well as each other.  

In 1783, the president was fairly weak compared to where the office is now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheCid said:

It is like so many other things, you can't write all the rules for every event in great detail.  More importantly, the Founding Fathers intended for The Constitution to be a living document, not only by amendment but also by interpretation.

They also intended for Congress and the Supreme Court to watch over the president, as well as each other.  

In 1783, the president was fairly weak compared to where the office is now.

The Constitution is a living document. Just don't tell the conservatives on the Supreme Court that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jakeem said:

V3knesxJ_bigger.jpg

Schiff says he's conducting interviews in secret so they don't "give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests"
1:17 PM · Oct 13, 2019·Twitter Web App
 
 
 

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is taking the same precautions that a Federal grand jury would take if it was investigating charges against the mafia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
NEWS: Former Pompeo adviser Michael McKinley, who resigned last week,
 
will testify in closed session on Wednesday before House impeachment investigators, according to an official working on the inquiry.
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Russia Adviser Testifies She Was Alarmed About Ukraine Pressure

Fiona Hill’s nine-hour testimony comes as Democrats examine Trump’s effort to get Kyiv to investigate Bidens

.......Ms. Hill described to lawmakers efforts by Mr. Giuliani, which circumvented typical government procedures for foreign policy, to press Ukraine to mount investigations into the Bidens, as well as possible 2016 election interference, the people said. Mr. Giuliani has said he worked in conjunction with the State Department.

“There was an official foreign policy, which was attempting to counter corruption in Ukraine.

And then there was Rudy Giuliani, and, you know, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight who worked for him,

who were…connected with corruption in Ukraine and promoting the corruption in Ukraine,”........

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-top-russia-adviser-fiona-hill-set-to-testify-on-capitol-hill-about-ukraine-11571057396?mod=hp_lead_pos6&mod=article_inline

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Murphy

@ChrisMurphyCT

·

8h

Fiona Hill describes this scene:

In a White House meeting, Sondland tells Ukrainians they will get a Trump meeting if they open the investigations Trump wants.

Then, Sondland follows the Ukrainians out of the meeting

to privately make clear he's talking about Hunter Biden.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
Breaking via NYT:
John Bolton instructed Fiona Hill to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council
 
that Rudy Giuliani was working with Mick Mulvaney on a rogue operation with legal implications, Hill told the investigators.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...