The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Khedron said:
To openly declare that they don’t care about the truth, but wish to protect Trump at all costs would be their death-knell. And that would also be a disaster for the whole country.
Click to expand...
That outlook is just spin. It could be the truth is that there simply is not enough there to justify a trial. Wasting time and money on one could be a disaster.
 
dvdjs said:
f they changed the rules for Trump.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no rule that they must have a trial. They are empowered to have one. That’s not the same as required. There would be no rule change to dismiss.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
If they want to do something else they will need to change the rules.
Click to expand...
Going as far as changing the rules is an option but not their only option. They could reject an impeachment by a majority vote. This may be unprecedented but not impossible. Changing the rules is another option. But so what if they did? They’re not forbidden from doing it and the Dems do it often enough in the House.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
40.png
dvdjs:
If they want to do something else they will need to change the rules.
Click to expand...
Going as far as changing the rules is an option but not their only option. They could reject an impeachment by a majority vote. This may be unprecedented but not impossible. Changing the rules is another option. But so what if they did? They’re not forbidden from doing it and the Dems do it often enough in the House.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I’d question the constitutionality of the House refusing to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate (which in my view, if the House continued to do so, would mean Trump wasn’t impeached at all), or the Senate, having received Articles of Impeachment, not conducting a trial. The Constitution is clear that there is a trial and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must preside.

I don’t approve of Pelosi trying to put strings on the Articles being sent up, but I certainly can’t see how the Senate refusing its Constitutional duty, should those Articles drop on to its lap, as being legitimate either. Nothing obliges the Senate to put a lot of effort into a trial, but there has to be one.
 
I’m a bit surprised I agree with you on this. If Nancy ever sends the articles the Senate will hold a trial. It very well may be that at the beginning of the trial the Senate finds there is nothing to the articles and they dismiss the whole thing.

So many have taken the MSM at their word when they post their thoughts & feelings about Trump and the impeachment circus. As though anyone at CNN or MSNBC is a constitutional scholar and is reporting fact rather than opinion.
 
A lot of nonsense has come from both sides. The Framers understood very well that impeachment and trial would be polarizing events. They also knew it could be abused which is why a super majority of the Senate has to vote for conviction.

Since impeachment, whatever quasi-judicial qualities it might possess, is a political process, neither side carries much weight when they complain that the other side is playing politics with the process. That is rather the point.

Frankly, I think Dems could have gunned for a more symbolic gesture; censure. It carries no judicial weight, but they could have expressed their displeasure without wasting a good deal of time and energy on an exercise they know perfectly well won’t result in removal, and likely won’t change a single voter’s mind.
 
Khedron said:
Why else would Trump and his supporters fight aginst the disclosure of the documents and witnesses. If the facts would exonerate him, he would be ecstatic to provide the data. This is the point that none of the supporters can have an argument for.
Click to expand...
He’s protecting the executive branch from Congressional over-reach. Also, the trial rules for the Senate don’t require witnesses. There’s no reason he has to meet every demand from the House Dems or else it means he’s guilty. There are executive privileges that he has a right to use and to capitulate to the Dem’s over-reaching demands will set dangerous precedents for future Presidents. Trump is perfectly within his rights to let the courts decide what he has to release. This is not obstruction.

The Dems should be careful what they wish for though. If we’re going to call witnesses, they should call Shiff, the whistleblower and the Bidens because I think we could uncover a lot there as well. I’m ok with it if they don’t though because we don’t need the Senate trial to look into their questionable behavior. That can also happen outside any impeachment trial.
 
Last edited:
So you don’t think separation of powers is a thing? The legislative branch should just be able to fish and demand anything they want from a President and he must answer their every whim? Private communications in the Executive branch aren’t privileged?
 
Khedron said:
The best and only defense is innocence, supported by witnesses testifying under OATH. And that is what Trump tries to prevent. This fact points to his guilt. Especially that the witnesses are all supporters of Trump, selected by him as the most reliable ones.
Click to expand...
How is asking the courts (who are the ones who settle disputes between the other two branches) to decide what Trump should hand over, obstruction or a cover-up? It is simply not true that to fail to hand over everything the Legislative branch asks for is evidence of guilt. Executive privilege covers the communications of that branch. They get to refuse to release things and ask the courts to decide. This is not obstruction. This is not evidence of guilt.
Khedron said:
The whistleblower is immaterial.
Click to expand...
???
Khedron said:
Pretty much everything has been substantiated by other witnesses, none of whom are members of the “deep state”
Click to expand...
Hearsay and conjecture are not substantiated evidence.
Khedron said:
Besides a “trial” without witnesses and documents is a sham, and not a trial.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Senate. Current rules don’t require witnesses.
 
Oversight has a limit. It’s limited by the privileges granted to the Executive branch. The Executive branch is well within it’s rights to ask the courts to decide what they have to hand over when the Legislative branch is asking for protected communications.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
So you don’t think separation of powers is a thing? The legislative branch should just be able to fish and demand anything they want from a President and he must answer their every whim? Private communications in the Executive branch aren’t privileged?
Click to expand...
Have you counted United States v Nixon in this declaration of executive privilege?
 
Sure. Executive privilege is not absolute. The Judiciary can decide whether he must comply or not. But it’s not “nothing” either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top