T
Theo520
Guest
The first part is highly relevant when discussion legal charges, or impeachment.
The second part is relevant when you vote them into or out of office. Perceptions clearly vary on what is the ‘right thing to do’
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The second part is relevant when you vote them into or out of office. Perceptions clearly vary on what is the ‘right thing to do’
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
In our system of checks and balances, congress has not only the right but also the constitutional responsibility to be a check on the executive branch.The first part is highly relevant when discussion legal charges, or impeachment.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
JapaneseKappa . . .
Everyone knows this was never about “checks and balances”, or “constitutional responsibility” JapaneseKappa.
It has always been about “Get Trump”.
President Trump has done nothing wrong.
These people have put him and his family through Hades for the “crime” of wanting to “clean up the swamp” and to “Put America first”.
And the “Swamp Creatures” are fighting tooth and nail to remain on the Government dole.
And there are a lot of self-destructive people who do NOT WANT themselves and their own families to be put first because that is WHO they are.
Why are they like that?
I am not going to get into the “why” here except to say they have participated in sin and not repented and refused to seek out the graces of the Confessional.
And consequently they don’t like themselves. And want to pass off responsibility for themselves to others (usually a Government body which can never deliver the kind of “conscience salve” they are seeking).
No JK. These incessant attacks against President Trump have never been about Government “checks and balances”, or “constitutional responsibility”.
And virtually everybody knows that.
This is not persuasive.In our system of checks and balances, congress has not only the right but also the constitutional responsibility to be a check on the executive branch.
Everyone knows this was never about “checks and balances”, or “constitutional responsibility” JapaneseKappa.
It has always been about “Get Trump”.
President Trump has done nothing wrong.
These people have put him and his family through Hades for the “crime” of wanting to “clean up the swamp” and to “Put America first”.
And the “Swamp Creatures” are fighting tooth and nail to remain on the Government dole.
And there are a lot of self-destructive people who do NOT WANT themselves and their own families to be put first because that is WHO they are.
Why are they like that?
I am not going to get into the “why” here except to say they have participated in sin and not repented and refused to seek out the graces of the Confessional.
And consequently they don’t like themselves. And want to pass off responsibility for themselves to others (usually a Government body which can never deliver the kind of “conscience salve” they are seeking).
No JK. These incessant attacks against President Trump have never been about Government “checks and balances”, or “constitutional responsibility”.
And virtually everybody knows that.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Not even close.No JK. These incessant attacks against President Trump have never been about Government “checks and balances”, or “constitutional responsibility”.
And virtually everybody knows that.
Most people, by a large margin, wanted to hear witnesses, and a slight majority thought Trump should be removed, even without the witnesses.
So, no. You know that “virtually everybody knows that” is false because you have met many people here on CAF who don’t agree with your thesis.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PaulinVA . . .
Then they should have told that to Adam Schiff.Most people, by a large margin, wanted to hear witnesses . . .
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I wish I knew what that meant.Then they should have told that to Adam Schiff.
Oh, wait, now I get it. You mean that when Trump told his minions to not cooperate AT ALL with legal Congressional Subpoenas that Schiff should have gone to Federal Court to have them tell Trump to cut that out. Sorry, it’s settled law, so Schiff simply called the ball dead and declared, “That’s Obstruction!” and filed charges.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PaulinVA . . .
Schiff decided to play dictator, stop answers, interrupt people being questioned, hide information, focus on gotcha points, conduct secret hearings to an extent, selectively leak to the press, lie about the “whistleblower”, refuse to let Trump’s attorney team to cross-examine anyone, etc. etc. and was almost certainly fishing for a few cheap process “crimes” which nobody fell for.
If Schiff really wanted witnesses, he had every opportunity to obtain them. Fairly.
But he refused.
Paul. You, and I, and virtually all the readers here know there was more to it than that. Much more.You mean that when Trump told his minions to not cooperate AT ALL with legal Congressional Subpoenas that Schiff should have gone to Federal Court to have them tell Trump to cut that out. Sorry, it’s settled law, so Schiff simply called the ball dead and declared, “That’s Obstruction!” and filed charges.
Schiff decided to play dictator, stop answers, interrupt people being questioned, hide information, focus on gotcha points, conduct secret hearings to an extent, selectively leak to the press, lie about the “whistleblower”, refuse to let Trump’s attorney team to cross-examine anyone, etc. etc. and was almost certainly fishing for a few cheap process “crimes” which nobody fell for.
If Schiff really wanted witnesses, he had every opportunity to obtain them. Fairly.
But he refused.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Cathoholic, we are really out of agreement on this. Totally.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Totally. (10)
T
Theo520
Guest
They were invalid, he wouldn’t allow you to have an attorney present
Trump didn’t even get to the stage of claiming executive privilege
If he was a DA you would say Schiff really screwed up here, giving Trump technicalities so he could get off.
I think Shiff was intentional in his incompetence, it allowed Dems to claim `obstruction’ as a sham article of impeachment. It was done for headlines.
If Schiff had followed proper procedures, Trump would have been required to claim Executive Privilege and then SCOTUS would have made their decision. There was no valid obstruction charge until it reaches SCOTUS for arbitration.
Trump didn’t even get to the stage of claiming executive privilege
If he was a DA you would say Schiff really screwed up here, giving Trump technicalities so he could get off.
I think Shiff was intentional in his incompetence, it allowed Dems to claim `obstruction’ as a sham article of impeachment. It was done for headlines.
If Schiff had followed proper procedures, Trump would have been required to claim Executive Privilege and then SCOTUS would have made their decision. There was no valid obstruction charge until it reaches SCOTUS for arbitration.
Last edited:
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Trust me, as former military, now spending my life working in military intelligence, they don’t care. Vindman came off like a bitter tool, and no gives a bleep about him being gone.
As a business owner, if one of my employees testified against me, making claims which I was later acquitted of, yeah I’d can him too. So would pretty much anyone being honest. You can’t exactly run any enterprise, including the White House, with people you can’t trust. Good riddance.
As a business owner, if one of my employees testified against me, making claims which I was later acquitted of, yeah I’d can him too. So would pretty much anyone being honest. You can’t exactly run any enterprise, including the White House, with people you can’t trust. Good riddance.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
The House rules created by the Republicans specifically forbid attorneys in the deposition room, just like a Grand Jury. He was following the rules.They were invalid, he wouldn’t allow you to have an attorney present
The reason for the rule is this: if you are investigating something to see if the administration was forcing a person to do illegal things, having an “agency minder” there in the room with the person(witness) has a chilling effect. The Republicans knew this when they instituted the rule.
He told the Executive Branch to not cooperate with any subpoenas. Congressional subpoenas are known to be valid. So, that’s Obstruction. He was obstructing the investigation by not complying with the law.Trump didn’t even get to the stage of claiming executive privilege
To your point, the proper way to exert privilege is to show up and refuse to answer specific questions, or produce a list of documents that comply with the subpoena and list which ones you are exerting privilege on. There is no blanket executive privilege.
There is no requirement for the House to buy into the legal strategy of their opponent.If Schiff had followed proper procedures, Trump would have been required to claim Executive Privilege and then SCOTUS would have made their decision. There was no valid obstruction charge until it reaches SCOTUS for arbitration.
But, once again, to claim privilege you have to produce something, either a witness or a list of documents.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That wasn’t the point, though. The objective was to get a leaker and back-stabber out of the white house.But, is firing Vidman and Sondland a smart political move if you are trying to expand your base?
Except that they weren’t “legal” because when issued, Pelosi had not bothered to have the House formally vote to initiate impeachment proceedings to support the issuance of subpoenas for that hearing.when Trump told his minions to not cooperate AT ALL with legal Congressional Subpoenas
Later, the Dems could have validly issued subpoenas, but didn’t.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
RR, I have you on ignore, but I thought you might be replying to me so I looked.Except that they weren’t “legal” because when issued, Pelosi had not bothered to have the House formally vote to initiate impeachment proceedings to support the issuance of subpoenas for that hearing.
This is patently false.
The original group of subpoenas were legal under the House’s oversight responsibility. The second set were indeed issued after the impeachment vote.
BUT, per the Constitution, the HOUSE passes rules to say what subpoena authority it has. Another branch can’t say they aren’t valid if the House complies with its own rules. They were legal.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, please put me back on ignore!RR, I have you on ignore, but I thought you might be replying to me so I looked.
Better that than being wrongly accused of falsehood.
D
dvdjs
Guest
What is the evidence of “leaking”? To whom did Vindman “leak”?The objective was to get a leaker and back-stabber out of the white house.
What are the criteria of backstabbing? Testifying truthfully?
D
dvdjs
Guest
OK. Someone leaked let’s blame Vindman. Alexander, Yvgeny? Why not both?The New York Times story on Bolton’s book, that is still undergoing NSC review is evidence that someone leaked.
The absence of contradiction in an adversarial proceeding is a reasonable indication.… you have no way of knowing whether or not Vindman testified truthfully.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ha! True! But does every betrayer think of himself as a betrayer?It does make getting that massive “leaker” and “back stabber” vote problematic though…
T
Theo520
Guest
Source pleaseThe House rules created by the Republicans specifically forbid attorneys in the deposition room, just like a Grand Jury. He was following the rules.
No, they aren’t automatically valid over the President, it’s that separation of powers thing. Most presidents have claimed such, even Obama.He told the Executive Branch to not cooperate with any subpoenas. Congressional subpoenas are known to be valid.
Again, Trump never had to claim executive privilege, it never got that far due to Schiffs ‘strategy’.
I repeat, I think Schiff intentionally created this outcome, so it would appear as obstruction.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Please, show me where I am wrong. If I am incorrect and the House somehow issued subpoenas that weren’t 'legal" I’d like to know. I’ve said the House has inherent subpoena authority and then they specifically passed an impeachment investigation resolution. The Trump Administration resisted subpoenas issued both before and after the impeachment investigation vote.Better that than being wrongly accused of falsehood.
This is Schiff explaining about subpoenas. It’s not the best clip, but it was what I could find.Except that they weren’t “legal” because when issued, Pelosi had not bothered to have the House formally vote to initiate impeachment proceedings to support the issuance of subpoenas for that hearing.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.