The Impeachment Thread

#30,476
#30,476
McDad said:
I don't see how. If the folks are compelled to testify if subpoenaed by Congress and the constitution dictates he must do so, that is impeachable imo.

However, testimony never provided is neither pro or con for the outcome. Simply because it never occured. Thinking it is or could be is simply projecting.
Click to expand...
They were subpoenaed by congress (weren't they?). Trump told them to ignore the subpoenas (didn't he?).
 
#30,477
#30,477
volinbham said:
There's a Constitutional remedy for that. The Dems (who apparently are wholly devoted to the Constitution) not only chose not to pursue the Constitutional remedy but also decided to create an impeachment article about choosing not to do so. Cajones mas Grande
Click to expand...
Any good resources which detail what you're describing here? Im genuinely curious.
 
#30,478
#30,478
BowlBrother85 said:
The list of witnesses that Republicans provided to Democrats in the House Oversight Committee included people such as Alexandra Chalupa, who the Republicans wanted to call in order to push a de-bunked conspiracy theory from a Russian disinformation campaign and Hunter Biden who weren't really witnesses to the matter at hand The Republicans were trying to change the subject to unsupported conspiracy theories that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 election and to the Bidens . Of course, the Democrats weren't going to allow that.
Click to expand...

Of course the Dems weren't going to allow witnesses that challenged their narrative. If it's all fair and above board what harm could it do to allow some from the list?

I surprised you are defending the process as if it were completely fair and above board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens and volfanjustin
#30,479
#30,479
volinbham said:
There's a Constitutional remedy for that. The Dems (who apparently are wholly devoted to the Constitution) not only chose not to pursue the Constitutional remedy but also decided to create an impeachment article about choosing not to do so. Cajones mas Grande
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand. They rushed the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#30,481
#30,481
luthervol said:
They were subpoenaed by congress (weren't they?). Trump told them to ignore the subpoenas (didn't he?).
Click to expand...
I dont know. If they were, or Trump was, AND that defiance is unconstitutional, then that is a problem.

Is it constitutional?
 
#30,487
#30,487
volinbham said:
There's a Constitutional remedy for that. The Dems (who apparently are wholly devoted to the Constitution) not only chose not to pursue the Constitutional remedy but also decided to create an impeachment article about choosing not to do so. Cajones mas Grande
Click to expand...
What's the constitutional remedy. The courts? Isn't there one case already 8 months old that hasn't even made it to the circuit court yet? Why delay it through the courts when they have already decided in previous cases that the subpoenas must be honored? Send it to the Senate where they can expedite the trial.
 
#30,490
#30,490
CagleMtnVol said:
Hunter Biden is literally the center of this whole thing!!
Click to expand...
No, he isn't. The center of this whole thing is the central question of whether or not Donald Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to the Ukraine, in order to use it as leverage against their President's willingness to perform a political campaign favor for him. Hunter Biden would have no knowledge of that. Any attempts to call Hunter Biden as a witness represent transparent efforts to deflect from that central question.
 
#30,492
#30,492
BowlBrother85 said:
No, he isn't. The center of this whole thing is the central question of whether or not Donald Trump withheld $391 million in military aid to the Ukraine, in order to use it as leverage against their President's willingness to perform a political campaign favor for him. Hunter Biden would have no knowledge of that. Any attempts to call Hunter Biden as a witness are transparent efforts to deflect from that central question.
Click to expand...
Delayed not withheld
 
#30,493
#30,493
McDad said:
I dont know. If they were, or Trump was, AND that defiance is unconstitutional, then that is a problem.

Is it constitutional?
Click to expand...
He would lose in court and he knows it. He is just playing the delay game. Let the senate expedite the process.
 
#30,494
#30,494
McDad said:
If that's Constitutional, then tough teet.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the rules are pretty vague so I doubt there's a Constitutional violation claim on the part of R's. That said, it does call into question the narrative of "fair" "open" "objective" process for the impeachment inquiry. Basically, one side called only the people they felt support the narrative and the other side wasn't given an opportunity to provide witnesses that question the narrative.

Impeachment was pre-ordained or it wouldn't have been pursued. The process was set to achieve an outcome. Not unConstitutional but not compelling.

To me the most telling sign is how the Senate wants more witnesses to "prove" the case that the House claims has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and tbwhhs
#30,495
#30,495
luthervol said:
What's the constitutional remedy. The courts? Isn't there one case already 8 months old that hasn't even made it to the circuit court yet? Why delay it through the courts when they have already decided in previous cases that the subpoenas must be honored? Send it to the Senate where they can expedite the trial.
Click to expand...
If Trump is exercising his constitutional rights by avoiding, and there is a constitutional remedy to compel his testimony, rushing and circumventing the process is no benefit to liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, volfanhill and 1972 Grad
#30,497
#30,497
McDad said:
No worries. Ill google.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, since we have 3 branches of government and separation of powers, the Judicial branch is supposed to mediate standoffs between the Executive and Legislative branch. The Executive branch does not have to take orders from the Legislative branch. The Legislative branch chose to hurry the process up so they could get it done before the Christmas break, rather than to lose momentum by letting it make its way through the courts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol, McDad and tbwhhs
#30,499
#30,499
volinbham said:
There's a Constitutional remedy for that. The Dems (who apparently are wholly devoted to the Constitution) not only chose not to pursue the Constitutional remedy but also decided to create an impeachment article about choosing not to do so. Cajones mas Grande
Click to expand...
Yeah the Dems are devoted to the Constitution alright. When it's expedient.
 
#30,500
#30,500


He's right they don't just hate Trump. They hate all 60 million of us Americans who voted for him. Remember to them were just deplorables who cling to our guns & religion.

Were just racist smelly Walmart people to them that live in parts of the country they don't give a damn about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol and volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top