The Impeachment Thread

#31,458
#31,458
We can all opine on what we think impeachment should look like, but the fact is the Constitution leaves it almost entirely up to the two houses to do as they see fit.

The only real check on the process is the political one--that which the voters will tolerate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85, McDad and volinbham
#31,462
#31,462
Velo Vol said:
We can all opine on what we think impeachment should look like, but the fact is the Constitution leaves it almost entirely up to the two houses to do as they see fit.

The only real check on the process is the political one--that which the voters will tolerate.
Click to expand...
This is true.
 
#31,463
#31,463
I think people are confusing Watergate Senate trials with Senate impeachment proceedings. The Watergate trials were pre-impeachment efforts and more like typically Senate or House investigations. The Clinton impeachment Senate trial had no live witnesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#31,467
#31,467
RockyTop85 said:
You could say that about any ruling but most people subject to court rulings don’t have the plausible authority to muster the resources of the government against the courts. Usually it’s the other way around. I realize it’s an extreme theory but it’s an extreme situation where you a branch of government disobeying the branch vested with oversight.

And to be clear, because it was an edit in the long post: this theory is exclusively applicable in a dispute between the branches of government. If the Congress were to subpoena a private individual, that person would have the ability to ask a court to quash the subpoena because in that instance the government is still subject to limitations created by the constitution vis-a-vis the public. Here the people subpoenaed didn’t move to quash, the president ordered them not to attend.
Click to expand...
Maybe you already posted this (my attention here waxes and wanes), but had you been a committee chairperson, what would you have done about the problem of non-cooperating witnesses?
 
#31,468
#31,468
BowlBrother85 said:
I will have to look it up... working mostly from memory and that was a long time ago. If I'm wrong, I will come back here and admit it. I am big enough to do that.
Click to expand...

A simple google of his name will show who he was.

It was a very very long time ago but there is no live testimony during the senate portion.

The senate simply looks at the facts handed to them by the house and then rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#31,469
#31,469
NEOCON said:
A simple google of his name will show who he was.

It was a very very long time ago but there is no live testimony during the senate portion.

The senate simply looks at the facts handed to them by the house and then rules.
Click to expand...
After a search, it appears you are correct. You have my sincerest apologies.

Although, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way in the Senate. They make the rules as to whether or not to call witnesses. They definitely can.
 
#31,472
#31,472
BowlBrother85 said:
After a search, it appears you are correct. You have my sincerest apologies.
Click to expand...

I hate throwing you a bone, but am I off base here or is this opinion piece incorrect?

"The Senate trial had begun in early January, and on Jan. 27, the Senate voted on two motions: one to dismiss the proceedings, which failed, and a second on whether to depose witnesses and admit further evidence, which passed with Collins’s support."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...uring-impeachment-i-need-witnesses-get-truth/
 
#31,475
#31,475
Orangeburst said:
I hate throwing you a bone, but am I off base here or is this opinion piece incorrect?

"The Senate trial had begun in early January, and on Jan. 27, the Senate voted on two motions: one to dismiss the proceedings, which failed, and a second on whether to depose witnesses and admit further evidence, which passed with Collins’s support."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...uring-impeachment-i-need-witnesses-get-truth/
Click to expand...

That's a pretty generous recounting of what happened.

No live witnesses were called. The testimony from depositions was excerpted and presented to the Senate.

The witnesses: Lewinsky, Jordan and Blumenthal? were all previously part of the process via Starr. (still checking to see if Blumenthal was deposed by Starr)

EDIT: Blumenthal indeed had testified in the Starr investigation.

The significance? All the witnesses that were deposed in the Senate trial of Clinton had already provided testimony. Dems are asking the Senate to depose people who have not been party to the process to date.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top