Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[DivineOb]

Why?

Answer my questions and I'll tell you.

[DivineOb]

We have laws in place for a reason. Democrats need to follow the rules laid out, if they can follow the rules and get proper court approval, I have no problem listening.

So do I have it right that you *aren't* curious?

That’s why entertainers need to stick to entertainment because of silly quotes like that. Riddle me this, did the Nazi’s deserve to hear about the Jews that were being hidden away, in the basement?

No, and I think those who denied them that information did so because they believed themselves to be morally superior over the Nazis. *next*

[JimL]

Sweety, it’s not the Senate’s job to do the houses job. If they did such a sloppy job with their inquiry, that’s in them. Democrat incompetence will not save the day.

So, you don't think that new evidence whether exculpatory or inculpatory should ever be admissable at trial? Or is it just dependent upon your agenda whether it is admissable or not?

[rogue06]

Doesn't matter: Judge Jackson made no distinction between congressional committees, since they all have subpoena power.

Yes it does and you know it. It is very dishonest for you to say otherwise and hide behind a claim that they both have subpoena powers.

Nobody disputes that both committees have subpoena powers. What is at question is whether Schiff, as he has shown he is prone to do, screwed it up. Nadler, OTOH has at the very least, a veneer of competence and the validity of the subpoenas from his committee has not been drawn into question.

[Tassman]

So? The incredibly partisan Democrats, lacking an actual crime, consulted with focus groups and came up with a vague accusation.

The second impeachment article, Obstruction of Congress, is based on Trump’s stonewalling of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Nothing vague about that. The White House has refused to provide documents to congressional investigators and has instructed top advisers and government officials to defy subpoenas and refuse to testify.

Which goes back to the Constitution giving them absolute authority to run it as they see fit.

The Constitution does NOT give the Senate “absolute authority” to run a crooked trial.

“The Constitution stipulates that senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation” (Article III, section 3, clause 6). That oath is more specific than the general one to uphold the Constitution. Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of [in this case, Donald J. Trump] now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...o-help-you-god

The senate leader and others have specifically and publicly stated they will refuse to do so.

[Watermelon]

Yes it does and you know it. It is very dishonest for you to say otherwise and hide behind a claim that they both have subpoena powers.

Nobody disputes that both committees have subpoena powers. What is at question is whether Schiff, as he has shown he is prone to do, screwed it up. Nadler, OTOH has at the very least, a veneer of competence and the validity of the subpoenas from his committee has not been drawn into question.

Can you elaborate on what the complaint about Schiffs subpoena is?

[lilpixieofterror]

So do I have it right that you *aren't* curious?

Would I listen? Sure, but as I said, it’s important that the rule of law is upheld first and foremost. If the Democrats are serious, they need to take it to the courts and let the courts decide.

No, and I think those who denied them that information did so because they believed themselves to be morally superior over the Nazis. *next*

But did Nazi’s have a right to that information? What you’re setting up here is opposite of why we have constitutional protections to begin with. Why should you object to police searching your house? Do you have anything to hide?

[firstfloor]

Trump’s willingness to sign up to war crimes makes him clearly unsuitable to continue in his post. It is time for him to resign, and calls for his resignation should be heard from McConnell and other senior Republicans. We, the people, demand it.

[seer]

We, the people, demand it.

Are you a US citizen?

[firstfloor]

Are you a US citizen?

Is that a trick question?

[Cow Poke]

The second impeachment article,...

...is so weak that Pelosi can't even transmit it to the Senate.

[JimL]

Would I listen? Sure, but as I said, itÂ’s important that the rule of law is upheld first and foremost. If the Democrats are serious, they need to take it to the courts and let the courts decide.

He didn't ask if you would listen, Lilpix, he asked if want to hear. Your evasion makes obvious the fact that you would rather not hear. There are none so deaf.......

But did NaziÂ’s have a right to that information? What youÂ’re setting up here is opposite of why we have constitutional protections to begin with.

What a ridiculous analogy! One has to wonder why you're trying so hard to defend the President for his obstructing an inquiry into his actions. Well, we're not really wondering why, we know why, and so do you. The presidents obstruction is not protected by the Constitution, it's a violation of the Constitution. An alleged murderer doesn't have the power to determine what the admissable evidence will be or will not be. He doesn't have the power to order witnesses not to testify or to block direct evidence from being seen. The President is using his power to violate the Constitution, not to adhere to it.

Why should you object to police searching your house? Do you have anything to hide?

The White House is not the Presidents House, it's the peoples house and it is the peoples prerogative to have it searched, if you will, not the guests.

[Sam]

Yes it does and you know it. It is very dishonest for you to say otherwise and hide behind a claim that they both have subpoena powers.

Nobody disputes that both committees have subpoena powers. What is at question is whether Schiff, as he has shown he is prone to do, screwed it up. Nadler, OTOH has at the very least, a veneer of competence and the validity of the subpoenas from his committee has not been drawn into question.

Dishonest? I fear you've entirely forgotten the meaning of the word.

Explain why, using Judge Jackson's ruling or any other legal precedent, subpoenas coming out of HPSCI lack legal authority.

Don't go calling people dishonest if you're just going to follow it up with griping and handwaving.

--Sam

[seer]

Is that a trick question?

Well, who is the "we" you were speaking of? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[DivineOb]

Would I listen? Sure, but as I said, it’s important that the rule of law is upheld first and foremost. If the Democrats are serious, they need to take it to the courts and let the courts decide.

If I can be frank I think you are extremely trusting of the current government. I doubt very many conservatives on this forum would be similarly dispassionate about significantly lesser allegations about Obama's administration. I bet if I search for "Clinton emails" I would find a rabid mob ready to tear her limb from limb. And I am not unsympathetic to those who felt that way for legitimate reasons (I was one of them) for reasons I will lay out below.

But did Nazi’s have a right to that information?

I do not feel they had that right. There's a reason we recognize human rights which transcend borders, governments, and constitutions.

What you’re setting up here is opposite of why we have constitutional protections to begin with. Why should you object to police searching your house? Do you have anything to hide?

This is a category error. I am private citizen who doesn't report to The People. I don't have any special public trust or public authority. I can't act in a significant way against The People due to blackmail or conflicts of interest. I've felt this way my whole life (see my above comment re: Clinton). I felt she violated the public trust by acting in a way to hide communications from FOIA and did so in a reckless manner. Not trying to shift the discussion but I assure you I try to be consistent in this expectation.