Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Mountain Man]

So when Nadler proclaims that he has "sole power" he is in effect attempting a power grab. He's trying to seize what is rightfully the domain of the courts and claim it for himself.

As I said before, "sole power of impeachment" simply means they get to make the final decision, it doesn't mean they have unfettered power to pursue impeachment in whatever way they want.

[rogue06]

If they keep it up, they'll be able to use their focus groups to figure out how to impeach Trump again during his second term.

That might be a good idea since some Democrats have already indicated that if he's re-elected they will try to impeach him again.

That sounds like they are pretty much admitting that they will reject the results of the election if they don't like it. Kind of like what they did after 2016.

[Cow Poke]

That might be a good idea since some Democrats have already indicated that if he's re-elected they will try to impeach him again.

That sounds like they are pretty much admitting that they will reject the results of the election if they don't like it. Kind of like what they did after 2016.

One of them, Karen Bass (D-CA), even went so far as to explain that it's not like a criminal trial, where you can't put somebody n "double jeopardy" --- you can actually impeach him for the same offense(s).

“So, you know, yes, but I don’t think it would be exactly the same and here’s why because even though we are impeaching him now, there’s still a number of court cases, there’s a ton of information that could come forward. For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he’s owned 100 percent by the Russians. You are absolutely right in your scenario, but the only thing I would say slightly different is, it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we would have a ton more information, and then the odds of that, sadly enough, is that, you know, he probably has other examples of criminal behavior.”

[JimL]

Alan Dershowitz points out that the second article of impeachment -- "obstruction of Congress" -- is DOA:

Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened today. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena, and the Supreme Court said, we are going to hear this case.

Hannity: All three cases, by the way.

Dershowitz: One of them is a state case — but think of what that message is. It’s “Trump was right.” you don’t have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless the court tells you you have to comply. we don’t know how the court is going to come out, but they made it clear that is a viable issue. So that charge, that ground of impeachment should be immediately removed by the House and not sent to the Senate. There is nothing to it anymore after the Supreme Court today said they were going to review on an issue when the president challenges the subpoena power of Congress. All done, it’s over!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...f-impeachment/

Dershowitz is another Trump toadie so I wouldn't put much stock into anything he has to say on the matter. Like he said himself "we don't know how the court is going to come out" and being that there is precedent in the Nixon case, as well as in the recent McGahn case, that the President must comply with Congressional subpoenas, that, in the words of Judge Jackson, the President is not a King. Besides, Dershowitz argument sounds specious to me. Just because the Supreme court is granting review of Trumps challenge, doesn't mean he is free to make those challeges. That's what they will be deciding on

[Leonhard]

Its a nasty can of worms being opened. I hope it fails spectacular as a strategy so it won't be used again.

[Cow Poke]

Dershowitz is another Trump toadie...

As is anybody outside your bubble, Jim.

[Mountain Man]

Dershowitz is another Trump toadie so I wouldn't put much stock into anything he has to say on the matter. Like he said himself "we don't know how the court is going to come out" and being that there is precedent in the Nixon case, as well as in the recent McGahn case, that the President must comply with Congressional subpoenas, that, in the words of Judge Jackson, the President is not a King. Besides, Dershowitz argument sounds specious to me. Just because the Supreme court is granting review of Trumps challenge, doesn't mean he is free to make those challeges. That's what they will be deciding on

You really are brainless. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides, because the fact that they're agreeing to hear the case at all means that they consider it to be a legitimate challenge, meaning that appealing to the court regarding the subpoenas can not be obstruction.

And of course anybody issued with a subpoena is free to challenge it in court. Why wouldn't they be? You'll have to explain your reasoning here.

[Teallaura]

Dershowitz is another Trump toadie so I wouldn't put much stock into anything he has to say on the matter. Like he said himself "we don't know how the court is going to come out" and being that there is precedent in the Nixon case, as well as in the recent McGahn case, that the President must comply with Congressional subpoenas, that, in the words of Judge Jackson, the President is not a King. Besides, Dershowitz argument sounds specious to me. Just because the Supreme court is granting review of Trumps challenge, doesn't mean he is free to make those challeges. That's what they will be deciding on

Dershowitz? Clinton's biggest supporter?

[JimL]

You really are brainless. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides, because the fact that they're agreeing to hear the case at all means that they consider it to be a legitimate challenge, meaning that appealing to the court regarding the subpoenas can not be obstruction.

And of course anybody issued with a subpoena is free to challenge it in court. Why wouldn't they be? You'll have to explain your reasoning here.

Dershowitz said it himself "we don't know how the court is going to come out." Besides, there's precedent. Nixon was impeached in part for doing the same thing.

[JimL]

Dershowitz? Clinton's biggest supporter?

Dershowitz has been a lap dog for Trump since he took office. Sometimes I wonder what Trump has on some of these boot lickers, like Dershowitz' connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

[Mountain Man]

Dershowitz said it himself "we don't know how the court is going to come out." Besides, there's precedent. Nixon was impeached in part for doing the same thing.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't have the patience to try and explain it to you again.

[Cow Poke]

Dershowitz? Clinton's biggest supporter?

If you don't hate Trump as much as the TrumpHaters, you're a rabid Trump supporter.

[JimL]

You have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't have the patience to try and explain it to you again.

Really, the courts have little choice but to hear the case, otherwise there is a stalemate. Trump could just continue to deny complying with congressional subpoenas regardless of what Congress says.

[JimL]

If you don't hate Trump as much as the TrumpHaters, you're a rabid Trump supporter.

No, but if you defend him at every turn, you are, even if you pretend not to be.

[Cow Poke]

No, but if you defend him at every turn, you are, even if you pretend not to be.

You're certainly entitled to be wrong, Jim. You seem to excel at it.