Page 6 of 108 FirstFirst ... 456781656106 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 1073

Thread: The Impeachment Trial

  1. #51
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,424
    Amen (Given)
    13032
    Amen (Received)
    27575
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    It would be pretty obvious if someone was trying to use the watch for communicating though. And you can't really text or send emails either. It just has some canned responses you can send, there isn't a keyboard (at least not on mine). But I guess they could receive texts and emails.
    The cellular ones can be used as phones. My wife has one of those, and she can GET texts. That would be my guess, is that the concern would be that the members receiving talking points, or instructions, or late breaking news, or whatever. And you could see the text without being terribly obvious.

    But, then again, my wife has an Apple Watch --- I have a $29 walmart watch.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  2. #52
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    312
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Caught a bit this morning of Schiff and Lori and thought they were doing really well. Then my wife turned the tv off and said ‘no tv at breakfast’ as if that was some rule we had.

  3. #53
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,424
    Amen (Given)
    13032
    Amen (Received)
    27575
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Caught a bit this morning of Schiff and Lori and thought they were doing really well. Then my wife turned the tv off and said ‘no tv at breakfast’ as if that was some rule we had.
    Sounds like a great rule --- we actually have a "no technology at the table" rule.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  4. #54
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,908
    Amen (Given)
    5238
    Amen (Received)
    22970
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Sounds like a great rule --- we actually have a "no technology at the table" rule.
    But what about smart forks?



    https://slate.com/technology/2017/10...mart-fork.html

  5. #55
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,032
    Amen (Given)
    6104
    Amen (Received)
    7472
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    An impeachment vote is not necessary for congressional committees to issue valid subpoenas, as those committees already have subpoena power.

    Mountain Man has had this explained before and neither he nor anyone else has ever put forth an actual legal argument for why congressional subpoenas during an impeachment inquiry require a preceding vote. He'll never give up a talking point, even if patently false, but that doesn't mean you have to latch onto such nonsense.

    --Sam
    You're right that we have been over this before, but you're wrong that the reasoning has never been presented. Judicial precedent says that a Congressional committee subpoena is valid only if the committee is pursuing a valid legislative purpose, and if it has the authorization of its chamber. Since there was never a House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, it fails the second test. Keep in mind, they can start the inquiry without a vote, but they can not issue any legally binding subpoenas until a vote by the House grants the authorization.

    Trump's rockstar team of lawyers is obviously aware of this precedent which is why it will form part of their opening arguments.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  6. Amen RumTumTugger, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  7. #56
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,032
    Amen (Given)
    6104
    Amen (Received)
    7472
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Caught a bit this morning of Schiff and Lori and thought they were doing really well. Then my wife turned the tv off and said ‘no tv at breakfast’ as if that was some rule we had.
    Then you say, "Now what am I supposed to do, talk to you?"

    Just make sure your reflexes are fast enough to avoid the retaliation.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  8. #57
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You're right that we have been over this before, but you're wrong that the reasoning has never been presented. Judicial precedent says that a Congressional committee subpoena is valid only if the committee is pursuing a valid legislative purpose, and if it has the authorization of its chamber. Since there was never a House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, it fails the second test. Keep in mind, they can start the inquiry without a vote, but they can not issue any legally binding subpoenas until a vote by the House grants the authorization.

    Trump's rockstar team of lawyers is obviously aware of this precedent which is why it will form part of their opening arguments.
    This remains false and is, in fact, without judicial precedent. It has, moreover, failed spectacularly when tried in courts this last year: district and appellate courts have overruled the administration's arguments concerning "legislative purpose", following real judicial precedent that the power of Congress to investigate as a matter of oversight and legislative purpose is broad.

    Source: Cases and controversies: Congress, the subpoena power and a “legislative purpose”. Amy Howe. SCOTUSBlog. 2019.07.24

    Since then, the court has reiterated that Congress’ power to investigate is broad — “as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” That power allows Congress to make, for example, “inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them,” as well as “probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.”

    Moreover, the court has added, the inquiry into whether an investigation serves a “legislative purpose” is a relatively narrow one, in which any possible ulterior motives by Congress take a back seat. The court explained that, although “dishonest or vindictive motives are readily attributed to legislative conduct and as readily believed,” the remedy for such motives is “self-discipline and the voters,” rather than the courts. The role of the courts, the Supreme Court stressed, should be limited to determining whether a committee’s investigation goes beyond the legislative function because it takes on powers that are “exclusively vested” in either the judiciary or the executive branch.


    At the same time, the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress’ power to investigate is not unlimited. That power cannot, the court has noted, “be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose,” and it does not apply “to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate.” Nor, the court has observed, should the power to investigate “be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement.” Congress’ power to investigate is also limited by the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including the right not to incriminate oneself.

    © Copyright Original Source



    In short, the subpoenas of the House regarding an impeachment inquiry are just as -- if not far more -- legitimate as the subpoenas issued during the Benghazi probe. And we all know how absolutely on board you were with the Benghazi probe.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  9. #58
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,032
    Amen (Given)
    6104
    Amen (Received)
    7472
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    This remains false and is, in fact, without judicial precedent. It has, moreover, failed spectacularly when tried in courts this last year: district and appellate courts have overruled the administration's arguments concerning "legislative purpose", following real judicial precedent that the power of Congress to investigate as a matter of oversight and legislative purpose is broad.

    Source: Cases and controversies: Congress, the subpoena power and a “legislative purpose”. Amy Howe. SCOTUSBlog. 2019.07.24

    Since then, the court has reiterated that Congress’ power to investigate is broad — “as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” That power allows Congress to make, for example, “inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them,” as well as “probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.”

    Moreover, the court has added, the inquiry into whether an investigation serves a “legislative purpose” is a relatively narrow one, in which any possible ulterior motives by Congress take a back seat. The court explained that, although “dishonest or vindictive motives are readily attributed to legislative conduct and as readily believed,” the remedy for such motives is “self-discipline and the voters,” rather than the courts. The role of the courts, the Supreme Court stressed, should be limited to determining whether a committee’s investigation goes beyond the legislative function because it takes on powers that are “exclusively vested” in either the judiciary or the executive branch.


    At the same time, the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress’ power to investigate is not unlimited. That power cannot, the court has noted, “be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose,” and it does not apply “to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate.” Nor, the court has observed, should the power to investigate “be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement.” Congress’ power to investigate is also limited by the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including the right not to incriminate oneself.

    © Copyright Original Source



    In short, the subpoenas of the House regarding an impeachment inquiry are just as -- if not far more -- legitimate as the subpoenas issued during the Benghazi probe. And we all know how absolutely on board you were with the Benghazi probe.

    --Sam
    Did you mean to quote a source that supports my point?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  10. #59
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,020
    Amen (Given)
    159
    Amen (Received)
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Did you mean to quote a source that supports my point?
    It does not but it's not surprising, given your history of legal acumen, to find that you believe it does.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  11. #60
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,032
    Amen (Given)
    6104
    Amen (Received)
    7472
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    It does not but it's not surprising, given your history of legal acumen, to find that you believe it does.

    --Sam
    Whatever you say, Sam.

    The fact is that Trump's A-Team knows the law far better than either of us, and the precedent cited is making up a part of their opening arguments.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •