Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Impeachment Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    You are watching McConnell-vision. I am reading a blog.

    Good point wasted on the Republican controlled Senate.
    on the contrary they will look at the evidence the DEMOCRATS bring forth and rightfully find that third and fourth hand hearsay and opinion proves nothing. If the Democrats really thought he'd done something wrong they would have waited on the courts to rule about executive privilege as was done with Nixon and Clinton. this is just the Democrats acting like whiny children because they did not get their way in 2016
    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-21-2020, 02:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      I'm not mad at anybody, Sam. God is good!

      ETA: And, what MM said!
      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
      "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"

      Comment


      • #48
        The woman who is speaking now (or was about 20 minutes ago if she's not still speaking) was making some good valid points, but, for CRYIN' OUT LOUD, she can't READ!!! She keeps stumbling over her words like she's too passionate or fired up to think clearly, and it's really annoying.

        It's like these people were given scripts written by other people, and they haven't had a chance to look them over yet.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Interesting -- Apple has to get into EVERYTHING....

          Senators bend the rules by wearing Apple Watches to Trump trial

          I think by any means of common sense, Apple watches would qualify under "phones or electronic devices" not allowed in the Senate Chamber, as many Apple watches include cellular communications, allowing them to operate even if the associated iPhone is far away, or even turned off.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Interesting -- Apple has to get into EVERYTHING....

            Senators bend the rules by wearing Apple Watches to Trump trial

            I think by any means of common sense, Apple watches would qualify under "phones or electronic devices" not allowed in the Senate Chamber, as many Apple watches include cellular communications, allowing them to operate even if the associated iPhone is far away, or even turned off.
            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.

            Comment


            • #51
              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.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  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.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          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"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X