U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Something that has been lost on those who are screaming about subpoenas to testify in the House's impeachment inquiry is that their subpoenas were NOT subpoenas because of the way that Nancy decided to go about it all.  Technically and legally, the formal calls to testify were nothing more than letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production.  Their letters have no penalty of noncompliance attached to them.

 

The SCOTUS has held since the Nixon days that in order for subpoenas to carry any legal and enforceable weight, the full House must vote on the impeachment inquiry.  That was not done.  Nancy did it unilaterally.  She simply came out and announced that the impeachment inquiry will begin.

 

This is one reason why the POTUS' legal team has stated that the impeachment effort is unconstitutional.  White House lawyer Patrick Philbin explained it yesterday.  The constitutional process for beginning the impeachment inquiry was not followed.  Even the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel outlined this flaw

 

Absent the vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority.  All of those House chairpersons were relegated to having to send request letters -- not subpoenas.  A lawful subpoena requires an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word.  In other words, compliance with the "letters" was discretionary.

 

In order for Democrats to have any chance of pulling this stunt and making it look legal and enforceable, they relied on their propaganda arm -- the media -- and they complied nicely as usual.

 

So the mission to create a public "impression" was underway from the start.

 

The SCOTUS has long established that Congress has lawful subpoena powers as it relates to their oversight responsibility.  See the powers enumerated in A1§8.  You will note, if you read it correctly, that foreign policy and impeachment are not included in the legislative purpose of oversight.

 

The SCOTUS precedent that makes subpoena power with penalties for non-compliance possible in the House, and is allowed in impeachment investigations, requires a full House authorization vote and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee.  Nancy did this by herself, and it immediately went to the Intelligence Committee headed by Schiff.

 

Legally and technically, the House was not exercising impeachment authority.  So their demands infringed on the separation of powers and executive privilege.  The letters were not legally subpoenas.

 

As previously stated, the SCOTUS already established precedent for the House to overcome executive privilege claims during the Nixon impeachment investigation -- but the precedent requires a full House vote and with the Judiciary Committee beginning the formal impeachment investigation.

 

The letters to appear or provide documents were absent a penalty for non-compliance.  The Executive Branch had no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.   Nancy and her team of lawyers designed this all for public consumption and with a reliance on the public's lack of understanding of the legal issues involved.

 

When Nancy and her team of lawyers changed the House rules, changed the House impeachment rules and changed the committee rules, they removed Republicans from the entire process in the House.  However, none of that changed the Constitution and the separation of powers between co-equal branches of government.

An excellent post, Ricohoc.  I'll be waiting for the countering responses.

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:10 AM, neeray said:

Acquittal or not, it doesn't really matter.

Well, this excellently sums up the Democrat position. It's all about attempting to hold the house and win back the Senate. In short, power! Regardless of damaging American institutions; power is all the Democrat party wants.

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I have to say that if that's the best response you can muster I have to simply laugh.  For instance:

 

"Sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians . . . "

 

Where's the proof of the allegations?  Have you seen it?  Or do you simply take team Mueller claims at face value?

 

I'll repeat myself:  Gullible people suck it all up despite a complete lack of proof and with nary a question.  People with critical thinking skills ask hard questions and demand proof.  These people take Americans for fools and there's far to many Americans who prove them correct.

Sure your critical thinking has nothing to do with Trump calling the Muller probe a witch hunt 84 times. Thinking critically, with so many indicted for connection with the election and 8 pleaded guilty or convicted of felonies which include Trump associates and election campaign officials, 2016 election was compromised. That’s my stance. 

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Sure your critical thinking has nothing to do with Trump calling the Muller probe a witch hunt 84 times. Thinking critically, with so many indicted for connection with the election and 8 pleaded guilty or convicted of felonies which include Trump associates and election campaign officials, 2016 election was compromised. That’s my stance. 

True, it wasn't a witch hunt.  It's an attempted soft coup.

 

If you refuse to believe it be patient.  The facts and undeniable truth will emerge not long from now.  More and more information appears daily.  Even if it seems to be a trickle now it will become a flood.

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Tippaporn

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/22/2020 at 9:38 AM, neeray said:

Are you in Thailand? Take a look around, look way up. You will see much great disingenuous politicians in GENERAL. And take a hard look at who Schiff is impeaching; now there's the epitome of disingenuousness.

I am in Thailand, and Thailand has nothing to do with the mess in American politics being caused by a political party out of control with a lust for power so great that they are willing announce they will work to impeach him from his first day in office on charges they haven't even found yet. The American people see the obviousness of this sharade, and as I said long ago, should witnesses get called, Biden will be used as a mop. The Democrats have laid a case of defense of the Bidens rather then an attack on Trump. The Defense of Trump will now be a prosecution of the Bidens at the same time....told ya so! Then comes Durham! The Party is OVER!

Edited January 24, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Sp.

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

True, it wasn't a witch hunt.  It's an attempted soft coup.

 

If you refuse to believe it be patient.  The facts and undeniable truth will emerge not long from now.

You not putting on your critical thinking cap. Muller was appointed by Trump’s appointed Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. 

[Tippaporn]

55555555.  Nice signature there, WalkingOrders.  Just noticed.  Apropos! 

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/22/2020 at 10:29 AM, spidermike007 said:

Evidence? Documents? Witnesses? Why on earth would we want a fair trial?

 

I believe the senate and the GOP are going to pay a very heavy price for their nonsense, and their unwillingness to at least hear the evidence, come November. I think we will be looking at a democratically controlled senate, house, and executive branch this time around. And the GOP deserves that trouncing. The people are tired of the nonsense.

The American people are tired of a political party that has been trying to impeach a President since before he was even sworn, even if they had to hunt for charges. A party that chose not to argue in court for evidence, and instead call this obstruction of congress, and an impeachment offense, and wants the Senate to the House's job. This farce is almost over, and so is the Democrat party. Their Presidential candidates are bringing so much excitment they can't fill a waffle house, or a high school gym. A joke.

[mogandave]

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

An excellent post, Ricohoc.  I'll be waiting for the countering responses.

I got this:

 

“Trump obstruction!” 

[Chiphigh]

33 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Sure your critical thinking has nothing to do with Trump calling the Muller probe a witch hunt 84 times. Thinking critically, with so many indicted for connection with the election and 8 pleaded guilty or convicted of felonies which include Trump associates and election campaign officials, 2016 election was compromised. That’s my stance. 

You are entitled to your stance. You are not entitled to state your own opinions and assumptions with unsourced unverifiable assertions as facts. 

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/22/2020 at 8:43 PM, candide said:

What falsehooď? Were Biden or Chalupa in a position to witness what Trump had done or said between March and September 2019? This is pure hypocrisy!

 

Well, as Chulupa is a DNC operative...who was in where? In Ukraine...for what purpose? She is relevant to any charge of DNC attempting to use Ukraine to meddle in a US election.... or is Ukraine a place where Dem Party operatives hang out for coffee? As for Biden, the Democrats have just spent 2 days claiming the Biden's are clean as a whistle? Hmmmm, do ya think the President's team might reply? After all, it appears to speak direct to the intent of the President. Perhaps it's not hypocritical? After all did these subjects not enter into the original phonecall? It's the main topic. Poor Biden, his own party hates Trump so much they are willing to use him as a rag to wipe up his own blood. Coming soon Jay Sekulow!!!

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/22/2020 at 10:30 PM, Sujo said:

Your post is just a joke right?

 

1. No, what biden did is not relevant to what trump did. Trump has the doj or state department to investigate but he chose the way that was wrong.

 

2. Regardless of how inept you think biden is, the constitution does not allow a president to ask a foreign govt to do it.

 

3. Investigate biden all you want. But do it the right way. Biden being guilty does not show trump as innocent. They are not mutually inclusive.

1. Yes it is

2. Yes it does

3. Acting out of self interest, or the interests of the American people? Mutually exclusive.

 

Also, the ineptness of Biden is not being questioned, that is a given. The corruption of Biden and son is what is being exposed. We already know they are not the brightest of bulbs.

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/23/2020 at 8:55 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

Facts are that your wrong. Americans want witness and documentation by a  68% margin and 48% Republicans do as well.

A Pandora's box for the leftists. Might get what you ask for, although I suspect the next game will be for Dems to argue against witnesses, on the grounds they wont like the witnesses called by GOP....its all smoke and mirrors farse to influence 2020, especially when their candidates are such an exciting bunch of posers!

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Indicted and got guilty pleas Russians by Muller’s team in the Trump Russia election meddling investigation. On top of that, seven of which six were Trump’s advisers. Sprawling set of allegations, encompassing both election interference charges against overseas Russians and various other crimes by American Trump advisors. Any sensible and intelligent person can see the connection. POTUS got away because of DOJ policy but how long can that policy protect him. He will meet his fate as a civilian, no doubt about that. 

Conspiracy theories:

 

" Any sensible and intelligent person can see the connection. POTUS got away because of DOJ policy but how long can that policy protect him. He will meet his fate as a civilian, no doubt about that".

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Conspiracy theories:

 

" Any sensible and intelligent person can see the connection. POTUS got away because of DOJ policy but how long can that policy protect him. He will meet his fate as a civilian, no doubt about that".

Yes.  A policy that has existed for every POTUS, but as usual for Democrats, this policy must be ignored BECAUSE TRUMP.

 

Even Mueller, on three separate occasions in transcribed meetings with the DOJ, stated that his failure to recommend charges against Trump had nothing to do with the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS.  AG Barr is a wise man.

 

Something that would strengthen the weak case made by Democrats in the House would be impeachment articles that have something to do with actual crimes -- which there are none to this point.  If there was evidence of any crimes committed by Trump during his presidency contained in any of these conspiracy theories, they would be exploited to the fullest by Democrats.

 

Even all of these supposed state crimes committed before he was POTUS, would allow Democrats to lambast Trump even more in the media.  But alas, there's nothing there either. 

 

Along the way, Democrats have even been predisposed to making up crimes, so real ones would be a boon.  Nope.  Not even Democrats are using them as propaganda material.

[candide]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Well, as Chulupa is a DNC operative...who was in where? In Ukraine...for what purpose? She is relevant to any charge of DNC attempting to use Ukraine to meddle in a US election.... or is Ukraine a place where Dem Party operatives hang out for coffee? As for Biden, the Democrats have just spent 2 days claiming the Biden's are clean as a whistle? Hmmmm, do ya think the President's team might reply? After all, it appears to speak direct to the intent of the President. Perhaps it's not hypocritical? After all did these subjects not enter into the original phonecall? It's the main topic. Poor Biden, his own party hates Trump so much they are willing to use him as a rag to wipe up his own blood. Coming soon Jay Sekulow!!!

The QPQ occurred between around March and September 2019. People like Biden and Chalupa have nothing to testify about what Trump may have done during this period of time.

 

As for the tactics followed by the Dems, it is obvious that they anticipated that the Republicans would target Biden, as the Republican don't have much else to say. (I doubt they will talk about the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike as It's far too ridiculous)

[Chiphigh]

1 minute ago, candide said:

The QPQ occurred between around March and September 2019. People like Biden and Chalupa have nothing to testify about what Trump may have done during this period of time.

 

As for the tactics followed by the Dems, it is obvious that they anticipated that the Republicans would target Biden, as the Republican don't have much else to say. (I doubt they will talk about the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike as It's far too ridiculous)

So chulupa solicited Ukraine for interference in the election and this is irrelevant because of the liberal double standards. Or because you don't want to have the dnc tied to the dirty tactics, no matter what it takes. 

 

OK, great logical choice. 

 

Fortunately, the facts are being uncovered regardless of the tactics being used to hide them. 

 

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

So chulupa solicited Ukraine for interference in the election and this is irrelevant because of the liberal double standards. Or because you don't want to have the dnc tied to the dirty tactics, no matter what it takes. 

 

OK, great logical choice. 

 

Fortunately, the facts are being uncovered regardless of the tactics being used to hide them. 

 

If Chalupa or the Biden did something illegal, then why is it the Republicans did not investigate them? (Trumpers never answer This questions) This is Trump's trial, not Biden's or Chalupa's.

 

By the way, Trump explicitly cited the "server" and the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike, following Russian propaganda, not Chalupa. In case Roberts accepts witnesses who have not witnessed anything, it should be the two bosses of Crowdstrike who should testify. They would tell that there was not one server but 140, that it is an American company listed at the NASDAQ, and that they are themselves not Ukrainian.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Even Mueller, on three separate occasions in transcribed meetings with the DOJ, stated that his failure to recommend charges against Trump had nothing to do with the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS.  AG Barr is a wise man.

It 's what Barr said, not Mueller. Where are those transcripts?

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

It 's what Barr said, not Mueller. Where are those transcripts?

Allow me to step in and provide a link to show that Ricohoc was wrong. To be fair Muller was ambiguous in commenting on the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting President. True that he didn’t “determine” the charges but that doesn’t mean there were no charges. Just scroll down to the juiciest part of the house hearing when he was asked if Trump can be charged if he is out of the office and he replied with an affirmative “YES”. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-mean-trump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

1. Yes it is

2. Yes it does

3. Acting out of self interest, or the interests of the American people? Mutually exclusive.

 

Also, the ineptness of Biden is not being questioned, that is a given. The corruption of Biden and son is what is being exposed. We already know they are not the brightest of bulbs.

Great work. 3 out of 3 wrong.

 

If you murder someone you can say he was a bad pwrson but that doesnt make you less guilty of murder. Tell me, what evidence can biden give about trump asking Z to investigate him. Did trump call and tell him?

 

No the president cannot ask a foriegn govt to investigate a political rival. Thats what the founding fathers feared.

 

If his son is so bad why didnt republicans investigate him when they had both houses. It is also irrelevant to what trump did.

 

I suggest you read about revelant evidence to the charges before you post more rubbish.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Sujo

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Allow me to step in and provide a link to show that Ricohoc was wrong. To be fair Muller was ambiguous in commenting on the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting President. True that he didn’t “determine” the charges but that doesn’t mean there were no charges. Just scroll down to the juiciest part of the house hearing when he was asked if Trump can be charged if he is out of the office and he replied with an affirmative “YES”. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-mean-trump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901

Spot on!

Are we observing in this thread an implementation of the usual Trumpers' 'noise' tactic: make a lot of 'noise' with a flow of long posts without any source, attempting to make facts irrelevant?

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

A Pandora's box for the leftists. Might get what you ask for, although I suspect the next game will be for Dems to argue against witnesses, on the grounds they wont like the witnesses called by GOP....its all smoke and mirrors farse to influence 2020, especially when their candidates are such an exciting bunch of posers!

Why? Call all, call everyone. Biden is not on trial so only needs to answer things relevant to what trump did. It doesnt make trump less guilty if biden is dodgy.

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, candide said:

If Chalupa or the Biden did something illegal, then why is it the Republicans did not investigate them? (Trumpers never answer This questions) This is Trump's trial, not Biden's or Chalupa's.

 

By the way, Trump explicitly cited the "server" and the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike, following Russian propaganda, not Chalupa. In case Roberts accepts witnesses who have not witnessed anything, it should be the two bosses of Crowdstrike who should testify. They would tell that there was not one server but 140, that it is an American company listed at the NASDAQ, and that they are themselves not Ukrainian.

What makes you think that they aren't being investigated? Then you rattle on about "Trumper" like a school boy. 

 

It’s unbelievable that you are concerned about election interference from one side of the equation while ignoring the obvious tactics used by the dnc and the previous administration. 

 

This whole charade is going to backfire on the left. You can keep up with the phony Russian narrative all you want. 

[WalkingOrders]

58 minutes ago, candide said:

Spot on!

Are we observing in this thread an implementation of the usual Trumpers' 'noise' tactic: make a lot of 'noise' with a flow of long posts without any source, attempting to make facts irrelevant?

I have yet to see any Trump supporters quoting opinion pieces from the MSNBC as a source of fact. I have, however, seen a lot of well thought out reasoning which can be agreed with, or disagreed with, without any vitriol, unfortunately that doesn't happen.

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Why? Call all, call everyone. Biden is not on trial so only needs to answer things relevant to what trump did. It doesnt make trump less guilty if biden is dodgy.

Central to the defense is this question: Did Donald Trump have a legitimate concern, as President of the United States to want to know if Joe Biden abused his office as VP and pointman for Ukraine policy, by placing his son (or allowing with his knowledge) on a Ukrainian Energy company board, seemingly, for no other reason then to be a bagman for money? One might believe that such a question should never dare be asked. I disagree. Oh well.

Edited January 24, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Clarity

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Allow me to step in and provide a link to show that Ricohoc was wrong. To be fair Muller was ambiguous in commenting on the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting President. True that he didn’t “determine” the charges but that doesn’t mean there were no charges. Just scroll down to the juiciest part of the house hearing when he was asked if Trump can be charged if he is out of the office and he replied with an affirmative “YES”. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-mean-trump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901

 

My statement;

Even Mueller, on three separate occasions in transcribed meetings with the DOJ, stated that his failure to recommend charges against Trump had nothing to do with the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS.  AG Barr is a wise man.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/446077-doj-special-counsel-say-there-is-no-conflict-on-mueller-barr

 

Quote

 

Barr said repeatedly in April that Mueller told him that it was not the case that he would have charged Trump with a crime had it not been for the policy.

 

“He reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction,” Barr told senators during public testimony in April.

 

 

My information is factual.

 

I never stated that Mueller exonerated Trump because prosecutors have no role in exoneration.  They either find probable cause to charge/indict or they don't. 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Ricohoc

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling representation of Elizabeth Warren's name has been removed.  Although the media may use those type of terms in their reporting, please do not use those terms here. 

[candide]

30 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The call relates to events surrounding the 2016 election, before, and after, in relation to DNC and Burisma, which is simply public knowledge and obvious to all. The argument is simply was Biden's son's position at Burisma an example of corruption, or not, and was the DNC meddling by sending an operative to Ukraine? The President asked. These questions relate directly to the intent of the President. Was he acting only for his personal benefit? Or was he asking questions which the Office demand's that he ask, on behalf of the American people. As Schiff and CO. spent an amazing amount of time talking about Hunter Biden and Burisma....well...the defense is going to give the President's view. If Democrats demand witnesses this is going to last awhile (The reasons they failed to contest subpoena's in court in the first place (They said). Now they toss the fight to the Senate. That seems to be a bad idea as it keeps Biden, Pocahontas, and the Old Communist from campaigning. Makes me wonder what their game really is.

Interesting comment but:

- In case Trump's ridiculous allegation were true, it would not change the fact that there was a QPQ. It would be just as irrelevant as arguing that an offender has been beaten when he was a child 

- come on! Let's be serious Trump never cared about corruption and suddenly gets interested in two of the most debunked conspiracy theories: Biden and Crowdstrike (he did not talk about so-called DNC operative, contrary to what you state).

- there was a legal way to do it: open an official investigation and use the treaty with Ukraine. Too bad, the DOJ finds no ground to start an investigation, so there is only the crooked way left!

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Interesting comment but:

- In case Trump's ridiculous allegation were true, it would not change the fact that there was a QPQ. It would be just as irrelevant as arguing that an offender has been beaten when he was a child 

- come on! Let's be serious Trump never cared about corruption and suddenly gets interested in two of the most debunked conspiracy theories: Biden and Crowdstrike (he did not talk about so-called DNC operative, contrary to what you state).

- there was a legal way to do it: open an official investigation and use the treaty with Ukraine. Too bad, the DOJ finds no ground to start an investigation, so there is only the crooked way left!

First its a question in the way I posed it, and on the face of it: a VP who is in charge of Ukraine policy during a time when Ukraine is increasing gas production, has a son, recently removed from a Naval commission for cocaine, placed on a board of a Ukrainian Energy company already known for corruption. This man has no Ukrainian, or Gas/oil experience, does not speak Ukrainian, or Russian, but was receiving 50 to 85K per month dependent on source. Unrelated is a similiar situation occurred in China. What here is ridiculous? Other then the obviousness way it looks bad even to the casual observer (The American public)