Impeachment trial turns to whistleblower ahead of possible weekend finish

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/31/2020 at 4:20 PM, TKDfella said:

Yes I agree about the 'witnesses' part (can't comment of the rest because I'm a Brit) I have been watching each day and one of the legal points that struct me after a Senator question about House's Supoenas. The Reps replied that they were they weren't valid/authorised correctly and the Dems replied that this came under the House's power to use procedures that the House saw fit to use. This wasn't challenged. Surely a Supoena is a legal document governed by legal rules to attain its validity? Surely the House's procedures mean that they can decide to use supoenas or not? Surely legal rules are not included in procedural choices? Am I correct or not?

Three separate and equal branches of Gov. In the case of subpoenas for evidence or witnesses, the House had a responsibility, in the face of their subpoenas being argued by the executive branch, to take that argument to the Judicial branch. They chose not to in the interest of expediency. Something we all have to take with a grain of salt considering they then sat on their impeachment charges for over a month. This little sham always was about attempting to play with Senate rules, and bypass the Supreme court in favor of having the Chief Justice do all the heavy lifting all by himself. That bit of hocus pocus has now failed. To be clear, the Congress is NOT above the President, they simply cannot issue orders to a President,  any President, and not expect the Judicial branch to not become involved.

[WalkingOrders]

On 2/1/2020 at 2:21 AM, Sujo said:

There was no criminal code when the constitution was written. High crimes relates to the office, not the crime.

 

Predident cannot be charged with a crime so cannot be convicted. Impeachment is the only remedy. But its too long to explain it all on here.

You are wrong. It is a rather weak argument. No US Criminal code written, but non the less individual states had codes, and their was an understanding from common law and historical precedent what Treason was, for example, and the Founders have made themselves clear in written argument on the subject.

 

It is very disingenuous to pretend that with no US code it means that no law, or even idea on the meaning of words existed. And it requires a High Crime or other misemeanor to remove a President, not a phone call, and/or a supposed hold up of military aid, over corruption involving an American citizen.

 

Such a corrupt man, by the way, should never be allowed to be President. A man who plants his family into foreign policy to collect money bags should never have that honor. 

[Mick501]

On 1 February 2020 at 2:21 AM, Sujo said:

There was no criminal code when the constitution was written. High crimes relates to the office, not the crime.

 

Predident cannot be charged with a crime so cannot be convicted. Impeachment is the only remedy. But its too long to explain it all on here.

Where is the statutory authority or precedent that says a president can not be charged ?  Link please.

[WalkingOrders]

On 2/1/2020 at 2:26 AM, Sujo said:

Vindman was on the call.

And the whistleblower was not on the call. 

[Langsuan Man]

On 2/2/2020 at 10:58 AM, Mick501 said:

Where is the statutory authority or precedent that says a president can not be charged ?  Link please.

There is none, just a Department of Justice Policy 

 

18 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

And the whistleblower was not on the call. 

And they never testified, but LTC Vindman was on the call and he did testify 

[Sujo]

On 2/2/2020 at 9:07 AM, WalkingOrders said:

Three separate and equal branches of Gov. In the case of subpoenas for evidence or witnesses, the House had a responsibility, in the face of their subpoenas being argued by the executive branch, to take that argument to the Judicial branch. They chose not to in the interest of expediency. Something we all have to take with a grain of salt considering they then sat on their impeachment charges for over a month. This little sham always was about attempting to play with Senate rules, and bypass the Supreme court in favor of having the Chief Justice do all the heavy lifting all by himself. That bit of hocus pocus has now failed. To be clear, the Congress is NOT above the President, they simply cannot issue orders to a President,  any President, and not expect the Judicial branch to not become involved.

And yet whitehouse lawyers are currently in court arguing the opposite.

[Curt1591]

On 1/31/2020 at 8:27 AM, sucit said:

This is all a charade. Why would congress approve an extra 79 billion for war if the dems think he is an unstable, Russian asset? 

 

It is like watching a magician. They want you to be looking over here while they do some <deleted> of the American people over there. Pelosi, Schumer, they are all part of the act. 

The politicians are like opposing lawyers; they fight like cats and dogs while on stage, then laugh over drinks at dinner.
 

 

[Saint Nick]

On 2/1/2020 at 8:59 AM, BobBKK said:

It's true that the Ukrainian Vindman was on the call.. oh wait he's an American now!  and totally unbiased about his country of birth!  that's ok then...

Jesus, man...get a grip!

I mean: there is BS and there is Trump- delusion BS!

Oh...I forgot: you are not a Trump- devotee...just a neutral person, following the process...

[RideJocky]

On 1/31/2020 at 1:50 PM, JCauto said:

You...you mean that the previous 20 impeachment trials should have been thrown out? Including Clinton's? Because they all had witnesses after impeachment in the House. 

 

It must be difficult to ignore all the cognitive dissonance of Right-wing positions over the last three years. Before - Obama is turning the US into an imperial presidency! Now - Trump should be allowed to do anything he wants if he sees himself being re-elected as being in the best interests of the USA. Before - the spend spend spend Democrats are running up the deficit! Now - largest deficit spending in US history. Before - we're against big government and welfare! Now - increase government power by allowing the White House to ignore all rules and regulations and turn farmers into welfare queens. 

Let's face it - you don't care about "rule of law", and you never have. You investigated Hilary for years and spent millions doing it and nobody was convicted, yet call this impeachment investigation a vendetta when several of the co-conspirators have already been convicted of crimes and dozens are on record including under oath to what happened, yet the Republicans refuse to allow any testimony from those directly party to the events or to allow anyone to hear the so-called "perfect" phone call. This is a cover-up which is notable only for its brazenness and lack of any attempt at coherence. 

But remember - when the next Democrat President starts using these imperial powers, this is what you wanted!

All of the witnesses in the Clinton trial had gone through the process and cleared all executive privilege obstacles and had provide testimony under oath prior to the Senate trial.

 

Three of these (the ones the left uses as examples) did not testify before the House, but they did testify before the committee.