Why the need for Senate impeachment witnesses is invalid.

[Billiejeens]

The House is suppose to present the facts of the impeachment.
Why didn't they call witnesses for Trump in the House?
Simple answer and not many people are given the FACTS which is the fault of the GOP especially.
The Executive branch has a RIGHT to take the House witness requests to SCOTUS.
But the Democrats didn't want to have this go to SCOTUS for one reason. Time.
The Democrats wanted to speed up the impeachment process and since they had the majority in the house
there was no need.
So now the Senate does NOT need any more witnesses.

The evidence in their file sent to the Senate contained all the evidence they needed to find Trump guilty for impeachment. Remember Nancy's "Forever Impeached?" So why now the need to bring forth more witnesses? Are the Dems admitting their case is full of holes?

The Dems were stonewalled by a corrupt POTUS. Even his lawyer admits as much.

Alan Dershowitz called Trump corrupt in 2016 and said he could be corrupt as President - CNNPolitics

They were not

 

[Billiejeens]

The House is suppose to present the facts of the impeachment.
Why didn't they call witnesses for Trump in the House?
Simple answer and not many people are given the FACTS which is the fault of the GOP especially.
The Executive branch has a RIGHT to take the House witness requests to SCOTUS.
But the Democrats didn't want to have this go to SCOTUS for one reason. Time.
The Democrats wanted to speed up the impeachment process and since they had the majority in the house
there was no need.
So now the Senate does NOT need any more witnesses.

The evidence in their file sent to the Senate contained all the evidence they needed to find Trump guilty for impeachment. Remember Nancy's "Forever Impeached?" So why now the need to bring forth more witnesses? Are the Dems admitting their case is full of holes?

The Dems were stonewalled by a corrupt POTUS. Even his lawyer admits as much.

Alan Dershowitz called Trump corrupt in 2016 and said he could be corrupt as President - CNNPolitics

Dumb ass, I suppose you didn't see Dershowitz's speech the other day. Now you look just like the fool you are.

Dershowitz has been contradicting himself. He has no principles. He looks like a fool.

His principle is follow the constitution.

 

[Billiejeens]

And as part of Trump's delaying tactics if the House had called Bolton,et.al. then the Executive branch would claim executive privilege.
At that point then the House would have taken the Executive branch to SCOTUS to determine "Executive privilege" was legal.
BUT the Democrats were anxious to get this done BEFORE the 2020 elections. Knowing that the general public would be very
disgusted by the waste of time and these same Democrats would be voted out of the majority in the House.
Bye bye impeachment!

Trump has not claimed executive privilege on anything regarding the impeachment inquiry yet, even for the people that were subpoenaed. The Trump administration could drag this out in court for years. Once this Congress ends next Jan, the subpoena's disappear.

Trump's lawyers are alleging that the court case could be settled by then, but Trump's other lawyers are in court delaying these rulings to the greatest degree possible.

This is not a way for a country to be run.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that Pelosi never actually held a vote on wether to begin impeachment proceedings before they actually began.

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

And the Democrats failed to take that matter to court...

Face it, Democrats fuck up everything they touch!!!

So what? They don't need to take it to court. They took it to impeachment.

And Trump is about to have acquitted added to his substantial resume.
Fabulous move.

 

[Billiejeens]

And as part of Trump's delaying tactics if the House had called Bolton,et.al. then the Executive branch would claim executive privilege.
At that point then the House would have taken the Executive branch to SCOTUS to determine "Executive privilege" was legal.
BUT the Democrats were anxious to get this done BEFORE the 2020 elections. Knowing that the general public would be very
disgusted by the waste of time and these same Democrats would be voted out of the majority in the House.
Bye bye impeachment!

Trump has not claimed executive privilege on anything regarding the impeachment inquiry yet, even for the people that were subpoenaed. The Trump administration could drag this out in court for years. Once this Congress ends next Jan, the subpoena's disappear.

Trump's lawyers are alleging that the court case could be settled by then, but Trump's other lawyers are in court delaying these rulings to the greatest degree possible.

This is not a way for a country to be run.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that Pelosi never actually held a vote on wether to begin impeachment proceedings before they actually began.

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

So uninformed.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's true. We know what the Shakedown was, who did it, how and why it was done. Trumpybears' own word tell us that he wanted multiple foreign countries to investigate his political rivals.

Trumpublicans want a quick show trial to try and shore up to their dwindling base. Dems will keep investigating and releasing more and more information to the public.

Have fun kids.

If by dwindling you mean expanding exponentially ,
Yes.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's true. We know what the Shakedown was, who did it, how and why it was done. Trumpybears' own word tell us that he wanted multiple foreign countries to investigate his political rivals.

Trumpublicans want a quick show trial to try and shore up to their dwindling base. Dems will keep investigating and releasing more and more information to the public.

Have fun kids.

To actually have a shakedown (as you put it) both parties have to understand that there is something one sides wants and the other side has to understand that if that want is not meant that there will be a consequence. Trump never tied anything to his request. Zelinsky did not know there was a consequence of not doing as Trump requested. The aid was released without any investigation or announcement.
The aid was more then was threatened to be held up by Biden.

You claim on his political rival. So then Biden has actually been chosen as the democrat presidential candidate?

The Ukrainians knew the aid was being held up in July.

The entire Democrat party as well as all our Intelligence Agency's were also being targeted with the whole Crowdstrike DNC Server in the Ukraine claim.

Do you even know what crowdstrike does?

 

[Billiejeens]

And as part of Trump's delaying tactics if the House had called Bolton,et.al. then the Executive branch would claim executive privilege.
At that point then the House would have taken the Executive branch to SCOTUS to determine "Executive privilege" was legal.
BUT the Democrats were anxious to get this done BEFORE the 2020 elections. Knowing that the general public would be very
disgusted by the waste of time and these same Democrats would be voted out of the majority in the House.
Bye bye impeachment!

Trump has not claimed executive privilege on anything regarding the impeachment inquiry yet, even for the people that were subpoenaed. The Trump administration could drag this out in court for years. Once this Congress ends next Jan, the subpoena's disappear.

Trump's lawyers are alleging that the court case could be settled by then, but Trump's other lawyers are in court delaying these rulings to the greatest degree possible.

This is not a way for a country to be run.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that Pelosi never actually held a vote on wether to begin impeachment proceedings before they actually began.

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

They don't have standing to conduct impeachment inquiries, moron. What subpoenas were issued after the vote was held?

Moron?
From an Archie bunker with a baby pic!!!
And zero college
Hilarious!!

Based upon your body of work here on this site, moron is entirely accurate.

 

[BULLDOG]

The House is suppose to present the facts of the impeachment.
Why didn't they call witnesses for Trump in the House?
Simple answer and not many people are given the FACTS which is the fault of the GOP especially.
The Executive branch has a RIGHT to take the House witness requests to SCOTUS.
But the Democrats didn't want to have this go to SCOTUS for one reason. Time.
The Democrats wanted to speed up the impeachment process and since they had the majority in the house
there was no need.
So now the Senate does NOT need any more witnesses.

Pure nonsense

There is NOTHING that mandates that the only evidence in an Impeachment trial has to be presented in the House first.

Total and pure bullshit

There is when it's a Soviet style show trial as Adolph Schiffler conducted.

Such a childish remark from you, as usual.

 

[Lesh]

And Trump is about to have acquitted added to his substantial resume.

Acquitted by a partisan GOP Senate that made their decision before the trial even began

 

[Obiwan]

And Trump is about to have acquitted added to his substantial resume.

Acquitted by a partisan GOP Senate that made their decision before the trial even began

What are you bitching about???

The DEMOCRATS in the Senate made THEIR decision 3 YEARS before the trial began...

And they did it to interfere in an election (with some of them even running against Trump)!!!

 

[Billiejeens]

And Trump is about to have acquitted added to his substantial resume.

Acquitted by a partisan GOP Senate that made their decision before the trial even began

Impeached by a partisan Democratic House that made their decision before the inauguration even began.

See the big difference, Me neither.

 

[Billiejeens]

And Trump is about to have acquitted added to his substantial resume.

Acquitted by a partisan GOP Senate that made their decision before the trial even began

Do you even know what impeachment is?
It is a political process, executed by politicians.

 

[Zorro!]

And as part of Trump's delaying tactics if the House had called Bolton,et.al. then the Executive branch would claim executive privilege.
At that point then the House would have taken the Executive branch to SCOTUS to determine "Executive privilege" was legal.
BUT the Democrats were anxious to get this done BEFORE the 2020 elections. Knowing that the general public would be very
disgusted by the waste of time and these same Democrats would be voted out of the majority in the House.
Bye bye impeachment!

Trump has not claimed executive privilege on anything regarding the impeachment inquiry yet, even for the people that were subpoenaed. The Trump administration could drag this out in court for years. Once this Congress ends next Jan, the subpoena's disappear.

Trump's lawyers are alleging that the court case could be settled by then, but Trump's other lawyers are in court delaying these rulings to the greatest degree possible.

This is not a way for a country to be run.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that Pelosi never actually held a vote on wether to begin impeachment proceedings before they actually began.

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

 

[colfax_m]

Trump has not claimed executive privilege on anything regarding the impeachment inquiry yet, even for the people that were subpoenaed. The Trump administration could drag this out in court for years. Once this Congress ends next Jan, the subpoena's disappear.

Trump's lawyers are alleging that the court case could be settled by then, but Trump's other lawyers are in court delaying these rulings to the greatest degree possible.

This is not a way for a country to be run.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that Pelosi never actually held a vote on wether to begin impeachment proceedings before they actually began.

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

Congressional committees have standing authority to subpoena information. There is no need to pass legislation to grant them that ability.

The House does has impeachment power. That occurred when they voted for impeachment.

 

[Zorro!]

Part of the problem lies in the fact that Pelosi never actually held a vote on wether to begin impeachment proceedings before they actually began.

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

Congressional committees have standing authority to subpoena information...

And the Administration has standing authority to ignore them, as a co-equal branch. That is, they are not compulsory.

JFK - would not provide names of those in who edited speeches to the a Senate Panel. Also refused to allow General Taylor to tesify before Congress in the Bay of Pigs affair.

LBJ - Three times Administration officials refused to provide Congress with information about Administrative Actions.

Nixon - directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel and directed the Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military assistance programs

Papa Bush - directed Sec. of Defense to not comply with congressional subpoena for document related to costs and cancellation of Navy aircraft program

Clinton - asserted privilege before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo and before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents and claimed privilege in response to subpoenas by congressional
committee investigating Armed Forces of National Liberation clemency

Dubya - asserted privilege in response to congressional subpoenas for documents about regulations for air quality standards and communications about greenhouse gas emissions in California and in response to congressional subpoena for documents related to investigation into revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as CIA operative

Obama - in response to congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious - this claim is still being test in the courts.

Many other times, settlements were reached or the courts ruled against them. Never were they "impeached" over a made up crime of "obstruction of Congress"

... There is no need to pass legislation to grant them that ability....

You can't alter the balance of power with nothing more than a majority by one of the branches, that would take a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the agreement of 75%of the State Legislatures.

... The House does has impeachment power. That occurred when they voted for impeachment.

Indeed, but they didn't issue any subpoenas after that. Said they were in too big of a hurry to do the job right, and then sat on the articles for nearly a month rather than giving them to the Senate to try.

 

[colfax_m]

What is that a problem? Standing House committees have subpoena power. Subpoenas were ignored even after the vote was held.

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

Congressional committees have standing authority to subpoena information...

And the Administration has standing authority to ignore them, as a co-equal branch. That is, they are not compulsory.

JFK - would not provide names of those in who edited speeches to the a Senate Panel. Also refused to allow General Taylor to tesify before Congress in the Bay of Pigs affair.

LBJ - Three times Administration officials refused to provide Congress with information about Administrative Actions.

Nixon - directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel and directed the Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military assistance programs

Papa Bush - directed Sec. of Defense to not comply with congressional subpoena for document related to costs and cancellation of Navy aircraft program

Clinton - asserted privilege before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo and before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents and claimed privilege in response to subpoenas by congressional
committee investigating Armed Forces of National Liberation clemency

Dubya - asserted privilege in response to congressional subpoenas for documents about regulations for air quality standards and communications about greenhouse gas emissions in California and in response to congressional subpoena for documents related to investigation into revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as CIA operative

Obama - in response to congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious - this claim is still being test in the courts.

Many other times, settlements were reached or the courts ruled against them. Never were they "impeached" over a made up crime of "obstruction of Congress"

... There is no need to pass legislation to grant them that ability....

You can't alter the balance of power with majority by one of the branches, that would take a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the agreement of 75%of the State Legislatures.

... The House does has impeachment power. That occurred when they voted for impeachment.

Indeed, but they didn't issue any subpoenas after that. Said they were in too big of a hurry to do the job right, and then sat on the articles for nearly a month rather than giving them to the Senate.

You’re misreading. The House is given power to impeach. The actual vote on the articles of impeachment was December 18th.

The house has standing authority to subpoena the president. Other branches have given actual legal arguments for defying subpoenas, such as executive privilege. Trump’s arguments are specious. No administration has ever refused every single request and subpoena. That’s the new standard. No administration ever will feel the need to comply with any request or subpoena from Congress without going through a many year legal battle.

Trump is breaking the government.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

We call that WINNING

Yeah well it sounds like whining

 

[Zorro!]

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

Congressional committees have standing authority to subpoena information...

And the Administration has standing authority to ignore them, as a co-equal branch. That is, they are not compulsory.

JFK - would not provide names of those in who edited speeches to the a Senate Panel. Also refused to allow General Taylor to tesify before Congress in the Bay of Pigs affair.

LBJ - Three times Administration officials refused to provide Congress with information about Administrative Actions.

Nixon - directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel and directed the Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military assistance programs

Papa Bush - directed Sec. of Defense to not comply with congressional subpoena for document related to costs and cancellation of Navy aircraft program

Clinton - asserted privilege before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo and before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents and claimed privilege in response to subpoenas by congressional
committee investigating Armed Forces of National Liberation clemency

Dubya - asserted privilege in response to congressional subpoenas for documents about regulations for air quality standards and communications about greenhouse gas emissions in California and in response to congressional subpoena for documents related to investigation into revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as CIA operative

Obama - in response to congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious - this claim is still being test in the courts.

Many other times, settlements were reached or the courts ruled against them. Never were they "impeached" over a made up crime of "obstruction of Congress"

... There is no need to pass legislation to grant them that ability....

You can't alter the balance of power with majority by one of the branches, that would take a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the agreement of 75%of the State Legislatures.

... The House does has impeachment power. That occurred when they voted for impeachment.

Indeed, but they didn't issue any subpoenas after that. Said they were in too big of a hurry to do the job right, and then sat on the articles for nearly a month rather than giving them to the Senate.

You’re misreading.

No I'm not.

The House is given power to impeach.

Nobody has argued otherwise.

The actual vote on the articles of impeachment was December 18th.

The rejected subpoenas were sent on Oct 4.

... The house has standing authority to subpoena the president...

And the President has standing power to reject them, as Presidents routinely do.

... Other branches have given actual legal arguments for defying subpoenas, such as executive privilege...

The Trump Administration gave their legal argument from the Office of Legal Counsel when they rejected the improper subpoenas. Impeachment power is give to The House, not to Fat Jerry, Crazy Nancy and Bug-eyed Schiff. They do not have Standing Power to impeach, only The Full House does, and they express that will by vote. What is their problem with voting?

... No administration has ever refused every single request and subpoena...

What a silly claim, in just Trump's first YEAR:\

• Jeff Sessions, Trump's attorney general, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 13 and before the House Judiciary Committee November 14, where he would not answer questions about Trump's ability to pardon the likes of Manafort and Gates.
• Michael Caputo, a former top Trump campaign adviser with ties to the Kremlin, testified before the House Intelligence Committee July 14 in a closed session for more than three hours, per CNN.
• Jared Kushner, Trump's senior advisor and son-in-law, testified before the Senate and House Intelligence committees in closed sessions late July.
• Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee July 25.
• JD Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security adviser in the policy office, met with the Senate and House Intelligence committees in July, according to a source with direct knowledge.
• Donald Trump Jr., Trump's eldest son, gave testimony before Senate investigators from the Senate Intelligence Committee September 7 and returned December 13.
• Roger Stone, a longtime Trump ally who informally advised his campaign, testified before the House Intelligence Committee September 26. The testimony via The Washington Post.
• Boris Epshteyn testified before the House Intelligence Committee September 28, per CNN.
• Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, appeared before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in October, per NBC. The committee canceled the original September 19 meeting since he broke an agreement not to release a public statement before the meeting.
• Keith Schiller, Trump's long-time body guard, testified privately in early November before the House Intelligence Committee, CNN reports.
• Steve Bannon talked to the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors on January 16, CNN reports.

Rod Rosenstein, Trump's deputy attorney general, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in December, saying he doesn't believe it was improper of FBI or special counsel members taking part in the Russia investigation to have donated to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, Axios' Alayna Treene reported. He also told the Committee he doesn't think there's "good cause" for firing Mueller.

Hell, Administration Official, old Dirty Bob Mueller testified before Congress. He didn't seem to know much about what was going on, but he showed up and testified. So did James Comey and Andy McCabe.

... That’s the new standard. No administration ever will feel the need to comply with any request or subpoena from Congress without going through a many year legal battle...

Nonsense. Further, the Courts fast litigating these types of claims, as necessary, but the House was in too big of a hurry to do the job right. Then they sat on the passed articles for nearly a month, so much for the big hurry.

... Trump is breaking the government.

Trump is properly defending the Constitution against's the House's attempt to place itself Above The Law.​

 

[healthmyths]

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

Congressional committees have standing authority to subpoena information...

And the Administration has standing authority to ignore them, as a co-equal branch. That is, they are not compulsory.

JFK - would not provide names of those in who edited speeches to the a Senate Panel. Also refused to allow General Taylor to tesify before Congress in the Bay of Pigs affair.

LBJ - Three times Administration officials refused to provide Congress with information about Administrative Actions.

Nixon - directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel and directed the Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military assistance programs

Papa Bush - directed Sec. of Defense to not comply with congressional subpoena for document related to costs and cancellation of Navy aircraft program

Clinton - asserted privilege before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo and before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents and claimed privilege in response to subpoenas by congressional
committee investigating Armed Forces of National Liberation clemency

Dubya - asserted privilege in response to congressional subpoenas for documents about regulations for air quality standards and communications about greenhouse gas emissions in California and in response to congressional subpoena for documents related to investigation into revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as CIA operative

Obama - in response to congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious - this claim is still being test in the courts.

Many other times, settlements were reached or the courts ruled against them. Never were they "impeached" over a made up crime of "obstruction of Congress"

... There is no need to pass legislation to grant them that ability....

You can't alter the balance of power with majority by one of the branches, that would take a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the agreement of 75%of the State Legislatures.

... The House does has impeachment power. That occurred when they voted for impeachment.

Indeed, but they didn't issue any subpoenas after that. Said they were in too big of a hurry to do the job right, and then sat on the articles for nearly a month rather than giving them to the Senate.

You’re misreading. The House is given power to impeach. The actual vote on the articles of impeachment was December 18th.

The house has standing authority to subpoena the president. Other branches have given actual legal arguments for defying subpoenas, such as executive privilege. Trump’s arguments are specious. No administration has ever refused every single request and subpoena. That’s the new standard. No administration ever will feel the need to comply with any request or subpoena from Congress without going through a many year legal battle.

Trump is breaking the government.

Sorry don't believe a thing you write as it is all personal, subjective and no scholarly required links, substantiation.
See that's why people like you aren't believed... because YOU make it up! Prove it OK?

 

[Billiejeens]

Funny how laws actually get in the way. There was supposed to be a vote before the impeachment process takes place.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena from the house especially if proper procedure is not followed. There is that damn law in the way again.

If the House was really serious they could actually follow the law. The problem is you don't follow the law expect to lose.

There is no law which says any of this. You're making this up.

The Constitution gives Impeachment Power to THE HOUSE, not to Crazy Nancy, Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry. They sent the subpoenas before the House vote, so the the Co-Equal Branch, rejected them. They didn't assert privilege, they didn't have to, and they explained this all to the rather dumb House Leadership at the time.

As for the oft repeated claim that this is the First Senate Trial without additional witnesses, that too is yet another of the lying House Manager's and the Fake News Media's lies.

One more time: circa 1797-1799, Senator Blount was impeached by the House. In the Senate impeachment trial proceedings, there were ZERO witnesses.

Crazed Democrats mounted a concerted effort to make an entirely new system of justice for one person. Trump. And the effort failed.

We are One People, with One Law, applied without Favor​

Congressional committees have standing authority to subpoena information...

And the Administration has standing authority to ignore them, as a co-equal branch. That is, they are not compulsory.

JFK - would not provide names of those in who edited speeches to the a Senate Panel. Also refused to allow General Taylor to tesify before Congress in the Bay of Pigs affair.

LBJ - Three times Administration officials refused to provide Congress with information about Administrative Actions.

Nixon - directed Attorney General to withhold FBI reports from a congressional panel and directed the Secretary of State to withhold information from Congress about military assistance programs

Papa Bush - directed Sec. of Defense to not comply with congressional subpoena for document related to costs and cancellation of Navy aircraft program

Clinton - asserted privilege before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo and before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents and claimed privilege in response to subpoenas by congressional
committee investigating Armed Forces of National Liberation clemency

Dubya - asserted privilege in response to


Hcongressional subpoenas for documents about regulations for air quality standards and communications about greenhouse gas emissions in California and in response to congressional subpoena for documents related to investigation into revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as CIA operative

Obama - in response to congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious - this claim is still being test in the courts.

Many other times, settlements were reached or the courts ruled against them. Never were they "impeached" over a made up crime of "obstruction of Congress"

... There is no need to pass legislation to grant them that ability....

You can't alter the balance of power with majority by one of the branches, that would take a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the agreement of 75%of the State Legislatures.

... The House does has impeachment power. That occurred when they voted for impeachment.

Indeed, but they didn't issue any subpoenas after that. Said they were in too big of a hurry to do the job right, and then sat on the articles for nearly a month rather than giving them to the Senate.

You’re misreading. The House is given power to impeach. The actual vote on the articles of impeachment was December 18th.

The house has standing authority to subpoena the president. Other branches have given actual legal arguments for defying subpoenas, such as executive privilege. Trump’s arguments are specious. No administration has ever refused every single request and subpoena. That’s the new standard. No administration ever will feel the need to comply with any request or subpoena from Congress without going through a many year legal battle.

Trump is breaking the government.

He has certainly broken mental midget partisan hacks like you.
That's a good thing.