Trump supporters, please explain something to me..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is because the HOUSE let it go through the courts - like they are supposed to.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says they must take anything to the courts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not accurate:

The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first president since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.​

In BOTH cases, it was the HOUSE that took the issue to court and got the testimonies they needed - They did NOT turn it over to the Senate until it was complete.
Thanks, that's helpful. I remembered Clinton tried to refuse some stuff -- but don't remember any wholesale order government-wide to everyone not to testify, so that anyone testifying had to defy his order.

This helped:

One of the starkest differences between the two impeachments is in who collected the evidence.

When it was Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, to investigate the Clintons' business deals. The investigation later expanded to include a probe of Clinton's testimony in a sexual harassment case and his grand jury testimony about an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The Justice Department under Mr. Trump declined to investigate an intelligence community whistleblower's complaint about his July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine.

That meant that it would be up to Congress if Democrats wanted further information. Instead of an independent counsel presenting evidence to the House Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee collected it and wrote a 300-page report summarizing their findings. They heard more than 130 hours of private and public testimony from 17 current and former diplomats and Trump officials.
The differences between Trump's impeachment and Clinton's
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That is because the HOUSE let it go through the courts - like they are supposed to.
Where is this "supposed to" that Congressional subpoenas are to be routinely litigated?
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,456.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Nope, I thought so too! But I found a couple of months ago that is not true.

The Constitution says that "the Senate has sole power to conduct impeachment trials."
I think that if the House sends the House agreed articles of impeachment to the Senate then the Senate must accept them and must hold a trial.

But, Legal folk may argue on this
What's Next for President Donald Trump? Here's What Happens in a Senate Impeachment Trial

“There is no text in the Constitution that says the Senate must hold a trial,” Primus says. “[But] it is clear from the design of the Constitution that the Senate is supposed to hold the trial.”

Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

Some have argued that a senator could submit a motion to dismiss the charges against the President that would only need a simple majority to pass. Such a motion was introduced during the Clinton impeachment trial, and failed.

“I don’t think the Senate is likely to do that, and it’s an unresolved question if the Senate can do that,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, tells TIME.


This is why Polosi held the articles demanding certain things that would take place in the trial.

She has no argument, it is solely in the hands of the Senate when she sends the articles and the Senate can try the trail anyway they see fit.

The House is completely out of it.
I understand that the rules of the Senate trial are up to the Senate. But based on current goings on it seems the House can hold back passing on the articles until some conditions are agreed upon.

Anyway, its interesting to see how this goes down.
I'm finding it very weird how the Senate want to exclude witnesses and want to coordinate with the accused.
 
Upvote 0

yougottabekidding

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2018
587
294
55
Oologah
✟28,478.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
There is nothing in the Constitution that says they must take anything to the courts.

I didn't say there was, just that it has always been done in the House and could have been done in the House, but for some reason they chose not to, but are now asking the Senate to.

Why?

Where is this "supposed to" that Congressional subpoenas are to be routinely litigated?

The last two Impeachments
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I think that if the House sends the House agreed articles of impeachment to the Senate then the Senate must accept them and must hold a trial.

But, Legal folk may argue on this
What's Next for President Donald Trump? Here's What Happens in a Senate Impeachment Trial

“There is no text in the Constitution that says the Senate must hold a trial,” Primus says. “[But] it is clear from the design of the Constitution that the Senate is supposed to hold the trial.”

Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

Some have argued that a senator could submit a motion to dismiss the charges against the President that would only need a simple majority to pass. Such a motion was introduced during the Clinton impeachment trial, and failed.

“I don’t think the Senate is likely to do that, and it’s an unresolved question if the Senate can do that,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, tells TIME.



I understand that the rules of the Senate trial are up to the Senate. But based on current goings on it seems the House can hold back passing on the articles until some conditions are agreed upon.

Anyway, its interesting to see how this goes down.
I'm finding it very weird how the Senate want to exclude witnesses and want to coordinate with the accused.

There is a ton of difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments.

Clinton didn't have a chance at the trial being thrown out. He lied before a grand jury.

Ken Star had the evidence in the Lewinsky testimony.

Trump has a very good chance at it. McConnell will show there is no crime defined in the Articles and will call for a vote to dis-miss the trial on lack of evidence.

It could very well happen, that's what I'm looking for. But don't hold a gun to my head, I have been wrong many times.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is a ton of difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments.

Clinton didn't have a chance at the trial being thrown out. He lied before a grand jury.

Ken Star had the evidence in the Lewinsky testimony.

Trump has a very good chance at it. McConnell will show there is no crime defined in the Articles and will call for a vote to dis-miss the trial on lack of evidence.

It could very well happen, that's what I'm looking for. But don't hold a gun to my head, I have been wrong many times.
This was interesting:

McConnell’s argument is basically this: That’s how the Bill Clinton impeachment was handled 21 years ago, and those rules were approved unanimously. “All we are doing here is saying we are going to get started in exactly the same way 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago,” McConnell said. “What was good enough for President Clinton is good enough for President Trump.”

And that has proved a compelling argument to those GOP senators. “I’d like to hear from [former national security adviser] John Bolton and other witnesses to provide information. That process will accommodate that,” Romney said. “The Clinton process allows for a vote on witnesses to occur after opening arguments.”

But while it’s true that’s the process followed by the Clinton impeachment, there is one very important difference: In the Clinton case, the impeaching party in the House also had the majority in the Senate. That means their party had total control over the rules moving forward and didn’t need to negotiate anything ahead of time. In this case, once the articles are sent over, the impeaching party effectively cedes any control over what will come of the trial for the president they just impeached.

During the Clinton trial, the Senate unanimously passed a set of rules that allowed for votes to subpoena witnesses later on. It was noncontroversial because there really wasn’t any reason for such negotiations to take place on the front end. If Republicans wanted Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal to testify, they could just vote to do it later.

And that’s just what they did. Three weeks into the trial, the unanimity was gone, and the Senate by a party-line vote directed then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist to issue subpoenas for those three depositions. The process worked for the Republicans because they could essentially determine it all as they went. The GOP-majority House impeached Clinton and handed the matter over to a GOP-majority Senate.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...plying-clinton-impeachment-trial-rules-trump/
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
This was interesting:

McConnell’s argument is basically this: That’s how the Bill Clinton impeachment was handled 21 years ago, and those rules were approved unanimously. “All we are doing here is saying we are going to get started in exactly the same way 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago,” McConnell said. “What was good enough for President Clinton is good enough for President Trump.”

And that has proved a compelling argument to those GOP senators. “I’d like to hear from [former national security adviser] John Bolton and other witnesses to provide information. That process will accommodate that,” Romney said. “The Clinton process allows for a vote on witnesses to occur after opening arguments.”

But while it’s true that’s the process followed by the Clinton impeachment, there is one very important difference: In the Clinton case, the impeaching party in the House also had the majority in the Senate. That means their party had total control over the rules moving forward and didn’t need to negotiate anything ahead of time. In this case, once the articles are sent over, the impeaching party effectively cedes any control over what will come of the trial for the president they just impeached.

During the Clinton trial, the Senate unanimously passed a set of rules that allowed for votes to subpoena witnesses later on. It was noncontroversial because there really wasn’t any reason for such negotiations to take place on the front end. If Republicans wanted Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal to testify, they could just vote to do it later.

And that’s just what they did. Three weeks into the trial, the unanimity was gone, and the Senate by a party-line vote directed then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist to issue subpoenas for those three depositions. The process worked for the Republicans because they could essentially determine it all as they went. The GOP-majority House impeached Clinton and handed the matter over to a GOP-majority Senate.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...plying-clinton-impeachment-trial-rules-trump/

The Republicans caught Clinton in a felony, lying before a grand jury, but they determined it was not enough to put a president out of office.

Do you think the Dems will do the same for Trump. No, I don't think so.

They will drive him into the ground and open a trash dump on the site.

They won't get by with what they are trying to do, justice will be served by God one way or another.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,079
✟1,389,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When the trial begins and the people actually see what the House has sent to the Senate, they will see the scam and the opposite affect will take place.

..."people" will hear what they want to hear from their favorite tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear media outlet. It was that way in the Impeachment inquiry...and it won't be any different in a Senate trial....regardless of what the witnesses say.

Be real, most posters on these threads ignored the Impeachment inquiry testimony of State and NSC witnesses......
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,079
✟1,389,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not accurate:

The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first president since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.​

In BOTH cases, it was the HOUSE that took the issue to court and got the testimonies they needed - They did NOT turn it over to the Senate until it was complete. They did not rush it through and it was a bi partisan vote to impeach

Both the Nixon and Clinton House inquiries had the benefit of a Special Prosecutor's findings.....and in both cases, there was some level of cooperation from the Executive branch. Unlike the current President, who flatly refused to allow one witness to testify (some took their chances anway) and didn't release a single document.

Now if that is not obstructing the role of the Congress to impeach -- what is?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
There is a ton of difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments.

Clinton didn't have a chance at the trial being thrown out. He lied before a grand jury.

Ken Star had the evidence in the Lewinsky testimony.

Trump has a very good chance at it. McConnell will show there is no crime defined in the Articles and will call for a vote to dis-miss the trial on lack of evidence.

It could very well happen, that's what I'm looking for. But don't hold a gun to my head, I have been wrong many times.

Put Trump in front of a grand jury and see if he tells the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
..."people" will hear what they want to hear from their favorite tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear media outlet. It was that way in the Impeachment inquiry...and it won't be any different in a Senate trial....regardless of what the witnesses say.

Be real, most posters on these threads ignored the Impeachment inquiry testimony of State and NSC witnesses......
I will have to agree, these witnesses presented only opinion.

It takes a bit more to remove an elected sitting US president.
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Put Trump in front of a grand jury and see if he tells the truth.

Trump is smart enough to not sit before a grand jury, and be picked apart in the smallest of details.

Clinton has shown all future presidents, you have executive privilege, don't be stupid like me, use it.
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Opinion? You obviously didn't listen to their testimony.

What was the evidence they provided? It was one Trump hater said to another Trump hater that Trump said this, and the rest of the Trump haters agreed with the first Trump hater that all the Trump haters were right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DavidPT
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I didn't say there was, just that it has always been done in the House and could have been done in the House, but for some reason they chose not to, but are now asking the Senate to.

Why?



The last two Impeachments
Do they? I haven't heard anyone say that.
 
Upvote 0

GACfan

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,958
2,257
Texas
✟77,930.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Put Trump in front of a grand jury and see if he tells the truth.

Considering his malicious and vindictive behavior, I predict that he would perjure himself within ten minutes or less. He would try to blame and implicate anyone he could think of to save his own neck.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What was the evidence they provided? It was one Trump hater said to another Trump hater that Trump said this, and the rest of the Trump haters agreed with the first Trump hater that all the Trump haters were right.

‘Trump haters’ like Sondland? A billionaire who handed Trump a million dollars contribution and then took a role as ambassador to the EU for the Trump administration?

Or Fiona Hill? A hugely talented and intelligent expert who chose to go to work for the Trump administration despite all her colleagues and friends advising against it?

These people only became ‘Trump haters’ when they testified that golly Donald actually did break the law.
 
Upvote 0

The_Barmecide

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2019
497
571
48
Idaho
✟14,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Let's face it. The only reason you consider him the most corrupt president is because he is the most pro-life president.

Yeah, that's it. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he lies on a daily basis like most people breathe, that he had sex with a inappropriate content star while his wife was home with their newborn, or that he has literally treated every single marriage vow he's ever taken like a urinal, or that he has defrauded thousands of people with a fake university or that he is known to stiff contractors....no, it's clearly because he's "pro-life".

But I suspect he's about as pro-life as I am Christian. He knows folks like you will lap it up when he dishes it out and it doesn't cost him anything.

Clinton lied in court, was credibly accused by a woman of raping her

Do you assume I don't dislike Bill CLinton for this? you would be wrong.

, and after leaving office set up the Clinton Fund with is wife so that other countries could bribe them. Obama assassinated American citizens, sold weapons to the drug cartel in Mexico, his administration told Navy Seals to not rescue our embassy at Bengazi, and then blamed it all on a movie. And yet Trump is the most corrupt president of all because of a phone call???

Nope. Because of all the other things Trump does on a daily basis.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The_Barmecide

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2019
497
571
48
Idaho
✟14,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why didn't they do it in the House? They had the majority, the power and the opportunity - gotta ask why the heck didn't they do it then???

Were you not watching anything during that time? They wanted witnesses but since Trump was DENYING them the witnesses (encouraging the witnesses to obstruct congress and not comply with a legal subpoena).

The choice, as I understood it, was to go forward with the impeachment rather than wait what could be up to a year for the subpoena violations to make it through the Supreme Court.

Now, next time YOU get a subpoena...are you going to ignore it? Good luck with that! But for Trump's cronies there are no laws that apply to ANY of them.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.