GOP senators unanimously vote against seeing evidence

The_Barmecide said:

So you want an impeachment process that lasts about a year or two? Because Trump's violation of subpoenas would likely go all the way to SCOTUS. That will take time.

So instead of taking the House to task for not spending another year on this, why don't you take Trump to task for HIDING EVERYTHING?

Just curious.

Click to expand...

2 words: Executive Privilege. Spend some time learning what it is, how it is used and why it is used instead of just repeating the same question.

civilwarbuff said:

2 words: Executive Privilege.

Click to expand...

"The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon"

Nixon and Trump. Funny how that sounds so much more plausible combination than the ones Trump tries desperately put forward like mental association with Lincoln or Roosevelt.

lets put this issue into play in a court case where we as individual have been charged and now are in court and on trial.

The prosecutor (house) turns to the jury (senate) and says I do not have the evidence to convict so we (the house) want you the jury (senate) to do the investigation and then convict on the new evidence you find.

Have any of those posting in this thread ever heard of the above scenario ever being employed in a court trial?

If not then why are you supporting it now.

Or does the end justify the means?

In the above example the Jury (senate) would also be the prosecutor, jury and judge.

Think about that.

Kentonio said:

It’s hilarious watching you Trump supporters vigorously arguing in favour of not seeing evidence against your guy. This will all be remembered next time any of you try and take any kind of moral high ground against anyone.

Click to expand...

This is the same thing we saw during the Kavanaugh hearing, just to a greater degree.

blackribbon said:

No, the House did not request the documents properly and would not allow the President to have his counsel present.

Click to expand...

Uh.... His lawyers refused to show up.

Trump’s Lawyers Won’t Participate in Impeachment Hearing on Wednesday

Arcangl86 said:

Because they have the inherent power to issue subpoenas. If they went to the courts, they probably would have just declared it a political question and teh House would have been where they started.

Click to expand...

And the president can refuse to turn them over for any number of reasons. Then the house had to take him to court. That's how it works. If the courts rule against them so be it. But they didn't do that. Then they impeach him for obstruction of Congress which they already did. But they might have gotten a court court in their favor. They gave up. They didn't do their job.

blackribbon said:

No, the House did not request the documents properly and would not allow the President to have his counsel present.

Click to expand...

What's the proper request to get around an order by Donald for his employees to refuse any request for evidence?

rjs330 said:

And the president can refuse to turn them over for any number of reasons. Then the house had to take him to court. That's how it works. If the courts rule against them so be it. But they didn't do that. Then they impeach him for obstruction of Congress which they already did. But they might have gotten a court court in their favor. They gave up. They didn't do their job.

Click to expand...

He didn't give a reason. I don't believe he ever actually claimed executive privilege, he just said no.

blackribbon said:

We do not live in a country where trials start with the assumption of guilt and then the accused has to prove that he/she is innocent.

Click to expand...

True, which is why the House gathered as much testimony as it could demonstrating Donald's guilt. That they could do such a good job despite his obstruction of the investigation is pretty telling.

variant said:

If the courts declare subpoenas merely a "political question" and not a power of congress then congress has no means to act as oversight to the presidency.

Remember that for the next election, because we will be electing our next king.

Click to expand...

So they were afraid? That's not a good reason for not doing your job. And if they demand the Senate do their job for them and the same thing happens, what's the point? If they were so afraid of that what makes them think the outcome would be any different?

They submitted their charges. And now they need to let it go. They had their chance and they blew it.

Kenny'sID said:

Nice to know the trial is going to be about as serious and fair as these and numerous other phony charges against Trump.

Click to expand...

We can tell they're "phony" because the people who could prove they are were "phony" are prohibited from testifying by the guy they'd exonerate. And because the Senators conspiring with the guy with the "phony" charges against him to not include any new information which would prove them "phony".

Are people really falling for this stuff? I feel like it's some sort of elaborate performance art or something.

Original Happy Camper said:

lets put this issue into play in a court case where we as individual have been charged and now are in court and on trial.

The prosecutor (house) turns to the jury (senate) and says I do not have the evidence to convict so we (the house) want you the jury (senate) to do the investigation and then convict on the new evidence you find.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting hypothetical situation, but how does it apply here? In this case the House has hours of sworn testimony demonstrating that Donald attempted to coerce a foreign power into helping him with a campaign ad against one of his opponents.

civilwarbuff said:

2 words: Executive Privilege. Spend some time learning what it is, how it is used and why it is used instead of just repeating the same question.

Click to expand...

One of the advantages of my job is that I have a nodding acquaintance with legal privilege. It isn't a perfect blanket and it doesn't cover illegal acts.

Kentonio said:

Why don't you just hand the guy a crown already and be done with it? It's clear nothing he can say or do is going to make you people apply the same basic rules of justice and morality to him that you do to anyone else. You want him to be above the law and an absolute ruler with no seperation of powers? Ok, why not just admit it, and stop with all these games?

Click to expand...

And in a few more years when a Dem is on the "throne" we'll see how dedicated these Conservatives are to a "unitary executive" model.

The_Barmecide said:

And in a few more years when a Dem is on the "throne" we'll see how dedicated these Conservatives are to a "unitary executive" model.

Click to expand...

They're not worried. If Trump is re-elected and things go according to the way his base wants them to there never will be another Democratic President.

Speedwell said:

They're not worried. If Trump is re-elected and things go according to the way his base wants them to there never will be another Democratic President.

Click to expand...

And why's that, exactly?

IMHO, the main reason the democrats loose elections are the democrats.

Nithavela said:

And why's that, exactly?

IMHO, the main reason the democrats loose elections are the democrats.

Click to expand...

Assuming there will be elections.

rjs330 said:

Then why didn't they wait for the court cases to be handled so they could force him to turn everything over they subpoenaed? Like I said they didn't do their job. Instead of rushing and taking shortcuts they could have done it right. Instead they did it poorly, didn't investigate properly and now they want the Senate to do the job they should have done in the first place. Makes me wonder why.

Click to expand...

The "why" has been explained repeatedly.

Trump's corruption is about him trying to corruptly use his Presidential powers to coerce foreign nations to interfere with our elections. Waiting until after the election is like waiting until after the fire has burned itself out to call the fire department.

Trump is notorious for delaying in the court system. He loses case after case, but appeals keep the process in the courts forever. In his business life, he used this practice to out last leverage small contractor companies that he failed to pay the contractual amount.

The evidence found in the House hearings was substantial. The people who didn't testify would be able to corroborate it or disprove it, however, Trump kept those people from testifying.