If Trump is obstructing because he knows he is guilty

Jamesone5

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 7, 2019
1,758
318
Basin
✟97,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You are a treasure in this thread, and I am glad you are shining a light on this problem. Carry on.

Thank you and no I am not a treasure--but Christ who is in me is that Treasure I honor
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,812
7,419
PA
✟317,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Please show me the discussion on English Common law. Unfortunately I missed that. I will consider the evidence.
Here's a nice breakdown: Constitutional Rights Foundation

Federalist 65 is the best place to go for a more primary source on the matter as the Founders saw it.

They also wouldn't give up on the actual evidence if it were all about principle. They can't say it is all about principle because it might hurt their candidates, but then not push every option to get at the truth.
Like many things in life, I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle. People are complicated, and I'm not a mind reader.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,812
7,419
PA
✟317,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here's a nice breakdown: Constitutional Rights Foundation

Federalist 65 is the best place to go for a more primary source on the matter as the Founders saw it.

Thank you, I read them both. However, the bulk of the federalist paper was dealing with the appropriateness of the Senate for the task. The portion referencing English common law left as many questions as it answered, as some of the the examples didn't seem applicable.

I will agree that it looked like it could be more general than a violation of law on the books. But then it also seemed it was not to be just misadministration. That was expressly ruled out.

The corruption element in this case still hinges on intent. And proof of intent still hinges on the documents and witnesses that speak to the President's mind-set.

For that reason I still would think we need that information. And the courts appear to be the body that would sort out disagreements over ability to summon such.

If the question of the president not being able to withhold the documents is straight-forward, then I would think it could be somewhat quickly resolved. If it is not straight-forward, then it is hard to argue this constitutes obstruction, as he may have a right to such a defense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Honestly, you're probably right. However, there are a couple possible lines of reasoning that I can think of:

1. House Democrats were hoping that the obvious obstruction would be enough to lead to Trump's removal and/or convince Americans not to vote for him in 2020.

But it's not an illegal obstruction. It's his right under Executive Privilege.

or convince Americans not to vote for him in 2020.
And that's the case they'll take to the American people. With most of the mainstream media carrying water for the Democratic politicians they can pound out their message 24/7. I don't think though the MS media have near the clout they had in generations past. Now they're just a few voices among many
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.
No testimony except for all of the testimony already given in the House showing his guilt, of course. And a weird set of excuses for why the person claiming it was a perfect call doesn't want the people close to him talking about it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So you know that the intentions of the president was to find dirt on Biden in case he becomes the Dem candidate for president?

According to undisputed testimony in presented under oath in the House, the goal was to abuse the power of the office to coerce a foreign leader to make an announcement that he was investigating one of Donald's political rivals. And just in time for Donald to launch a set of political ads against that same opponent.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?

If the goal was truly to hear from the witnesses then a battle in the courts seems the way to obtain the testimony, even if it took a while.

So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.
I can appreciate your point, but the way the process was set up in the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that is to "make the case" for impeachment. The Senate is to pass judgment on the case that the House presents to it.

While it may be true that the claims of the House managers will go unchallenged by witnesses that the President would like to have testify, this still isn't a situation in which he has to prove his innocence. If the House has presented a slip-shod argument and/or the articles that it passed don't indicate that there were any crimes, the Senate has good grounds for simply finding that to be the situation and then voting to exonerate the president.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,934
17,415
Finger Lakes
✟7,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?

If the goal was truly to hear from the witnesses then a battle in the courts seems the way to obtain the testimony, even if it took a while.

So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.
Wouldn't he just say no to the courts as well?

It is one thing for the senators to hear and know that the representatives were obstructed, but quite another when they themselves are obstructed. If it should happen to them, they might be more inclined to vote guilty on obstruction of Congress.
 
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

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,934
17,415
Finger Lakes
✟7,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can appreciate your point, but the way the process was set up in the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that is to "make the case" for impeachment. The Senate is to pass judgment on the case that the House presents to it.
Not really. The House is supposed to bring the charges, but the Senate is supposed to hold a trial and judge impartially - not appoint itself the defense and not to declare beforehand that they intend to acquit no matter what evidence is presented.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Not really. The House is supposed to bring the charges, but the Senate is supposed to hold a trial and judge impartially - not appoint itself the defense and not to declare beforehand that they intend to acquit no matter what evidence is presented.
Well, since that has not happened, it doesn't seem like any reply is needed.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No testimony except for all of the testimony already given in the House showing his guilt, of course. And a weird set of excuses for why the person claiming it was a perfect call doesn't want the people close to him talking about it.

I have heard all of that testimony. But there is a reason the other is still desired. I agree I don't think there is a good reason. But then I don't think there is a good reason for a lot of what they keep from the public.

So why not go to the courts and get that info?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can appreciate your point, but the way the process was set up in the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that is to "make the case" for impeachment. The Senate is to pass judgment on the case that the House presents to it.

While it may be true that the claims of the House managers will go unchallenged by witnesses that the President would like to have testify, this still isn't a situation in which he has to prove his innocence. If the House has presented a slip-shod argument and/or the articles that it passed don't indicate that there were any crimes, the Senate has good grounds for simply finding that to be the situation and then voting to exonerate the president.

I am arguing the house should have pursued it in the courts. However, the Senate still has the option of trying as well. And they can do so if they want to know what happened.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,812
7,419
PA
✟317,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Thank you, I read them both. However, the bulk of the federalist paper was dealing with the appropriateness of the Senate for the task. The portion referencing English common law left as many questions as it answered, as some of the the examples didn't seem applicable.
The relevant portion of Federalist 65 is this:

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Hamilton speaks of violations of public trust and injuries to society, not violations of law. The discussion of common law vs civil law isn't really relevant aside from the fact that English common law is the source of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors." As the article I linked pointed out, the common denominator in all cases where an official was charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors," was an abuse of public trust. I would argue that Trump's actions with regards to Ukraine rise to that level.

I will agree that it looked like it could be more general than a violation of law on the books. But then it also seemed it was not to be just misadministration. That was expressly ruled out.
Maladministration was ruled out by virtue of being too specific, so the fact that it was ruled out simply means that more actions than maladministration should be considered impeachable.

The corruption element in this case still hinges on intent. And proof of intent still hinges on the documents and witnesses that speak to the President's mind-set.

For that reason I still would think we need that information. And the courts appear to be the body that would sort out disagreements over ability to summon such.
Personally, I believe that we've seen enough evidence to demonstrate intent. The evidence is largely circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence can still be enough to demonstrate intent - especially if those who could refute that circumstantial evidence with their testimony refuse to come forward.

If the question of the president not being able to withhold the documents is straight-forward, then I would think it could be somewhat quickly resolved. If it is not straight-forward, then it is hard to argue this constitutes obstruction, as he may have a right to such a defense.
The courts don't work like that. Anything with as lasting an impact on our country as this would spend years making its way though appeals before finally landing in front of the Supreme Court. There is no way that it would be resolved before the election, which I believe is the primary goal of the House Democrats.
 
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

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wouldn't he just say no to the courts as well?

It is one thing for the senators to hear and know that the representatives were obstructed, but quite another when they themselves are obstructed. If it should happen to them, they might be more inclined to vote guilty on obstruction of Congress.

If he refused to comply with the court ruling, and the Senators, then sure, have at it. But that hasn't happened yet.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I am arguing the house should have pursued it in the courts. However, the Senate still has the option of trying as well. And they can do so if they want to know what happened.
They KNOW what happened--or did not happen.

What the House wanted was to present a sketchy indictment and then force the Senate to start all over from scratch in order to make this charade be so drawn-out that it remains unsettled even into primary season and, hopefully, up to the time of the national nominating conventions. It could then be front and center as part of their campaigning.

In no wise should the Senate fall for that.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,812
7,419
PA
✟317,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But it's not an illegal obstruction. It's his right under Executive Privilege.
No, it isn't. Executive privilege, as established by the courts, cannot be exercised in a blanket manner as Trump did.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hamilton speaks of violations of public trust and injuries to society, not violations of law. The discussion of common law vs civil law isn't really relevant aside from the fact that English common law is the source of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors." As the article I linked pointed out, the common denominator in all cases where an official was charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors," was an abuse of public trust. I would argue that Trump's actions with regards to Ukraine rise to that level.


Maladministration was ruled out by virtue of being too specific, so the fact that it was ruled out simply means that more actions than maladministration should be considered impeachable.
It read to me more like they thought maladministration was ruled out because it would be too low of a standard, and result in a parliamentary vote, overturning the election without sufficient warrant.

Personally, I believe that we've seen enough evidence to demonstrate intent. The evidence is largely circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence can still be enough to demonstrate intent - especially if those who could refute that circumstantial evidence with their testimony refuse to come forward.

You cannot assume that lack of testimony is testimony for your side.

The courts don't work like that. Anything with as lasting an impact on our country as this would spend years making its way though appeals before finally landing in front of the Supreme Court. There is no way that it would be resolved before the election, which I believe is the primary goal of the House Democrats.

They do have options to expedite at the supreme court. And now we are back to the primary goal of resolved before the election rather than the principle.

If I had something I really needed done, and two ways to do it, I would work both of those ways.
 
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

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They KNOW what happened--or did not happen.

What the House wanted was to present a sketchy indictment and then force the Senate to start all over from scratch in order to make this charade be so drawn-out that it remains unsettled even into primary season and, hopefully, up to the time of the national nominating conventions. It could then be front and center as part of their campaigning.

In no wise should the Senate fall for that.

They know what happened. They have not proved intent. But there is enough known to call into question the intent in my book. So they should press for the rest of the info.
 
Upvote 0