Why did the House Judiciary not take the subpoena issue to court?

Kentonio · Jan 25, 2020

I think it was a stupid call by Pelosi. Impeachment had to happen prior to the election to send the message for future administrations that this behaviour by a president is absolutely unacceptable, but it didn’t have to happen quite this early.

Letting things run into the election wouldn’t have been acceptable, but there’s no guarantee it would have gone that long. People having to defend themselves in court often buckle under that pressure, and if they subpoena’d everyone (none of this ‘we’ll just do one blanket test case’ nonsense) it’s quite possible that you’d start to see people caving in long before the extended appeals process.

Instead it felt like they did a few half hearted court moves and then basically just gave in and went for impeachment knowing full well it will fail. Typical weakness by the Democratic leadership, although we should be more than used to that by now.

A_Thinker · Jan 25, 2020

Kentonio said:
I think it was a stupid call by Pelosi. Impeachment had to happen prior to the election to send the message for future administrations that this behaviour by a president is absolutely unacceptable, but it didn’t have to happen quite this early.

Letting things run into the election wouldn’t have been acceptable, but there’s no guarantee it would have gone that long. People having to defend themselves in court often buckle under that pressure, and if they subpoena’d everyone (none of this ‘we’ll just do one blanket test case’ nonsense) it’s quite possible that you’d start to see people caving in long before the extended appeals process.

Instead it felt like they did a few half hearted court moves and then basically just gave in and went for impeachment knowing full well it will fail. Typical weakness by the Democratic leadership, although we should be more than used to that by now.

I disagree.

I think that Nancy knew, much like we all know, ... that the Republicans in the Senate were not going to fairly try Trump, which would lead to a conviction and removal. However, even if the Senate wouldn't fulfill their Constitutional duty, Nancy became convinced that the House must.

So the House did what it was duty bound to do ... amassed enough evidence to justify a trial. That's impeachment.

The House's action also guaranteed that the President's actions would become the focus of attention for Americans for an extended period of time.

OTOH, there is a political side for the House to manage, as well. There was no point for them to be knee-deep in it still ... when election season came around.
So, they did what they needed to do ... they got it done, ... and, then, passed it off to the Senate.

Trump being removed was a long-shot. He's got too much power.

The aim was more to inform all Americans as to what's been going on ... and to count on the voting population to act to evict him from office 9 months from now.

FWIW, those acting on impeachment also have to deal with the shortened attention spans of the public. To let things go on too long ... is to allow the average voter to conclude that Trump's dealings don't really matter ... as things roll along.

The Senate has a few advantages the House didn't have. Judicial issues could be handled by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is present and presiding ... and Democrats need only persuade 4 Republicans to go along with them in demanding to see ALL of the relevant evidence.

Bobber · Jan 25, 2020

A_Thinker said:
I disagree.

I think that Nancy knew, much like we all know, ... that the Republicans in the Senate were not going to fairly try Trump, which would lead to a conviction and removal.

All people don't believe it won't be a fair trial? All? Where do you get this all from?

The House's action also guaranteed that the President's actions would become the focus of attention for Americans for an extended period of time.

OTOH, there is a political side for the House to manage, as well. There was no point for them to be knee-deep in it still ... when election season came around.

Sorry Thinker but I don't agree with this. They will want to be knee deep in this right up till the election as it seems like it'll be the main plank of their election campaign. There will never be a day when we won't hear we did our job but the mean ole Republicans wouldn't do theirs. It's a big gamble on their part and I'm guessing the voters over all will give them a crushing defeat come November.

..... and Democrats need only persuade 4 Republicans to go along with them in demanding to see ALL of the relevant evidence.

And you think they acted in a wise way to do that? Start their arguments with statements that if you don't agree with what we say you're a part of a cover up?? Now allowing anyone the dignity that they'll do an honest job in making an assessment? The chief justice even rebuked the tactic asking them to remember where they are. Even some Democratic politicians suggested their leadership was amiss in doing such a thing.

Kentonio · Jan 25, 2020

Bobber said:
All people don't believe it won't be a fair trial? All? Where do you get this all from?

Senate leader Mitch McConnell publicly stating it wasn’t going to be a fair trial would be a fairly solid place to start.

Then again Trump’s own Chief of Staff publicly admitted Trump commited exactly what he’s on trial for, and you guys still claim he didn’t, so I don’t expect any of this to actually make any difference.

A_Thinker · Jan 25, 2020

Bobber said:
All people don't believe it won't be a fair trial? All? Where do you get this all from?

I didn't say "ALL people". I essentially said, "All of us ... "

Bobber said:
Sorry Thinker but I don't agree with this. They will want to be knee deep in this right up till the election as it seems like it'll be the main plank of their election campaign. There will never be a day when we won't hear we did our job but the mean ole Republicans wouldn't do theirs.

They won't be knee-deep in it at this point ... as they have already completed their part.

Bobber said:
It's a big gamble on their part and I'm guessing the voters over all will give them a crushing defeat come November.

Fortunately, the polls don't reflect your cynicism.

Bobber said:
And you think they acted in a wise way to do that? Start their arguments with statements that if you don't agree with what we say you're a part of a cover up?? Now allowing anyone the dignity that they'll do an honest job in making an assessment? The chief justice even rebuked the tactic asking them to remember where they are. Even some Democratic politicians suggested their leadership was amiss in doing such a thing.

I don't think that anyone claims ... or expected that there wouldn't be some flubs popping up here and there in the process. Politics is not an exact science. But I do believe that the House Democrats have done an excellent job of informing the American public of what has been going on ...

A_Thinker · Jan 25, 2020

Kentonio said:
Senate leader Mitch McConnell publicly stating it wasn’t going to be a fair trial would be a fairly solid place to start.

Then again Trump’s own Chief of Staff publicly admitted Trump commited exactly what he’s on trial for, and you guys still claim he didn’t, so I don’t expect any of this to actually make any difference.

Also, Trumps chief defense ...

"We have all the documents. The Dems have nothing ..."

NotreDame · Jan 25, 2020

Kentonio said:
I think it was a stupid call by Pelosi. Impeachment had to happen prior to the election to send the message for future administrations that this behaviour by a president is absolutely unacceptable, but it didn’t have to happen quite this early.

Letting things run into the election wouldn’t have been acceptable, but there’s no guarantee it would have gone that long. People having to defend themselves in court often buckle under that pressure, and if they subpoena’d everyone (none of this ‘we’ll just do one blanket test case’ nonsense) it’s quite possible that you’d start to see people caving in long before the extended appeals process.

Instead it felt like they did a few half hearted court moves and then basically just gave in and went for impeachment knowing full well it will fail. Typical weakness by the Democratic leadership, although we should be more than used to that by now.

But the Dems presented their impeachment inquiry as an effort to save the American constitutional republic from the existential threat posed to it by Donald Trump. They placed themselves in the same category as President Lincoln, coming to the rescue of our constitutional form of government.

I cannot perceive of many other noble purposes, of such profound importance and significance, that would justify taking the time to conduct a thorough investigation, although doing so requires coming close to the election. After all, the fate of the American republic is at stake.

Kentonio · Jan 25, 2020

NotreDame said:
But the Dems presented their impeachment inquiry as an effort to save the American constitutional republic from the existential threat posed to it by Donald Trump. They placed themselves in the same category as President Lincoln, coming to the rescue of our constitutional form of government.

I cannot perceive of many other noble purposes, of such profound importance and significance, that would justify taking the time to conduct a thorough investigation, although doing so requires coming close to the election. After all, the fate of the American republic is at stake.

In principle I couldn’t agree more, but holding impeachment hearings during an election would have a large number of negative effects.

KCfromNC · Jan 25, 2020

tall73 said:
The House formed the articles, not the Senate. The House leadership also suspected the Republican Senate would not in fact find him guilty of obstructing congress.

Yep, which makes it kinda weird people are blaming the House for this. They did their job - got convincing, consistent testimony about Donald's actions. The GOP-controlled Senate has no desire to look into this any further by calling more witnesses. And now the spin is trying to blame the House for this for some reason.

If the House did spend the time fighting this in court we'd be hearing a different, contradictory set of excuses for why what they're doing is wrong. Don't fall for it. Instead, focus on the facts - the best defense of Donald's actions (today) seems to be that the House didn't find even more stuff he did wrong. Along with the idea that he's so totally innocent that he doesn't want the people directly involved telling anyone about it.

All this nonsense about blaming the House for not living up to whatever standard the GOP is making up today is just that.

KCfromNC · Jan 25, 2020

Kentonio said:
I think it was a stupid call by Pelosi. Impeachment had to happen prior to the election to send the message for future administrations that this behaviour by a president is absolutely unacceptable, but it didn’t have to happen quite this early.

Letting things run into the election wouldn’t have been acceptable, but there’s no guarantee it would have gone that long. People having to defend themselves in court often buckle under that pressure, and if they subpoena’d everyone (none of this ‘we’ll just do one blanket test case’ nonsense) it’s quite possible that you’d start to see people caving in long before the extended appeals process.

And then what? You'd just have additional testimony that would be ignored by Donald's enablers in the Senate. It isn't like there isn't enough already to show what was going on.

KCfromNC · Jan 25, 2020

Bobber said:
All people don't believe it won't be a fair trial?

All is an overstatement, but a vast majority disagree with the GOP's attempts to suppress witness testimony during the trial.

wing2000 · Jan 25, 2020

A_Thinker said:
FWIW, those acting on impeachment also have to deal with the shortened attention spans of the public. To let things go on too long ... is to allow the average voter to conclude that Trump's dealings don't really matter ... as things roll along.

Yes, and I think the short-attention span nature of today's electorate factored into Pelosi's decision.

I certainly didn't watch all of the House Manger's presentations, but for those that I saw, they were very well done. Event timelines and context were laid out in detail, supplemented by video and slides to make their point.

NotreDame · Jan 25, 2020

A_Thinker said:
I disagree.

I think that Nancy knew, much like we all know, ... that the Republicans in the Senate were not going to fairly try Trump, which would lead to a conviction and removal. However, even if the Senate wouldn't fulfill their Constitutional duty, Nancy became convinced that the House must.

So the House did what it was duty bound to do ... amassed enough evidence to justify a trial. That's impeachment.

The House's action also guaranteed that the President's actions would become the focus of attention for Americans for an extended period of time.

OTOH, there is a political side for the House to manage, as well. There was no point for them to be knee-deep in it still ... when election season came around.
So, they did what they needed to do ... they got it done, ... and, then, passed it off to the Senate.

Trump being removed was a long-shot. He's got too much power.

The aim was more to inform all Americans as to what's been going on ... and to count on the voting population to act to evict him from office 9 months from now.

FWIW, those acting on impeachment also have to deal with the shortened attention spans of the public. To let things go on too long ... is to allow the average voter to conclude that Trump's dealings don't really matter ... as things roll along.

The Senate has a few advantages the House didn't have. Judicial issues could be handled by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is present and presiding ... and Democrats need only persuade 4 Republicans to go along with them in demanding to see ALL of the relevant evidence.

Is that what Dems we’re doing? Perverting the impeachment power to educate the public? You said so yourself. “The aim was more to inform all Americans as to what's been going on...The House's action also guaranteed that the President's actions would become the focus of attention for Americans for an extended period of time.

So the House did what it was duty bound to do ... amassed enough evidence to justify a trial. That's impeachment.

No, impeachment is the formal act of Congress alleging malfeasance on behalf of the President as “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment doesn’t include “enough evidence to justify a trial.”

It is of course a common sense consideration to collect enough evidence not to merely “justify a trial” but win the trial. Especially when the fate of the American republic is at stake. The Dems presented themselves as modern day Marcus Brutus, Decimus Brutus, and Cassius Longinus, here to depose the threat to the American constitutional form of government. Listening carefully, one could hear the Dems whisper the words, “Sic semper tyrannis,” as they gloriously and righteously conducted their impeachment inquiry to save our government.

Well, if it is that important and noble of a cause, then conducting a thorough investigation to obtain and amass the evidence needed to present the strongest possible case should be pursued, even if that meant stretching the impeachment inquiry by litigating in court the issue of pivotal witnesses and documents withheld by the executive branch.

Kentonio · Jan 25, 2020

KCfromNC said:
And then what? You'd just have additional testimony that would be ignored by Donald's enablers in the Senate. It isn't like there isn't enough already to show what was going on.

If the likes of Pompeo and Mulvaney broke under oath, the pressure on the senators would be too much.

civilwarbuff · Jan 25, 2020

KCfromNC said:
Instead, focus on the facts - the best defense of Donald's actions (today) seems to be that the House didn't find even more stuff he did wrong. Along with the idea that he's so totally innocent that he doesn't want the people directly involved telling anyone about it.

You mean they did not find anything, cuz they sure have not presented any evidence to the Senate. If you disagree, please feel free to post the evidence here.....

civilwarbuff · Jan 25, 2020

KCfromNC said:
All this nonsense about blaming the House for not living up to whatever standard the GOP is making up today is just that.

You mean conducting an thorough investigation BEFORE voting on articles of impeachment? Then I guess the GOP has set a pretty high standard....about as high as any civil/criminal trial would have.

Bobber · Jan 25, 2020

wing2000 said:
Yes, and I think the short-attention span nature of today's electorate factored into Pelosi's decision.

I certainly didn't watch all of the House Manger's presentations, but for those that I saw, they were very well done. Event timelines and context were laid out in detail, supplemented by video and slides to make their point.

Yes nice videos and slides. To bad the substance of what they were saying was merely speculative notions though and far from convincing.

wing2000 · Jan 25, 2020

Bobber said:
Yes nice videos and slides. To bad the substance of what they were saying was merely speculative notions though and far from convincing.

Example?

Bobber · Jan 25, 2020

civilwarbuff said:
You mean conducting an thorough investigation BEFORE voting on articles of impeachment? Then I guess the GOP has set a pretty high standard....about as high as any civil/criminal trial would have.

And the strange thing they're now claiming it wasn't thorough and you're a no good person if you don't complete our job. That'd be like going to the restaurant and having the waitress serve up what's been advertised to be steak dinner (an overwhelming case) and you get it but there's no meat on the plate! Oh yes and you're told to go to the kitchen and help prepare the rest of it! :help:

I guess we have to conclude service isn't what it used to be! :swoon:

Bobber · Jan 25, 2020

wing2000 said:
Example?

Just the parts where they said Trump did something wrong. The rest of it was fine.

Why did the House Judiciary not take the subpoena issue to court?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Domer

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

E pluribus unum

Domer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads