Democrat counsel indicates House may seek to impeach Trump yet again

[wing2000]

Those items were suppose to materialize prior to trial, and they didn't. So, they are demanding them for trial despite their indisputable facts/proof? That doesn't make it sound like their case is all that strong. What is at issue as well is their 'indisputable' stuff that isn't all that indisputable.

Trump blocked the release of the requested documents and witnesses. As just one example Sonland testified he was unable to reference notes and documents. Those witnesses that did come forward did so risking their jobs....

So tell me, how were they "supposed to materialize prior to the trail" when the POTUS was flatly dismissing all request from Congress?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Add a few DUIs, plagiarism, and a little embezzlement, and Donald's got a new press secretary!

I want to imagine that her next spokesperson gig will be for the law firm DUI, Cheatem, and How.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nice try. But the substance of the call doesn't bear that out not in any absolute sense of the word.

What call? Donald made the claim I'm quoting on national TV.

 

[HannahT]

Trump blocked the release of the requested documents and witnesses. As just one example Sonland testified he was unable to reference notes and documents. Those witnesses that did come forward did so risking their jobs....

So tell me, how were they "supposed to materialize prior to the trail" when the POTUS was flatly dismissing all request from Congress?

It's called the Judicial branch of government. Haven't you heard of it?

This branch is suppose to settle those things. Yes, they can force the documents and witnesses to be brought forth. Yet, they claim (House/DEMS) it would take to long. It was sense of urgency, and he is a risk to our republic as to their reason not to go that route.

Since they already blew that off, and now it doesn't seem to be a rush anymore? They want to demand it, or the trial will be a sham? Does that mean the House process was since they didn't want to wait for them? They didn't have the documents or witnesses either, because they didn't want to take them to court to force it.

Nixon used his excuses for why the tapes couldn't be turned over, and the Supreme Court told him he had too.

Clinton wanted to say the Jones case shouldn't go forward while he was in office due to the distraction from his job, and the Supreme court told him he was wrong.

They used the Judicial branch of government to force their hand. So flatly dismissing doesn't always fly if you use the court system.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It's called the Judicial branch of government. Haven't you heard of it?

This branch is suppose to settle those things. Yes, they can force the documents and witnesses to be brought forth. Yet, they claim (House/DEMS) it would take to long. It was sense of urgency, and he is a risk to our republic as to their reason not to go that route.

Since they already blew that off, and now it doesn't seem to be a rush anymore? They want to demand it, or the trial will be a sham? Does that mean the House process was since they didn't want to wait for them? They didn't have the documents or witnesses either, because they didn't want to take them to court to force it.

Nixon used his excuses for why the tapes couldn't be turned over, and the Supreme Court told him he had too.

Clinton wanted to say the Jones case shouldn't go forward while he was in office due to the distraction from his job, and the Supreme court told him he was wrong.

They used the Judicial branch of government to force their hand. So flatly dismissing doesn't always fly if you use the court system.

Can I trust that Trump would hand over the documents and allow testimony if demanded by the courts?

Can I trust that you will voice your displeasure with Trump if he fails to do so?

 

[HannahT]

Can I trust that Trump would hand over the documents and allow testimony if demanded by the courts?

Can I trust that you will voice your displeasure with Trump if he fails to do so?

I see. We are afraid that Trump isn't going to comply so we aren't going to try the legal route? Is that what you are saying is their justification? Come on now. That's pretty lame. How do the Dems in the Senate expect this will happen for their trial if they are so certain this will happen?

Government workers aren't going to place their freedom at risk and NOT hand over documents if the Supreme court orders it. You seriously think he has them under lock and key or something?

It's funny how you are outraged over something that hasn't happened, and yet aren't outraged over something that should have.

 

[wing2000]

It's called the Judicial branch of government. Haven't you heard of it?

This branch is suppose to settle those things. Yes, they can force the documents and witnesses to be brought forth. Yet, they claim (House/DEMS) it would take to long. It was sense of urgency, and he is a risk to our republic as to their reason not to go that route.

Since they already blew that off, and now it doesn't seem to be a rush anymore? They want to demand it, or the trial will be a sham? Does that mean the House process was since they didn't want to wait for them? They didn't have the documents or witnesses either, because they didn't want to take them to court to force it.

Nixon used his excuses for why the tapes couldn't be turned over, and the Supreme Court told him he had too.

Clinton wanted to say the Jones case shouldn't go forward while he was in office due to the distraction from his job, and the Supreme court told him he was wrong.

They used the Judicial branch of government to force their hand. So flatly dismissing doesn't always fly if you use the court system.

The POTUS is accused of using his Executive power to influence a foreign country to produce information that would benefit him politically with election primaries weeks away.

Yes, the House leadership could have called on the courts for a ruling. Do you know how long that could take to play out in the courts?

In an effort to enforce a subpoena to testify, the House sued former White House counsel Don McGhan on August 7, 2019. That case is on appeal, with the next hearing scheduled for 3 January -- already 5 months into the process....

So, if Speaker Peolosi had decided to force the President's hand during the impeachment inquiry, it's reasonable to expect that court process would take us well into the 2020 Presidential primary and possibly general elections. In the interim, this President can continue to send his personal lawyer to perform "investigations" on any one of his political components. The President's behavior is a real and demonstrated risk to our elections.

 

[HannahT]

The POTUS is accused of using his Executive power to influence a foreign country to produce information that would benefit him politically with election primaries weeks away.

Yes, the House leadership could have called on the courts for a ruling. Do you know how long that could take to play out in the courts?

In an effort to enforce a subpoena to testify, the House sued former White House counsel Don McGhan on August 7, 2019. That case is on appeal, with the next hearing scheduled for 3 January -- already 5 months into the process....

So, if Speaker Peolosi had decided to force the President's hand during the impeachment inquiry, it's reasonable to expect that court process would take us well into the 2020 Presidential primary and possibly general elections. In the interim, this President can continue to send his personal lawyer to perform "investigations" on any one of his political components. The President's behavior is a real and demonstrated risk to our elections.

Yes, that is how the process works...and how it was done in the past.

Claiming it takes to long, and so we are just going to bypass the judicial and DEMAND them? It's not working so well is it?!

Screaming sham isn't going to change that reality. There is no enforcement there. YOu can scream and file with the judicial at the same time. Thinking they are entitled something that aren't willing to back up with any teeth? It looks really lame. It certainly doesn't look like they are as scared as they claim they are.

Dem's sent their own people to start an 'investigation' last time. They also targeted a political opponent. I highly doubt they will do a better job than the Dem's did that year, or are we really saying they are afraid they would? At least he admits what he is doing, and last time this happened they were denying it until they couldn't anymore.

I don't see the risk to the elections. I see people grasping at straws because they neglected their responsibility to go to the courts.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I see. We are afraid that Trump isn't going to comply so we aren't going to try the legal route? Is that what you are saying is their justification? Come on now. That's pretty lame. How do the Dems in the Senate expect this will happen for their trial if they are so certain this will happen?

Government workers aren't going to place their freedom at risk and NOT hand over documents if the Supreme court orders it. You seriously think he has them under lock and key or something?

It's funny how you are outraged over something that hasn't happened, and yet aren't outraged over something that should have.

I am concerned that Trump will ignore and that Republicans will stand by him as he does. The fact you couldn’t answer my two simple questions is terrifyingly telling.

 

[HannahT]

I am concerned that Trump will ignore and that Republicans will stand by him as he does. The fact you couldn’t answer my two simple questions is terrifyingly telling.

Then you want to be terrified. Like I said. He doesn't have the documents under lock and key. He can't physically stop a government worker from releasing them. They aren't going to risk their freedom over this.

The fact you can't be outraged over the fact they refuse to go to court to force the subject, and choose instead of being terrified over something that hasn't happened yet? That's your choice.

 

[wing2000]

Yes, that is how the process works...and how it was done in the past.

Claiming it takes to long, and so we are just going to bypass the judicial and DEMAND them? It's not working so well is it?!

Screaming sham isn't going to change that reality. There is no enforcement there. YOu can scream and file with the judicial at the same time. Thinking they are entitled something that aren't willing to back up with any teeth? It looks really lame. It certainly doesn't look like they are as scared as they claim they are.

Dem's sent their own people to start an 'investigation' last time. They also targeted a political opponent. I highly doubt they will do a better job than the Dem's did that year, or are we really saying they are afraid they would? At least he admits what he is doing, and last time this happened they were denying it until they couldn't anymore.

I don't see the risk to the elections. I see people grasping at straws because they neglected their responsibility to go to the courts.

Then you must be blind to the President's activities....

You are not providing any remedy for the Congress to hold the President accountable given the current reality.

 

[HannahT]

Then you must be blind to the President's activities....

You are not providing any remedy for the Congress to hold the President accountable given the current reality.

Judicial is the remedy. Laziness is the reason they aren't doing it. Being melodramatic about the fact they refuse, and pretending that proves anything isn't the reality here.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Then you want to be terrified. Like I said. He doesn't have the documents under lock and key. He can't physically stop a government worker from releasing them. They aren't going to risk their freedom over this.

The fact you can't be outraged over the fact they refuse to go to court to force the subject, and choose instead of being terrified over something that hasn't happened yet? That's your choice.

Should the Democrats have gone to court? YES

Do I think it would have mattered? NO. I think Trump would continue to stonewall, pardon anyone standing firm and getting tossed in jail, and Republicans doing nothing as it happens.

When I asked if I can trust Trump not to do that or if I can trust you (yourself and Republicans in general) to stand against Trump if he does do that you don’t even answer the question. Why can you not answer those questions?

 

[wing2000]

Judicial is the remedy. Laziness is the reason they aren't doing it. Being melodramatic about the fact they refuse, and pretending that proves anything isn't the reality here.

The House leadership correctly determined that Trump will simply exploit the court process until the elections are over.

 

[HannahT]

Should the Democrats have gone to court? YES

Do I think it would have mattered? NO. I think Trump would continue to stonewall, pardon anyone standing firm and getting tossed in jail, and Republicans doing nothing as it happens.

When I asked if I can trust Trump not to do that or if I can trust you (yourself and Republicans in general) to stand against Trump if he does do that you don’t even answer the question. Why can you not answer those questions?

I'm not a Republican believe it or not. I did answer your question. I don't believe he can hold back under a court order from the Supreme court. There is no reason I need to be that literal for you figure that out.

Nixon and Clinton stonewalled too, and why they got orders to force the subject. It's the nature of beast.

 

[JohnAshton]

Congress does have the authority to impeach Mr. Trump yet again.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not a Republican believe it or not. I did answer your question. I don't believe he can hold back under a court order from the Supreme court. There is no reason I need to be that literal for you figure that out.

Nixon and Clinton stonewalled too, and why they got orders to force the subject. It's the nature of beast.

Still, it is interesting that the very persons Trump has refused to let testify are those who would have the inside knowledge to exonerate him. What do you suppose? That he is going to surprise us with them at the Senate trial in an astonishing feat of showmanship?

 

[HannahT]

The House leadership correctly determined that Trump will simply exploit the court process until the elections are over.

So you just don't do it and hope for the best?

People complain about this President, and just think by some miracle he will be cooperative? Come on now. Even you know that won't happen.

I would force the subject, and if it was after the election? Fine, and move forward. Once the Supreme court says he has to? He can't stonewall anymore to the extent that people seem to think he can.

It's rather ignorant to think he will just hand over what they want because they are screaming about it. In the meantime calling things a sham after claiming they have indisputable facts and proof? If that was indeed true? They wouldn't need witnesses and documents. Problem is I don't think they believe their own statements.

I think the Biden thing will go no where personally. Guilty or Not it won't. So, they can use their indisputable facts and prove their case with the Ukraine part. The executive privilege claim on the other article? I don't see that going anywhere. Every President since George Washington has used it. You use the courts if you feel there is an exception they won't honor - which has been done successfully before. The fact they didn't want to because of an election? That won't fly.

 

[HannahT]

Congress does have the authority to impeach Mr. Trump yet again.

They have already announced they would continue to do so even if they lost. So, Yes!

 

[HannahT]

Still, it is interesting that the very persons Trump has refused to let testify are those who would have the inside knowledge to exonerate him. What do you suppose? That he is going to surprise us with them at the Senate trial in an astonishing feat of showmanship?

Who knows. The waters are so muddy now - its anyone guess.

You don't go to trial unless you have the goods for a conviction. You don't go to trial and demand things you hope will bring you a conviction. You take care of that prior to trial. I don't know WHY they are doing this, because they look so unprepared and are relying on the opposing side to help them out. This is just nuts.