McConnell says he doesn't have enough votes to block witnesses

[Speedwell]

Well then, read it again and TRY to understand.

You posted,

Yet his impeachment remains on his record, forever. It is part of his legacy. The same is true for Trump. He remains the third POTUS to be impeached. There is no changing that.

It seems a straightforward, neutral statement of fact. I don't have any idea what I am supposed to conclude from it.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

You posted,

It seems a straightforward, neutral statement of fact. I don't have any idea what I am supposed to conclude from it.

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[Speedwell]

Sounds like a personal problem.

So you'd rather be offense than explain it. OK.

 

[cow451]

If a dalliance with an intern and finessing the truth by saying it couldn't be intercourse if there was no penetration IS impeachable.....
Then how can coercing a foreign nation to find dirt on a political opponent and withholding congressionally approved aid--already branded "illegal" by the GAO--while the country, our ally, was 25% occupied by Russia and its people were desperate--NOT be impeachable?
If the president sensed corruption, our DOJ, which others can't count on but which Trump certainly can. Would have been the appropriate agency to conduct an investigation.
And so yes, a misdeed that endangers our national security is far more serious and impeachable than a president who is a little too frisky.

The President did not have relations with that Ukrainian. He told us so and we should let it go. A President’s foreign affairs are not our business.

 

[Bobber]

Only if we assume executive privilege somehow extends to not having his actions questioned and investigated by congress.

Which is just insane.

Nobody has said the Executive Branch should even ever want to be immune from the questions of things. But it's a case by case basis....is it necessary to invoke EP or not depends. There's always been a struggle between the branches of Government. That's why you have three branches to be the decider of things.

Keep in mind this. Let's say even the Judaical Branch goes amiss and becomes tyrannical. Congress and the Executive Branch together (the two against one) can declare the Courts whatever decision as Unconstitutional. Even they are in the position of being put in check....the two other branches doing so. America is NOT RULED by the Courts! It is not ruled in totality by the Legislative branch or the Executive. There's always the right for ANY branch to appeal to one other. That IMO is a grand and stellar set up to ensure accountability to ALL.

By the House Democratic Politicians slamming the right of the Executive to appeal to the Courts to keep the Legislative Branch in check really is the promotion of tyranny regardless of how pretty the wrapping paper you wrap it up with. Yes the paper looks pretty. "Oh we've got to do this NOW because it's just so urgent. We just can't allow it to go through the Courts!" Taking that wrapper off though what are you looking at.....a rogue House actually doing a work around the Constitution. For them to claim they're on the right legal side of things is laughable. Sadly though the mob or much of the general populace don't understand these basic right principles. In not doing so they're near to throwing the Republic down the tube.

 

[Albion]

Somehow, I am not surprised. The GOP may want to steam roll this, but I think some of the Senators have found they have been in the dark and want some light.

They sure are not afraid to break ranks, and this is not the first time for this situation. Among the Republican Senators, that is.

That said, what's the argument for conformity in the interest of party unity?

 

[KCfromNC]

And?

Show me where your quote of my post above says anything about the jury coordinating with the accused to prevent people from testifying in a court case? as you posted below.

When you said "this", I figured you were talking about what was happening in the Senate recently. If you meant something different, well, not sure why you'd bring it up here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When you said "this", I figured you were talking about what was happening in the Senate recently. If you meant something different, well, not sure why you'd bring it up here.

Wrong "this". That was your thing and had nothing to do with my post.

There is plenty happening in the senate now, one of which is a matter of votes. Dems Biased oddball/off the wall views of the facts don't interest me, I mean who knows what they are going to come up with next.

IOW, your reply to my comment was nonsensical, and didn't fit, it was merely another most likely empty "Those Republicans are so unfair" rant. Justice will prevail and dems are going to lose, and no need to bother trying to make it appear that was republicans fault too, as the world knows who the problem is here, and have for quit some time.

Dems won't lose because of unfair republicans, they will lose because they themselves are unfair.

 

[stevil]

So Clinton is not guilty?

It's not a legal process.

The Senate vote to remove a president from office isn't simply about whether the articles of impeachment are valid (whether the president is guilty of what he is charged with), but whether the president can't be trusted to do the job.

In Clinton's case, his affair was nothing to do with his job. Generally in any job, having an affair isn't a cause for firing a person.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Trump now whining and making up stories on Twitter to try and provoke Bolton into reacting. Hopefully Bolton will ignore it and not get drawn into a mud slinging contest before he testifies.

It's funnier because most of what Trump wrote there is true.

 

[Hank77]

It's not a legal process.

The Senate vote to remove a president from office isn't simply about whether the articles of impeachment are valid (whether the president is guilty of what he is charged with), but whether the president can't be trusted to do the job.

In Clinton's case, his affair was nothing to do with his job. Generally in any job, having an affair isn't a cause for firing a person.

But it was important to bring it to light. Without Clinton's affair being made public he would be in a position to be blackmailed by anyone, including foreign countries, foreign businesses, etc..

 

[variant]

Nobody has said the Executive Branch should even ever want to be immune from the questions of things. But it's a case by case basis....is it necessary to invoke EP or not depends. There's always been a struggle between the branches of Government. That's why you have three branches to be the decider of things.

There is no case imaginable where the White house should be able to claim executive privilege from testifying before congress as to it's actions that are under investigation.

House oversight IS one of the checks, and one to which it is fully entitled.

Trumps argument here is basically that his staff doesn't have to comply with subpoenas because he doesn't wan't them to, which in and of itself is ridiculous.

The question of whether a president should have a right to interfere with an investigation into himself is an easy one, not a difficult constitutional issue.

 

[Spiritlight]

Impeachment isn't a legal process.

It appears to be closer to very expensive to produce reality TV..

 

[stevil]

It appears to be closer to very expensive to produce reality TV..

It's your very last line of defence. The last chance for "the people" to see what goes on and to choose to defend democracy, support the constitution and fight corruption.

"In general" not just talking about this particular instance against Trump.

 

[Spiritlight]

It's your very last line of defence. The last chance for "the people" to see what goes on and to choose to defend democracy, support the constitution and fight corruption.

"In general" not just talking about this particular instance against Trump.

I know. Dreary old serious world now isnt it? I was just having a bit of fun.

 

[KCfromNC]

It appears to be closer to very expensive to produce reality TV..

Weird complaint, given that "the people" elected a reality TV host.