The Senate can save the Republic!

[Speedwell]

Why not?

Why not? Because it's not just about religion, it's also about revenge--the Revenge of the Deplorables.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Given that the Senate leadership dared to come out and declare they were coordinating their entire strategy with the accused, that their strategy would be perfectly in line with the accused, and that numerous of their members would not be unbias jurors (despite them taking an oath to be exactly that), I suspect any attempt to call another body out for setting a 'low bar of a shoddy one-sided purely-partisan work product' is likely to be met with nothing but derision.

How many senate Republicans might actually believe that the president is innocent? Sad state if they do. They enable him for political reasons, terribly co- dependen. And their oath calls for impartiality. Total sham.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Senate can take decisive action to save the Republic from political games and ultimate political nonsense....

I was going to do a point-by-point takedown of your entire OP, but then I realized that there wouldn't be any point. Your OP is so overloaded with double standards and strawmen arguments, criticizing Democrats for partisanship while absolve the Republicans actions that are 10x worse, that I don't believe you're arguing in good faith.

 

[BobRyan]

I was going to do a point-by-point takedown of your entire OP, but then I realized that there wouldn't be any point. .

Nothing like confession right off the bat - I always say... thanks

Your OP is so overloaded with double standards and strawmen arguments, criticizing Democrats for partisanship while absolve the Republicans actions that are 10x worse, that I don't believe you're arguing in good faith.

Fact: My OP is 'overloaded with facts' that both democrats and republicans freely admit

Fact : you include a '10x worse' without a single fact included with it.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

 

[BobRyan]

How many senate Republicans might actually believe that the president is innocent? .

innocent of what?

The democrats' own expert witness stated that they were the ones guilty of abuse not the President. They start off in conflict with their own legal expert. Where is the confusing part?

 

[BobRyan]

Given that the Senate leadership dared to come out and declare they were coordinating their entire strategy with the accused, that their strategy would be perfectly in line with the accused, and that numerous of their members would not be unbias jurors (despite them taking an oath to be exactly that), I suspect any attempt to call another body out for setting a 'low bar of a shoddy one-sided purely-partisan work product' is likely to be met with nothing but derision.

Democrat leadership in the house called for impeachment years before any facts that related to what they turned over to the Senate, surfaced. They ran campaigns for office starting with a promise to impeach. Not a single "witness" called at that time.

Now after all their witnesses called and everything out in the open - the House is "surprised" that the Senate "can see" the nature of the evidence a mile away. That must have surprised "no one"

 

[BobRyan]

Trump has been impeached. It's not the Senate's job to debate that

A person who is innocent can be "charged" and no one can debate that... but simply being "charged" is not a crime. One has to be proven guilty of the charge... hence... the Senate.

And there is no such thing in America as "once you are charged you are always guilty of the charge".

Communism maybe... but not in America.

Trump has been impeached. It's not the Senate's job to debate that

A person who is innocent can be "charged" and no one can debate that... but simply being "charged" is not a crime. One has to be proven guilty of the charge... hence... the Senate.

And there is no such thing in America as "once you are charged you are always guilty of the charge".

Communism maybe... but not in America.

The senate does not decide "if the person was charged" -- they decide if the person is guilty of the charge. They don't vote on whether the majority in the house "impeached" the President - rather they vote on the merits "of the facts" the "evidence" already put on display by the house to see if it is merely partisan hack nonsense or a substantive bipartisan charge apart from mere political rancor ..

"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official."

So, Clinton wasn't impeached?

So, are you reading the posts?

I agree that Clinton was "charged" by the house as was Trump "charged"

 

[Isilwen]

So, are you reading the posts?

I agree that Clinton was "charged" by the house as was Trump "charged"

Sure am.

Both Clinton and Trump are impeached. They were impeached by the House. Its the Senate's job to decide if he is then removed. Clinton is an impeached president, but not removed. Trumps removal is remain to be seen.

 

[Hank77]

innocent of what?

The democrats' own expert witness stated that they were the ones guilty of abuse not the President. They start off in conflict with their own legal expert. Where is the confusing part?

The attorney you are speaking of was chosen by the House Republicans.

 

[Allandavid]

The attorney you are speaking of was chosen by the House Republicans.

Hey, stop putting truth in the way of a good story...!

 

[Allandavid]

innocent of what?

How about illegally withholding congressionally approved aid, for starters...?

 

[BobRyan]

How about illegally withholding congressionally approved aid, for starters...?

What is the "criminal line" that has been drawn for just "how fast" a president must "deliver aid" to a foreign government that has been involved in some level of corruption? What was that "line" in the past?

Congress "approving aid" is not the same thing as "congress passing a law that it is a crime if this aid is delivered in y-weeks instead of x-weeks'.

I think we all knew that much to start with.

 

[Allandavid]

What is the "criminal line" that has been drawn for just "how fast" a president must "deliver aid" to a foreign government that has been involved in some level of corruption? What was that "line" in the past?

Congress "approving aid" is not the same thing as "congress passing a law that it is a crime if this aid is delivered in y-weeks instead of x-weeks'.

I think we all knew that much to start with.

Take it up with Trump’s own department...! His Government Accountability Office has determined that the withholding is an illegal act.

 

[BobRyan]

The attorney you are speaking of was chosen by the House Republicans.

yes the democrat legal expert Jonathan Turley was on the list only because of Republican request - I stand corrected.

 

[BobRyan]

How about illegally withholding congressionally approved aid, for starters...?

What is the "criminal line" that has been drawn for just "how fast" a president must "deliver aid" to a foreign government that has been involved in some level of corruption? What was that "line" in the past?

Congress "approving aid" is not the same thing as "congress passing a law that it is a crime if this aid is delivered in y-weeks instead of x-weeks'.

I think we all knew that much to start with.

Take it up with Trump’s own department...!

I was not aware that the executive branch was in the business of passing laws stating that "it is a crime if this aid is delivered in y-weeks instead of x-weeks"

And since the GAO was not actually providing any aid -- what was happening is that the Ukraine was buying lethal hardware to fight its war with Russia... a program of military hardware purchasing that Obama cut off from the Ukraine while he was in office after Russia invaded..


Constitutionally I doubt that the GAO can make up laws about how fast we "have to let the Ukraine buy military hardware from us"

===================
aid to Ukraine

"the aid wasn’t really aid, but was additional Javelin anti-tank missiles bought and paid for by Ukraine with its own money."

".. almost as soon as Trump took office he had restored lethal aid to Ukraine that the Obama-Biden administration had cut off."

.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure am.
Both Clinton and Trump are impeached.

indeed both were charged by the house.

in one case it was bipartisan.
In the other case it was pure partisan political hackery

In the case of Clinton - the president's lawyers were allowed to see the evidence and ask questions etc during the delibrations in the house. And was allowed to claim executive priv as needed

In the pure partisan hack version put in place for Trump -- all that "due process" and bipartisan level policy/practice and transparency went out the window.

They were impeached by the House. Its the Senate's job to decide if those charges are legit. The constitution calls for removal from office if the Senate determines that the charges have merit and rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

In the case of Clinton and Trump - impeachment without validation from the Senate results in more popularity for the president and land slide political victories.

 

[BobRyan]

But frivolous partison-hack style impeachment cycles in presidential term after term for all future presidents is a nightmare for the US political system once this form of partisan hackery gets legitimized.

I doubt that anyone seriously wants the result they are creating in the House.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What is the "criminal line" that has been drawn for just "how fast" a president must "deliver aid" to a foreign government that has been involved in some level of corruption? What was that "line" in the past?

45 days, according to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

2 U.S. Code § 682 - Definitions
2 U.S. Code § 683 - Rescission of budget authority

Congress "approving aid" is not the same thing as "congress passing a law that it is a crime if this aid is delivered in y-weeks instead of x-weeks'.

Yes, it is. That's exactly what the law says.

From the GAO report:

The Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentment, through which the President may accept or veto a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, and Congress may subsequently override a presidential veto. Id., art. I, § 7, cl. 2, 3. The President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 438 (1998) (the Constitution does not authorize the President “to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes”). Instead, he must “faithfully execute” the law as Congress enacts it. U.S. Const., art. II, § 3.

An appropriations act is a law like any other; therefore, unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017 (the ICA operates on the premise that the President is required to obligate funds appropriated by Congress, unless otherwise authorized to withhold). In fact, Congress was concerned about the failure to prudently obligate according to its Congressional prerogatives when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See generally, H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”).

(emphasis added)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...ine-aid/c84e9a1c-8edc-4531-8d34-c00e855d5d7a/

(bottom of pg 4)

I think we all knew that much to start with.

No, we didn't. You're wrong.

 

[Isilwen]

indeed both were charged by the house.

in one case it was bipartisan.
In the other case it was pure partisan political hackery

In the case of Clinton - the president's lawyers were allowed to see the evidence and ask questions etc during the delibrations in the house. And was allowed to claim executive priv as needed

In the pure partisan hack version put in place for Trump -- all that "due process" and bipartisan level policy/practice and transparency went out the window.

They were impeached by the House. Its the Senate's job to decide if those charges are legit. The constitution calls for removal from office if the Senate determines that the charges have merit and rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

In the case of Clinton and Trump - impeachment without validation from the Senate results in more popularity for the president and land slide political victories.

I'll let you have your way of thinking. It's wrong, but have at it!

Actually, here ya go...

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

The house impeaches, the senate decides to oust the president. It really isn't all that hard!

 

[whatbogsends]

.