• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Trump supporters, please explain something to me..

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Kentonio, Jan 12, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,655
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    There is nothing in the Constitution that says they must take anything to the courts.
     
  2. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +5,244
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks, that's helpful. I remembered Clinton tried to refuse some stuff -- but don't remember any wholesale order government-wide to everyone not to testify, so that anyone testifying had to defy his order.

    This helped:

    One of the starkest differences between the two impeachments is in who collected the evidence.

    When it was Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, to investigate the Clintons' business deals. The investigation later expanded to include a probe of Clinton's testimony in a sexual harassment case and his grand jury testimony about an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

    The Justice Department under Mr. Trump declined to investigate an intelligence community whistleblower's complaint about his July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine.

    That meant that it would be up to Congress if Democrats wanted further information. Instead of an independent counsel presenting evidence to the House Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee collected it and wrote a 300-page report summarizing their findings. They heard more than 130 hours of private and public testimony from 17 current and former diplomats and Trump officials.
    The differences between Trump's impeachment and Clinton's
     
  3. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +11,717
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Where is this "supposed to" that Congressional subpoenas are to be routinely litigated?
     
  4. stevil

    stevil Godless and without morals

    +1,025
    New Zealand
    Atheist
    Private
    I think that if the House sends the House agreed articles of impeachment to the Senate then the Senate must accept them and must hold a trial.

    But, Legal folk may argue on this
    What's Next for President Donald Trump? Here's What Happens in a Senate Impeachment Trial

    “There is no text in the Constitution that says the Senate must hold a trial,” Primus says. “[But] it is clear from the design of the Constitution that the Senate is supposed to hold the trial.”

    Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

    Some have argued that a senator could submit a motion to dismiss the charges against the President that would only need a simple majority to pass. Such a motion was introduced during the Clinton impeachment trial, and failed.

    “I don’t think the Senate is likely to do that, and it’s an unresolved question if the Senate can do that,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, tells TIME.


    I understand that the rules of the Senate trial are up to the Senate. But based on current goings on it seems the House can hold back passing on the articles until some conditions are agreed upon.

    Anyway, its interesting to see how this goes down.
    I'm finding it very weird how the Senate want to exclude witnesses and want to coordinate with the accused.
     
  5. yougottabekidding

    yougottabekidding Member

    476
    +242
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Republican
    I didn't say there was, just that it has always been done in the House and could have been done in the House, but for some reason they chose not to, but are now asking the Senate to.

    Why?

    The last two Impeachments
     
  6. Charlie24

    Charlie24 Newbie Supporter

    +543
    Baptist
    Single
    There is a ton of difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments.

    Clinton didn't have a chance at the trial being thrown out. He lied before a grand jury.

    Ken Star had the evidence in the Lewinsky testimony.

    Trump has a very good chance at it. McConnell will show there is no crime defined in the Articles and will call for a vote to dis-miss the trial on lack of evidence.

    It could very well happen, that's what I'm looking for. But don't hold a gun to my head, I have been wrong many times.
     
  7. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +5,244
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This was interesting:

    McConnell’s argument is basically this: That’s how the Bill Clinton impeachment was handled 21 years ago, and those rules were approved unanimously. “All we are doing here is saying we are going to get started in exactly the same way 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago,” McConnell said. “What was good enough for President Clinton is good enough for President Trump.”

    And that has proved a compelling argument to those GOP senators. “I’d like to hear from [former national security adviser] John Bolton and other witnesses to provide information. That process will accommodate that,” Romney said. “The Clinton process allows for a vote on witnesses to occur after opening arguments.”

    But while it’s true that’s the process followed by the Clinton impeachment, there is one very important difference: In the Clinton case, the impeaching party in the House also had the majority in the Senate. That means their party had total control over the rules moving forward and didn’t need to negotiate anything ahead of time. In this case, once the articles are sent over, the impeaching party effectively cedes any control over what will come of the trial for the president they just impeached.

    During the Clinton trial, the Senate unanimously passed a set of rules that allowed for votes to subpoena witnesses later on. It was noncontroversial because there really wasn’t any reason for such negotiations to take place on the front end. If Republicans wanted Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal to testify, they could just vote to do it later.

    And that’s just what they did. Three weeks into the trial, the unanimity was gone, and the Senate by a party-line vote directed then-Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist to issue subpoenas for those three depositions. The process worked for the Republicans because they could essentially determine it all as they went. The GOP-majority House impeached Clinton and handed the matter over to a GOP-majority Senate.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...plying-clinton-impeachment-trial-rules-trump/
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. Charlie24

    Charlie24 Newbie Supporter

    +543
    Baptist
    Single
    The Republicans caught Clinton in a felony, lying before a grand jury, but they determined it was not enough to put a president out of office.

    Do you think the Dems will do the same for Trump. No, I don't think so.

    They will drive him into the ground and open a trash dump on the site.

    They won't get by with what they are trying to do, justice will be served by God one way or another.
     
  9. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +7,409
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    ..."people" will hear what they want to hear from their favorite tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear media outlet. It was that way in the Impeachment inquiry...and it won't be any different in a Senate trial....regardless of what the witnesses say.

    Be real, most posters on these threads ignored the Impeachment inquiry testimony of State and NSC witnesses......
     
  10. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +7,409
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Both the Nixon and Clinton House inquiries had the benefit of a Special Prosecutor's findings.....and in both cases, there was some level of cooperation from the Executive branch. Unlike the current President, who flatly refused to allow one witness to testify (some took their chances anway) and didn't release a single document.

    Now if that is not obstructing the role of the Congress to impeach -- what is?
     
  11. whatbogsends

    whatbogsends Senior Veteran

    +4,810
    Atheist
    Put Trump in front of a grand jury and see if he tells the truth.
     
  12. Charlie24

    Charlie24 Newbie Supporter

    +543
    Baptist
    Single
    I will have to agree, these witnesses presented only opinion.

    It takes a bit more to remove an elected sitting US president.
     
  13. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    +7,409
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Opinion? You obviously didn't listen to their testimony.
     
  14. Charlie24

    Charlie24 Newbie Supporter

    +543
    Baptist
    Single
    Trump is smart enough to not sit before a grand jury, and be picked apart in the smallest of details.

    Clinton has shown all future presidents, you have executive privilege, don't be stupid like me, use it.
     
  15. Charlie24

    Charlie24 Newbie Supporter

    +543
    Baptist
    Single
    What was the evidence they provided? It was one Trump hater said to another Trump hater that Trump said this, and the rest of the Trump haters agreed with the first Trump hater that all the Trump haters were right.
     
  16. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +10,655
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Do they? I haven't heard anyone say that.
     
  17. GACfan

    GACfan Well-Known Member

    +1,660
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Considering his malicious and vindictive behavior, I predict that he would perjure himself within ten minutes or less. He would try to blame and implicate anyone he could think of to save his own neck.
     
  18. Kentonio

    Kentonio Well-Known Member

    +5,311
    France
    Atheist
    Single
    ‘Trump haters’ like Sondland? A billionaire who handed Trump a million dollars contribution and then took a role as ambassador to the EU for the Trump administration?

    Or Fiona Hill? A hugely talented and intelligent expert who chose to go to work for the Trump administration despite all her colleagues and friends advising against it?

    These people only became ‘Trump haters’ when they testified that golly Donald actually did break the law.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  19. The_Barmecide

    The_Barmecide Well-Known Member

    497
    +566
    United States
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Yeah, that's it. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he lies on a daily basis like most people breathe, that he had sex with a porn star while his wife was home with their newborn, or that he has literally treated every single marriage vow he's ever taken like a urinal, or that he has defrauded thousands of people with a fake university or that he is known to stiff contractors....no, it's clearly because he's "pro-life".

    But I suspect he's about as pro-life as I am Christian. He knows folks like you will lap it up when he dishes it out and it doesn't cost him anything.

    Do you assume I don't dislike Bill CLinton for this? you would be wrong.

    Nope. Because of all the other things Trump does on a daily basis.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  20. The_Barmecide

    The_Barmecide Well-Known Member

    497
    +566
    United States
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Were you not watching anything during that time? They wanted witnesses but since Trump was DENYING them the witnesses (encouraging the witnesses to obstruct congress and not comply with a legal subpoena).

    The choice, as I understood it, was to go forward with the impeachment rather than wait what could be up to a year for the subpoena violations to make it through the Supreme Court.

    Now, next time YOU get a subpoena...are you going to ignore it? Good luck with that! But for Trump's cronies there are no laws that apply to ANY of them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...