Politics 2020 Field - DNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
CupWizier said:
uh, yes they do when they are subpeona'd. What are they afraid of? trump claims he is the most transparent president EVER. He talks the talk but can't walk the walk.
Click to expand...

That's the subject of much debate in this current standoff. The House has simply opened an "Impeachment Inquiry", not "Impeachment Proceedings". As I understand it, they've done this with intent because in full Impeachment Proceedings, the Republicans in the House would gain rights that Pelosi & Co. don't want them to have with respect to subpoenaing their own witnesses, etc. The White House is relying on legal arguments that under an inquiry, the House can only issue subpoenas that relate to legislative matters:

"The White House’s principal justification for its current stonewalling strategy for ongoing House investigations would not be relevant in the context of impeachment. On April 24, the president told reporters, “We’re fighting all of the subpoenas,” and Cipollone’s May 15 letter supplies various legal arguments in support of this approach. First, the letter relies heavily on the argument that there is no legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request. (Congress’s general investigative powers are derived from its power to legislate.) Whatever the merits of this argument, it would simply not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings, because the power to impeach is contained in an entirely separate and discrete section of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the letter argues that even if a legitimate legislative purpose can be articulated, committees have limited authority to explore in detail any particular case of alleged wrongdoing, because Congress does not need such details in order to craft legislative fixes. Again, this would likewise not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings. The decision of whether to impeach requires the development of a detailed, backward-looking factual record of specific conduct by the president. While it is of course possible the White House could come up with different theories for stonewalling in the context of impeachment proceedings, these two arguments would fall away, leaving only arguments related to executive privilege to be made before the courts."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
 
e_blazer said:
That's the subject of much debate in this current standoff. The House has simply opened an "Impeachment Inquiry", not "Impeachment Proceedings". As I understand it, they've done this with intent because in full Impeachment Proceedings, the Republicans in the House would gain rights that Pelosi & Co. don't want them to have with respect to subpoenaing their own witnesses, etc. The White House is relying on legal arguments that under an inquiry, the House can only issue subpoenas that relate to legislative matters:

"The White House’s principal justification for its current stonewalling strategy for ongoing House investigations would not be relevant in the context of impeachment. On April 24, the president told reporters, “We’re fighting all of the subpoenas,” and Cipollone’s May 15 letter supplies various legal arguments in support of this approach. First, the letter relies heavily on the argument that there is no legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request. (Congress’s general investigative powers are derived from its power to legislate.) Whatever the merits of this argument, it would simply not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings, because the power to impeach is contained in an entirely separate and discrete section of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the letter argues that even if a legitimate legislative purpose can be articulated, committees have limited authority to explore in detail any particular case of alleged wrongdoing, because Congress does not need such details in order to craft legislative fixes. Again, this would likewise not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings. The decision of whether to impeach requires the development of a detailed, backward-looking factual record of specific conduct by the president. While it is of course possible the White House could come up with different theories for stonewalling in the context of impeachment proceedings, these two arguments would fall away, leaving only arguments related to executive privilege to be made before the courts."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
Click to expand...

I actually think that it might be good to give Trump what he is demanding, let him put up a defense - televised - in the House. It's completely optional, the House voted to do so in past cases but doesn't have to this time, but I think it might be helpful for the public to see how little defense Trump actually has.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I actually think that it might be good to give Trump what he is demanding, let him put up a defense - televised - in the House. It's completely optional, the House voted to do so in past cases but doesn't have to this time, but I think it might be helpful for the public to see how little defense Trump actually has.

barfo
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. I'll bring the popcorn, you bring the rum.
 
e_blazer said:
That's the subject of much debate in this current standoff. The House has simply opened an "Impeachment Inquiry", not "Impeachment Proceedings". As I understand it, they've done this with intent because in full Impeachment Proceedings, the Republicans in the House would gain rights that Pelosi & Co. don't want them to have with respect to subpoenaing their own witnesses, etc. The White House is relying on legal arguments that under an inquiry, the House can only issue subpoenas that relate to legislative matters:

"The White House’s principal justification for its current stonewalling strategy for ongoing House investigations would not be relevant in the context of impeachment. On April 24, the president told reporters, “We’re fighting all of the subpoenas,” and Cipollone’s May 15 letter supplies various legal arguments in support of this approach. First, the letter relies heavily on the argument that there is no legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request. (Congress’s general investigative powers are derived from its power to legislate.) Whatever the merits of this argument, it would simply not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings, because the power to impeach is contained in an entirely separate and discrete section of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the letter argues that even if a legitimate legislative purpose can be articulated, committees have limited authority to explore in detail any particular case of alleged wrongdoing, because Congress does not need such details in order to craft legislative fixes. Again, this would likewise not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings. The decision of whether to impeach requires the development of a detailed, backward-looking factual record of specific conduct by the president. While it is of course possible the White House could come up with different theories for stonewalling in the context of impeachment proceedings, these two arguments would fall away, leaving only arguments related to executive privilege to be made before the courts."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
Click to expand...
If they put it to vote (which they should) dems are concerned about congressional elections in States that Trump won. That's the real reason I think. They really should put it to vote and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Hoopguru said:
If they put it to vote (which they should) dems are concerned about congressional elections in States that Trump won. That's the real reason I think. They really should put it to vote and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously they will have a vote on impeachment itself - you can't impeach w/out a vote. So I'm not sure it matters if there is a vote first to say that they'll have a vote later.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Well, obviously they will have a vote on impeachment itself - you can't impeach w/out a vote. So I'm not sure it matters if there is a vote first to say that they'll have a vote later.

barfo
Click to expand...
I realize they cant.
But why the delay? Whats your take on tat?
You don't think there is some strategy for the delay? I do.
 
Hoopguru said:
I realize they cant.
But why the delay? Whats your take on tat?
You don't think there is some strategy for the delay? I do.
Click to expand...

It's because it's an inquiry where they gather as much evidence as they can. What you are asking would be similar to picking a jury and then send them directly into deliberations. There are proper steps to follow.
 
CupWizier said:
It's because it's an inquiry where they gather as much evidence as they can. What you are asking would be similar to picking a jury and then send them directly into deliberations. There are proper steps to follow.
Click to expand...
I would think the house wouldn't need anymore evidence, and they been gathering for a while now and really its not about evidence really its about numbers to impeach before it goes to the senate.. They wouldn't even need a jury for the house, just a vote to impeach. Lets get on with it they have the votes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABM
Hoopguru said:
I would think the house wouldn't need anymore evidence, and they been gathering for a while now and really its not about evidence really its about numbers to impeach before it goes to the senate.. They wouldn't even need a jury for the house, just a vote to impeach. Lets get on with it they have the votes!
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Hoopguru said:
I would think the house wouldn't need anymore evidence, and they been gathering for a while now and really its not about evidence really its about numbers to impeach before it goes to the senate.. They wouldn't even need a jury for the house, just a vote to impeach. Lets get on with it they have the votes!
Click to expand...

The house can likely impeach him anytime, but they are locked up by the senate and the more evidence they get the better case can be made in the senate, especially if they get some republicans to show some guts and vote to impeach as well, but one thing this is all about is also allowing the public to hear and see the evidence as well. If the senate won't do anything, the voters can and the more informed they are the better chance he won't get reelected. Why go into it with just enough evidence if there is a possibility of finding overwhelming evidence. It won't do much to the likes of guys like marzy, maris and abm, as they are part of trumps 30 or so percent and are blind to trumps indiscretion. It's the undecideds that will make a difference in this upcoming election.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
The dems are literally making things up.

So basically, you would pre-emptively target someone thinking they committed a crime?
Click to expand...

this is one thing that Trump has been great at. He has somehow convinced people that his own words and actions - facts- and the words and action of his administration- facts- are not facts. He just says so. And they follow his lead. It’s embarrassing. Or it should be but isn’t because you all don’t get it.
 
Hoopguru said:
I realize they cant.
But why the delay? Whats your take on tat?
You don't think there is some strategy for the delay? I do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you - there is a strategy. In the big scheme of things, I don't think it is important though.

barfo
 
Hoopguru said:
I would think the house wouldn't need anymore evidence, and they been gathering for a while now and really its not about evidence really its about numbers to impeach before it goes to the senate.. They wouldn't even need a jury for the house, just a vote to impeach. Lets get on with it they have the votes!
Click to expand...

If you know the jury is hostile to your case, you try to make the case as airtight as possible.

barfo
 
Hoopguru said:
I would think the house wouldn't need anymore evidence, and they been gathering for a while now and really its not about evidence really its about numbers to impeach before it goes to the senate.. They wouldn't even need a jury for the house, just a vote to impeach. Lets get on with it they have the votes!
Click to expand...
While the entire impeachment process, House and Senate, is not entirely analogous to a court procedure, it is similar and the impeachment process is similar to a Grand Jury investigation and resulting indictment. The Senates contribution is somewhat similar to the actual trial with either a guilty verdict, which requires a two thirds super majority, or innocent, which only takes 1/3 plus one.
 
barfo said:
If you know the jury is hostile to your case, you try to make the case as airtight as possible.

barfo
Click to expand...
I would think it would benefit those running for congress in districts that trump won if they voted after the election? I do believe that is a consideration, you dont?
 
Hoopguru said:
I would think it would benefit those running for congress in districts that trump won if they voted after the election? I do believe that is a consideration, you dont?
Click to expand...

I think the vote is going to come long before the election, but I agree that the members most in danger (on both sides) would prefer not to have a vote before the election.

barfo
 
This thread was buried on page 4 of OT. Why?

In light of Trump's follies and foibles, I would expect to see a number of democratic candidates front-and-center taking aim at him and wresting position within their own ranks. The biggest democratic news now includes Hillary?

Please.
 
Lanny said:
While the entire impeachment process, House and Senate, is not entirely analogous to a court procedure, it is similar and the impeachment process is similar to a Grand Jury investigation and resulting indictment. The Senates contribution is somewhat similar to the actual trial with either a guilty verdict, which requires a two thirds super majority, or innocent, which only takes 1/3 plus one.
Click to expand...

You left out a very possible alternative to a Senate trial. There would be no need for the Chief Justice to preside if the Senate dismisses the house charge of impeachment.
 
barfo said:
I think the vote is going to come long before the election, but I agree that the members most in danger (on both sides) would prefer not to have a vote before the election.

barfo
Click to expand...

And that would run totally counter to the original intent that Congressional representative be held accountable for their vote on impeachment at the ballot box. I suspect enough Americans will learn that this tactic intended to thwart an honest election for President, would be wrong as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aly
MarAzul said:
And that would run totally counter to the original intent that Congressional representative be held accountable for their vote on impeachment at the ballot box. I suspect enough Americans will learn that this tactic intended to thwart an honest election for President, would be wrong as hell.
Click to expand...

Honest election? Did you miss the senate report on it was proven that Russia interfered in the election? Sure, it can't be proven how many votes were swayed by Russian propaganda but to call it an honest election is a joke.
 
MarAzul said:
And that would run totally counter to the original intent that Congressional representative be held accountable for their vote on impeachment at the ballot box. I suspect enough Americans will learn that this tactic intended to thwart an honest election for President, would be wrong as hell.
Click to expand...

I don't think you read my post very carefully. There WILL be a vote on impeachment long before the election, I was saying.

barfo
 
This whole Dem SECRET COURT is a leap too far for most of my anti-Trump friends. Pretty much every one of them is going to vote for whoever runs 3rd party.

DNC is springing someone else at the last minute, Hillary or Michelle or Oprah...they have to know the current crop have no prayer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aly
MarAzul said:
You left out a very possible alternative to a Senate trial. There would be no need for the Chief Justice to preside if the Senate dismisses the house charge of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Which is guaranteed.

I expect Mitch will call for a vote to dismiss without debate.

If it passes the Home, which seems doubtful.
 
Again....the title of this thread is 2020 Field - DNC

Bueller?
 
barfo said:
I don't think you read my post very carefully. There WILL be a vote on impeachment long before the election, I was saying.

barfo
Click to expand...

Right, I quickly thought the last part was the point, or perhaps it is what I think is going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top