Schiff and “the whistleblower”.
1 Like
Then call the IG who reviewed the Whistleblower’s report and process and who found them both legal and appropriate so we can put an end to this baseless conspiracy theorizing.
Ok, and Schiff and “the whistleblower”
Why do you have no confidence that the testimony of Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo, Pence and Trump won’t exonerate Trump? There should be no need for any other witnesses.
the fact that no president has been convicted of the charge kinda telegraphs that its really not an impeachable offense. since it is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor.
i know the house can vote for whatever they wish, but is it really so? never been challenged. What would happen if the house took up a frivolous impeachment and a president challenged it? would a court say… “you can impeach him for eating a ham sandwich if you wish”; or, would they say, "the house has the sole power of impeachment; however, exercizing that power requires the president be charged with committing ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’, and there is no crime here. the constitution does not offer this power in a vacuum, it says when it can be used. i know we have not read the constitution that way, but shouldn’t we? impeachment has been so rarely used and the mechanics of the process never challenged. I know its not going to happen, but if it did, what would the Senate do? Honor the courts decision and not take up a trial, or proceed with a trial? Would they immediately dismiss without hearing any argument because the court said there was no crime to impeach for and a crime is required?
Now please, do continue to not think and recite the bumper sticker brainless mindless drivel we’ve all been spoon fed forever by the politicians who claim the power to tell us what power they have.
“The sole power of impeachment” simply means they are the only ones who can impeach him. It doesn’t mean they can ignore the rest of the constitution or the fact they can ONLY impeach a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Nowhere in that statement does it say that the courts constitutional authority with regard to interpretation is rescinded. Nowhere does it say that the house can substitute its interpretation of what constitutes a crime for that of the court.
I suppose if it were ever challenged, and if a court took up the case, and if they ruled in favor of the impeached, then it would be up to the Senate. That said, I see nothing in the constitution that would prevent an impeached person from challenging the authority as an abuse (particularly where no crime has been charged) before it went to trial in the Senate. None of that will likely ever happen. Theoretically however it is a valid argument.
the president has a duty to defend the presidency and its privileges. simply allowing people covered by privilege for his own benefit with no thought to how that may effect future presidents and the perceived power of the presidency would be selfish and derelict. Other Presidents have allowed it only after negotiating with the congress to limit the scope of questioning narrowly to what the Congress needs to know and nothing else.
and how many of the fact witnesses supporting the prosecution in those impeachments were not previously vetted in the impeachment process in the house?
Psst - The Supreme Court already ruled in Walter L. NIXON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES et al. (1993) that impeachments (House) and trials (Senate) are political questions and therefore nonjusticiable in the courts.
You can of course believe as you wish.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
The Supreme Court has never had any “authority” over impeachment, so that authority could not be “recinded”.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” isn’t limited to statutory crimes. It’s a common-law term that refers to abuses of power - high “crimes” being crimes that could only be committed by those in positions of power.
I know people have a tendency to get hung up on the word “crimes” - but to understand this in context, at the time the Constitution was drafted, the word “crimes” didn’t just refer to criminal statutes, but rather culpable bad acts in general.
Took this long for somebody to mention this. 
The courts will NEVER take up or review an impeachment case.
2 Likes
i’ll have to look at it and see what was challenged and what arguments were made. but thanks, i was unaware of this case.
If you believe that I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you! Good grief the seditious and treacherous leftist progressive “socialist” Democrats will dredge up charges as long as President Trump is in office. They hate him so much they have become completely unhinged and deranged and will put as many impeachment “asterisks” by his name as they can.
The Dems are “historically” making impeachment a badge of honor, they are that crazy!! 
Saying that the House has sole power of impeachment is not the same thing as saying Obstruction of Congress is a thing.
If the House has the sole power of impeachment then, with enough Democrat votes, they can allege that Trump ate a ham sandwich and impeach him for it.
That does not mean that eating a ham sandwich is a thing…except in the mind of deluded Democrats.
The Senate will sort that out for the House.
There is no crime of “Obstruction of Congress” in the way that there is a crime “Obstruction of Justice”. If the Democrats could have proven obstruction of justice, they would have gone with that.
1 Like
But if the President refused to allow them to appear in the House proceedings… that’s hardly an argument against the value of what they bring to a Senate trial.
Yeah, I know all that. IMO its not as cut and dry as all that though. For instance, at the time it was written, there was no bribery statute. It was common law and common understanding of what “bribery” was. However, once a bribery statute was written, I’m fairly certain the founders would have deferred to the statute for definition since I believe they did take the laws they passed seriously and did seem to think they actually meant something.
Keep digging that hole.
The house had an available avenue to compel them short of impeachment. That they chose not to does not compel the Senate to do it for them. When the house decided not to pursue these witnesses they obstructed their own investigation.
In an impeachment trial is where.
Senate can set whatever rules they like.
No new charges can be brought in this trial.
Sorry I didn’t realize I had to get that specific.
Lol @ the Trumpers trying to justify in their minds “reasons” for the Senate Pubs to avoid calling witnesses as a valid defense of Trump…not realizing how transparent their motives are to the rest of us.
3 Likes
