President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

Sure if it's a fact, you'll have no problem backing it up.

In your own time.

manual_man

Republicans held a 54-46 Senate majority when Obama nominated Garland. He was never getting appointed to the Supreme Court. People can argue that McConnell shouldn't have denied the process, and that's fair enough, but either way the outcome was going to be the same. Instead both Parties were free to campaign on the upcoming election which was just 8 months away. And so that's what they did.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

LOL. Since the GOP had the majority they can make the rules. That is about as democratic as you can get.

As far as I understand a president nominates a judge for the SC, their application is then voted for by the senate. This is democratic, did it happen?

Lets not start on how democratic the actual make up of the senate is because that is a joke in itself

notobtuse

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Have you ever heard of any of the many women who went to ask the authorities for help, saying that they are feeling threatened by their partner/ex-partner, were told that there's nothing that can be done until the partner actually does something, and within a few weeks these women are murdered? Because that's the stories I hear coming from the States, I don't think I've ever seen anyone getting as much as a restraining order just because they feel threatened.

I've heard of both. Why not just reauthorize the bill and have protection given to women of abuse. But because Democrats feel more strongly about gun grabs then they do abused women the act will lapse.

Perhaps it is best to keep on impeachment and start another thread going forward of US Bills stuck in the Senate.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

I've heard of both. Why not just reauthorize the bill and have protection given to women of abuse. But because Democrats feel more strongly about gun grabs then they do abused women the act will lapse.

Perhaps it is best to keep on impeachment and start another thread going forward of US Bills stuck in the Senate.

What is wrong with you, can you not recognise that gun culture in the US is a huge problem and something drastic needs to be done

notobtuse

kilns wrote: »

As far as I understand a president nominates a judge for the SC, their application is then voted for by the senate. This is democratic, did it happen?

Lets not start on how democratic the actual make up of the senate is because that is a joke in itself

No, that's not democratic, that's idealistic. Democratic has the majority make the rules... just as the majority of the Senate at the time did.

Boggles

Romney wants Bolton to testify, says there is others too.

Looks like the American People may get something resembling a trial after all.

That said I imagine Trump will drag it through the courts.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

No, that's not democratic, that's idealistic. Democratic has the majority make the rules... just as the majority of the Senate at the time did.

if I recall one man made that decision that is not democratic, Garland was even supported and praised by republican senators so most likely would have gotten the votes.

ONE MAN stopped him, that is not democratic

notobtuse

kilns wrote: »

What is wrong with you, can you not recognise that gun culture in the US is a huge problem and something drastic needs to be done

Nothing is wrong with me. The biggest gun crime problems would be tackled if law enforcement were allowed to follow the laws and the courts wouldn't put violent people back on the streets so frequently... sometimes even before supper. But what does that have to do with impeachment? Best for another thread, perhaps?

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Nothing is wrong with me. The biggest gun crime problems would be tackled if law enforcement were allowed to follow the laws and the courts wouldn't put violent people back on the streets so frequently... sometimes even before supper. But what does that have to do with impeachment? Best for another thread, perhaps?

Stick your head in the sand. Its not just violent offenders let out of prison who commit these shootings. Hopefully none of your family gets innocently shot by a person with no criminal record. Absolutely crazy stuff, this is why the rest of the world laughs at the USA

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

Republicans held a 54-46 Senate majority when Obama nominated Garland. He was never getting appointed to the Supreme Court.

22 Democrats voted for John Roberts.

You know the guy "overseeing" the trial.

Igotadose

Boggles wrote: »

Romney wants Bolton to testify, says there is others too.

Looks like the American People may get something resembling a trial after all.

That said I imagine Trump will drag it through the courts.

I wonder how he can. This is a special trial, not your ordinary criminal proceedings.

kilns

manual_man wrote: »

Republicans held a 54-46 Senate majority when Obama nominated Garland. He was never getting appointed to the Supreme Court. People can argue that McConnell shouldn't have denied the process, and that's fair enough, but either way the outcome was going to be the same. Instead both Parties were free to campaign on the upcoming election which was just 8 months away. And so that's what they did.

That is not up to one man to decide.

I recall in the past other judges getting voted through despite oppsition majorities.

Are you that naiive thats the reason he did it?:eek:

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Romney wants Bolton to testify, says there is others too.

Looks like the American People may get something resembling a trial after all.

That said I imagine Trump will drag it through the courts.

Trump would claim separation of powers. It would be the democrats that would drag it through the courts... as is their right. If the democrats don't have anyone break ranks and can get 4 republicans to go along with it, then it is what it is and witnesses will be called and they'll force the country to remain in standstill for many more months. I'd then like to see Hunter Biden testify, and if the dems want others then go down the line... make Adam Schiff, Joe Biden and the whistleblower testify... Maybe even Volodymyr Zelensky and the fired prosecutor.

notobtuse

kilns wrote: »

Stick your head in the sand. Its not just violent offenders let out of prison who commit these shootings. Hopefully none of your family gets innocently shot by a person with no criminal record. Absolutely crazy stuff, this is why the rest of the world laughs at the USA

Whatever...

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump would claim separation of powers. It would be the democrats that would drag it through the courts... as is their right. If the democrats don't have anyone break ranks and can get 4 republicans to go along with it, then it is what it is and witnesses will be called and they'll force the country to remain in standstill for many more months. I'd then like to see Hunter Biden testify, and if the dems want others then go down the line... make Adam Schiff, Joe Biden and the whistleblower testify... Maybe even Volodymyr Zelensky and the fired prosecutor.

For the country to come to a standstill to hold a corrrupt president to account I am sure the majority of people would support that.

I am guessing you are not a lawyer when you speak of calling Bidens etc, but let the republicans call who they want

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Whatever...

need a straw for the sand?

manual_man

Boggles wrote: »

22 Democrats voted for John Roberts.

You know the guy "overseeing" the trial.

Entirely different situation. Republican's Senate majority at that time was 55(R) - 44(D) - 1(I)

So again, the result was a foregone conclusion.

Boggles

Igotadose wrote: »

I wonder how he can. This is a special trial, not your ordinary criminal proceedings.

No one really knows. But Trump as he has done his entire adult life will delay, bully and at least try and litigate.

Because if Bolton under oath tells the Senate that Trump withheld aid unless the Bidens were investigated than that is that.

Good article on it here.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/27/how-fight-executive-privilege-could-play-out-105625

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

22 Democrats voted for John Roberts.

You know the guy "overseeing" the trial.

Democrats voted for Roberts because he often acts like a RINO. Roberts will probably be the last nominee that would appeal to both sides in a very long time. And I think he would act as judge in the impeachment scam in a impartial manner. The other day he lambasted both Dems and Repubs for their methods in the impeachment trial, but should only have scolded Dems.

Quin_Dub

manual_man wrote: »

Entirely different situation. Republican's Senate majority at that time was 55(R) - 44(D) - 1(I)

So again, the result was a foregone conclusion.

Except it wasn't back then as the filibuster was still in place. So they had to get the other side to agree.

With the filibuster removed recently now it's a simple majority and subject to the utter partisanship that now paralyses the US .

manual_man

kilns wrote: »

That is not up to one man to decide.

I recall in the past other judges getting voted through despite oppsition majorities.

Are you that naiive thats the reason he did it?:eek:

Well, the situation(of Justice Scalia's death in an election year) was unprecedented. So there was no past precedent to refer to. Republicans, being in the majority at the time, made it so the appointment wouldn't be filled until after the election of later that year. I've no problem with anyone arguing with that decision, but to argue that it would have made any difference, or that a Democrat controlled Senate would have done any differently if the roles were reversed, is naïve at best, and dishonest at worst.

kilns

manual_man wrote: »

Well, the situation(of Justice Scalia's death in an election year) was unprecedented. So there was no past precedent to refer to. Republicans, being in the majority at the time, made it so the appointment wouldn't be filled until after the election of later that year. I've no problem with anyone arguing with that decision, but to argue that it would have made any difference, or that a Democrat controlled Senate would have done any differently if the roles were reversed, is naïve at best, and dishonest at worst.

Of course it was too much to ask some of the most corrupt people in World politics to do their duty

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Except it wasn't back then as the filibuster was still in place. So they had to get the other side to agree.

With the filibuster removed recently now it's a simple majority and subject to the utter partisanship that now paralyses the US .

Very true. But with how idealistically partisan the parties have gotten it is sadly the only way to get nominations approved at the current time. And why, IMO, it is so important for the GOP to hold the presidency and Senate for another four years, especially with Ruth Bader Ginsburg being 86 and Stephen Breyer being 81.

manual_man

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Except it wasn't back then as the filibuster was still in place. So they had to get the other side to agree.

With the filibuster removed recently now it's a simple majority and subject to the utter partisanship that now paralyses the US .

It was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat) who in 2013 set the precedent, by
changing the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold. After that unprecedented move, it was to be expected that the rules governing the appointment of Supreme Court Justices would follow suit.

In any case, it is extremely unlikely that, in an election year, with a Republican controlled Senate, any Obama nominee would have reached the 60 vote threshold.

kowloon

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome).

I'm going to assume this is bull**** based on your continued posting without responding to any requests for evidence. Is everything else you've posted also bull****?

manual_man

kowloon wrote: »

I'm going to assume this is bull**** based on your continued posting without responding to any requests for evidence. Is everything else you've posted also bull****?

Correction: what i meant to say is that they have issued a greater number of subpoenas than the number of bills that have been passed into law

As for your reply to which i'm responding now: I've reported it. We can all make mistakes or simply disagree on issues, but i think a simple rule is to not make things personal in the way you just did.

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

changing the rules so that lower court and Cabinet nominees could be confirmed with a simple majority, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold. After that unprecedented move, it was to be expected that the rules governing the appointment of Supreme Court Justices would follow suit.

It was Mitch who extended it to the Supreme court.

notobtuse

Interesting chain of events now that it is being reported in Bolton’s book that, according to him, Trump did tie the temporary hold on Ukrainian money to a Biden investigation.

Democrats are now chomping at the bit!

It seems Democrats are now interested in four witnesses testimonies: Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, John Bolton, and Michael Duffey. The White House will surely make claims of executive privilege of all four. The Democrats might only get Blair and Duffey to testify as executive privilege claims are their strongest when the people involved have regular dealings with the president and are involved with providing advice as in Bolton and Mulvaney. Blair and Duffey only carried out the president’s directive and implemented a hold on aid to Ukraine. Also, claims of executive privilege are strongest when they involve military or diplomatic secrets matters.

So is John Bolton a pissed off ex-employee or evil genius? The ‘bombshell’ is sure to make his new book an instant bestseller and make him lots of money. But Bolton is also a strong constitutionalist, and it is highly doubtful he’d defy claims of executive privilege by the president. If he's just pissed at Trump he'll never work in Washington again, unless he becomes the new darling of MSNBC or CNN, but then it will only be short term.

manual_man

Boggles wrote: »

It was Mitch who extended it to the Supreme court.

Correct. But it was it was his Democrat predecessor Reid who basically gave him the go-ahead to do so. Reid and fellow Senate Democrat's actions in 2013 served as great motivation to Republicans and led to them flipping NINE seats in the Senate in the 2014 elections. It also gave McConnell the excuse, when he needed it, to provide the same rules for supreme court nominations.