• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 GOP senators say McConnell will move to acquit Trump, not merely dismiss charges

DiAnna said:
Yep, but they've already been to court, won their case, won their appeal, and the GOP then went to SCOTUS, where it will languish for weeks and/or months. The GOP made it clear that every single issue would be appealed all the way to SCOTUS, which was just a time-sink to drag the entire process through 2020 and into the actual election process. That, of course, leaves Trump free to continue Obstructing Congress and Abusing his Power for another ten months.
Click to expand...

Well, there is already SCOTUS precedent stating that Congressional Subpoena and Executive Privilege are two sides of the same Separation of Powers coin, and that the resolution of any such demand is to have the court operate as the arbiter to determine whether the subpoena or the privilege claim are appropriate.

So you have the court. The Congress does not have the power to establish obstruction without the court because if the President's claim is valid, there is no obstruction.

What the Democrats have sold you is like the FBI demanding you submit to a search of your premises without a warrant, and when you refuse they arrest you for obstruction on the grounds that they might have been able to get a warrant if they tried.

The Democrats are idiots, and their attempt to circumvent the court is an abuse of power.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's exactly what I said. You should tell Trump that. He's the one that hates and belittles Congress, whether Democratically controlled or Republican controlled.
Click to expand...

He has a right to voice his opinion. The left's Gestapo state hasn't been installed yet, you know.
 
jamesrodom said:
What's wrong with you people? Are you unable to read what was written? What don't you get about "Any senator who has made it public how he/she would vote, either for or against conviction and removal, should immediately "recuse" him or herself. that makes you think you have to play the "what about...." game?
Click to expand...


same partisan bull**** the democrats were sharing before the inquiry even began

get off your partisan high horse, before you fall off
 
Conservative said:
Will not get into a religious argument as I am comfortable with my faith and my faith has generated a wonderful life for my family

My wife of over 40 years died 7 years ago and I know exactly where she is. Not interested in people like you who lack compassion and respect for others

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lack compassion? What about those raped, pillaged, murdered, molested, and forced to abort by those of your faith, in positions of leadership, and the people who covered it up? You have compassion for them? Clearly, you don't.

You have ZERO ground to morally dictate to ANYONE HERE anything about anything at all, if you continue to support that organization.

I am sorry for your loss, however, and if believing she is in heaven brings you peace, I am glad for that, also. However, that does not exculpate the vile, sickening church.
 
jamesrodom said:
In a Senate impeachment trial, individual senators act as jurors, rendering judgement once all the evidence is presented.

For a senator like McConnell to announce, in advance, that he will vote for acquittal would be like a potential juror in a criminal trial to announce during voir dire, before the trial has begun, that he thinks the defendant is innocent. In which case, of course, that potential juror would be instantly eliminated.

Any senator who has made it public how he/she would vote, either for or against conviction and removal, should immediately "recuse" him or herself.

(Of course, that would probably mean the majority of Republican senators wouldn't get to be jurors).
Click to expand...

And the majority of Dem senators too. And the majority in the House on both sides would be ineligible to compose a Grand Jury too.

Of course an impeachment trial in not a criminal trial. It's a political matter and politicians signal how they will vote on political questions all the time.
 
eman623 said:
And the majority of Dem senators too.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The senate hasn't even seen the evidence. Since not a single one of them can be trusted to act impartially, we should let the SCOTUS handle it with a grand jury.
 
Obscurity said:
I agree with this. The senate hasn't even seen the evidence. Since not a single one of them can be trusted to act impartially, we should let the SCOTUS handle it with a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Two things about that:
1. That's not how it works. Are you proposing an amendment to take the entire impeachment power away from Congress, or just the impeachment trial from the Senate? If it's the latter, then I suspect your concern may be situational.

2. What makes you think the SCOTUS would be impartial and wouldn't break on a straight party vote like they do on most other controversial issues?
 
eman623 said:
Two things about that:
1. That's not how it works. Are you proposing an amendment to take the entire impeachment power away from Congress, or just the impeachment trial from the Senate? If it's the latter, then I suspect your concern may be situational.

2. What makes you think the SCOTUS would be impartial and wouldn't break on a straight party vote like they do on most other controversial issues?
Click to expand...

I said grand jury. And yes, I think scotus should break the rules of impeachment and rule the two warring branches of government in contempt of the constitution.

I think an impartial jury can be assembled, and the senate can sit the **** out.

Bunch of partisan hacks. There are no heroes on either side.
 
Rising Sun said:
Awesome! I'm sure that will draw a clear line for voters, especially Independents, to consider next November. Not just for President, which Trump will probably win by default, but for Senators and Representatives.

After all, we all know how OJ's declaration of innocence worked out for him, eh? :)

3j8g4d.jpg
Click to expand...

Now back to business as usual?

You mean more wholesale graft?

More Russian collusion?

Will Trump sit silently and then try and justify doing nothing of Russia launches a full invasion of Ukraine?

Trump will certainly double down on his current behavior.

He will go right back to his small time gangster antics.

The man in your AM radio will tell you that all this is normal and you’ll cheer for it.

You’ll probably cheer when Trump tried on the idea of declaring himself a king.
 
Last edited:
CaughtInThe said:
Wow. Do you really not know our own constitution?
Click to expand...

I know the Constitution says something about bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Now you are saying that no crime needs to be committed in order to impeach. Do you really not know our own constitution?
 
TomFitz said:
The Democrats don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court.

All of the witnesses and all of the documents that Trump is trying to block or hide will almost certainly be called at the Senate trial.

It is possible, but it is difficult to imagine that the Chief Justice will sustain a Republican argument that there are no “fact witnesses” when the House Managers call Pence, Pompeo, Guliani,and his two Russian elves.

There is almost no way that I can imagine that Trump’s team is going to kept these witnesses from being called or testifying, unless the President’s defenders succeed in keeping the trial free of witness testimony in Toto.

This is not what Trump wants.

He wants a trial, and he wants it to be a show.

I strongly suspect that Trump will run over his legal and political advisors and rush to the television camera. He has done it before, and repeatedly.

The emperor has no clothes.
Click to expand...

No, the Democrats don't have to wait for the supreme court and obviously they aren't. But, it does make the charge of obstruction moot (right now) because the high court hasn't ruled on it yet. There's one article down. The other article is about bribery and every witness presented testified that there was no bribery. In other words, you got nuttin.
 
tacomancer said:
The founding fathers put impeachment in the constitution to avoid coups, so yes, take it up with them
Click to expand...

yet we have a coup going on right now.
unless you believe impeaching a president based on no evidence is constitutional and the purpose of the impeachment process.
 
AProudLefty said:
2 GOP senators say McConnell will move to acquit Trump, not merely dismiss charges - CNNPolitics

The plot thickens.
Click to expand...
Am I reading this right to assume that acquittal is different from failing to achieve 67 votes? Ie..being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Because that would be utterly insane, especially on the second count. With the Trump precedent, Its hard to see why any future president would turn over any document or allow any official to testify in congress for any reason. Having a congressional vote where the majority declares that complete stonewalling is totally fine would make it essentially impossible for any future congress to fight.
 
TomFitz said:
Congress reduced the impeachment articles to the bare essence of the issue. They didn’t have to/

They have a smorgasboard of crimes to choose from.

The articles make the core issue plain.

This President has tried to be a king, and is daring his Republican supporters to make him one.

The core issues are Congress’ ability to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch.

The other core issue is that the President acted unilaterally, in his own personal self interest.

There is also the matter of the President trying to steal the power of the purse.

Frankly, I believe that this should be an article as well. However, the courts appear to be dealing with that.

Trump is not the person to fear in the long run.

However, it is not hard to imagine how reckless and irresponsible Trump will be if he beats this rap.

He will almost certainly publicly muse over the idea of suspending the Consitution and the next election.

What’s to stop him?


And if not him...Trump is setting the stage for a real tyrant in the future.

This is about whether your grandchildren will live in a democracy.
Click to expand...

and 0 evidence to prove it.
they are the weakest set of impeachment articles i have ever seen in my life
and what is worse is that there is no evidence to support any of that hyperbolic nonsense.
 
Conservative said:
Results matter not Trump's personality. I made the right choice. Stop blaming others for your own failures

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Results?

What results?

Appeasing Moscow?
 
ludin said:
and 0 evidence to prove it.
they are the weakest set of impeachment articles i have ever seen in my life
and what is worse is that there is no evidence to support any of that hyperbolic nonsense.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence to prove it.

Trump won’t be able to continue hiding it in a trial.
 
Mithros said:
Am I reading this right to assume that acquittal is different from failing to achieve 67 votes? Ie..being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Because that would be utterly insane, especially on the second count. With the Trump precedent, Its hard to see why any future president would turn over any document or allow any official to testify in congress for any reason. Having a congressional vote where the majority declares that complete stonewalling is totally fine would make it essentially impossible for any future congress to fight.
Click to expand...

In order to charge a president with the articles it would take 67 votes. if the senate fails to reach 67 votes it means that the president is acquitted of the charges.
That decision that you are referring to is a judicial matter. that is for the courts to take up how far executive privilege goes.

the founders of executive privilege felt that compromising on information was the best way hence why it was implemented the way that it was.
courts have found that executive privilege is a constitutional power of the president as long as the information has not been published publicly.

They do not consider leaks as official publications. This is what sank holders attempt at executive privilege on fast and furious.
the information had already been released and therefore was no longer privileged.

this fight is a judicial matter but it takes democrats going to court over it.
they refuse to go to court.
 
ludin said:
yet we have a coup going on right now.
unless you believe impeaching a president based on no evidence is constitutional and the purpose of the impeachment process.
Click to expand...

So we have a coup ( a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government) going on right now...

UNLESS.... we believe that impeaching a president is the purpose of the impeachment process....hmmmmmm

This is pretty remarkable. Your statement is actually (though mayhaps accidentally) valid. Congratulations!!!
 
TomFitz said:
There is plenty of evidence to prove it.

Trump won’t be able to continue hiding it in a trial.
Click to expand...

cool show me where because 16 people testified that they had no evidence.
so what evidence do you have that they didn't.
 
ludin said:
yet we have a coup going on right now.
unless you believe impeaching a president based on no evidence is constitutional and the purpose of the impeachment process.
Click to expand...

Coups are by definition outside of our laws, by that measure it is impossible for this to be a coup
 
Mithros said:
So we have a coup ( a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government) going on right now...

UNLESS.... we believe that impeaching a president is the purpose of the impeachment process....hmmmmmm

This is pretty remarkable. Your statement is actually (though mayhaps accidentally) valid. Congratulations!!!
Click to expand...

changing the definition of words is not wise.
a coup does not have to be violent.

yes this is an illegal seizure of power though.

Impeaching a president is the purpose if the president has actually committed a crime and there is evidence to support that crime.

in this case there is no crime which has been stated by multiple people time and time again.
and there is no evidence to support said crime which has been stated by multiple witnesses.

typical leftist dishonesty does not help you here.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
News flash... yes they have been busy! Yup they have been very busy! And don't forget the Supreme court! :peace

Almost 30 Percent Of All U.S. Circuit Judges Are Now Trump Appointees
Sen. Mitch McConnell's new motto, “Leave no vacancy behind," has stacked the federal judiciary with young Trump-appointed judges.

Almost Thirty Percent Of All U.S. Circuit Judges Are Now Trump Appointees
Click to expand...

Indeed McConnell has been very busy!

To date

2 Supreme Court justices
50 Court of Appeals judges
120 District Court judges
2 judges to U.S. Court of International Trade
3 judges to U.S. Court of Federal Claims
4 judges to U.S. Tax Court
4 judges to U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
1 judge to U.S. Military Commission Review
1 judge to U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces
1 judge to Territorial Courts

Woot! and they are young too!
 
Fishking said:
Again, using the courts is not obstruction. That's proper procedure.
Click to expand...

Special case with a president.

A drug dealer or child pornographer doesn't get to defy a search warrant "Nope, can't come in here!".

I don't think a private citizen can just defy a subpoeana either. Take it all the way to the supreme court, for example.
 
tacomancer said:
Coups are by definition outside of our laws, by that measure it is impossible for this to be a coup
Click to expand...

not at all. this is an illegal seizure of power based on no evidence of wrong doing.
by the same party that was threatening to impeach him before he even got into office.

this is an abuse of power by leftist that can't stand the fact they lost a fair election.
IE that would be the definition of a coup.
 
What if...? said:
Special case with a president.

A drug dealer or child pornographer doesn't get to defy a search warrant "Nope, can't come in here!".

I don't think a private citizen can just defy a subpoeana either. Take it all the way to the supreme court, for example.
Click to expand...

They can fight a search warrant and they do often in court.
actually you can fight a subpoena all the way to the supreme court if you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom