• 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!

Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

BlueTex said:
How would you propose a court determine if a legislative purpose was legitimate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The point that many others are missing here, is that Congress' power to investigate is an Article One constitutional privilege, as also is the power of impeachment. Congress does not need due process or probable cause to investigate, as their constitutional processes are unrestrained. This is similar to the President's pardon power being unrestrained.

All that matters is,

"Does Congress have legitimate domain over the specific item(s) or person in question?"

The above (in italics), is currently what the courts are deciding in each subpoena case. The courts are not deciding due process or probable cause. This is a different legal realm, than things like due process or probably cause.
 
NWRatCon said:
I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance displayed here about the basic structure of the Constitution and the tenets that govern its operation. Okay, I'm a snob. I've spent my life living and breathing this stuff, but c'mon, we're talking elementary school basics here - three branches of government and what each does, checks and balances - fundamental, basic stuff. Partisanship either trumps it all, or we've got bigger problems in our education system than even I imagined.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly, and it's pretty scary stuff. I'd add that condoning Trump's actions also shows a disregard or lack of historical knowledge. Going down these Trumpian paths have had dire and disastrous results throughout modern history. Freedom & democracy are fragile things.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... does the presumption of innocence now hinge upon being officially exonerated? Obviously, any demorat congress critter could be taking bribes and most have not yet been exonerated by any investigation into that matter - should the AG get a team investigating them ASAP? Of course, if none are found to be guilty then there is no sense doing that investigation on republicant congress critters.
Click to expand...
When you take the points I made in totality, I believe there is plenty of reason to more thoroughly examine Trump's activities.

ttwtt78640 said:
OK, so Trump is still allowed to have any staff because???
Click to expand...
Political calculation.
 
independentusa said:
Another deflect and defend post. Do you ever get tired of that? Do you actually think it helps your defense of Trump? Not many people do.
Click to expand...

The same stuff you guys are wetting yourself over concerning Trump, was done by Obama in spades. That's gross hypocrisy but, of course, expected.
 
Chomsky said:
Bingo! :thumbs:

Which is why defending the President by claiming the well know "high crimes & misdemeanors" section of the Constitution, is logically erroneous on their part. It's Congress that decides what's a "high crime & misdemeanor". As long as they are in session, they are the law!

Those using this defense are stuck in the thought-mode of, "lower courts of law adhering to the statute that Congress legislated'. They forget where the legislation comes from!

Now if they'd like to make an argument concerning the appropriateness or political ramifications of Congress' actions, that's a reasonable debate. But there isn't much room to debate Constitutional authority or impeachment, in general terms. All they can really do, is debate as to whether the specific items or persons fall under Congress' domain, or whether Presidential Privilege may apply. But the general Constitutional right for Congress to investigate seems well established.
Click to expand...
This is sort of correct, but not entirely.

Congress does not decide what is the law. They don't get to make-up laws that don't exist.

What the Congress is tasked with is asking this simple question: has the president or anybody in his cabinet, engaged in conduct that were they not in office, result in an indictment? If the Congress believes so, they have an obligation to move forward with a political indictment of that official and declare on record to the Senate, he/she should be removed from the office.

So, all Congress has to ask is: Is Trump engaging in conduct that would be considered obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and contempt of Congress by a court?

That's all there is to impeachment.
 
Chomsky said:
When you take the points I made in totality, I believe there is plenty of reason to more thoroughly examine Trump's activities.

Political calculation.
Click to expand...

Many have said that since the day that dear Hillary found out she would not be POTUS. Surely Trump must be a criminal, the mission is now to find the crime(s) that he committed.
 
beefheart said:
Honestly, its all he has. He thinks its an arrow in his quiver, but its just a toy arrow with a suction cup...
Click to expand...

Of course it is to you because you don't care at all about the left's lying, hypocrisy and double standards. As long as the aim is to get Trump, anything goes.
 
Chomsky said:
My thoughts exactly, and it's pretty scary stuff. I'd add that condoning Trump's actions also shows a disregard or lack of historical knowledge. Going down these Trumpian paths have had dire and disastrous results throughout modern history. Freedom & democracy are fragile things.
Click to expand...
Allowing this clown to thumb his nose at the law with no record of consequence, is a massive mistake.

When the Democrats allowed Gingrich to play blackmail games with government spending, they set a precedent that every Republican leader would follow.

If Trump is allowed to walk without a political indictment, then all Republican president are going to pull this **** to cover-up their misconduct, with the knowledge that any theoretical Democratic control will be nothing to worry about.
 
Chomsky said:
Bingo! :thumbs:

Which is why defending the President by claiming the well know "high crimes & misdemeanors" section of the Constitution, is logically erroneous on their part. It's Congress that decides what's a "high crime & misdemeanor". As long as they are in session, they are the law!

Those using this defense are stuck in the mode of thinking of, "lower courts of law adhering to the statutes". But they forget where the legislation (statutes) come from!

Now if they'd like to make an argument concerning the appropriateness or political ramifications of Congress' actions, that's a reasonable debate. But there isn't much room to debate Constitutional authority or impeachment, in general terms. All they can really do, is debate as to whether the specific items or persons fall under Congress' domain, or whether Presidential Privilege may apply. But the general Constitutional right for Congress to investigate seems well established.
Click to expand...

hey

congress can impeach trump for blowing his nose the wrong way

the senate will laugh them out of office, but they can do it

doesnt mean Trump or his people have to help in the process

let Pelosi and the gang impeach him for whatever they want....

then we can let the American people decide if this is all political games....

impeach away....i dare you
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many have said that since the day that dear Hillary found out she would not be POTUS. Surely Trump must be a criminal, the mission is now to find the crime(s) that he committed.
Click to expand...

Obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations for certain, emoluments violations will undoubtedly also be demonstrated, we already know he's a tax cheat (criminal punishment avoided via statute of limitations), and we all know he laundered money -- it's just a matter of it being public record once all his financial records come to light.
 
Chomsky said:
The point that many others are missing here, is that Congress' power to investigate is an Article One constitutional privilege, as also is the power of impeachment. Congress does not need due process or probable cause to investigate, as their constitutional processes are unrestrained. This is similar to the President's pardon power being unrestrained.

All that matters is,

"Does Congress have legitimate domain over the specific item(s) or person in question?"

The above (in italics), is currently what the courts are deciding in each subpoena case. The courts are not deciding due process or probable cause. This is a different legal realm, than things like due process or probably cause.
Click to expand...

And the Executive doesn't have to go along with whatever the Legislative wishes to investigate.
 
Cardinal said:
Obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations for certain, emoluments violations will undoubtedly also be demonstrated, we already know he's a tax cheat (criminal punishment avoided via statute of limitations), and we all know he laundered money -- it's just a matter of it being public record once all his financial records come to light.
Click to expand...

We heard the same story about Trump conspiring with Russia...
 
MovingPictures said:
This is sort of correct, but not entirely.

Congress does not decide what is the law. They don't get to make-up laws that don't exist.

What the Congress is tasked with is asking this simple question: has the president or anybody in his cabinet, engaged in conduct that were they not in office, result in an indictment? If the Congress believes so, they have an obligation to move forward with a political indictment of that official and declare on record to the Senate, he/she should be removed from the office.

So, all Congress has to ask is: Is Trump engaging in conduct that would be considered obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and contempt of Congress by a court?

That's all there is to impeachment.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Congress is a legislative body that indeed "makes" the law when in session.

So you're saying Congress can only determine if a statute already on the books has been broken? I'm not so sure of that. The second article of impeachment against Nixon was, "Abuse of Power". Yet to the best of my knowledge, there is no legislative statute specifically defining or precluding "abuse of power". Congress defined it during the impeachment process, inherent with the process.
 
Cardinal said:
Obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations for certain, emoluments violations will undoubtedly also be demonstrated, we already know he's a tax cheat (criminal punishment avoided via statute of limitations), and we all know he laundered money -- it's just a matter of it being public record once all his financial records come to light.
Click to expand...

OK, so we are just waiting for Pelosi to get a round tuit.
 
Cardinal said:
Obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations for certain, emoluments violations will undoubtedly also be demonstrated, we already know he's a tax cheat (criminal punishment avoided via statute of limitations), and we all know he laundered money -- it's just a matter of it being public record once all his financial records come to light.
Click to expand...
Take out the name "Cohen" and put in "Podesta", then take out "Individual 1" and put in "Hilary Clinton". Then with a straight try to argue one single reason, Republicans wouldn't have impeached the latter.








Alright, alright, stop laughing. Breath, Cardinal.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, but Congress is a legislative body that indeed "makes" the law when in session.

So you're saying Congress can only determine if a statute already on the books has been broken? I'm not so sure of that. The second article of impeachment against Nixon was, "Abuse of Power". Yet to the best of my knowledge, there is no legislative statute specifically defining or precluding "abuse of power". Congress defined it during the impeachment process, inherent with the process.
Click to expand...
The abuse of power article was regarding Nixon using his authority for corrupt actions, which lacked lawful reasons.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many have said that since the day that dear Hillary found out she would not be POTUS. Surely Trump must be a criminal, the mission is now to find the crime(s) that he committed.
Click to expand...
That's obviously your opinion, I'll respect that. And there is some truth in that, for some subsets of the body politic. But there's also some of us that are genuinely alarmed at Trump's actions, and I'm one of them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many have said that since the day that dear Hillary found out she would not be POTUS. Surely Trump must be a criminal, the mission is now to find the crime(s) that he committed.
Click to expand...
Did you use straw for that? Or hay?
 
MovingPictures said:
Allowing this clown to thumb his nose at the law with no record of consequence, is a massive mistake.

When the Democrats allowed Gingrich to play blackmail games with government spending, they set a precedent that every Republican leader would follow.

If Trump is allowed to walk without a political indictment, then all Republican president are going to pull this **** to cover-up their misconduct, with the knowledge that any theoretical Democratic control will be nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
And then Executive Orders, Emergency Declarations, and Disregard of Congress will become the rule of day. Trump is virtually forcing the House to impeach. The next apex will be when Trump disregards the courts.

I surely as hell wouldn't want Pelosi's job! :doh
 
Chomsky said:
That's obviously your opinion, I'll respect that. And there is some truth in that, for some subsets of the body politic. But there's also some of us that are genuinely alarmed at Trump's actions, and I'm one of them.
Click to expand...

The basic reality seems to be that it is highly doubtful that a 2/3 supermajority of the Senate will vote to give Pelosi her ultimate win. Politicians, after all, are the least likely to give us justice since they tend to favor "just us".
 
MovingPictures said:
So, all Congress has to ask is: Is Trump engaging in conduct that would be considered obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and contempt of Congress by a court?

That's all there is to impeachment.
Click to expand...
OMG, you are so wrong. I am going to start a separate thread on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" regarding impeachment. The short answer for this thread is that that is absolutely not a criminal process, so criminal procedures and standards do not apply. Nor is it a "purely political process." Rather, "The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office." (Wikipedia).
"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt; it meant the opposite.
Click to expand...
 
gdgyva said:
hey

congress can impeach trump for blowing his nose the wrong way

the senate will laugh them out of office, but they can do it

doesnt mean Trump or his people have to help in the process

let Pelosi and the gang impeach him for whatever they want....

then we can let the American people decide if this is all political games....

impeach away....i dare you
Click to expand...
That's a fair statement. I was earlier debating only that Congress has these powers. But whether to use them is a whole 'nother debate. Though the way it's going, we're getting closer there (to that debate).
 
veritas1 said:
Of course it is to you because you don't care at all about the left's lying, hypocrisy and double standards. As long as the aim is to get Trump, anything goes.
Click to expand...

And you don't give a whit about the actual laws because your aim is to protect your cult leader.
 
Athanasius68 said:
And the Executive doesn't have to go along with whatever the Legislative wishes to investigate.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't, we end-up in a Constitutional crisis, as many of us feared with Trump. Hopefully Trump will go along with the courts.
 
The appeal is now headed to Merrick Garland's court. Interesting twist.

The case will now go to the Washington, DC, Circuit Court of Appeals — which is headed by Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, who was blocked from even a hearing by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Trump appeals judge’s ruling to hand over finance records to House
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom