• 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!

Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: 'Our subpoenas are not optional'

hanger4 said:
The Senate can't resend the House votes to impeach, nor can they resend their votes to acquit Jackson and Clinton of the impeachment charges.

Your first link is correct tres, the Senate failed to "remove President Jackson from office", not impeach, the House had already done that.

Your second link, CNN's headline is wrong. CNN stated in their story, "The Senate acquitted President Bill Clinton Friday of both articles of impeachment." Which is correct, the House had already impeached.
Click to expand...

You are clearly confused, but as least now you are admitting that the Senate does, in fact, vote on impeachment. Which is why I said the House will never impeach Trump. Because the Republicans control the Senate, and they won't vote to impeach Trump.

I'm glad you were able to get a lesson in civics today.

It's "rescind", not "resend", by the way. You kept saying the Senate doesn't vote on impeachment. My links were some easy to read examples for you that prove you wrong.

You're quite welcome.
 
trixare4kids said:
Why didn't you answer my questions?
Click to expand...

White House spokesman Jay Carney in a statement "it is an established principle, dating back to the administration of President Ronald Reagan, that the Justice Department does not pursue prosecution in a contempt case when the president has asserted executive privilege."

Barack Obama asserted executive privilege on some documents sought by Darrell Issa's committee in its investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. The executive privilege assertion prevented the documents from being turned over on the grounds that they include internal deliberations traditionally protected from outside eyes.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives launched Operation Fast and Furious out of Arizona to track weapons purchases by Mexican drug cartels. It followed similar programs started in the Bush administration.

The showdown between Issa and Holder over the program dates to subpoenas issued last year by the House committee seeking a wide range of documents and other materials. Eventually, the committee reduced its demand to focus on documents involving decision-making after the Fast and Furious program was shut down.

Issa conceded that investigators lack any evidence that Holder knew of the failed weapons-tracking tactics of Fast and Furious. The contempt citation, he said, was for Holder's failure to comply with subpoenas seeking specific documents.

"It's not for what the attorney general knew about Fast and Furious," Issa said. "It's about the attorney general's refusal to provide the documents."

Carney said Friday that Issa's comment showed the contempt citation was about politics.

No criminal prosecution of Holder for contempt - CNNPolitics

I gave you all the information you requested but I doubt very much that you're going to comprehend much of it.
 
tres borrachos said:
Both links are correct. The Senate has to vote on impeachment, as I said.
Click to expand...

Tres, that's not true. The House votes to impeach. The Senate votes to remove from office.

Two Presidents have been impeached. None have been removed from office.
 
jimbo said:
Tres, that's not true. The House votes to impeach. The Senate votes to remove from office.

Two Presidents have been impeached. None have been removed from office.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is a process. The removal of a President from office is part of the process. The Senate votes on that.

I'm surprised how many of you have no clue how the impeachment process works.

Nobody ever said a President was removed from office via the impeachment process.
 
trixare4kids said:
You should familiarize yourself with facts before guessing.
The attorneys for McGahn made the decision for him not to appear, and not Trump.
Click to expand...

You should familiarize yourself with the truth. "William Burck, McGahn’s lawyer, said the former White House counsel will “respect the president’s instruction” and will not appear on Tuesday. "
 
OpportunityCost said:
False. The Committee voted to forward a contempt citation to the House, which has not yet voted on it.
Click to expand...

Take a wild guess how they will vote. Then it is in to the courts for enforcement and punishment.
 
HumblePi said:
Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. federal government. It's the Senate that acts as the 'grand jury', not the House.

Process

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States.

In theory at least, as President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States could preside over their own impeachment, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in their own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present" is required.[35] Conviction removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
Click to expand...

*It's the Senate that acts as the 'grand jury', not the House.*

No, the Grand Jury indicts (articles of impeachment), they do not sit in judgement at the trial as the Senate does, the Senate is the jury.

Other than that :thumbs:
 
Atomic Kid said:
You should familiarize yourself with the truth. "William Burck, McGahn’s lawyer, said the former White House counsel will “respect the president’s instruction” and will not appear on Tuesday. "
Click to expand...

It's not like we expected any honesty from that side. Just saying.
 
trixare4kids said:
Yeah, I know it says that, but his attorneys made the final decision.
You apparently don't read either.



Done here.
Click to expand...

LOL! His lawyers punted it to the White House. They're trying to tell the congress that their beef is with the White House and not with them. But that's not going to help him. Eventually he will have to answer to the subpoena.
 
Atomic Kid said:
LOL! His lawyers punted it to the White House. They're trying to tell the congress that their beef is with the White House and not with them. But that's not going to help him. Eventually he will have to answer to the subpoena.
Click to expand...


If he doesn't, what will happen to him?
 
tres borrachos said:
Impeachment is a process. The removal of a President from office is part of the process. The Senate votes on that.

I'm surprised how many of you have no clue how the impeachment process works.

Nobody ever said a President was removed from office via the impeachment process.
Click to expand...

In the case of Clinton, the Senate voted on two charges. One was obstruction. I don't remember the other one. Probably perjury. They found not guilty on both. They did not vote on impeachment.

The other two? Same thing. They were both impeached. They were not removed from office.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Firing Mueller would be more legally unclear than firing Comey. Because of the SC law and how it was worded and the mandate issued. As well as the legal strategies that would need to be employed if it were challenged, and it would be.

Its hard to see how it wouldn't be covered.
Click to expand...

Because there is nothing in the SC law that gives the President the power to fire the SC - it's reserved entirely for the AG. The President can order the AG to fire a SC, but the AG has the option to refuse the order (and presumably resign), as happened with the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. Executive privilege only covers Presidential powers.
 
OpportunityCost said:
False. The Committee voted to forward a contempt citation to the House, which has not yet voted on it.
Click to expand...

You are correct. My bad. But when they do vote on it, it will pass given the fact that the Democrats control the House. Just like when it was Holder's turn.
 
tres borrachos said:
You are clearly confused, but as least now you are admitting that the Senate does, in fact, vote on impeachment. Which is why I said the House will never impeach Trump. Because the Republicans control the Senate, and they won't vote to impeach Trump.

I'm glad you were able to get a lesson in civics today.

It's "rescind", not "resend", by the way. You kept saying the Senate doesn't vote on impeachment. My links were some easy to read examples for you that prove you wrong.

You're quite welcome.
Click to expand...

You didn't say the House would never impeach Trump, you said;

tres borrachos said:
There will be no impeachment because the Republicans control the Senate.
Click to expand...

Only the House can impeach, besides the House majority won't impeach because they have no case.
 
tres borrachos said:
You are correct. My bad. But when they do vote on it, it will pass given the fact that the Democrats control the House. Just like when it was Holder's turn.
Click to expand...
Yet a federal judge allowed Holder to skate.

I can already hear the howls if something similar happens.


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Cordelier said:
Because there is nothing in the SC law that gives the President the power to fire the SC - it's reserved entirely for the AG. The President can order the AG to fire a SC, but the AG has the option to refuse the order (and presumably resign), as happened with the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. Executive privilege only covers Presidential powers.
Click to expand...
Yet constitutionally all power for the entire executive flows through the President. The AG should never have a power the President does not as it is the legislature passing their oversight to the executive. Then telling the President he has no power over executive employees.

Congress should grow some stones and conduct their oversight more impartially and less politically and people might take it seriously again.

But you can already see the legal entanglements where McGahn would have to advise the President which would make it covered as prvilege.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Cordelier said:
Because there is nothing in the SC law that gives the President the power to fire the SC - it's reserved entirely for the AG. The President can order the AG to fire a SC, but the AG has the option to refuse the order (and presumably resign), as happened with the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. Executive privilege only covers Presidential powers.
Click to expand...

Then again, in the Constitution, the President is the Executive branch. Everyone in that branch is under the President. So, really, who's permission does he need to fire someone in the Executive branch?
 
tres borrachos said:
I always say when I'm wrong. I missed you saying that yes, the article does in fact say it was ordered by Trump.

I do know what happens to Barr now. Why do you ask? I'm sure he'll be fine. Not the first person to be held in contempt and I'm sure he won't be the last.
Click to expand...

It was not ordered by Trump. Reread the O/P and the embedded link.
Trump cannot stop a man from testifying. If he could, McGahn's attorney would have said Trump mandated McGahn NOT appear.
I guess you delude yourself into believing everyone was born yesterday.

No, and you don't always say when you are wrong... RTT. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Barnacle said:
If he doesn't, what will happen to him?
Click to expand...

Disbarment can be one consequence. Fines which accrue with each day he continues to refuse to appear could be another.
 
calamity said:
No one fumed like stupid Righties fuming over BenGHAZI! :eek:
Click to expand...

I'll give you that, and they should have fumed over Benghazi.
One of the four murdered was my neighbor; Tyrone Woods.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom