• 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!

GOP confident of win on witnesses

But Schiff as another bitter person Trump fired who will swear that Trump is a rotten person with a terrible foreign policy because it's not his foreign policy.

John Bolton has an absolute right to force all Senators listen to him for at least half a day to advertise his book. His book is about why Trump's foreign policy of seeking detente' with adversaries and refusing to get us into more foreign wars and proxy wars is wrong. Not letting John Bolton order him to go to war against Syria, Turkey and Russia is grounds for removing Trump by itself. Bolton will explain this to everyone, with more details in his book.
 
Last edited:
Drawdown said:
They have not approved the book yet so they did not let him do anything and Trump has also indicated that he may block his testimony on national security grounds
Click to expand...
Too bad. Freedom of speech.

There is no way for them to enforce executive privilege on an ex-aide. If Bolton thumbs his nose at the WH and they ask a court to block him, the case will be dismissed with a summary judgement that the WH has no authority over ex-employees, or any grounds to block their speech, and that the Senate can talk to any ex-aide they want.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Only because you refuse to see the argument I have been posting over and over.

1. A trial is where you present evidence, not fish for it.

2. The defendant has nothing to prove, that burden rests with the prosecution. Yet your side argues that once accused the burden shifts to the defendant, who must perforce supply evidence for YOUR case.

3. Your argument is for having your cake and eating it too. On the one hand the argument is "this is not a real Court so the rules don't apply." On the other "This is a trial so the rules do apply...when we want them to."

No. If the prosecution wants to present evidence, then they should have it ready for presentation, or waited until a thorough investigation uncovered it.

Meanwhile, and for the umpteenth time, I support a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not guilty and we'll find evidence to prove it eventually...so BURN the witch! :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
This seems logical on the surface, but not in context. Why? Trump obstructed, and now the Senate is obstructing based upon the House having been obstructed. Can you not see that? How this came about.

Logic and technicality like you've laid-out above strikes me as to exactly how fixed systems and governments look. It's also exactly how these three years of Trump have worked. We see what he does. We know it is wrong. But we are told by him, his administration,his media arm, and the GOP, that things are not what we see. We're told our eyes and minds are wrong. Everything is fine as it should be. We are wrong.

Yet we know it's fixed. No matter how much we're told it is not. And this patronizing arrogant attitude by Trump & the GOP is what caused the voters to take the House away from them. And God willing, it will take the White House away from them too.

You know far better than I how to make legal arguments, so I'm at a disadvantage. But I definitely feel we are getting swindled by the GOP here, no matter how eloquent and legalistic the argument. I saw Dershowitz in action. And finished feeling even more swindled. Mr. Dershowitz wants us to believe Trump can extort foreign nations to assist him in throwing our elections, and it is not an impeachable offense. And he has the legal argument to prove it. Right.

Anyway, no offense but I've got to shut-down my computer for a bit so I'll be offline awhile and not able to reply.
 
MovingPictures said:
Too bad. Freedom of speech.

There is no way for them to enforce executive privilege on an ex-aide. If Bolton thumbs his nose at the WH and they ask a court to block him, the case will be dismissed with a summary judgement that the WH has no authority over ex-employees, or any grounds to block their speech, and that the Senate can talk to any ex-aide they want.
Click to expand...
In realistic terms, just as no one can physical barge-in to get documents and witnesses from Trump, he can't physically obstruct anyone from appearing.

If a subpoena is issued and Bolton shows-up, there really ain't jack Trump could do.
 
Chomsky said:
This seems logical on the surface, but not in context. Why? Trump obstructed, and now the Senate is obstructing based upon the House having been obstructed. Can you not see that? How this came about.

Logic and technicality like you've laid-out above strikes me as to exactly how fixed systems and governments look. It's also exactly how these three years of Trump have worked. We see what he does. We know it is wrong. But we are told by him, his administration,his media arm, and the GOP, that things are not what we see. We're told our eyes and minds are wrong. Everything is fine as it should be. We are wrong.

Yet we know it's fixed. No matter how much we're told it is not. And this patronizing arrogant attitude by Trump & the GOP is what caused the voters to take the House away from them. And God willing, it will take the White House away from them too.

You know far better than I how to make legal arguments, so I'm at a disadvantage. But I definitely feel we are getting swindled by the GOP here, no matter how eloquent and legalistic the argument. I saw Dershowitz in action. And finished feeling even more swindled. Mr. Dershowitz wants us to believe Trump can extort foreign nations to assist him in throwing our elections, and it is not an impeachable offense. And he has the legal argument to prove it. Right.

Anyway, no offense but I've got to shut-down my computer for a bit so I'll be offline awhile and not able to reply.
Click to expand...

NO!

It is NOT "Obstruction" to exercise Executive Privilege. SCOTUS has already ruled this exists and can be exercised.

It would only be "Obstruction" if after losing a case before SCOTUS the President refused to obey the ruling.

THAT was Nixon's downfall. Which is when he realized he had not only no chance of not being Impeached, but he would be found guilty by the Senate. Hence his "resignation."

I find it hard to understand how so many people can't seem to understand how this works.
 
Chomsky said:
In realistic terms, just as no one can physical barge-in to get documents and witnesses from Trump, he can't physically obstruct anyone from appearing.

If a subpoena is issued and Bolton shows-up, there really ain't jack Trump could do.
Click to expand...
Executive privilege is to protect aides from contempt of Congress, not the President. It's for when a current aide of the President is subpoenaed to testify about their conversations with the President, and the former can say "I don't want to get fired by my boss for talking about our conversations, I need a court order" and Congress can't file criminal contempt charges against them.

Once that person isn't an aide anymore all bets are off if that person is hellbent on testifying. There's no way for a President to stop them. It is no longer a separation of powers issue because the witness no longer works for the executive. Thus, any lawsuit will be thrown in the trash.
 
swing_voter said:
You need at least a dozen republicans to vote for impeachment. Without republicans the impeachment is 100% partisan and a sham.
Click to expand...

This is what we lose. Not democracy, but the power of impeachment. From here on, the only circumstance that can check the executive branch would be the entire Congress to be of the opposing party.
 
Michael Cole said:
This is what we lose. Not democracy, but the power of impeachment. From here on, the only circumstance that can check the executive branch would be the entire Congress to be of the opposing party.
Click to expand...

Having the power of impeachment does not entitle the Democrats to win in the senate.
 
Captain Adverse said:
NO!

It is NOT "Obstruction" to exercise Executive Privilege. SCOTUS has already ruled this exists and can be exercised.

It would only be "Obstruction" if after losing a case before SCOTUS the President refused to obey the ruling.

THAT was Nixon's downfall. Which is when he realized he had not only no chance of not being Impeached, but he would be found guilty by the Senate. Hence his "resignation."

I find it hard to understand how so many people can't seem to understand how this works.
Click to expand...
Um, the President has no say in the matter once the aide no longer works for the government and isn't subject to review IF the aide wishes to testify.

Nixon's downfall was that he refused to turn over the tapes and claimed the excuse was EP, which the SCOTUS ruled was without merit.

The issue wasn't that Nixon fought, the issue was that once the tapes revealed his part in the conspiracy, the House realized that lawsuit had been filed because Nixon understood the conversations to be incriminating, and so his use of EP was to obstruct.

Now we know, Trump's threats to do the same to Bolton are similar in that Trump's motive has been revealed to stifle a conversation he understands is incriminating.
 
MovingPictures said:
Um, the President has no say in the matter once the aide no longer works for the government and isn't subject to review IF the aide wishes to testify.

Nixon's downfall was that he refused to turn over the tapes and claimed the excuse was EP, which the SCOTUS ruled was without merit.

The issue wasn't that Nixon fought, the issue was that once the tapes revealed his part in the conspiracy, the House realized that lawsuit had been filed because Nixon understood the conversations to be incriminating, and so his use of EP was to obstruct.

Now we know, Trump's threats to do the same to Bolton are similar in that Trump's motive has been revealed to stifle a conversation he understands is incriminating.
Click to expand...

But we are talking about a very different breed of Republican today. They have been crystal clear: they simply do not care that Trump did this.

And since they have done everything to make sure that that we know that they don't care, the GOP seeking to abruptly end this process as quickly as possible has less to do with protecting Trump than it does trying to salvage a sense of integrity in the history books. The last thing they want is an actual trial in the Senate that will force them to look even further away from their duties as guardians of American democracy. Thus, they scoff, pretend, and hurry along their goal to dismiss.
 
trixare4kids said:
The latest news on calling witnesses...


So we shall see...

GOP confident of win on witnesses | TheHill
Click to expand...
As of tonight it is being reported they do not have the votes.
If they do not have the votes there have been reports they have enough votes to be the majority to get Hunter Biden and the whistleblower for certain as witnesses. In doing so that would allow them to get documents on both of these persons. I do not think most people realize that after the vote to get witnesses then there has to be a vote over every witness and every document they request. For example the Republican Senators in regard to the whistleblower, be able the read the testimony of the Intel IG Atkinson which was overwhelmingly about the whistleblower that Shifty refuses to release. They could request the government for all records of the whistleblower, Ciaramella, of his time employed in our government. He was an aide to Biden as VP. His specialty appears to be Ukraine in the CIA under Brennan. And tonight it was reported on the Ingrahm Angle that Ciaramella's name is in the Mueller report but redacted. An email of Ciaramella that shows he was engaged even then in attempting to remove Trump. If true, it shows a pattern and I could see the Republicans seeking that email. I could also see Republicans seeking the records of why Ciaramella was removed from the WH. Reports said he was a leaker. The same goes to Hunter Biden. The Republicans would be requesting all State Department and all WH documents in the Obama administration that is related to Hunter Biden and Burisma for example. A lot of them have already been made public and their contents are shocking. So if Chucky Schumer insists on going down this road, he may be real sorry when he reaches the end. Chucky knows there will never be enough votes in the Senate to impeach Trump. So what is this all about? It is about trying to find any nugget they can to pile on damage to Trump leading up to the election.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
As of tonight it is being reported they do not have the votes.
If they do not have the votes there have been reports they have enough votes to be the majority to get Hunter Biden and the whistleblower for certain as witnesses. In doing so that would allow them to get documents on both of these persons. I do not think most people realize that after the vote to get witnesses then there has to be a vote over every witness and every document they request. For example the Republican Senators in regard to the whistleblower, be able the read the testimony of the Intel IG Atkinson which was overwhelmingly about the whistleblower that Shifty refuses to release. They could request the government for all records of the whistleblower, Ciaramella, of his time employed in our government. He was an aide to Biden as VP. His specialty appears to be Ukraine in the CIA under Brennan. And tonight it was reported on the Ingrahm Angle that Ciaramella's name is in the Mueller report but redacted. An email of Ciaramella that shows he was engaged even then in attempting to remove Trump. If true, it shows a pattern and I could see the Republicans seeking that email. I could also see Republicans seeking the records of why Ciaramella was removed from the WH. Reports said he was a leaker. The same goes to Hunter Biden. The Republicans would be requesting all State Department and all WH documents in the Obama administration that is related to Hunter Biden and Burisma for example. A lot of them have already been made public and their contents are shocking. So if Chucky Schumer insists on going down this road, he may be real sorry when he reaches the end. Chucky knows there will never be enough votes in the Senate to impeach Trump. So what is this all about? It is about trying to find any nugget they can to pile on damage to Trump leading up to the election.
Click to expand...
I predict they won't have the votes to call witnesses for either side.

Now, the House will make document requests for Bolton's notes, as well documents from the OMB and State Department that Trump criminally refused to turn over. That will be a close vote and could go either way as things stand at the moment, and it could serve as a face saving measure for vunerable Republicans.
 
Captain Adverse said:
NO!

It is NOT "Obstruction" to exercise Executive Privilege. SCOTUS has already ruled this exists and can be exercised.

It would only be "Obstruction" if after losing a case before SCOTUS the President refused to obey the ruling.

THAT was Nixon's downfall. Which is when he realized he had not only no chance of not being Impeached, but he would be found guilty by the Senate. Hence his "resignation."

I find it hard to understand how so many people can't seem to understand how this works.
Click to expand...

Further, should there be a dispute about legislative subpoenas served to the executive branch claiming Executive Privilege the dispute resolution process has already been outlined, and a well worn precedent.

Has everyone else forgotten the times the previous presidents have claimed Executive Privilege and congress had taken the case to the federal courts?

Or is it everyone's opinion that the present administration, and only this present administration, is ineligible to avail themselves to this well established precedent?
 
vesper said:
As of tonight it is being reported they do not have the votes.
If they do not have the votes there have been reports they have enough votes to be the majority to get Hunter Biden and the whistleblower for certain as witnesses. In doing so that would allow them to get documents on both of these persons. I do not think most people realize that after the vote to get witnesses then there has to be a vote over every witness and every document they request. For example the Republican Senators in regard to the whistleblower, be able the read the testimony of the Intel IG Atkinson which was overwhelmingly about the whistleblower that Shifty refuses to release. They could request the government for all records of the whistleblower, Ciaramella, of his time employed in our government. He was an aide to Biden as VP. His specialty appears to be Ukraine in the CIA under Brennan. And tonight it was reported on the Ingrahm Angle that Ciaramella's name is in the Mueller report but redacted. An email of Ciaramella that shows he was engaged even then in attempting to remove Trump. If true, it shows a pattern and I could see the Republicans seeking that email. I could also see Republicans seeking the records of why Ciaramella was removed from the WH. Reports said he was a leaker. The same goes to Hunter Biden. The Republicans would be requesting all State Department and all WH documents in the Obama administration that is related to Hunter Biden and Burisma for example. A lot of them have already been made public and their contents are shocking. So if Chucky Schumer insists on going down this road, he may be real sorry when he reaches the end. Chucky knows there will never be enough votes in the Senate to impeach Trump. So what is this all about? It is about trying to find any nugget they can to pile on damage to Trump leading up to the election.
Click to expand...

Keeping the trial going is not good for the country but if the Democrats insist on traveling this road, bring it on....
One would have to be brain dead not to know what Schumer is about.
 
MovingPictures said:
I predict they won't have the votes to call witnesses for either side.

Now, the House will make document requests for Bolton's notes, as well documents from the OMB and State Department that Trump criminally refused to turn over. That will be a close vote and could go either way as things stand at the moment, and it could serve as a face saving measure for vunerable Republicans.
Click to expand...

I am not a mind reader like Schiff. It will be what it will be. Republicans are ready for any scenario.
 
trixare4kids said:
Having the power of impeachment does not entitle the Democrats to win in the senate.
Click to expand...

But having the power of impeachment does come with a sense of responsibility, in which the GOP has proven incapable of deserving.

- They protected Nixon until the evidence weighed more than their partisan denials...
- They reduced impeachment to a partisan tool against Clinton for his choice to lie to Congress over admitting to adultery and a blow job...
- They now refuse the power when their President actually tried to coerce a foreign government with cash to help him damage the integrity of American democracy for personal gain.

And I can go further back. Andrew Johnson, who tried to reverse the gains of the Civil War by firing congressionally appointed figures, was a Democrat. But the Democratic Party then represented the Conservatives. So maybe it's less that the GOP doesn't deserve this power, and more that it is Conservatives who don't deserve it.

Anyway, from today's behavior, the GOP is actually stating that what Trump did is not impeachable...but a lie about a blow job is?! This is not a petty inconsequential game between political Parties in a race to "win." This is our country that they ****ing toy with.
 
MSgt said:
But having the power of impeachment does come with a sense of responsibility, in which the GOP has proven incapable of deserving.

- They protected Nixon until the evidence weighed more than their partisan denials...
- They reduced impeachment to a partisan tool against Clinton for his choice to lie to Congress over admitting to adultery and a blow job...
- They now refuse the power when their President actually tried to coerce a foreign government with cash to help him damage the integrity of American democracy for personal gain.

And I can go further back. Andrew Johnson, who tried to reverse the gains of the Civil War by firing congressionally appointed figures, was a Democrat. But the Democratic Party then represented the Conservatives. So maybe it's less that the GOP doesn't deserve this power, and more that it is Conservatives who don't deserve it.

Anyway, from today's behavior, the GOP is actually stating that what Trump did is not impeachable...but a lie about a blow job is?!
Click to expand...

Clinton wasn't convicted by the senate.
There's the answer to your question.
 
vesper said:
I am not a mind reader like Schiff. It will be what it will be. Republicans are ready for any scenario.
Click to expand...
As are Democrats.
 
trixare4kids said:
Clinton wasn't convicted by the senate.
There's the answer to your question.
Click to expand...
Yes, but many Republicans there today voted for conviction then.
 
trixare4kids said:
The latest news on calling witnesses...


So we shall see...

GOP confident of win on witnesses | TheHill
Click to expand...

Adam Schiff flat out screwed his pooch. He believed he convicted Trump. Now he pleads he really needs an actual witness and believes Bolton is it. But he can't speak for Bolton nor can the NY Times. The Times printed it hoping. Hopes that soon will be dashed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom