The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

The GOP had a list of witnesses... and ALL of them were denied by the Democratic Party.

However, when the Republicans Impeached Clinton for lying to a Federal Judge while under oath, Newt Gingrich provided the Democrats with full subpoena power and allowed every witness they wanted.

See the difference yet?

Who is the Whistle Blower? CIA. Partisan. Colluded with Schiff's Office before creating "the complaint", had no first hand knowledge of any event.

Also, there was ZERO transparency in the Democratic process, proven by this video.




What if the Republicans in the Senate used the Democrats in the House standard?????

 

True. I think that is why we will never hear from those who were actually on the call.
If they were to testify, it would be without a doubt dirt for 2020. As of now, it's about 80% certain it was dirt. Maybe more. As those with 1st hand knowledge of the call have testified it was to get dirt.
But to many tRUMPers, even Pompeo saying he with held aid to get dirt would not be enough to convict. IMO.

 

And the D's had more witnesses to call also. All R's. All were told by the tRUMP admin, they could not testify. Even though they were subpoenad.

Yep, both sides played their cards.

 

No...you are wrong. At the time of the Constitution, when the impeachment clause was written, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was narrow, limited generally to maritime issues and disputes between the States. It's power of judicial review (to rule on the constitutionality of statute law) came, as you know, with Madison v. Marbury in 1803, and was largely an "assumed power," no one has ever challenged. The Court seldom intervenes in intra branch disputes and usually tries to avoid them. While the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court constitutionally "presides" over the Senate trial, he is likely to limit his role chiefly to the rules of trial procedure decided upon between McConnell and Schumer before the trial begins. And, there is no appeal to either the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House or to the verdict of the Senate.
Politically, the only branch of government with impeachment powers is Congress and insomuch as that allows Congress to remove ANY public official from office (including Supreme Court Justices), that gives Congress, the Legislative Branch, political supremacy...as was intended by the founders.
The Constitution was written at the end of the Age of Kings, in Western Europe, during which the monarch was supreme and subject only to the will of God (which led to the inevitable struggles between monarchs and the theologians). IMO, the idea of a "sovereign people" was derived from the Reformation...which allowed Christians to bypass their respective hierarchies and communicate directly with God. The political sovereignty of the people was expressed through two forms of democracy...direct (on the Town Hall meeting model, where all political issues were voted upon by the entire defined electorate) or a republic, wherein the "individual sovereignty" of the defined electorate was transferred to the members of the legislature, chosen by free elections. In the case of individual states, that sovereignty was also transferred to State Legislatures and to a Governor elected by popular vote. State sovereignty couples with popular sovereignty in our bi-cameral system of federal government. But, I would argue, no such sovereignty is transferred to the President, who is only the executive administrator, ultimately subject to the sovereignty of Congress, which represents both the States (in the Senate) and the People (in the House). The President its elected by an "Electoral College," determined by the State Legislatures, but - according to a recent Court ruling - is not bound, once chosen, by any legislative or executive body. This theory is the opposite of the Unitary Executive theory, which gives the Presidency independent powers. I would argue that all Presidential powers are derived from the sovereignty of the people as represented in Congress and the President as sovereign is a mere convenience for the external world and the United States among nations, and as the domestic chief executive.
And, I can't imagine any anti-federalist, libertarian, or conservative (in the Whig vein) thinking otherwise.

 

Yes. As I said. The religious right was a large part of the R party. Don't know what issue you have with that statement.
My accusation was with the religious right, not a particular religion.
I grew up Lutheran with Lutheran parents. Also D. Not myself. I've never ever affiliated with either party. Neither party is for the people. Only about themselves and large bribes, legally known as campaign donations.

 

I don't understand where your certainty comes from.. there has been no evidence of that..

 

The Democrats had a remedy that they 100% refused to invoke. They could have taken their subpoenas to the Judiciary and had them enforced, but they refused to do so. There is no reason for the Democrats to complain. They must have known the Judiciary would have looked at their corrupt process and the judge may have thrown them in jail for Contempt of Court and abusing the Judiciary with such nonsense.

 

I was only able to find instances where SCOTUS used OJ to take a case that applied to the guidelines outlined in Article III, section 2, of the Constitution. https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-original-supreme-court

Please cite a case if I missed one or the section of the Constitution that shows the SCOTUS originates a case.
Until you do, you haven't substantiated the claim that the SCOTUS can make rulings immediately.

And also, substantiate the claim that OJ would apply in this instance.

Can you substantiate the claim that "No branch of government has power over the other directly,"
And the event wherein the Judicial branch decided this?

Thanks for clarifying.

But you have yet to substantiate that OJ can be used to originate a case, or that OJ would apply.

Once you do can you define "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as it relates to the constitution, with sources?

Neither side's obligated to reach out to the SCOTUS either of them could have, neither one has. Until they do their both at fault.

 

I don't think Trump needs to get removed for what he did in Ukraine, I think that a House Sanction would be adequate for that level of incompetence. Impeachment is a bridge too far.

The ignoring of subpeona's left the House w/ 2 options, either impeach and or seek a ruling from the SCOTUS. It would have been wiser to do the latter, but I can see why they didn't.

Personally, I would have filed a motion for the SCOTUS to review the subpoena immediately. If SCOTUS didn't I'd impeach.

 

Look, I appreciate that you're thorough but I'm not trying to create a footnoted document here.

I've already addressed the fact that this is a subjective "immediate" I'm talking about and not a literal immediate. Soon enough, hows that?

What do you think the "separation of powers" means? Why are there 3 branches of government? Why was the 3rd branch created?

These are not overly complicated concepts.

You mean Treason, Bribery OR OTHER high crimes and misdemeanors. What does "or other" mean? It means they're examples of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" the founders felt were impeachable.

One thing is certain, they were quite clear about one of their greatest fears of impeachment: that it would become a partizan tool used on the comparative strength of the parties.

This is where we are.

 

Says the people who have been trying to gather dirt on Trump for 4 years.

 

Says the people who run to the courts every time the POTUS writes an email.

A power exercised CANNOT be unConstitutional. Period. That is one of the main purpose's of the Judicial branch.

 

Who's going to stop him or any POTUS?

Guess who the Federal Marshalls work for.

You guys should spend some time learning what you're trying to destroy.

 

Best I can make of it, its a long gambit littered w/ flaws.
They impeach now, (red meat to base) meanwhile, they force Senate critters to say what Trump did was peachy keen. This turns the Repubs into wedges between the old and new (trump) guard. This allows them to (hopefully) swipe some seats in the squabble or potentially turn some repubs.
There's a chance they remove Trump technically or more likely cause enough havic that they keep the house/ maybe get the senate later on.

By the time 2020 rolls around the independents have forgotten, the demo's never left and maybe reps are sick of trump enough they don't show. Really the prize isn't the presidency, that's a pipe dream. The demo sites are on keeping the house and trying for the senate. They get that, and no more judges.

Either that or they honestly believe there doing what's right for the country, politics be damned.

 

There were several witnesses with 1st hand knowledge why military aide was with held.

 

Yes to investigate corruption and potential ties to the 2016 election.

And none of them were first hand witnesses except Sondland and his testimony regarding first
Hand knowledge about what trump wanted was nothing, no qpq, only for Ukraine to do the right thing.

 

They could have yes, but they apparently didn't need to. The impeachment is proceeding without those witnesses.
So likely would have been just a waste of time for something that wasn't necessary. But would have been a nice to have.

... On Monday, after Kupperman failed to show up, Schiff told reporters that "are not going to allow the White House to engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope in the courts," adding that the White House's move to try and block officials from testifying could be used as evidence of obstruction of justice in potential articles of impeachment.
...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressional-subpoena-impeachment-probe/story?id=66586558

 

If that were true, then tRUMP would still be with holding the military aide. For the investigation into 2016 didn't happen. But the funds were released anyway.
So the with holding wasn't for 2016.

 

-Fair enough.
-Fair enough.
-I think it means what the constitution and pertinent JB decistions say it means. If someone says something as far removed from my understanding as that, I want to see why.
-That's not at all clear by reading from reading the constitution. JR is an implied power.
-That's not what was meant by founders.
https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
You don't have to believe me, the fact that we 2 reasonable people can come to a different interpretation means its something that is best interpreted by the SCOTUS. Could be I'm right, could be your right, it isn't clear.
-Indeed.

 

"...the factual record which suggests..."

By all means. When opinion, assumption, and presumption aren't enough, break out the suggestion.

 

That's ridiculous. What do you think "abuse of power" is?

 

your right, congress needs to pass new laws as Trump has shown many weaknesses in the current law - this is the first President where such laws where needed

"Lindsey Graham: A president who doesn't comply with Congressional requests for information is subject to impeachment."

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1181682899424350209

that said, they can continue on with the slow court process and move ahead with impeachment too - but let's home the Senate can speed things up as the SC will be part of the process

 

Need to find my mic drop meme.... that was one silly argument you just deflated...

 

Unfortunately, we will need a real president to sign presidential accountability laws...

 

Would you suggest, as a reasonable person, that there are numerous times a reasonable person could infer every President has abused their power?

If so, then your definition means there will be multiple times during a POTUS term where they might be impeached according to the standards you've listed.

When impeachment was used a few times against a POTUS in 400 years, I'd say the bar is pretty damn high.

Otherwise, we'll just spend all our time impeaching Presidents.

This is the precedent the left has now set.

Don't like a phonecall the POTUS made to a foreign power? We need to see it! Oh look, he asked for a favor. Impeachment.

Don't like the person he pardoned? Abuse of power. Impeach him.

So we are headed towards a situation where unless Congress and the Executive are of the same party.....there will be an impeachment.