The GOP Senators are the Cowards of the Country IMO!

Both correct.

I’m not sure what you mean by “It was already there” but the same is true of the President. He does not have unlimited powers and must formally validate (i.e. challenge) any action that might impede the constitutionally granted power of another branch. His authority is limited by the 10th Amendment.

 

I understand however that has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

FAW and garyd merely underline the legitimacy of Democratic complaints.

 

Was Romney's vote to acquit on the charge of obstruction, an act of cowardice?

 

By definition apparently

 

Trump's belief in the power of the Presidency outweighed the obstruction charge.

 

You wish.

 

By short term I am referring to the general election and the subsequent balance of power.

Progressives were already motivate as far as removing the criminal IMPOTUS was concerned but now that motivation has EXPANDED to encompass the GOP Senate seats. Prior to the farce of a trial Moscow Mitch still stood a good chance of retaining his seat but now I suspect you are going to see him targeted for removal. That is going to drain resources that could have been used to protect other vulnerable GOP Senate seats. Those will also be under intense pressure and that exposes the next level to a greater degree of vulnerability.

The Dems only NEED to flip 3 seats and take the Whitehouse in order to take control of the Senate. If they manage those two in November then the entire balance of power alters and that is only the more significant consequence.

Down ballot races are going to be more competitive in Red States where Progressive GOTV efforts are being used to challenge those Senate seats. Governor and Legislative seats now need to be defended which places a further strain on resources. And those resources are NOT only money. The base needs to be energized by rallies of popular speakers and they are thin on the ground these days. The negative demographic trend for non-college white voters applies nationwide.

And what exactly are the GOP going to offer as a message to We the People? 4 more years of chaos, crimes and incompetence in the Oval office together with an agenda loaded with anti Women's Rights legislation? The SCOTUS could potentially overturn RvW at the end of the current session. Not even Republican women want a bunch of old white men telling them what they can do with their bodies.

So what Moscow Mitch did was to paint a target on the GOP's Senate majority and even if it survives there will be collateral damage down ballot as a consequence IMO.

 

As I recall Nixon did TRY to use EP to challenge the investigation that resulted in his impending impeachment but it was overruled by the SCOTUS.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeac...es-balance-of-power-in-washington-11570990908

 

So what? Nixon resigned....


....Trump kicked ass.....

 

Wrong!

The 1215 Magna Carta was the original formal documentation of the concept of individual rights and while it was not universal it did very much apply as far as the early English settlers in America were concerned.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-.../rights-of-englishmen-in-british-america.html

 

That Magna Charta is a nice historic document, but has no relevance to anything.

 

You are entitled to express your woefully uninformed OPINION on this matter but it does not refute any of the FACTS regarding the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that EXISTED prior to the establishment of this nation.

 

Didn't do much for the Jews or the slaves did it?

 

Vapid non sequitur duly noted FTR.

Did you know that Catholics were not allowed to hold elected office during that period? Do you know WHY they were prohibited from doing so?
Do have any any factual knowledge at all pertaining to individual rights prior to the founding of the nation?

Needless to say your prior responses establish that you don't.

 

Thanks for the history lesson. In that case, Nixon tried to get the court to quash the subpoena ordering him to turn over tapes and documents used as evidence in the grand jury indictment for those implicated in the Watergate case. It wasn't about his impeachment but the evidence implicated Nixon directly which eventually led to the House impeachment inquiry. SCOTUS still has no role whatsoever in an impeachment investigation.

Hoping that Jaworski and the public would be satisfied, Nixon turned over edited transcripts of 43 conversations, including portions of 20 conversations demanded by the subpoena. James D. St. Clair, Nixon's attorney, then requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena. While arguing before Sirica, St. Clair stated that:

The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

In the above "the court of impeachment" being referred to is the House and the Senate, not the judiciary. But again, Trump never formally challenged the House, he just obstructed, plain and simple.

 

For broad-minded people with a sense of historical perspective, it has much relevance.

For authoritarians who love the state, no, it has no relevance. Neither does the rule of law.

 

As a person who pays attention to what I write, rather than just trying to show how smart I am, your comments have no relevance to anything.

 

They are sufficiently relevant for you to reply to them with inanities.

Can we stick to the Magna Carta?

 

You can stick to anything you want. I did not bring up the Magna Carta and neither was it a part of this thread.

Somewhere along the way in my long life, someone made a comment somewhat like this. "If you try to impress someone with your knowledge while at the same time you are trying to put across a point, you will very likely accomplish neither". Don't get wrapped up in your self. I am not impressed.

 

To give credit where it is due your paucity of subject matter knowledge when it comes to individual rights is definitely making an impression on at least 3 members in this thread.

 

Writing to show how smart you are while trying to show how stupid someone else is accomplishes nothing. You have proved neither point.

 

But it does have a role in judging disputes over EP, which it has clearly supported and is the law of the land.

The congressional subpoenas from the Trump impeachment non inquiry inquiry held no jurisdiction over the President until such a time as the courts ruled they did.

Trump could simply ignore them, which he did.
It was the job of the House to have the courts grant the House power to override executive privilege. They failed to do so.
Therefore no obstruction. Something that doesn't exist cannot be obstructed and the House had no authority to request these documents and witnesses.

Obstruction of your imagination? Maybe

 

So are you now REGRETTING that you posted this remark?

 

Not at all. I was referring to the quality of the remark, not the individual.