Impeachment Witnesses

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am glad you admit there was no due process

Again: where is due process Constitutionally required for impeachment?

Trump as President is co-equal to Congress.

Not according to him.

He invoked Executive privilege.

He did not.

Democrats have decided if Trump does not bow to them and do as they command they will impeach him. That is 100% unconstitutional.

Trump decided Congressional oversight does not apply to him. Congress is a check and balance on the Executive. Constitutionally. Wait for it...as a co-equal branch of government.

"Sole power of impeachment."

a reply to: Liquesence

What you say is meaningless. You already admitted the Democrats did not want to wait for the courts. They can do whatever they want and vote on any stupid thing they want. They can impeach Trump for breathing oxygen and calling it a crime. What they can not do is compel the Executive branch to bow to them. They have already gone to the courts, and the defense used was, wait for it, Executive privilege.

It is literally impossible to obstruct justice by not following Democrat demands when the courts have ruled the House is not entitled to question witnesses yet while it is being heard.

But you are right, the House can do whatever they want. They just won't convince any rational people their position is right.

originally posted by: Liquesence
That said, perhaps if the administration hadn't obstructed Congress at every turn, they wouldn't have rushed it as much as they did

Obstruction is literally impossible until the Democrats have the courts enforce the subpoena. Please cite his obstruction.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What you say is meaningless.

Ditto.

You already admitted the Democrats did not want to wait for the courts

They aren't Constitutionally required to do so.

They can impeach Trump for breathing oxygen and calling it a crime

That's just stupid hyperbole. Breathing is not a crime.

What they can not do is compel the Executive branch to bow to them.

Co-equal. Checks and balances. What the executive cannot do is obstruct Congress in its Constitutional right to hold the Executive accountable.

a reply to: Liquesence

The constitution divides power for a reason. The presidents job is to obstruct congress. To suggest he obstructed congress by not cooperating sans court order us to suggest he answers to them.

Its an asinine assertion.

They failed to do what it took to make a case. And hoodwinked some folks into believing the asinine instead. The excuse youve provided indicates their lack of desire to build consensus. And their charges prove thus out.

Lol..."obstruction of congress". He did what our founders expressly expected him to do as stated by them multiple times in various clarifying documents such as the federalist papers. Its designed this way...and their DUTY was to let courts decide. Which they avoided in dereliction.

originally posted by: Liquesence


Co-equal. Checks and balances. What the executive cannot do is obstruct Congress in its Constitutional right to hold the Executive accountable.

Yes. He can. Because they are not greater. They are equal. Their duty then would be to get the courts to rule to address the constitutional crisis.

They did not. They instead described their own dereliction as his obstruction.

Asinine.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Their duty then would be to get the courts to rule to address the constitutional crisis.

The Judicial Branch is not greater than The Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch. What you're suggesting is that it is, and that it can authoritatively intervene in impeachment proceeding in the House and/or the Senate.

The DOJ asked the court NOT to rule on whether or not MCGahn must honor the congressional subpoena regarding the Mueller report, because It would appear as if the courts are deciding on the obstruction charge.

In a brief filed Thursday, the Justice Department advised a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, set to hear arguments in the case on Jan. 3, that it should “refrain from embroiling itself” in the interbranch legal battle.

“The Committee’s primary asserted need for subpoenaing McGahn – his potential testimony related to an obstruction-of-justice impeachment charge – appears to be moot,” the government argued.

Urging the court to dismiss the case, Justice Department attorneys slammed it as a “radical distortion” of the balance of power between the three branches of government.

“Rather than allow the political branches to resolve disputes over their institutional prerogatives through the political process as they have done for over two centuries, the Committee envisions a world in which the Legislative Branch may simply file complaint after complaint against the Executive Branch, with the Judicial Branch stuck in the middle of legally and politically fraught battles over congressional authority and presidential privileges and other prerogatives,” the brief states.

www.courthousenews.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judicial rules on disagreements.

Its like no ome here has ever taken high school civics.

It rules on consitutuonality if claims. Just like it did with the financial records.

A quick trip through recent history for context:

- Recently the legislative demanded financial records from Trump. They were told no, then took it to court to resolve the dispute.

- Less recently Eric Holder was subpoena'd to appear before Congress in their oversight role. He refused. Congress declined to use the courts to force him to appear, instead issuing "Contempt of Congress" charges against him. which was simply another way to say "naval gazing".


And some outside reading for more context:

From Wiki

The last time Congress arrested and detained a witness was in 1935.[4] Since then, it has instead referred cases to the United States Department of Justice.[5] The Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that the President of the United States is protected from contempt by executive privilege

No referral....no charge. Its a criminal matter that, as of right now, is unproven. In this case the President absolutely has a right to due process prior to being impeached seriously.

From the same link as above:

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[15] according to the law it is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action. However, while the law places the duty on the U.S. Attorney to impanel a grand jury for action, proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President[citation needed]. According to this theory, to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this position can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?”[16] This approach to government is commonly known as "departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”

Long story short: Obstruction = Contempt. Contempt is referred to the DOJ, who is unable to proceed against the Executive due to conflict. Meaning that its up to voters to decide.

In this case there are 7b witness since the transcript of the call was released. That pretty much squashed this latest coup attempt. This is why there are only 2 weak articles with no crimes stated. Eminence front.

There are plenty more Dem skeletons to be dug up. If Nancy and Chuck keep digging.

originally posted by: Liquesence

They aren't Constitutionally required to do so.

Actually they are. I mean they can vote on impeachment, but it would be like indicting someone for murder when the supposed victim is alive and well and living down the street. Obstruction is literally impossible while the courts are still weighing in on who is right.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am glad you admit there was no due process

Again: where is due process Constitutionally required for impeachment?

Trump as President is co-equal to Congress.

Not according to him.

He invoked Executive privilege.

He did not.

Democrats have decided if Trump does not bow to them and do as they command they will impeach him. That is 100% unconstitutional.

Trump decided Congressional oversight does not apply to him. Congress is a check and balance on the Executive. Constitutionally. Wait for it...as a co-equal branch of government.

"Sole power of impeachment."

State department is controlled by the executive branch. Other than budget and ratifying treaties congress has no business in foriegn relations. Policy is set by the president for all foriegn relations.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Where is it stated that Executive Privilege must be explicitly stated? Communications with the President are privileged unless that privilege is explicitly waived. At least that's how I see it.