Cocaine Mitch back at it again!

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,955
4,019
743
50
#42
Seriously though, how would censure have damaged him?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
A censure is documented disapproval. Congress can make their voice heard. Basically a historical entry, but no it wouldn't remove anyone. Impeachment never meant removal, but without the effort to remove, I'm not sure what the point of impeachment was.

With the way the Senate was stacked and unwilling to hear evidence and as McConnell said, coordinating with the White House, there was no path to get a removal from office.

Both sides of the legislature spend a ton of time playing the media grandstanding game in lieu of legislating. And the public keeps voting jackass party hacks like Pelosi and McConnell in.
But according to the house there was already enough evidence (documentation) and witnesses to bring the charges. Why should there be more?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
8,730
7,029
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#43
Seriously though, how would censure have damaged him?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
A censure is documented disapproval. Congress can make their voice heard. Basically a historical entry, but no it wouldn't remove anyone. Impeachment never meant removal, but without the effort to remove, I'm not sure what the point of impeachment was.

With the way the Senate was stacked and unwilling to hear evidence and as McConnell said, coordinating with the White House, there was no path to get a removal from office.

Both sides of the legislature spend a ton of time playing the media grandstanding game in lieu of legislating. And the public keeps voting jackass party hacks like Pelosi and McConnell in.
But according to the house there was already enough evidence (documentation) and witnesses to bring the charges. Why should there be more?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
As much as I'm not really thrilled about no witnesses bring called, the Dems were incredibly stupid to bring it to the Senate with their "iron clad" attitude then throw a fit that witnesses weren't called. Either you have an iron clad case or you don't. It can't be both...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
806
162
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#44
Seriously though, how would censure have damaged him?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
A censure is documented disapproval. Congress can make their voice heard. Basically a historical entry, but no it wouldn't remove anyone. Impeachment never meant removal, but without the effort to remove, I'm not sure what the point of impeachment was.

With the way the Senate was stacked and unwilling to hear evidence and as McConnell said, coordinating with the White House, there was no path to get a removal from office.

Both sides of the legislature spend a ton of time playing the media grandstanding game in lieu of legislating. And the public keeps voting jackass party hacks like Pelosi and McConnell in.
But according to the house there was already enough evidence (documentation) and witnesses to bring the charges. Why should there be more?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
As much as I'm not really thrilled about no witnesses bring called, the Dems were incredibly stupid to bring it to the Senate with their "iron clad" attitude then throw a fit that witnesses weren't called. Either you have an iron clad case or you don't. It can't be both...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
FWIW, the Senate has never heard from “new” witnesses in an impeachment trial. Not their job to uncover new evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,691
51,310
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#45
FWIW, the Senate has never heard from “new” witnesses in an impeachment trial. Not their job to uncover new evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Dems could have filed suit and gone to court and had a judge rule as to whether or not new witnesses must be heard. They chose not to. Why?
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,173
1,135
743
57
#46
The Dems could have filed suit and gone to court and had a judge rule as to whether or not new witnesses must be heard. They chose not to. Why?
????
How can a judge make a determination as to what is right or wrong when each house establishes all the rules for their respective roles?? There is no constitutional or legal definition to inner workings of the process so a judge would have no authority to decide anything
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,691
51,310
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#47
????
How can a judge make a determination as to what is right or wrong when each house establishes all the rules for their respective roles?? There is no constitutional or legal definition to inner workings of the process so a judge would have no authority to decide anything
That is exactly, precisely why they didn't.
 
Sep 29, 2011
806
162
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#49
FWIW, the Senate has never heard from “new” witnesses in an impeachment trial. Not their job to uncover new evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Dems could have filed suit and gone to court and had a judge rule as to whether or not new witnesses must be heard. They chose not to. Why?
Actually, the House Dems could have gone to court seeking to compel the Executive branch to produce witnesses and documents. They chose not to, probably in an effort to add Obstruction to the impeachment charges.
I actually think the Dems probably didn’t really want the Senate to call witnesses for two reasons. 1. They didn’t want the whistleblower, Biden or Schiff testifying, and 2. They needed a reason to insist the Senate trial, and certain acquittal under almost any circumstance, was tainted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,173
1,135
743
57
#50
Actually, the House Dems could have gone to court seeking to compel the Executive branch to produce witnesses and documents. They chose not to, probably in an effort to add Obstruction to the charges.
I actually think the Dems probably didn’t really want the Senate to call witnesses for two reasons. 1. They didn’t want the whistleblower, Biden or Schiff testifying, and 2. They needed a reason to insist the Senate trial, and certain acquittal, was tainted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please cite the law(s) that establish the protocol for a Senate impeachment proceeding.

There are none. The House has free rein to run their inquiry as they see fit, the Senate does as well. There are no written rules, only that each house has a distinct role.

A judge at any level has absolutely no jurisdiction on the proceedings. Not only could they not make a ruling, they could not even hear the case since they have no jurisdiction.
 
Jul 25, 2018
2,457
644
243
49
Boulder, CO
#51
Actually, the House Dems could have gone to court seeking to compel the Executive branch to produce witnesses and documents. They chose not to, probably in an effort to add Obstruction to the impeachment charges.
I actually think the Dems probably didn’t really want the Senate to call witnesses for two reasons. 1. They didn’t want the whistleblower, Biden or Schiff testifying, and 2. They needed a reason to insist the Senate trial, and certain acquittal under almost any circumstance, was tainted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's pretty much exactly like the Mueller proceedings: leaves just enough meat on the bone that both sides can claim victory.
 
Sep 29, 2011
806
162
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#52
Actually, the House Dems could have gone to court seeking to compel the Executive branch to produce witnesses and documents. They chose not to, probably in an effort to add Obstruction to the charges.
I actually think the Dems probably didn’t really want the Senate to call witnesses for two reasons. 1. They didn’t want the whistleblower, Biden or Schiff testifying, and 2. They needed a reason to insist the Senate trial, and certain acquittal, was tainted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please cite the law(s) that establish the protocol for a Senate impeachment proceeding.

There are none. The House has free rein to run their inquiry as they see fit, the Senate does as well. There are no written rules, only that each house has a distinct role.

A judge at any level has absolutely no jurisdiction on the proceedings. Not only could they not make a ruling, they could not even hear the case since they have no jurisdiction.
Who said anything about rules? Seems your finding something incorrect about my post. Don’t understand your heartburn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,173
1,135
743
57
#53
Who said anything about rules? Seems your finding something incorrect about my post. Don’t understand your heartburn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no court in the land could make a ruling as there are no written rules/laws of which to adjudicate. Courts interprete laws of which the impeachment process has none. Ie, the Dems could not have filed with any jurisdiction
 
Sep 29, 2011
806
162
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#54
Who said anything about rules? Seems your finding something incorrect about my post. Don’t understand your heartburn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no court in the land could make a ruling as there are no written rules/laws of which to adjudicate. Courts interprete laws of which the impeachment process has none. Ie, the Dems could not have filed with any jurisdiction
You’re mistaken. The House, pursuant to an impeachment process, or government oversight, can go to court to compel the Executive Branch to produce witnesses and/or documents. It’s been done many times over the years. In fact that was part of Trump's argument in the Senate. If the House had wanted more witnesses or documents, they should have sued the President in court - like they did over McGann.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Aug 16, 2012
2,173
1,135
743
57
#55
You’re mistaken. The House, pursuant to an impeachment process, or government oversight, can go to court to compel the Executive Branch to produce witnesses and/documents. It’s been done many times over the years. In fact that was part of Trumps argument in the Senate. If the House had wanted mire witnesses or documents, they should have sued the President in court - like they did over McGann.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,173
1,135
743
57
#57
How do you think Congress obtained the Nixon tapes? They sued Nixon in court.
The House Judiciary Committee petitioned for them as part of their investigation as to whether there were impeachable offenses (April 1974, actually before the formal investigation was convened the following month), NOT during the actual impeachment trial. Two parts here that are distinctly different...The House's investigation and filing of charges, and the Senate's execution of the trial itself. That is the key, the very key distinction that is crucial to this discussion. I am not saying the House cannot use the courts to obtain information as part of their work to determine if an impeachable offense has occurred. That happens all the time as you said. But you are missing the point that in the hands of the Senate, no court has a bearing on the process. That was why the Senate voted on whether or not to include additional witnesses the week before the actual impeachment process/vote took place....because they control what happens, not the courts. I would have to go back and review the two cases, but I am pretty sure that at no point during the Johnson or Clinton impeachments did the Senate trial components include court petitions of any ilk to determine who, what, where is to be part of the Senate's trial. I know they did not with Nixon because he resigned before the Senate took up the case.
 
Sep 29, 2011
806
162
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#58
How do you think Congress obtained the Nixon tapes? They sued Nixon in court.
The House Judiciary Committee petitioned for them as part of their investigation as to whether there were impeachable offenses (April 1974, actually before the formal investigation was convened the following month), NOT during the actual impeachment trial. Two parts here that are distinctly different...The House's investigation and filing of charges, and the Senate's execution of the trial itself. That is the key, the very key distinction that is crucial to this discussion. I am not saying the House cannot use the courts to obtain information as part of their work to determine if an impeachable offense has occurred. That happens all the time as you said. But you are missing the point that in the hands of the Senate, no court has a bearing on the process. That was why the Senate voted on whether or not to include additional witnesses the week before the actual impeachment process/vote took place....because they control what happens, not the courts. I would have to go back and review the two cases, but I am pretty sure that at no point during the Johnson or Clinton impeachments did the Senate trial components include court petitions of any ilk to determine who, what, where is to be part of the Senate's trial. I know they did not with Nixon because he resigned before the Senate took up the case.
Never said or implied the Senate go to court. Might want to re-read my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk