Forum Thread

Can I get a good rebuttal for this discussion on the impeachment?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 13 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I caught this elsewhere from a Facebook post. To the argument in that “the Democrats want a fair trial where all senators hear from the witnesses asserted by democrats, just as witnesses could be asserted by the republicans in defense, if any exist at all, to the point where it becomes a real trial, and not one with a partial jury, in the form of McConnell’s current position.” This’s what was said in turn:

    “Study up on how impeachment works and what role the House and the Senate play. You will find that the work of creating the evidence to "prove" guilt occurs in the House. The supposed evidence/proof is presented to the Senate by the House's appointed Impeachment Managers. There is no requirement for additional witnesses in the Senate. That is not where the evidence of guilt is supposed to be identified. It is supposed to already exist before they get there. Hence what most of the House dems just voted for. The Senate is the jury, overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, seated to hear the Houses evidence (existing) and determining guilt or innocence. The senate is not where evidence is created. It is an opportunity for the President to present a defense to the charges and evidence brought to the Senate by the house.

    Democrats don't get to demand witnesses they failed to call during their proceedings in the House. That was their opportunity. They blew it and now want to pretend it's the Senate's role in impeachment to make the case for them. Not at all how any of this works. The Senate can even dismiss the articles of impeachment charges without a trial and it would be well within their rights and the law. That just takes 51 votes.”

    Is all of that true or is there a good rebuttal for that?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Sorry you got it wrong. The forefathers never did foresee that an piece of filth like McConnell would be in bed with the accused. It is like an court case where the judge is totally "loyal" with the accused. Thus an total farce in the Senate. On top of that the GOP members in the Senate are all "cult" members and don't dare to vote different regardless of the truth.

    This situation was never foreseen by the forefathers; I guess they never anticipated that "loyalty cults" and the N.Y. "mafia" would enter our government. Also the "slush fund" of Trump rewards these Senators; "bribing" is the name of the game.

    No there is no justice anymore in this country; it has become an banana republic.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Christango Wrote:

    I caught this elsewhere from a Facebook post. To the argument in that “the Democrats want a fair trial where all senators hear from the witnesses asserted by democrats, just as witnesses could be asserted by the republicans in defense, if any exist at all, to the point where it becomes a real trial, and not one with a partial jury, in the form of McConnell’s current position.” This’s what was said in turn:

    “Study up on how impeachment works and what role the House and the Senate play. You will find that the work of creating the evidence to "prove" guilt occurs in the House. The supposed evidence/proof is presented to the Senate by the House's appointed Impeachment Managers. There is no requirement for additional witnesses in the Senate. That is not where the evidence of guilt is supposed to be identified. It is supposed to already exist before they get there. Hence what most of the House dems just voted for. The Senate is the jury, overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, seated to hear the Houses evidence (existing) and determining guilt or innocence. The senate is not where evidence is created. It is an opportunity for the President to present a defense to the charges and evidence brought to the Senate by the house.

    Democrats don't get to demand witnesses they failed to call during their proceedings in the House. That was their opportunity. They blew it and now want to pretend it's the Senate's role in impeachment to make the case for them. Not at all how any of this works. The Senate can even dismiss the articles of impeachment charges without a trial and it would be well within their rights and the law. That just takes 51 votes.”

    Is all of that true or is there a good rebuttal for that?

    No, you got it wrong. House democrats subpoenaed white house officials for documents and appearances to testify, and by the president's orders, told those officials NOT TO TESTIFY, that is why impeachment article II is charged, which is obstruction of congress, and to repeat, no president or government official is ABOVE THE LAW. In fact, if you or I or anyone/anything (documents) is subpoenaed by an agency of the U.S. government or by a judge, and if we refuse comply with the subpoena, we can be held in contempt of court. Do you understand now?

    politico.com/news/2019/11/07/mick-mulva...

    "Mulvaney had already signaled he would probably refuse lawmakers’ demands to testify, and on Friday an official said Mulvaney's outside counsel said the acting chief of staff wouldn't comply with the subpoena and asserted “absolute immunity.” The White House has issued a blanket order against cooperating with the impeachment inquiry."

    Do you get it now? You cannot thumb your nose at the rule/s of law, if we do, we can be jailed for it.

    Now, when the House of Reps. decides to push the issues of non compliant individuals, a federal judge may be asked to compel/order the witnesses to comply, if the witnesses still refuse, the sergeant at arms will be ordered by a house member or members to arrest and detain these individuals for trial of testimony.

    house.gov/the-house-explained/officers-...

    The present sergeant at arms is the Hon. Paul D. Irving.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Trump is apparently stressing out about the decision of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to name House impeachment managers, and thus to delay the delivery of the articles of impeachment until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) agrees to a fair trial, including key witnesses. Law professor Seth Abramson suggests that Pelosi holds a winning hand unless the media gets involved, and in its desperate desire for conflict and clicks, convinces Americans that the impeachment case must move forward quickly. Trump has always dominated news cycles by making demands; now he is the one under pressure. It is showing. Tonight he tweeted: “Nancy Pelosi is looking for a Quid Pro Quo with the Senate. Why aren’t we Impeaching her?”

    So, who's Seth Abramson?

    Abramson is an assistant professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at University of New Hampshire and affiliate faculty at the New Hampshire Institute of Art. His teaching areas include digital journalism, post-internet cultural theory, post-internet writing, and legal advocacy.

    Prior to entering academia in 2015, Abramson was a trial attorney for the New Hampshire Public Defender from 2001 to 2007. Although still an attorney and member in good standing of the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire, he no longer practices law

    After the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Abramson received widespread attention for his Twitter threads alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign governments, especially Russia, but also Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. Abramson suggests that, through intermediaries, Trump and Putin came to an understanding in 2013 that Trump would run for president and push for an end to U.S. sanctions against Russia, and that Putin would in return green light a multibillion-dollar Trump Tower Moscow deal and other potential Trump ventures in Russia while using Russian capabilities to aid the Trump campaign.

    Is Abramson credible?

    As the link below explains, it depends on who you ask, but the information in bold print above has also been mentioned by numerous other sources.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Abramson

    By the way, on Tuesday of this week, McConnell said "I'm not impartial about this at all."

    Merrick Garland's nomination lasted 293 days and expired on January 3, 2017, at the end of the 114th Congress. There would be some poetic justice if Pelosi withheld the articles of impeachment for 293 days, which would be until just before the November election.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-im-not-an-impartial-juror-ahead-of-senate-impeachment-trial/ar-BBY69VJ

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Since technically there isn't a charge of a crime, e.g., homicide, burglary, etc., there probably isn't a statute of limitations for the impeachment of a president, Pelosi is playing it correctly, and people are watching him squirm. Even though Trump tweets insults directed at the speaker and other house members, it doesn't bolster his innocence one iota, and constant twittering makes him look the even more guilty of wrongdoing.

    Billy Graham's magazine editorial has evangelicals circling the wagons in defense of their king. I'll make a prediction to the end of their actions when Trump goes down swinging.

    Hypothetically, if Trump is reelected but the senate falls into democrats hands in 2020, Trump will go down, and he will look bad. Tuesday, November 3, 2020, and the swearing in ceremony aren't that far away when we think about it. 70+% of Americans think Trump did something wrong.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Thanks guys! If there’s a viable rebuttal, I’ll hit you all back with it! 😁
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The thing is: WHY OBJECT AGAINST EVERYTHING, IF YOU ARE "NOT" GUILTY? He's been guilty from the start; where are his "tax returns"? Why the "obstruction" for witnesses and documents? Why put the "real" unedited Ukraine call in an total secret server? Why did Epstein, Khashoki, Deutsche Bank guy and the Ukrainian woman got killed and who made the "call"? Why did Stormy and other women got paid and"threatened"? Where is the $ 35K which did not get delivered to the Ukraine, Where is the money which was left of the "inauguration" fund. Where is the money that Puerto Rico should have gotten? In whose pocket does an big part of the money for the "wall" ends up? Who pays for the "rally" trips and the cost of security all over the place for his whole family? The real "emolument" clause get trampled and no one blinks? Sorry people he's the most expensive President ever; put that also in the history books.

    Regardless of the "impeachment" he will keep spending like crazy and will keep filling his own pockets. Wake up America you are taken to the "cleaners" by the Trump family and the "loyal " mafia clan.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Christango Wrote: Democrats don't get to demand witnesses they failed to call during their proceedings in the House. That was their opportunity. They blew it and now want to pretend it's the Senate's role in impeachment to make the case for them. Not at all how any of this works. The Senate can even dismiss the articles of impeachment charges without a trial and it would be well within their rights and the law. That just takes 51 votes.”

    Is all of that true or is there a good rebuttal for that?

    Unfortunately, this is true. The Senate is an independent body that makes their own rules. All it takes is 50 + 1 Senators (or, in this instance, Chief Justice John Roberts) to do anything in an impeachment trial. Republicans currently have 53 members in the Senate and only one has expressed even mild disagreement with the way Mitch McConnell is handling everything. So the math is not on Democrats side.

    However, if the Democrats are able to convince four Republicans to demand a certain witness be called and all Democrats vote in favor of that witness being called then that witness will be forced to testify:

    Senate Impeachment Rule VI: The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of and disobedience to its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules and regulations, which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant-at-arms, under the direction the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, executive, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Jared, I hope you finally see how worthless our "rules and laws" are; our forefathers never did foresee types like Trump and McConnell. In any other country with an "living base law" these things don't happen. Is n't it time to update our base laws and get rid if the zillion lawyers who dig into "case" laws only. Sorry but the whole system here is an huge mess. So it is virtually impossible to remove an criminal President from his post.

    I guess no one thought of that in 1800, that people in the government would fight over "billions" now and not do actual "horse trading" or counting "muskets" and fighting Indians. So wake up America, revamp your laws, so you don't repeat your mistakes over and over again. First if all get rid if the "electoral college" as well design an "operating manual with "limits" for Presidents. If not, then this country for sure is doomed

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I've never claimed nor argued that the Constitution is perfect or even ideal. I am painfully aware how unfair our system is. A minority of voters are able to overrule the will of the people in the selection of our President. Not just that, but 18 million more people voted for a Democratic Senate candidate in 2018 than a Republican one and yet the Republicans still magically expanded their majority from 51 to 53. A minority of Americans is in firm control of our Federal government. It's a genuine shame.

    However, I'm also painfully aware how extremely difficult it is to make any major Constitutional changes in our country outside of a full-blown revolution. Do you honestly think these people who are used to the status quo would just stand down and allow a new Constitution to be written that would drastically dilute their power?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Jared yes you said it correctly; but do you really want to continue this ridiculous game the Trump "cult" has introduced in this country? Even if the Dem's win in 2020 and stick to the present "system" then everything Trump did, is allowed again, so the "power play" evolves such way that it will become an dictatorship for sure.

    Each time there was an new President elected the "goal posts were moved" so each time an bit more power, especially if you have total idiots like Barr who promotes that Presidents are above the law; thus an "dictatorship".

    Examples: Obama would not dare to meddle in the Navy rules, neither would meddle in "tariffs" or with the "fed", let alone have foreign policies to be able to "fill" his own pockets, on top of that "cruelty" at the border and rob money for his profitable "wall" etc etc. They are now already busy to make "gerrymandering" an super game; so the elections will be even an bigger farce than ever.

    So if no one turns the "clock" back and revamp the laws then the result will be predictable.

    Like I've said so many times get rid of the "electoral college" and install "term limits" especially for the Supreme Court.

    There is an awful lot to cleanup to do in this country, but no one has the guts to do it.

    If Trump wins again then forget it; Putin will have an huge party for sure.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Getting rid of the electoral college and setting term limits for Congress both require Constitutional Amendments, an almost impossible task with a 0.00000001 percent chance of success. The process to amend the Constitution is very laborious and highly political, as Jared indicated. Republicans are not going to get rid of something that has so benefited them over many years. The proposals by Democratic candidates to do that are good for votes but have virtually zero reality.

    Democrats would do better to start changing perceptions and messaging in rural areas where Republicans rule. Ask why rural areas vote so overwhelmingly Republican in every election and it gets back to the messaging. For many rural areas without broadband its Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio, Christian talk radio, iHeart Media (previously Clear Channel communications), local newspapers and "over the air" TV stations with a conservative political slant. They are more religious, highly patriotic and very suspicious of everything going on in Washington D.C. as well as their own state government. They see their quality of life eroding as their small town hospitals close, their roads and bridges are in a state of disrepair, the sons and daughters leave the nest to not return, and good paying jobs disappear as local factories close. Many of them blame foreign competition, mostly the Chinese. Trump's false messaging on the Chinese trade practices resonates with them.

    Republicans are ruthless in exploiting rural Americans with disinformation and playing the "blame game". Many blame Democrats and their liberal spending on things that don't matter to them as the cause of their problems. Trump and Republicans are good at exploiting that...making mountains out of mole hills. I see interviews of Iowa farmers and others on their misinformed political views and shake my head. Sheesh. It wasn't always this way, but Republicans have won the culture wars over decades with such mundane things as the fictional "war on Christmas" as just one example of many things cited by "Trumpians" in their undivided support of him.

    As a starter, Democrats must hit Trump on his proposals to gut ObamaCare, Medicare and Medicaid. Health care resonates with everyone, and it was a winner for Democrats in 2018. Let's junk this "Medicare for All" political unrealistic dream and just campaign on more realistic fixes to ObamaCare that people can identify with.

    Okay, I'll stop here. I could go on and on...

    PS -- I'm off topic, but one of the reasons Republicans in Congress are so united in their opposition to Trump's impeachment is that his base of support from largely rural America remains steadfast behind Trump. That needs to change before the make-up of Congress can change.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt well said, but yeah as I've said so many times if nothing is done to correct the terrible weak laws and laws for Presidents and their "limits", then my predictions will indeed happen. Somehow you can't blame the "deplorables" because the right wing "media" makes sure they stay stupid forever.

    Thus as you and Jared admit that as long as the laws/rules stay as they are then we will get an dictatorship for sure, as well it will become just about impossible to remove an dictator, also impeachment laws should be made more "clear" so that an "accused" can't be "loyal" with the "judge/jury" or "witness/affiliation, because they are "bought". Sorry but the "case" in the Senate does not even look like an "court case" but more like an "fake corrupt mafia run case". Stupidity reigns. Is there anything normal here?

    I really fear for this country, especially because of our international untrustworthy behavior.