Jump to content

Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency


LGR4GM

Recommended Posts

On 12/16/2019 at 8:49 AM, LGR4GM said:

The House trial would have been less of a sham if officials were forced to follow congressional subpoenas as opposed to the, obstruction I suppose is the best word or the easiest, that occurred with key witnesses like ... every White House official. I think if you ignore a congressional subpoenas it should equal fines and jail time no ifs ands or buts. 

Idk if it will bite Dems. I think what will bite dems is the pie in the sky ideas for radical change that some espouse. Sure I want us to move towards a greener energy system but you can't just do that. It takes time and voters at heart care more about the roads they drive on than the fuel in their cars. The Dems should have a simple platform that hammers the tax cuts to the rich and ties it to infrastructure and education. Instead they will toss everything but the kitchen sink into the pile and then wonder why voters have a hard time finding a compelling narrative to energize them. 

Out of curiosity, how did the judicial branch respond when asked by the legislative branch to decide whether members of the executive branch needed to honor the subpoenas that were a part of their impeachment inquiry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Taro T said:

Out of curiosity, how did the judicial branch respond when asked by the legislative branch to decide whether members of the executive branch needed to honor the subpoenas that were a part of their impeachment inquiry?

Has there been a ruling yet? I am unsure if any of the (I assume district courts?) have ruled on those subpoenas yet. Of course if they rule against the Legislative Branch that basically breaks checks and balances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Has there been a ruling yet? I am unsure if any of the (I assume district courts?) have ruled on those subpoenas yet. Of course if they rule against the Legislative Branch that basically breaks checks and balances. 

Apologies, it was a bit of a trick question.  They didn't ask the SC (nor any other) to rule on the validity of the subpoenas.  So, basically, they never attempted to get them enforced.  Which, if they were serious about this matter as a national security threat rather than a political one, and they truly believed they needed to hear the testimony of these members of the executive branch (such as Mulvany) would seem to be the 2nd step they would take after issuing them?  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Apologies, it was a bit of a trick question.  They didn't ask the SC (nor any other) to rule on the validity of the subpoenas.  So, basically, they never attempted to get them enforced.  Which, if they were serious about this matter as a national security threat rather than a political one, and they truly believed they needed to hear the testimony of these members of the executive branch (such as Mulvany) would seem to be the 2nd step they would take after issuing them?  Right?

Agreed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Weave said:

This impeachment was such a foregone conclusion that a historic undertaking is getting no conversation here.

 

Amazing, really.

It is very clear that Trump is a corrupt narcissist who doesn't actually live in reality. But sadly our Democracy is dead and it is instead simply Republicans v Democrats where the goal isn't to advance things to help people but to simply beat the other side. It reminds me heavily of the fall of the Roman Republic where it was more important to stop your opponent than see them succeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2019 at 9:17 AM, Taro T said:

Apologies, it was a bit of a trick question.  They didn't ask the SC (nor any other) to rule on the validity of the subpoenas.  So, basically, they never attempted to get them enforced.  Which, if they were serious about this matter as a national security threat rather than a political one, and they truly believed they needed to hear the testimony of these members of the executive branch (such as Mulvany) would seem to be the 2nd step they would take after issuing them?  Right?

What a bizarre take. So, basically... I'm so innocent and I have so much exculpatory evidence that I'm going to force you to go to court for months to prove how innocent I am.... I'll show you how perfect that phone call was - as soon as you take this to the Supreme Court - you bet your bippy I'll prove how perfect it was!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SDS said:

What a bizarre take. So, basically... I'm so innocent and I have so much exculpatory evidence that I'm going to force you to go to court for months to prove how innocent I am.... I'll show you how perfect that phone call was - as soon as you take this to the Supreme Court - you bet your bippy I'll prove how perfect it was!

Not at all.  As Liger points out, my point was that the 2nd article of impeachment relates to obstruction of Congress which hasn't occurred at present.  Every single President in our lifetimes has claimed executive privilege for denying requests of Congress.  When it's happened in the past, either the 2 branches worked out an accommodation or the 3rd branch decided who was right.  (Which has both expanded and contracted executive Powers through the years.)

Do you really expect that it would have taken months for the SC to hear this and rule on whether the subpoenas are valid?  Truly doubt that.  But we'll never know because they weren't even asked to adjudicate the matter.

It also is concerning that it appears the House is truly contemplating not sending the Impeachment to the Senate for trial.  These "high crimes and misdemeanors" are so serious that we won't bother moving them forward.  (Which is absolutely unprecedented.  Never happened for a Presidential impeachment and know of no other executive or judge that was impeached that didn't have the Impeachment referred to the Senate.). Realizing this whole process is extremely partisan; but would hope they'd try to carry forth at least the pretense that they aren't.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not at all.  As Liger points out, my point was that the 2nd article of impeachment relates to obstruction of Congress which hasn't occurred at present.  Every single President in our lifetimes has claimed executive privilege for denying requests of Congress.  When it's happened in the past, either the 2 branches worked out an accommodation or the 3rd branch decided who was right.  (Which has both expanded and contracted executive Powers through the years.)

Do you really expect that it would have taken months for the SC to hear this and rule on whether the subpoenas are valid?  Truly doubt that.  But we'll never know because they weren't even asked to adjudicate the matter.

It also is concerning that it appears the House is truly contemplating not sending the Impeachment to the Senate for trial.  These "high crimes and misdemeanors" are so serious that we won't bother moving them forward.  (Which is absolutely unprecedented.  Never happened for a Presidential impeachment and know of no other executive or judge that was impeached that didn't have the Impeachment referred to the Senate.). Realizing this whole process is extremely partisan; but would hope they'd try to carry forth at least the pretense that they aren't.

 

 

Just to mention that once it gets to Mitch McConnell it will be hyper partisan. The man cares not for the country only for his conservative ideals. He will move quickly to use every partisan trick he has to make impeachment go away as quick as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not at all.  As Liger points out, my point was that the 2nd article of impeachment relates to obstruction of Congress which hasn't occurred at present.  Every single President in our lifetimes has claimed executive privilege for denying requests of Congress.  When it's happened in the past, either the 2 branches worked out an accommodation or the 3rd branch decided who was right.  (Which has both expanded and contracted executive Powers through the years.)

Do you really expect that it would have taken months for the SC to hear this and rule on whether the subpoenas are valid?  Truly doubt that.  But we'll never know because they weren't even asked to adjudicate the matter.

It also is concerning that it appears the House is truly contemplating not sending the Impeachment to the Senate for trial.  These "high crimes and misdemeanors" are so serious that we won't bother moving them forward.  (Which is absolutely unprecedented.  Never happened for a Presidential impeachment and know of no other executive or judge that was impeached that didn't have the Impeachment referred to the Senate.). Realizing this whole process is extremely partisan; but would hope they'd try to carry forth at least the pretense that they aren't.

I ain't gonna lie. The straight parroting of Republican talking points is highly disappointing. "Unprecedented" could be title of the biography of this administration and the subsequent actions of the Republican party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should they move the process forward if McConnell is working with the White House to have a very partial and unfair trial? The next week will be intriguing as the sides dig in for the final play. To quote Caesar though, once impeachment was voted on, the die was cast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the New Yorker (only for pulling some of these quotes together... )

"There was a time, not so long ago, when Lindsey Graham recognized, and said publicly, that Trump was “unfit for office”—and when Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, and so many other Republicans in Congress recognized Trump for the moral vacuum that he is. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, once called Trump “a terrible human being.” Rick Perry, his Secretary of Energy, saw him as a “barking carnival act” and deemed his candidacy “a cancer on conservatism.” Ted Cruz called him a “pathological liar” and “utterly immoral.” They used to care. But things have changed."

This was the opportunity to right a wrong... for party leaders to save their party. To mend wounds and work towards respectability again. To reject a man whom during his impeachment attacked a WWII vet, called yet another woman a "slob", and berated for the 2nd time this week - a security guard for not manhandling a woman protester. But instead they bend the knee, while privately admitting (per Mike Murphy) they would vote him out if the votes were anonymous. ***** them.

But... Republican talking points...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Why should they move the process forward if McConnell is working with the White House to have a very partial and unfair trial? The next week will be intriguing as the sides dig in for the final play. To quote Caesar though, once impeachment was voted on, the die was cast. 

Why?  A couple of reasons.  By not moving it forward, the House is implicitly stating that impeachment in itself is enough punishment for the "high crimes and misdemeanors.". Which IMHO lessens this from a matter of national security to a merely partisan one.  And if it is merely partisan, why bother with impeachment when the less polarizing censure exists as a tool that likely would have had a handful of Republicans agree with?

Also, if the process in the Senate will be political (and it will be, at this point it obviously will be) then the Democrats will, again IMHO, have a stronger case that they were acting in the national interest rather than a partisan one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Trump finally losing the religious right?  I hope so.  It's about time.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

 

Quote

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You would think cheating on a charity and your wife while banging a porn star for money would be enough but apparently it took more. 

Or the whole bearing false witness... Or wanting to cut benefits from food insecure families...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...