• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

Junebug said:
You should really have that cynicism looked at by someone.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand this post. You’re for the court packing. How is it cynical to see it for what it is?
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
Yes, I did.

I also expected House dems to pursue this to the full extent of their power, including subpoenas against Bolton, et al., whose testimony I thought might sway some not insignificant portion of mainstream pubs who haven’t otherwise been persuaded, and maybe even pick off some of Trump’s base, thus putting political pressure on enough pub senators to abandon ship. Instead, the dems pussied out, leading me to conclude they are either incompetent or, more likely, don’t really care about removing Trump as much as they just want to damage him politically for 2020. That may have been the shrewd move, but, to me, they’ve lost some of their moral authority along the way.

Without actually attempting to build the best case they could with the best first-hand witnesses they could, they never had a chance at persuading the real audience that matters. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a chance with Bolton, et al., either, but I’m reminded that the Nixon impeachment and removal didn’t stand a chance either, until it did.
Click to expand...

Lol your theory is that it’s the Dems fault(!) for not convincing a GOP group who is totally unwilling to view the facts and whose sole mission is to obfuscate the process and to take a bullet for Trump.
 
Junebug said:
So far as I’m aware, there aren’t any, subject to the two caveats below. The dems made a strategic decision to forgo the courts to compel subpoenas.

1. Kupperman sued and Dems withdrew the subpoena. I believe case may still technically be active, but without the dems pushing it it will likely be dismissed as moot.

2. The McGahn subpoena was issued before the impeachment inquiry. I haven’t read the briefing, but, considering this fact, I doubt the dems’ lawyers have been strenuously pushing the exigency argument.
Click to expand...

The Kupperman case is still alive and going on 2 months to get the first federal court ruling.

Bolton’s case would definitely go to the Supreme court.

So many months before there would any possibility of a final ruling.
 
Junebug, how is that on the Dems and not the conservative courts?

I think the Dems should wait, but I also realize this was always a longshot.
 
Collins with so much more projection...clock and a calendar...accuses the dems of trying to interfere with the 2020 elections...moaning about all the evidence not being heard
 
You thought it was ridiculous to think House Republicans wouldn’t defect. Seems like you’re starting to admit Senate Republicans won’t defect. But you’re claiming SCOTUS Republicans will defect.
 
Junebug said:
Do you mean the same courts that ordered McGahn to respond to the subpoena or...?

You don’t get to just say “the courts are conservative so we would have lost anyway” and be done with it. For one thing, the courts aren’t conservative. SCOTUS, yes, though only 5-4, but lower courts no (thanks Obama). In any event, we are talking about issues that are not clearly delineated between “conservative” and “liberal.” There aren’t any justices on the SCOTUS who are going to hold Trump always wins. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Am I crazy to think that the Dems rushed this thinking that the Senate might actually hold a trial and call these witnesses? It's one thing to ignore a subpoena from a congressional committee and another thing to ignore one from a formal senate trial presided over by the Chief Justice. Maybe Pelosi thought that even McConnell wouldn't fuck with the constitution responsibility of holding a trial. She knows he's a douche and all, but she believed that even he wouldn't go so far as to not allow witnesses to be called...maybe she trusted that Roberts would be too worried about his legacy to preside over a show trial? Putting this on the Dem's as "pussying out" is pretty misdirected...they control one half of one branch of the process. The GOP holds all the cards here and this miscarriage is entirely on them.
 
As to the inane concept of "always wins", I'm sure you could find something that Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh would disagree with Trump on, but to say they aren't extreme and wouldn't agree with Trump almost all the time is ludicrous.

This is 100% typical Junebug playing games.

Would the extremists on the Court agree that Trump could declare martial law to keep himself in power at this time? No.

Would they bend over backwards to create new decisions to protect Trump? Only brainwashed fools would say no.
 
Junebug said:
The Kupperman case is dead, and everyone knows it. Where’s the urgency when the dems withdraw the subpoena?

The impeachment inquiry started on September 24, coming up on 3 months ago. Election Day in year 2000 was on November 7. Bush v. Gore was decided on December 13, just over a month later.

If dems had pressed the issue, we might be on the verge of a final ruling, if we didn’t have it already. But they decided to abandon those efforts and, instead, add obstruction as an article. In my opinion, that was a miscalculation. They would have won in the SCOTUS and Bolton could be on the verge of testifying.
Click to expand...

Objection, speculation.

US vs Nixon took 4 months from subpoena to ruling. Bolton subpoena would have come in early November. So ruling by early March. Then testimony, then the impeachment drafting process. But that time you're well into primary season.
 
Meanwhile because Trump is above the law he continues to send Rudy to keep doing the same thing that he is in trouble for. Will the Dems call Mitch out on this?
No
 
Junebug said:
Three months from the time Nixon filed suit to the decision. Late April to July 24.

Kupperman filed suit on October 26. Three months is late January.

Also, US v Nixon was decided when lawyers and law clerks used books, typewriters, and lacked teams of associates chomping at the bit to participate in something like this. There is no doubt this would’ve taken less time than a similar issue in 1974.

Look, I get that the dems didn’t want the impeachment drama to take coverage away from their primary. That’s a fine political calculation, but compromising principles has consequences. You’re going to have a hard time convincing the country with testimony from civil servants the vast majority of the populous has never heard of.
Click to expand...

it's not the country's job to listen. it's the job of the 100 senators this country elected to listen and decide.
 
BarcaDeac said:
it's not the country's job to listen. it's the job of the 100 senators this country elected to listen and decide.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa. You can't expect 100 senators to do their job and keep their oath of office. They need plenty of time to lick their finger, hold it up, and see which way the window is blowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top