What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

The Thriller said:
Here are two questions that I’ve seen kicked around online recently:

1. Should Democrats slow down on impeachment? Or would that play into Trump’s hands?

2. Should Democrats obstructed this recent trade deal, like republicans would’ve done had the president been Obama or Clinton?
Click to expand...

1) Yes; in my opinion they should wait until the court rulings force people to testify.

2) No.
 
My gf's parents live in Florida and drive out to see us once or twice a year and stay for about a month. They're great people and nice to have around (although a month is a long, long time.) That said, they're huge Trumpers and religiously watch Fox News. They just left a few weeks ago. While here, they would ask me why I don't like Trump or think he should get impeached. I'd tell them my opinion and they would laugh at me and get super defensive. I told her dad Trump is a dishonest person and has the temperament of a child. He asked me what did Trump lie about. I would tell him and he would just blow it off like I was making it up. I'd hear them talk about what's going on in the news, how crazy Democrats are and how great Trump is and I'd just learned to bite my tongue. They're is no arguing with these people.
 
sirkickyass said:
Even if that means that it doesn't happen until the 2021 Supreme Court term? It's clear the legal strategy behind refusing to testify is about running out the clock rather than prevailing on the merits.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it. The last court ruling regarding a Trump witness testimony took eight months to get.
 
sirkickyass said:
Even if that means that it doesn't happen until the 2021 Supreme Court term? It's clear the legal strategy behind refusing to testify is about running out the clock rather than prevailing on the merits.
Click to expand...
No, I'm assuming that things would be rushed as in U.S. v. Nixon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon. So maybe it would take a couple of months, but a couple years. And maybe the Supreme Court wouldn't even take the case, but would just defer to the lower court's decision. If it did come to the point where the Supreme Court took the case but without rushing it, then I would say proceed immediately at that point.
 
sirkickyass said:
Even if that means that it doesn't happen until the 2021 Supreme Court term? It's clear the legal strategy behind refusing to testify is about running out the clock rather than prevailing on the merits.
Click to expand...

Zombie said:
Beat me to it. The last court ruling regarding a Trump witness testimony took eight months to get.
Click to expand...

I understand these arguments. They were made by Rep Schiff earlier this week. A good point. I wanted to hear what you guys thought because:

I listened to Dr. Kim Wehle on the Bulwark a week or so ago and she explained how Democrats could fast track these cases to compel testimony from Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Bolton. Here’s her article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...mocrats-need-better-subpoena-strategy/602782/
Which is why House Democrats’ milquetoast response to widespread defiance of congressional subpoenas is both perplexing and disturbing. When faced with credible evidence of serious misconduct, Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable on behalf of the people. Yet House leaders have psyched themselves out of fully exercising that duty.

There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked.

Democrats might be betting that widespread defiance of subpoenas at the president’s behest bolsters the case for an article of impeachment for obstruction of justice. Another concern might be that, even if courts rule swiftly and consistently that former and current employees lack blanket immunity from testifying, some might still show up and refuse to speak on the basis of executive privilege—leaving Congress empty-handed despite protracted litigation.


Nevertheless, the House should fight hard for access to the full story about the president’s Ukraine shenanigans, and not let the executive branch win by default. Some current and former executive-branch officials, including Ambassador Gordon Sondland and former National Security Counsel expert Fiona Hill, have testified in spite of White House efforts to stonewall Congress. Others, including former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, have done so despite intimidating tweets from the president of the United States. Aggressive litigation on all subpoenas would persuade more witnesses to do the same, while showing support for the courageous people who have already complied.

Even if some House subpoenas end up stuck in litigation for months, the chamber can move forward with impeachment anyway. The result, in short, will be no worse than the status quo
Click to expand...

colton said:
No, I'm assuming that things would be rushed as in U.S. v. Nixon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon. So maybe it would take a couple of months, but a couple years. And maybe the Supreme Court wouldn't even take the case, but would just defer to the lower court's decision. If it did come to the point where the Supreme Court took the case but without rushing it, then I would say proceed immediately at that point.
Click to expand...

exactly, this isn’t the first time the courts have had to compel testimony or evidence.

So what’s the truth here? It seems to me pretty dumb that one needs to impeach and successfully remove a president to hold him/her accountable in investigations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top