Posted on 12/02/2019 5:32:53 PM PST by bitt
I suspected that we agreed on above. And that we were only disagreeing on semantics.
How do you define or describe “popular vote logic”?
What gets decided in the Supreme Court is whether the judge’s ruling that certain officials need to or can be called to testify will be upheld or not. Some pundits are saying that the Supremes will sidestep this issue by not reviewing that ruling.
I said nothing about “collusion” with Russia. I am thinking that Putin is very happy to see the kind of angry polarization that is taking place in this country between the right and the left. Also, I find the body language when Trump and Putin are on the stage together to be concerning.
Why would thatbe true for the trial in the Senate and not for the impeachment in the House where the Dems controlled everything including the questionsvthevwitnesses could answer?
Not talking about the Senate trial (which is presided over by the Chief Justice, btw), but about someone challenging the process on the basis of violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
I fail to see how it is permissible for the legislature to exempt itself and its self-made procedures from the requirements of the Constitution.
Because the rules of impeachment are decided by the ruling Party of both the House and the Senate. I believe this is stipulated in the Constitution although I may be wrong.
The legislature was designed to be the supreme branch of government, despite common claims otherwise.
They can cut off money or get rid of anyone in the other two branches.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean they can violate all the other articles and precepts of the Constitution.
No they can’t, which is why we have an impeachment procedure and why they can cut off the money but the executive can restore it.
They’re just free-wheeling on this one.
“secretly won permission” ...
Lordy. This is where we at now?
“the FISA Court is downright scary”
Agreed. At this point I think the inside the Beltway crowd is nothing more than a giant global money laundry scheme!
“Findings”.
The issue I was addressing was the White House claim that the House (and presumably also the Senate) could not subpoena employees and former employees to testify. The judge ruled that they could testify. The link below explains in some detail. There will likely be an appeal and at some point the Supremes might be involved.
Thanks for the clarification.
These are messy times, and I find it easy to get confused. Fortunately at Google you can usually find information from a range of sources left to right. I always try to read from both sides to clarify the issues.
Thanks for posting the reality of the full report instead of Rambo hell no’s from the 3 year old Freepers!
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.