Cocaine Mitch back at it again!

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 29, 2011
1,266
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#62
Never said or implied the Senate go to court. Might want to re-read my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then we have gone full circle as I have been talking about the Senate's trial portion from the get-go.

Moving on......
I guess I’ll be more explicit in the future......oh, wait


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,564
4,164
743
50
#63
How do you think Congress obtained the Nixon tapes? They sued Nixon in court.
The House Judiciary Committee petitioned for them as part of their investigation as to whether there were impeachable offenses (April 1974, actually before the formal investigation was convened the following month), NOT during the actual impeachment trial. Two parts here that are distinctly different...The House's investigation and filing of charges, and the Senate's execution of the trial itself. That is the key, the very key distinction that is crucial to this discussion. I am not saying the House cannot use the courts to obtain information as part of their work to determine if an impeachable offense has occurred. That happens all the time as you said. But you are missing the point that in the hands of the Senate, no court has a bearing on the process. That was why the Senate voted on whether or not to include additional witnesses the week before the actual impeachment process/vote took place....because they control what happens, not the courts. I would have to go back and review the two cases, but I am pretty sure that at no point during the Johnson or Clinton impeachments did the Senate trial components include court petitions of any ilk to determine who, what, where is to be part of the Senate's trial. I know they did not with Nixon because he resigned before the Senate took up the case.
Never said or implied the Senate go to court. Might want to re-read my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
House cannot sue to determine what happens during the Senate trial either. If they wanted more witnesses and documentation, then they should have taken care of it BEFORE they brought the articles of impeachment.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
12,708
10,648
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#65
The Senate Dems could have taken it to court to try to force witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial.
They needed a majority vote to do that. Part of the rules Mitch and the republicans agreed upon.

If the senate would have called new witnesses and not done a trial on the evidence brought by the house it would have been a first. Houses job is to gather evidence senates job is to hear it. At least that's the way it's played out in every impeachment to date.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,266
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#66
How do you think Congress obtained the Nixon tapes? They sued Nixon in court.
The House Judiciary Committee petitioned for them as part of their investigation as to whether there were impeachable offenses (April 1974, actually before the formal investigation was convened the following month), NOT during the actual impeachment trial. Two parts here that are distinctly different...The House's investigation and filing of charges, and the Senate's execution of the trial itself. That is the key, the very key distinction that is crucial to this discussion. I am not saying the House cannot use the courts to obtain information as part of their work to determine if an impeachable offense has occurred. That happens all the time as you said. But you are missing the point that in the hands of the Senate, no court has a bearing on the process. That was why the Senate voted on whether or not to include additional witnesses the week before the actual impeachment process/vote took place....because they control what happens, not the courts. I would have to go back and review the two cases, but I am pretty sure that at no point during the Johnson or Clinton impeachments did the Senate trial components include court petitions of any ilk to determine who, what, where is to be part of the Senate's trial. I know they did not with Nixon because he resigned before the Senate took up the case.
Never said or implied the Senate go to court. Might want to re-read my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
House cannot sue to determine what happens during the Senate trial either. If they wanted more witnesses and documentation, then they should have taken care of it BEFORE they brought the articles of impeachment.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,634
52,223
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#68
From PBS:

Could a lengthy battle over witnesses be the next step in the Senate impeachment trial?
Politics Jan 24, 2020 4:14 PM EST

Senate Republicans have begun raising the prospect of a lengthy legal battle over witnesses in the impeachment trial, placing political pressure on Democrats to avoid an ugly confrontation with the White House that could push the proceedings into February, if not later.

The shift is an acknowledgment that Republicans may lose a vote next week to subpoena witnesses and documents that could reveal new details about President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to intervene on his behalf in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Democrats need four Republicans to join them in calling for additional testimony and material from witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who followed Trump’s order not to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

In interviews, Republicans warned that subpoenaing witnesses could spark a months-long court fight if the White House responds by invoking executive privilege to block officials from testifying in the trial.

“We would be here until early summer, going through that and litigating it,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. By pushing for more witnesses, Democrats are trying to “stretch this process for months and months and months in the Senate and dominate the election with impeachment talk,” Lankford said.

Other Republicans welcomed a legal fight. The White House should invoke executive privilege to protect sensitive material and conversations between the president and senior advisers, said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc. “I think the president should jealously guard the separation of powers and executive privilege. I expect him to do that.”

Trump ordered officials not to testify in the House impeachment investigation, and several did not comply with congressional subpoenas. The State Department and Office of Management and Budget, among other agencies, also refused to hand over documents related to the inquiry.

Senate Democrats are now seeking testimony from Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and two other officials.

Bolton has said he would testify. But he has not said if he would share conversations he may have had with the president about the White House decision to withhold military aid and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine. It’s also unclear what Bolton would say about Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son Hunter.

In private, some Republicans acknowledge they’re unsure how Trump would respond to Senate subpoenas that could put Bolton, Mulvaney and other top officials in the spotlight. The president has been highly critical of the impeachment proceedings, and is not known for backing down from a legal fight.

Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) speaks to reporters near the Senate subway in the U.S. Capitol, surrounded by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC), James Lankford (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY), during a dinner recess on the third day of the Senate impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Sarah Silbiger - RC20ME9L1Z5ASenator Joni Ernst (R-IA) speaks to reporters surrounded by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC), James Lankford (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY), during a dinner recess on the third day of the Senate impeachment trial on January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Sarah Silbiger
If Trump and his defense team pushed back against the Senate’s authority, it would result in an unprecedented showdown between the executive branch and the Congress, said Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law.

There were no similar fights over witnesses in the two previous presidential impeachment trials, he said. In the trial of former President Bill Clinton in 1999, Senate lawmakers struck a deal to hear from three witnesses. They complied, though they were deposed in private.

“This is all completely unchartered territory,” Seidman said.

On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would have the upper hand in a court fight over forcing witnesses to testify in the trial. “Those who are subject to these subpoenas will be expected to comply,” Schumer said. If they don’t, he added, it would be resolved with a “very prompt judicial review.”

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said the fact that the subpoenas would be signed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, would place additional pressure on witnesses to come forward.

“I think that if we had a bipartisan majority vote for a subpoena that was signed by the chief justice and directed to a senior administration [official], that would get through,” Coons said.

Democrats expressed confidence that, if there was any push back, a civil contempt of Congress suit filed in district court would move up quickly through the courts, and lead to a decision by the Supreme Court. But Democrats also said they did not have a specific plan in place yet for how to proceed if witnesses put up a fight.

“We’re not there. And I will tell you, the initial reaction from Republicans is not very encouraging on the witness front,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, said in a brief interview.

Of course, there is no guarantee the Senate will vote to call witnesses and documents. The speculation about a potential battle over subpoenas — a central topic on Capitol Hill as the trial has progressed — could be moot if the Senate rejects the measure.

Under the trial rules, senators can take up the matter after the House managers and White House legal team finish their oral arguments, and senators question both sides. A debate and vote on witnesses is expected to take place sometime next week.

One Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, has said publicly she would likely vote to call witnesses and obtain documents. Two other moderate Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, are seen as potential swing votes.

During a break in the trial Thursday night, members of the Republican leadership team sought out Collins and Murkowski on the Senate floor and held a lengthy discussion. Republicans have also been meeting as a group behind closed doors during breaks to discuss the trial. A person familiar with the talks said there was still no clear sign that enough Republicans would defect to force a vote on witnesses.

If they do, a bitter legal battle may follow.

Lisa Desjardins and Courtney Norris contributed reporting.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,634
52,223
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#69
Excerpted from The Atlantic:

Senators are thus constitutionally bound to follow what Justice White described as “a set of minimal procedures.” His opinion does not specify their exact contours, except to say that they must be the kinds of procedures a reasonable judge would regard as necessary components of a court trial. Because no reasonable judge would refuse to allow witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts to testify in an ordinary trial, it is the Constitution itself that establishes the right of House managers to call witnesses such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Both men are thought to have firsthand knowledge of the president’s purpose in holding up congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine after a phone call in which Trump asked the country’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.​

If the Dems believed that the Senate were constitutionally bound to call witnesses, the a suit should be filed.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,266
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#70
Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol. What I have said across the past half dozen posts
Not so fast, my friend.

You directly disagreed with the following post, which was clearly correct (thus the “exactly” response i gave is not what you’ve been saying in your past half dozen posts):

“You’re mistaken. The House, pursuant to an impeachment process, or government oversight, can go to court to compel the Executive Branch to produce witnesses and/or documents. It’s been done many times over the years. In fact that was part of Trump's argument in the Senate. If the House had wanted more witnesses or documents, they should have sued the President in court - like they did over McGann.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Aug 16, 2012
2,396
1,199
743
57
#71
Not so fast, my friend.

You directly disagreed with the following post (thus the “exactly” response i gave is not what you’ve been saying in the past dozen posts) :

“You’re mistaken. The House, pursuant to an impeachment process, or government oversight, can go to court to compel the Executive Branch to produce witnesses and/or documents. It’s been done many times over the years. In fact that was part of Trump's argument in the Senate. If the House had wanted more witnesses or documents, they should have sued the President in court - like they did over McGann.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Need to back up a little more.

I started in this discussion with a reply (post 46) to Rx's reply (#45) to your SENATE comment (#44).

Those three posts clearly establish we are talking about SENATE proceedings, ie, the trial itself.

The next couple of posts are me and Rx clarifying his position regarding the SENATE proceedings.

Then, in the post you noted above, you introduce House Democrats going to court to produce witnesses. This comment gives the distinct impression you are speaking of what House Democrats could do to push their case during the SENATE TRIAL. That is what we were talking about after all. You even referenced the Senate trial in the middle of the post. Intended or not, the comment reads that you believe the House Democrats...DURING THE SENATE TRIAL...could have taken matters to court to push their agenda of introducing new evidence and/or witnesses.

In my post 50, I referenced the Senate trial verbatim to which you replied in #52 that I found something incorrect. Yes I found something incorrect because your prior posts implied the House Dems could have filed for court opinions DURING THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. Again, it is apparent now that this was not your intent, but in context and how you stated it, that is the impression it left, or at least the impression I got.

I then attempted to let it slide but you then offered another comment in #56 about Congress obtaining the Nixon tapes, again, in context, while the discussion is, and always has been about the SENATE TRIAL. I keep capitalizing that because that is the crux of my comments. By your submittal of this example, how could it be assumed any other way than you are indicating these legal maneuvers could be performed during the SENATE TRIAL??? I pointed out that the tapes were obtained during the House's inquiry. My position has always been clearly stated that I am talking about the SENATE TRIAL, not the clown show that was the House's filing of charges.

Your post #58 then clarified your intent, although I disagree with the "implied" part, that you were not talking about the trial.

Cool, we got mixed up, again, I attempted to move on.

Nope.

You replied again with a snarky comment (#62) implying I cannot comprehend the written word, which as noted above, I had more than ample justification to believe you were of the opinion that the House Dems could take the Senate to court over how the trial is conducted.

I took the bait and responded with my own snarky comment (#64) that essentially mimicked yours.

During lunch, I see you agreed (#66) with Wrenhal's comment (#63) which prompted my WTF moment so I stated in #67 that Wrenhal's post was EXACTLY what I have been advocating from the onset. It has been. Every post I have made to this subject either directly states the Senate or the trial itself.

It is clear that I misunderstood your intent way back during the onset, but regardless, every post I have made has either directly referenced the Senate Trial and not the House inquiry/charges, or been so clearly implied there would be no other way to interpret them.

So again, we have gone full circle. Not sure why this keeps coming up.

We are good. Got mixed up, got it squared, now let us move on.
 
Last edited:

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,564
4,164
743
50
#72
From PBS:

Could a lengthy battle over witnesses be the next step in the Senate impeachment trial?
Politics Jan 24, 2020 4:14 PM EST

Senate Republicans have begun raising the prospect of a lengthy legal battle over witnesses in the impeachment trial, placing political pressure on Democrats to avoid an ugly confrontation with the White House that could push the proceedings into February, if not later.

The shift is an acknowledgment that Republicans may lose a vote next week to subpoena witnesses and documents that could reveal new details about President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to intervene on his behalf in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Democrats need four Republicans to join them in calling for additional testimony and material from witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who followed Trump’s order not to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

In interviews, Republicans warned that subpoenaing witnesses could spark a months-long court fight if the White House responds by invoking executive privilege to block officials from testifying in the trial.

“We would be here until early summer, going through that and litigating it,” said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. By pushing for more witnesses, Democrats are trying to “stretch this process for months and months and months in the Senate and dominate the election with impeachment talk,” Lankford said.

Other Republicans welcomed a legal fight. The White House should invoke executive privilege to protect sensitive material and conversations between the president and senior advisers, said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc. “I think the president should jealously guard the separation of powers and executive privilege. I expect him to do that.”

Trump ordered officials not to testify in the House impeachment investigation, and several did not comply with congressional subpoenas. The State Department and Office of Management and Budget, among other agencies, also refused to hand over documents related to the inquiry.

Senate Democrats are now seeking testimony from Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and two other officials.

Bolton has said he would testify. But he has not said if he would share conversations he may have had with the president about the White House decision to withhold military aid and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine. It’s also unclear what Bolton would say about Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son Hunter.

In private, some Republicans acknowledge they’re unsure how Trump would respond to Senate subpoenas that could put Bolton, Mulvaney and other top officials in the spotlight. The president has been highly critical of the impeachment proceedings, and is not known for backing down from a legal fight.

Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) speaks to reporters near the Senate subway in the U.S. Capitol, surrounded by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC), James Lankford (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY), during a dinner recess on the third day of the Senate impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Sarah Silbiger - RC20ME9L1Z5ASenator Joni Ernst (R-IA) speaks to reporters surrounded by Senators Tim Scott (R-SC), James Lankford (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY), during a dinner recess on the third day of the Senate impeachment trial on January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Sarah Silbiger
If Trump and his defense team pushed back against the Senate’s authority, it would result in an unprecedented showdown between the executive branch and the Congress, said Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law.

There were no similar fights over witnesses in the two previous presidential impeachment trials, he said. In the trial of former President Bill Clinton in 1999, Senate lawmakers struck a deal to hear from three witnesses. They complied, though they were deposed in private.

“This is all completely unchartered territory,” Seidman said.

On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would have the upper hand in a court fight over forcing witnesses to testify in the trial. “Those who are subject to these subpoenas will be expected to comply,” Schumer said. If they don’t, he added, it would be resolved with a “very prompt judicial review.”

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said the fact that the subpoenas would be signed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, would place additional pressure on witnesses to come forward.

“I think that if we had a bipartisan majority vote for a subpoena that was signed by the chief justice and directed to a senior administration [official], that would get through,” Coons said.

Democrats expressed confidence that, if there was any push back, a civil contempt of Congress suit filed in district court would move up quickly through the courts, and lead to a decision by the Supreme Court. But Democrats also said they did not have a specific plan in place yet for how to proceed if witnesses put up a fight.

“We’re not there. And I will tell you, the initial reaction from Republicans is not very encouraging on the witness front,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the second-highest ranking Senate Democrat, said in a brief interview.

Of course, there is no guarantee the Senate will vote to call witnesses and documents. The speculation about a potential battle over subpoenas — a central topic on Capitol Hill as the trial has progressed — could be moot if the Senate rejects the measure.

Under the trial rules, senators can take up the matter after the House managers and White House legal team finish their oral arguments, and senators question both sides. A debate and vote on witnesses is expected to take place sometime next week.

One Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, has said publicly she would likely vote to call witnesses and obtain documents. Two other moderate Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, are seen as potential swing votes.

During a break in the trial Thursday night, members of the Republican leadership team sought out Collins and Murkowski on the Senate floor and held a lengthy discussion. Republicans have also been meeting as a group behind closed doors during breaks to discuss the trial. A person familiar with the talks said there was still no clear sign that enough Republicans would defect to force a vote on witnesses.

If they do, a bitter legal battle may follow.

Lisa Desjardins and Courtney Norris contributed reporting.
A lot of blustery words to say, we can only get more witnesses if it's voted on.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,266
285
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#73
Not so fast, my friend.

You directly disagreed with the following post (thus the “exactly” response i gave is not what you’ve been saying in the past dozen posts) :

“You’re mistaken. The House, pursuant to an impeachment process, or government oversight, can go to court to compel the Executive Branch to produce witnesses and/or documents. It’s been done many times over the years. In fact that was part of Trump's argument in the Senate. If the House had wanted more witnesses or documents, they should have sued the President in court - like they did over McGann.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Need to back up a little more.

I started in this discussion with a reply (post 46) to Rx's reply (#45) to your SENATE comment (#44).

Those three posts clearly establish we are talking about SENATE proceedings, ie, the trial itself.

The next couple of posts are me and Rx clarifying his position regarding the SENATE proceedings.

Then, in the post you noted above, you introduce House Democrats going to court to produce witnesses. This comment gives the distinct impression you are speaking of what House Democrats could do to push their case during the SENATE TRIAL. That is what we were talking about after all. You even referenced the Senate trial in the middle of the post. Intended or not, the comment reads that you believe the House Democrats...DURING THE SENATE TRIAL...could have taken matters to court to push their agenda of introducing new evidence and/or witnesses.

In my post 50, I referenced the Senate trial verbatim to which you replied in #52 that I found something incorrect. Yes I found something incorrect because your prior posts implied the House Dems could have filed for court opinions DURING THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. Again, it is apparent now that this was not your intent, but in context and how you stated it, that is the impression it left, or at least the impression I got.

I then attempted to let it slide but you then offered another comment in #56 about Congress obtaining the Nixon tapes, again, in context, while the discussion is, and always has been about the SENATE TRIAL. I keep capitalizing that because that is the crux of my comments. By your submittal of this example, how could it be assumed any other way than you are indicating these legal maneuvers could be performed during the SENATE TRIAL??? I pointed out that the tapes were obtained during the House's inquiry. My position has always been clearly stated that I am talking about the SENATE TRIAL, not the clown show that was the House's filing of charges.

Your post #58 then clarified your intent, although I disagree with the "implied" part, that you were not talking about the trial.

Cool, we got mixed up, again, I attempted to move on.

Nope.

You replied again with a snarky comment (#62) implying I cannot comprehend the written word, which as noted above, I had more than ample justification to believe you were of the opinion that the House Dems could take the Senate to court over how the trial is conducted.

I took the bait and responded with my own snarky comment (#64) that essentially mimicked yours.

During lunch, I see you agreed (#66) with Wrenhal's comment (#63) which prompted my WTF moment so I stated in #67 that Wrenhal's post was EXACTLY what I have been advocating from the onset. It has been. Every post I have made to this subject either directly states the Senate or the trial itself.

It is clear that I misunderstood your intent way back during the onset, but regardless, every post I have made has either directly referenced the Senate Trial and not the House inquiry/charges, or been so clearly implied there would be no other way to interpret them.

So again, we have gone full circle. Not sure why this keeps coming up.

We are good. Got mixed up, got it squared, now let us move on.
FWIW, it keeps coming up because you keep agreeing to disagree to agree.

My post #49 clearly and accurately reset and refocused the discussion as to WHOM could have taken the President to court and why they (the House) probably did not. That is where you got disconnected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk