| Blogs > GavinLS2 > The Heretic |
|
Best Reason for Actions Taken by the Senate. There are several reasons for Republican Senators to refuse to allow witnesses at the Trump impeachment trial. But what I consider the most important yet not mentioned enough, is that the Dems in the House didn't properly do their job, and by taking such weak and unfairly enacted impeachment articles to the Senate, and trying to force the Senate to go along with them, would set a precedent that would undermine the balance of power between the House and the Senate. Were that to happen it would give the House, rather than the whole Congress further legislative power. It would lead to a breakdown of the Impeachment powers outlined in the Constitution, and the end result would mean our system would devolve into a parliamentary system like the UK, rather than the more stable government that the Founding Fathers wanted. In order to save the Constitution, the Senate was obligated to fight them in every way possible and on every issue. Just like Trump would have liked a more involving trial, many in the Senate would have too. But just as Trump resisted subpoenas in an attempt to force the House to bring the question before the Supreme Court for their input on the matter and thus forcing the Dems to abide by due process, in order to defend the rights of executive privilege, and thereby the co-equal power of the Executive branch for future Presidents. I hope I explained this clearly. It's a confusing thing for many people, but a vital concern for the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were geniuses. They set up a system whereby there are no limits upon the number and content with which the Executive branch could assert Executive Privilege, thus forcing the question to always be a question for the Courts to decide. In so doing, the House would have to demonstrate to the Supreme Court why they were justified in issuing subpoenas. In this case, they were reluctant to follow such procedures because of the great likelihood they would lose before the assembled Justices. |
||||
|
Those who like Trump will agree with this, and those who don't like Trump are likely to disagree. But this post may shed light on why Alan Dershowitz, renowned Democratic liberal Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, who voted for Hillary, chose to so vehemently defend Trump. His concern wasn't so much on behalf of Trump. Rather, he was fighting to protect the balances of powers outlined in the Constitution.
| |||
2/1/2020 9:44 am |
I can't stand Trump but you are sadly mistaken here. The bottom line is the failure to honor subpoenas. This doesn't need to filter through courts. They proved their case and you haven't Gavin.
| |||
|
Poor blower. Punked by his Dem Masters and their media puppets again. Airtight case, right? Schiff has incontrovertible evidence, right? They have a dossier. They have a phone call. They have a whistleblower. You like taking it in the can WAY too much, blower.
| |||
2/1/2020 10:46 am |
I can't stand Trump but you are sadly mistaken here. The bottom line is the failure to honor subpoenas. This doesn't need to filter through courts. They proved their case and you haven't Gavin. THE HOUSE NEVER ISSUED A subpoena to any one. why not. 75 % of all hearings were held in secure area. selective member present. WHY DID THE HOUSE NOT HAVE THIS ALL IN OPEN , CALL WIINESSES. ALL COULD HAVE BEEN HEARD. REPUBS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL ANY ONE NONE NADA. IT IS NOT THEW SENATES JOB TO CREATE NOR INVESTIGATE IMPEACHMENT. SO GET OVER IT. DECIDE WHO U WILL SUPPORT. SEND MONEY. MAKE PHONE CALLS AND YARD SIGNS. OH YES VOTE!!!!!!!
| |||
|
My purpose in posting this blog was NEITHER to condemn nor excuse any Republicans (Including Trump) or Democrats. I posted it merely to explain an important concern that the Senate, (whether Dem or Repub majority) needed to be concerned about, in order to defend the co-equal Constitutional powers of each branch. I was making no claims about Trump's guilt or innocence.
| |||
|
I'm quoting Skariff here from his latest blog post: "The Court acknowledged the validity of these interests and that the president was entitled to a degree of executive privilege. This privilege was not determined to be absolute. In this case, the interest of President Nixon in keeping his communications secret conflicted with the interests of the judicial branch in providing a full and fair trial. A fair trial required full disclosure of all facts and relevant information. The justices asserted that the interests of the president must be balanced against the interests of the judicial branch when these interests conflict." From this, I think Skariff would agree with me that the Court did not say that the House had absolute powers of subpoenas either. Only that when there was a dispute between Congress (in this case the House) and POTUS, then it had to be assessed by the Court. Ken Starr had to go thru this procedure numerous times leading up to the impeachment case against Bill Clinton. He never lost. In each situation he had to merely demonstrate why the subpoena's were legitimately compelling for the Courts to agree. Where Skariff and I may disagree, is on whether the Courts would find the demand for subpoenas legitimately compelling. Maybe they would have and maybe they wouldn't. But for now, we will never know.
| |||
|
Those who like Trump will agree with this, and those who don't like Trump are likely to disagree. But this post may shed light on why Alan Dershowitz, renowned Democratic liberal Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, who voted for Hillary, chose to so vehemently defend Trump. His concern wasn't so much on behalf of Trump. Rather, he was fighting to protect the balances of powers outlined in the Constitution. Dershowitz also vehemently defended OJ Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein......Did you hear his closing speech?.....Definitely not brilliant.
| |||
2/1/2020 1:06 pm |
Dershowitz also vehemently defended OJ Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein......Did you hear his closing speech?.....Definitely not brilliant. I have many friends that are lawyers here in mobile. 3 are listed as best defense attorney in state plus 2 have the ability to argue in front of the high cart. all three represent or have. some of the scum of the earth. but. their oath asa juris prevent them for turning any one. and yes all 3 are very expensive one charges 10grand just to represent in a bond hearing and arraignment . all three will make up to 200k defending any one charged with capital murder. with alan d did a good or bad closing. I meani your opinion. he helped trumps case. you want to blame any one for the failure of the impeachment. blame Nancy p. , alan Schiff. they has the time, the set up to call any an allwintness. . theru reason was they didnt want trump goeing to the high crt with his argument fro exc priiv. so I tis over. now we get on with thing s that matter, if u are here in us, maje sure vote nov3 2020. f u reall y live in Canada then call folks in usa,. talke to them. impress upon tehm to vote trump out. noting u or me will decide any thing . NOV 3 WILL. u can piizz ans moan, bu that aint helping berni, helen or joe to get elcted.
| |||
|
he was then a practicing attorney . meaning, he has a a law office. he made money representing clients . the three u mentioned. paid him to represent them. I have many friends that are lawyers here in mobile. 3 are listed as best defense attorney in state plus 2 have the ability to argue in front of the high cart. all three represent or have. some of the scum of the earth. but. their oath asa juris prevent them for turning any one. and yes all 3 are very expensive one charges 10grand just to represent in a bond hearing and arraignment . all three will make up to 200k defending any one charged with capital murder. with alan d did a good or bad closing. I meani your opinion. he helped trumps case. you want to blame any one for the failure of the impeachment. blame Nancy p. , alan Schiff. they has the time, the set up to call any an allwintness. . theru reason was they didnt want trump goeing to the high crt with his argument fro exc priiv. so I tis over. now we get on with thing s that matter, if u are here in us, maje sure vote nov3 2020. f u reall y live in Canada then call folks in usa,. talke to them. impress upon tehm to vote trump out. noting u or me will decide any thing . NOV 3 WILL. u can piizz ans moan, bu that aint helping berni, helen or joe to get elcted.
| |||
2/1/2020 7:26 pm |
Gavin, I think the "we're not going to do your job for you" defense was the weakest most ridiculous of all the Republican arguments. Because prosecutors and defense attorneys often work together in public interest. "He did it and we don't give a rat's ass" is the argument that works. It wouldn't have bothered me if the House had gone the other way and Trump had to slime his way through the courts fighting the good fight to suppress evidence against him. Laugh now. That said .. the House may have been wise put Republican Senators ON RECORD WITH A VOTE regarding witnesses and documents. 75% of us wanted it and Republican Senates couldn't deliver it …...……...
| |||
|
Considering only political concerns for the advancement solely of one Party over another, I'd agree. But for the preservation of the Constitution and balance of power between the three branches of government I disagree. That was the purpose of my blog here. Not to defend Trump, but to defend the main reason any politician from any Party SHOULD, if they were putting the Constitution ahead of their own political advancement and that of their party.
| |||
|
Let me give a few thought about this Although Congress is two house..It can only STAND as ONE. Executive privilege is not a law..It's an exception to a law. As an exception it must be requested and reasonably explained.. The burden of proof on executive privilege falls to the executive. Trump has not requested, proven, or explain any invoked executive privilege, executive immunity or absolute immunity.. A judge must weight the evidence as to relevancy of the charges.. The jury must hear all relevant evidence. The SENATE was both judge and jury.. and against their oath... did neither. Trump famous circular argument.. on Subpoenas.. And the ONLY reason he thinks it can work.. Trump can not be indicted.. so when facing the court he simply tells them what he wants to say.... because the courts can't do anything about it. When that is addressed in the courts. Trump says.... Congress can not rely on subpoenas..the punitive action can not by avoiding subpoenas.... it MUST BE Done through IMPEACHMENT So impeachment must be done without proper investigation, proper evidence, or a proper trial.. As such Trump can never be imprisoned or impeached.
| |||
|
Is it too much to ask of a President to explain himself to The American people..To explain what he is doing and how he is doing it.. In regards to the impeachment. Trump's only explanation is fight corruption.. His lack of explanation as to how he is doing it.. makes the explanation unreasonable. Trump has failed to explain Rudy Guillianni..From at least two year .. Why Rudy Gullianni.. was even involved in the Ukraine.. What prompted Trump to give Rudy Gullianni...His mission IN THE UKRAINE, and what exactly was Rudy's mission? That the State Department, the Ambassador, The FBI, The CIA, and the DOJ could NOT accomplish. Trump, a couple of years ago.. had a meeting with Putin in Helsinki.. It was secret and it has been maintained as secret . and it will remain secret...Like WE don't need an explanation, and don't deserve an explanation. sometimes these thing need to be secret, and revealed at a later date.. the purpose, and the results could be compromised if known AT THE TIME... But I seem to know that time will NOT come..and Never through Trump himself. I am certainly not in a position to charge Trump with Treason, bribery, extortion, a shadow government, and conspiracy.. But you see it's not up to me to charge it..It up to Trump to defend it.. Without explanation, one has little choice but to accept it as true.
| |||
|
I'm surprised that the Republicans haven't claimed papal infallibility for Mango.
| |||
|
I'm surprised that the Republicans haven't claimed papal infallibility for Mango.  
| |||
2/3/2020 5:17 pm |
Rentier. LOL
|
×
×