d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Senate Impeachment Trial 2020
Prev11516171819134Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
Jan 23 2020 12:01pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 23 Jan 2020 10:50)
House Democrats already called witnesses, and the evidence they gathered was deemed sufficient to impeach the president. I dont see why this same evidence now shouldnt be good enough.


New evidence has arisen. The OMB has said that the Trump administration unlawfully withheld funds from Ukraine. And now the Senate is rejecting OMB subpoenas.

I'm tempted at this point to say Democrats should just go the other way with this. Just hold the vote without really going through all the details and public debate and see how it plays out with the American public.

A Pew and Reuters poll came out yesterday. Pew: 51% of Americans showed Trump should be removed from office by the Senate (45% did not). Reuters/Ipsos: 72% agreed that the trial “should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify,” including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans.
Member
Posts: 53,368
Joined: Sep 2 2004
Gold: 57.00
Jan 23 2020 12:05pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ 23 Jan 2020 13:01)
New evidence has arisen. The OMB has said that the Trump administration unlawfully withheld funds from Ukraine. And now the Senate is rejecting OMB subpoenas.

I'm tempted at this point to say Democrats should just go the other way with this. Just hold the vote without really going through all the details and public debate and see how it plays out with the American public.

A Pew and Reuters poll came out yesterday. Pew: 51% of Americans showed Trump should be removed from office by the Senate (45% did not). Reuters/Ipsos: 72% agreed that the trial “should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify,” including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans.


That was the whole basis of the impeachment inquiry so how is this new evidence. Ukrarine got their funds anyway and all the public got is an already publicly-available video of Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine in exchange for not withholding aid
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Jan 23 2020 12:13pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jan 23 2020 12:48pm)
Democrats are saying Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Republicans are saying that isn't true. Democrats want to call witnesses under oath. Republicans don't want that.

Without witnesses under oath, Republicans can say that the Democrats' claims are false without ever knowing the truth.

Republicans are having their cake and eating it in this case. They say that the Democrats' claims are false, but they also aren't willing to go through the details or allow witnesses under oath to speak.

You can have an 'airtight' case blocked by not ever actually going through the case.


The House Democrats are saying they have already proven that Trump committed an impeachment worthy offense.

Ok, let's see it and allow the Senate to judge for themselves.

The truth is that the Democrats ran a shoddy, partisan House investigation that hasn't moved the needle and convinced anyone not already convinced that Trump is some imminent threat to the Republic that can't serve out his term. There's no reason to allow them to run a partisan hit job in Senate as well.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jan 23 2020 12:13pm
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
Jan 23 2020 12:14pm
Quote (excellence @ 23 Jan 2020 11:05)
That was the whole basis of the impeachment inquiry so how is this new evidence. Ukrarine got their funds anyway and all the public got is an already publicly-available video of Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine in exchange for not withholding aid


We now have proof of the unlawful behavior from the OMB. The Senate is blocking the subpoena of said proof.

The GOP and Republican Senate can say all they want how no law was actually broken and there isn't enough proof, but they are blocking the full extent of said proof from the Senate trial.

The case has been laid out, the majority of Americans support removal or at the very least calling more witnesses, but the GOP is essentially blocking everything at this point.

This is a farce of a trial.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Jan 23 2020 12:28pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jan 23 2020 01:14pm)
We now have proof of the unlawful behavior from the OMB. The Senate is blocking the subpoena of said proof.

The GOP and Republican Senate can say all they want how no law was actually broken and there isn't enough proof, but they are blocking the full extent of said proof from the Senate trial.

The case has been laid out, the majority of Americans support removal or at the very least calling more witnesses, but the GOP is essentially blocking everything at this point.

This is a farce of a trial.


RCP's average is weighted to "No", but besides the point. We don't remove presidents based on popular vote majority.

A majority of the Senate does not think this constitutes an impeachable offense. It's a political decision, and they've made it.

The House decided that the evidence they had was enough to prove guilt, there's no reason to call for more evidence and witnesses above what the House used in their initial vote.
Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Jan 23 2020 12:37pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jan 23 2020 01:01pm)
New evidence has arisen. The OMB has said that the Trump administration unlawfully withheld funds from Ukraine. And now the Senate is rejecting OMB subpoenas.

I'm tempted at this point to say Democrats should just go the other way with this. Just hold the vote without really going through all the details and public debate and see how it plays out with the American public.

A Pew and Reuters poll came out yesterday. Pew: 51% of Americans showed Trump should be removed from office by the Senate (45% did not). Reuters/Ipsos: 72% agreed that the trial “should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify,” including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans.

you are misquoting what was said.
https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564#mt=e-report
Quote
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.


even if you want put the blame "soley" on President Trump, there is a statutory remedy to this.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim
Quote
§686. Reports by Comptroller General
(a) Failure to transmit special message
If the Comptroller General finds that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States—

(1) is to establish a reserve or proposes to defer budget authority with respect to which the President is required to transmit a special message under section 683 or 684 of this title; or

(2) has ordered, permitted, or approved the establishment of such a reserve or a deferral of budget authority;


and that the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral, the Comptroller General shall make a report on such reserve or deferral and any available information concerning it to both Houses of Congress. The provisions of sections 682 to 688 of this title shall apply with respect to such reserve or deferral in the same manner and with the same effect as if such report of the Comptroller General were a special message transmitted by the President under section 683 or 684 of this title, and, for purposes of sections 682 to 688 of this title, such report shall be considered a special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this title.

(b) Incorrect classification of special message
If the President has transmitted a special message to both Houses of Congress in accordance with section 683 or 684 of this title, and the Comptroller General believes that the President so transmitted the special message in accordance with one of those sections when the special message should have been transmitted in accordance with the other of those sections, the Comptroller General shall make a report to both Houses of the Congress setting forth his reasons.

Quote
§687. Suits by Comptroller General
If, under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation. No civil action shall be brought by the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration of 25 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress following the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.

tl:dr - worst case scenario
the Comptroller General (who is the decision maker for GAO) makes a statement on behalf of the President, if there is a lacking "reserve" or "deferral" for with-holding aid. that becomes the reserve or deferral.
at this point, if aid is still being held up 25 days after the reserve/deferral. a civil suit is brought against any federal agency, employee, officer, etc. etc., "if" budget authority is still not available for obligation... to make it available.
and... it was already sent.


this is a battle of separation of powers. as seen in prior history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
Quote
Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office.

Quote
However, the procedure set up by the Act was cumbersome. All recent presidents supported the restoration of the impoundment power, including Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Politicians such as John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Jeb Hensarling, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, Judd Gregg and Paul Ryan also supported the restoration of the power.[7]


oh and day 3 started:


This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jan 23 2020 12:39pm
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
Jan 23 2020 01:12pm
My point is that the GOP's goalposts keep moving.

Not enough Americans support impeachment - not true
No unlawful behavior was actually comitted - not true
Not enough Americans support removal - not true
Not enough Republicans support witnesses in the Senate trial - not true

The GOP is now at the point of saying, well, unlawful behavior was committed, and the President probably did withhold funds from a foreign country to investigate a political opponent, but even though most Americans, including Republicans, want to hear more about all this in the Senate, we don't think it's bad enough to convict and we need to move on.

You guys gonna be cool when AOC holds aid from Syria in 2028 for some dirt on Nikki Haley? Is this the precedent we want to set, or is it just politically convenient at this particular time to do nothing about it?
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jan 23 2020 01:16pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jan 23 2020 01:12pm)
My point is that the GOP's goalposts keep moving.

Not enough Americans support impeachment - not true
No unlawful behavior was actually comitted - not true
Not enough Americans support removal - not true
Not enough Republicans support witnesses in the Senate trial - not true

The GOP is now at the point of saying, well, unlawful behavior was committed, and the President probably did withhold funds from a foreign country to investigate a political opponent, but even though most Americans, including Republicans, want to hear more about all this in the Senate, we don't think it's bad enough to convict and we need to move on.

You guys gonna be cool when AOC holds aid from Syria in 2028 for some dirt on Nikki Haley? Is this the precedent we want to set, or is it just politically convenient at this particular time to do nothing about it?




From the third page


Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 18 2020 08:57pm)
That can't happen
It can happen but there's no proof it's happening
There's proof it's happening, but it isn't a problem
It's a problem but shouldn't do anything about it <---- We are here
Okay we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do
Something can be done but we can't get the political will to do it anyway
Oh, the problem got solved? GIVE ME CREDIT!


Member
Posts: 26,025
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 5,300.00
Warn: 10%
Jan 23 2020 01:25pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jan 23 2020 02:12pm)
My point is that the GOP's goalposts keep moving.

Not enough Americans support impeachment - not true
No unlawful behavior was actually comitted - not true
Not enough Americans support removal - not true
Not enough Republicans support witnesses in the Senate trial - not true

The GOP is now at the point of saying, well, unlawful behavior was committed, and the President probably did withhold funds from a foreign country to investigate a political opponent, but even though most Americans, including Republicans, want to hear more about all this in the Senate, we don't think it's bad enough to convict and we need to move on.

You guys gonna be cool when AOC holds aid from Syria in 2028 for some dirt on Nikki Haley? Is this the precedent we want to set, or is it just politically convenient at this particular time to do nothing about it?

democrats are in no position to talk about normalcies and precedent. especially coming to the handling of this impeachment.
what evidence was given to suggest this was to get a "political opponent" anyway?
Member
Posts: 2,660
Joined: Mar 28 2010
Gold: 0.00
Jan 23 2020 01:30pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jan 23 2020 01:12pm)
My point is that the GOP's goalposts keep moving.

Not enough Americans support impeachment - not true
No unlawful behavior was actually comitted - not true
Not enough Americans support removal - not true
Not enough Republicans support witnesses in the Senate trial - not true

The GOP is now at the point of saying, well, unlawful behavior was committed, and the President probably did withhold funds from a foreign country to investigate a political opponent, but even though most Americans, including Republicans, want to hear more about all this in the Senate, we don't think it's bad enough to convict and we need to move on.

You guys gonna be cool when AOC holds aid from Syria in 2028 for some dirt on Nikki Haley? Is this the precedent we want to set, or is it just politically convenient at this particular time to do nothing about it?


Is that where the GOP is? As far as I can tell they are still on no crime and insufficient evidence.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11516171819134Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll