I am really trying to understand why Dems have not tried legal action to get key witnesses to testify. Is it just to not let this process spill into the election cycle? It doesn't make sense to me to give up the opportunity to have a couple of key people destroy trump in a hearing. I am assuming that the judge presiding over impeachment in the senate will have to take some action in this regard, hence Dems haven't acted yet.
mom says wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I reject that. We have U3 and U6 numbers that apply, and nothing has been "tweaked".
You are WRONG. The requirements for considering whether people can be considered unemployed are different under Trump. It is much easier for them to drop people out of consideration.
Untrue. Under every administration there is a change. Insignificant. There is a lot to be upset with Trump over, but trying to paint this economy in any way as bad is disingenuous at best.
We agree that you’re struggling...
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
To be honest with you, I am still struggling with this.
I am no legal scholar but when someone as respected as
Johnathon Turley, who IS a Democrat and fairly liberal, says that it was not an impeachable offense, then that gives me pause. The other 3 "legal scholars" are partisan hacks. They are radical leftists who would never defend the Constitution unless it means removing Trump as president. You really want to remove a duly elected president over a single phone call? Should not the bar be much higher?
Turley DID NOT say it was not an impeachable offense.
Turley's main arguments were:
1. The process is going too fast so we are being too quick to judge.
2. The Democrats need to go through the courts to force testimony from administration officials and turnover of documents.
In other words, Turley is not excusing Tiny at all. Turley compared Tiny to the devil. Turley just thinks Democrats should not impeach without more facts.
I will look for his actual testimony but he was inundated with threatening messages after his testimony. Is that how you Liberals roll? You don't like what someone says so you resort to threatening messages? Did that radical leftist lady get one threatening message? I don't think so. But Turley, the only fair-minded scholar - has people hoping he is killed. Just a shame.
Trollminator wrote:
I am really trying to understand why Dems have not tried legal action to get key witnesses to testify. Is it just to not let this process spill into the election cycle? It doesn't make sense to me to give up the opportunity to have a couple of key people destroy trump in a hearing. I am assuming that the judge presiding over impeachment in the senate will have to take some action in this regard, hence Dems haven't acted yet.
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems to be that courts take months to solve these things and the Dems want to move quickly. So instead of waiting, they're going now with what they have , and will keep investigating next year.
So I think the Dems are using the courts to force testimony, but the Dems don't want to wait months for the cases to resolve.
the problem with the judge oveseeing the trial is that apparently the Senate can overrule him. So Roberts may say ' you are not allowed to put Joe Biden in the witness stand' but Mitch can overrule that by putting it to a senate vote.
Trollminator wrote:
I am really trying to understand why Dems have not tried legal action to get key witnesses to testify. Is it just to not let this process spill into the election cycle? It doesn't make sense to me to give up the opportunity to have a couple of key people destroy trump in a hearing. I am assuming that the judge presiding over impeachment in the senate will have to take some action in this regard, hence Dems haven't acted yet.
This whole subpoena thing has been screwed to no end. During the Obama administration, all were ignoring subpoenas. So too are those in the Trump administration. The subpoena power is one of the best powers that Congress has but everyone is scoffing at it. Legal action? That would take years to come to any conclusion. Congress has the power of oversight but that right is being ignored. Just a shame.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I am really trying to understand why Dems have not tried legal action to get key witnesses to testify. Is it just to not let this process spill into the election cycle? It doesn't make sense to me to give up the opportunity to have a couple of key people destroy trump in a hearing. I am assuming that the judge presiding over impeachment in the senate will have to take some action in this regard, hence Dems haven't acted yet.
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems to be that courts take months to solve these things and the Dems want to move quickly. So instead of waiting, they're going now with what they have , and will keep investigating next year.
So I think the Dems are using the courts to force testimony, but the Dems don't want to wait months for the cases to resolve.
the problem with the judge oveseeing the trial is that apparently the Senate can overrule him. So Roberts may say ' you are not allowed to put Joe Biden in the witness stand' but Mitch can overrule that by putting it to a senate vote.
most likely there will be behind the scenes haggling. The Rs will say 'ok, if you put on Bolton, we'll put on Biden.'
So the Dems will agree not to put on Bolton and the Rs will agree not to put on Biden. That kind of thing.
in previous impeachment trials, the chief justice tried not to insert his decisions much into the proceedings.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I am really trying to understand why Dems have not tried legal action to get key witnesses to testify. Is it just to not let this process spill into the election cycle? It doesn't make sense to me to give up the opportunity to have a couple of key people destroy trump in a hearing. I am assuming that the judge presiding over impeachment in the senate will have to take some action in this regard, hence Dems haven't acted yet.
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems to be that courts take months to solve these things and the Dems want to move quickly. So instead of waiting, they're going now with what they have , and will keep investigating next year.
So I think the Dems are using the courts to force testimony, but the Dems don't want to wait months for the cases to resolve.
the problem with the judge oveseeing the trial is that apparently the Senate can overrule him. So Roberts may say ' you are not allowed to put Joe Biden in the witness stand' but Mitch can overrule that by putting it to a senate vote.
If this impeachment moves on to March the pressure will be intense to end it or have a conclusion to it. No one wants this hanging over the country with 5 or 6 months to the election.
Sally Vix wrote:
Who wants to go to English language classes when it is so Effing cold in St. Petersburg?
English language classes are only offered in St. Petersburg? That is interesting.
agip wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems to be that courts take months to solve these things and the Dems want to move quickly. So instead of waiting, they're going now with what they have , and will keep investigating next year.
So I think the Dems are using the courts to force testimony, but the Dems don't want to wait months for the cases to resolve.
the problem with the judge oveseeing the trial is that apparently the Senate can overrule him. So Roberts may say ' you are not allowed to put Joe Biden in the witness stand' but Mitch can overrule that by putting it to a senate vote.
most likely there will be behind the scenes haggling. The Rs will say 'ok, if you put on Bolton, we'll put on Biden.'
So the Dems will agree not to put on Bolton and the Rs will agree not to put on Biden. That kind of thing.
in previous impeachment trials, the chief justice tried not to insert his decisions much into the proceedings.
I might be mistaken but the impeachment proceeding is exclusively under the House and Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in the matter.
This is how Liberals roll ...
A law professor called by Republicans as a witness in this week’s impeachment proceedings said he’s received threats over his testimony.
Jonathan Turley said the nasty messages began rolling in before he could even finish telling the House Judiciary Committee that impeaching President Trump was a bad idea on Wednesday.
“My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee,” Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, tweeted on Thursday. “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.”
In his testimony, the legal expert expressed concerns that lawmakers were “lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and abundance of anger.”
“Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? Will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” Turley said. “This is not how you impeach an American president.”
Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the whistleblower whose complaint about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky triggered the impeachment inquiry, responded to Turley’s tweet.
“Seriously. I’d take demands to be fired over death threats any day,” Zaid replied.
Enlarge ImageNoah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, Jonathan Turley, Michael Gerhardt
12
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.AP
FILED UNDER DONALD TRUMP , TESTIMONY , THREATS , TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Copy
READ NEXT Doctors revive woman whose heart stopped for six hours
SPONSORED STORIES
Translators Baffled: Tiny Device Translates 43+ Language Instantly
Translators Baffled: Tiny Device Translates 43+ Language Instantly
tech4-you.com
If You're Over 40 And Own A Computer, This Game Is A Must-Have!
If You're Over 40 And Own A Computer, This Game Is A Must-Have!
Raid: Shadow Legends
Chiropractors Baffled: Simple Stretch Relieves Years of Back Pain (Watch)
Chiropractors Baffled: Simple Stretch Relieves Years of Back Pain (Watch)
healthbenefits.vip
Recommended by
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
New York Post
NFL host Jane Slater: I caught my ex cheating thanks to FitBit
Page Six
NFL correspondent Jane Slater caught her ex cheating via Fitbit
New York Post
Former Amazon exec’s wife Abril Pérez Sagaón beaten to pulp in...
New York Post
Subway sex duo caught on video in second subterranean romp
Decider
Robert De Niro Defends Anna Paquin’s Role in ‘The Irishman’:...
Mansion Global
Trump Elector Asks $44.5 Million for Mansion Near Mar-a-Lago
SHARE SELECTION
TRENDING NOW
ON NYPOST.COM
This story has been shared 125,055 times.125,055
Polish politician makes what appears to be 'gun' gesture at Trump's back
This story has been shared 57,822 times.57,822
GOP witness threatened after testimony in impeachment hearings
This story has been shared 46,998 times.46,998
Disorder in the court: Judge accused of frat-house antics, staffer threesomes
WHAT TO SHOP NOW
How to pre-order your Baby Yoda 'Star Wars' plush toy
5 Theragun massager alternatives
Sally Vix wrote:
I might be mistaken but the impeachment proceeding is exclusively under the House and Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in the matter.
Yes you are mistaken (yet again). The justice presides over the case in the Senate and thus CAN have a lot of say. For example, he may compel those witnesses to actually obey the law and testify.
RU saying? wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Who wants to go to English language classes when it is so Effing cold in St. Petersburg?
English language classes are only offered in St. Petersburg? That is interesting.
If you leave in St. Petersburg, are you really going to go to english classes in Murmansk? Or Ак-Довурак?
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
most likely there will be behind the scenes haggling. The Rs will say 'ok, if you put on Bolton, we'll put on Biden.'
So the Dems will agree not to put on Bolton and the Rs will agree not to put on Biden. That kind of thing.
in previous impeachment trials, the chief justice tried not to insert his decisions much into the proceedings.
I might be mistaken but the impeachment proceeding is exclusively under the House and Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in the matter.
per the Constitution, the chief justice of the Supreme Court oversees the senate trial.
in the past this has meant ruling on technicalities and procedure...not moving the path of the trial.
This one is for agip and all the other "moderates" and "realists". He will hate it but this is the right policy for America.
https://newrepublic.com/article/155901/health-care-debate-baked-flimsy-media-narratives
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I might be mistaken but the impeachment proceeding is exclusively under the House and Senate. The Supreme Court has no say in the matter.
Yes you are mistaken (yet again). The justice presides over the case in the Senate and thus CAN have a lot of say. For example, he may compel those witnesses to actually obey the law and testify.
The Chief Justice presides over the impeachment proceeding. NOT the Supreme Court. He individually presides over it. The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. So, I was not wrong.
Sally Vix wrote:
Every post by Flagpole:
"Shows how stupid you are"
"you are a man of no character"
"you are a bad person"
"you are an idiot"
"you are a bad person with no character"
Flagpole, why do all of your posts say such negative things and none of mine do. What kind of person with "good character" would repeatedly and with such gusto hurl repeated insults on here at someone who is trying to engage in honest discourse? All of your posts have numerous insults. None of mine do. Do you think that MAYBE you ought to look inside your soul and decide that having a little bit of kindness might make others around you like you a bit more? You come on here and spew the most terrible insults willy nilly. What had caused you to behave in such a manner? Do you behave like this in real life?
1) You said you had banned me. LIAR!
2) You wouldn't know honest discourse if it bit you on the nose.
3) I speak the truth. You have shown that you are stupid and a person of no character.
4) You continue to spew either the same nonsense or new nonsense that follows the same pattern -- it's either false or false and known to be debunked, or you have read something that you don't understand.
5) You have insulted plenty of people in this thread, and then you lie every so often and say you never do. BS. I actually don't care that you have insulted many here. That isn't why I tell you the truth about you. I am a truth-teller, and the truth is that you are stupid, ignorant, and an a$$hole.
6) Kindness has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't let you drown. I would help you out if you really needed it and I was in a position to help. Doesn't mean you aren't a stupid a$$hole though.
7) I have honestly never interacted with someone so regularly before who is as stupid as you are. Now, I know there ARE people out there as stupid as you. I just don't interact with those types of people on a regular basis. So, do I behave this way in real life? Apples to oranges. I have never been faced with an occasion to do so in "real life."
8) I don't do anything willy nilly. You have earned the labels I correctly apply to you. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt once upon a time because you were being so put down here...I was wrong to have done that, and for that I apologize unreservedly. You deserved all the negative things you got from others. You have proven that to me.
As I have said before and will repeat again today because you clearly need repetition...you can STOP being outrageously stupid (stupid is as stupid does after all). You can BECOME a man of character. You can STOP being an a$$hole. Do those things.
public goods wrote:
This one is for agip and all the other "moderates" and "realists". He will hate it but this is the right policy for America.
https://newrepublic.com/article/155901/health-care-debate-baked-flimsy-media-narratives
whoah! A policy debate? That's way too advanced for LRC.
I happen to absolutely loathe healthcare policy. I just don't care very much and have no strong opinion other than we need a stronger hand from the government to control prices.
Will try to read tho.
Cool beans. Policy.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I am really trying to understand why Dems have not tried legal action to get key witnesses to testify. Is it just to not let this process spill into the election cycle? It doesn't make sense to me to give up the opportunity to have a couple of key people destroy trump in a hearing. I am assuming that the judge presiding over impeachment in the senate will have to take some action in this regard, hence Dems haven't acted yet.
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems to be that courts take months to solve these things and the Dems want to move quickly. So instead of waiting, they're going now with what they have , and will keep investigating next year.
So I think the Dems are using the courts to force testimony, but the Dems don't want to wait months for the cases to resolve.
the problem with the judge oveseeing the trial is that apparently the Senate can overrule him. So Roberts may say ' you are not allowed to put Joe Biden in the witness stand' but Mitch can overrule that by putting it to a senate vote.
If this is the case then Dems are idiots. Why would they want to be in a position to get overruled in the Senate and have to go on defense, when they could have continued to make a super strong case for having to go through lengthy court process because trump wouldn't let these people testify? I was under the impression they were going to look to the chief justice to force a fairer process. This is the only impeachment which the POTUS has not cooperated AT ALL.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but it seems to be that courts take months to solve these things and the Dems want to move quickly. So instead of waiting, they're going now with what they have , and will keep investigating next year.
So I think the Dems are using the courts to force testimony, but the Dems don't want to wait months for the cases to resolve.
the problem with the judge oveseeing the trial is that apparently the Senate can overrule him. So Roberts may say ' you are not allowed to put Joe Biden in the witness stand' but Mitch can overrule that by putting it to a senate vote.
If this impeachment moves on to March the pressure will be intense to end it or have a conclusion to it. No one wants this hanging over the country with 5 or 6 months to the election.
Dems would have a clear out since their majority power has been ignored by the WH. I'd be pointing the finger at the WH all along while it drags along in the courts. If no one really wants it hanging over the country then the WH would have to get its act together and cooperate. It needs to be thorough.