Check out some similar questions!

talaniman · Jan 11, 2020, 12:49 PM

I could have sworn the House invited him to the proceedings and he declined. "In addition, the Democratic chairman also sent Trump a letter notifying him of his right to attend the hearing, as well as his counsel’s right to question the witnesses.".

In addition more facts! Looks like WG nailed it as usual as it was reported last year.

jlisenbe · Jan 11, 2020, 01:21 PM

In the US Constitution.

No, it doesn't. The text reads, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Nowhere in there does it say the pres cannot have council and cannot call witnesses. You are flat wrong.

This isn't the time, during the investigatory phase, where lawyers and witnesses are needed to defend when the evidence is brought forward by the House. That happens during the trial, which the Senate oversees.

Complete nonsense and nowhere backed up by the Constitution.

Wondergirl · Jan 11, 2020, 01:42 PM

From https://reason.com/2019/10/09/what-d...t-proceedings/

"I've seen a lot of learned commentators on both sides of the impeachment debate arguing that the House *must* follow certain procedures (or not), or that the president *must* cooperate in the following ways (or not). What almost no one ever does is quote the relevant constitutional text, which is ridiculously sparse: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate."

*****
"Some issues: (1) It's not clear that the impeachment process is an ordinary "proceeding." After all, a Senate trial is presided over by the Chief Justice, so know there are outside limits over the trial via the Chief; (2) The Supreme Court found that the authority granted in this language is not absolute when it prohibited the House from expelling Rep. Adam Clayton Powell; (3) Even if the House can make its own rules, one can argue that when it's acting as a quasi-judicial body, it has an obligation to follow its own procedural precedents, just as actual judicial bodies do (even if that obligation is not justiciable in the courts); (4) This begs the question as to whether the House has in fact established any rules for the current proceedings, given that there has been no formal vote to start impeachment proceedings; and (5) Regardless, it still doesn't tell us under what circumstances it's legitimate for the executive branch to resist cooperation with impeachment proceedings."

talaniman · Jan 11, 2020, 01:52 PM

Each chamber is allowed to make their own process and procedures of how they go about their business.

The 1974 report has been expanded and revised on several occasions by the Congressional Research Service, and the current version Impeachment and Removal dates from October 2015.

^[1]
While this document is only staff recommendation, as a practical matter, today it is probably the single most influential definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Read the whole thing and it's pretty clear the rules were followed exceptionally well as while repubs cried beetched and moaned they couldn't stop the process on legal grounds.

jlisenbe · Jan 11, 2020, 01:54 PM

You claimed the Constitution said the pres could not have counsel and could not call witnesses. What you claimed is incorrect. What you posted above changes nothing.

There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate."

How on earth does that help your case?

talaniman · Jan 11, 2020, 01:56 PM

Geez JL, it's a done deal so what's the argument about? Stubborn in your old age aren't you?

jlisenbe · Jan 11, 2020, 02:01 PM

You said it was a "fair trial" which was untrue. WG wanted to claim the Constitution prohibited the pres having counsel or being able to call witnesses. It does nothing of the sort. The truth ought to count for something. A simple, "Well gosh. Maybe I was wrong," would have settled the issue.

Yeah. I am stubborn in my old age. Kind of reminds me of a man I know in Texas and a woman I know in Chicago!

talaniman · Jan 11, 2020, 02:09 PM

WWWHHAAATTTT!!!!! There are more like you? AAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

jlisenbe · Jan 11, 2020, 02:15 PM

WWWHHAAATTTT!!!!! There are more like you? AAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Kind of alarming, ain't it?

Wondergirl · Jan 11, 2020, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You said it was a "fair trial" which was untrue. WG wanted to claim the Constitution prohibited the pres having counsel or being able to call witnesses. It does nothing of the sort. The truth ought to count for something. A simple, "Well gosh. Maybe I was wrong," would have settled the issue.

No, I am right. The House does not present the trial, which JL is hung up on. The House only presents the evidence; later the Senate has the trial. Trump's evidence and witnesses can be revealed for the House but don't take action to present his side until the trial in the Senate.

Sheesh!!!!

jlisenbe · Jan 11, 2020, 03:28 PM

No, you are not right. Your contention was that the Constitution prevented the pres from having counsel or presenting witnesses. That is simply not true.

This was your statement. "Apparently, you don't understand what the House was supposed to do (they did it correctly) and what the Senate is supposed to do. Trump having counsel and witnesses is NOT part of the process in the House but IS in the Senate. There isn't a trial in the House; that's what happens in the Senate." I asked you where it said that and your reply was in the Constitution. It does nothing of the sort. Even the material you posted disagreed with your statement. " There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate." To top it all off, even what Tal posted did not support your statement. "Each chamber is allowed to make their own process and procedures of how they go about their business." There was no reason the President could not have had counsel present and called witnesses. No reason at all.

There has never been a disagreement between us on the general role of the House or of the Senate.

Sheeesh!!

Wondergirl · Jan 11, 2020, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No, you are not right. Your contention was that the Constitution prevented the pres from having counsel or presenting witnesses. That is simply not true.

This was your statement. "Apparently, you don't understand what the House was supposed to do (they did it correctly) and what the Senate is supposed to do. Trump having counsel and witnesses is NOT part of the process in the House but IS in the Senate. There isn't a trial in the House; that's what happens in the Senate." I asked you where it said that and your reply was in the Constitution. It does nothing of the sort. Even the material you posted disagreed with your statement. " There is nothing about what procedures the House must or may use, nor is there any indication to what extent the president and other executive branch officials are required to cooperate." To top it all off, even what Tal posted did not support your statement. "Each chamber is allowed to make their own process and procedures of how they go about their business." There was no reason the President could not have had counsel present and called witnesses. No reason at all.

There has never been a disagreement between us on the general role of the House or of the Senate.

Sheeesh!!

So why didn't trump take advantage of that?

jlisenbe · Jan 11, 2020, 07:23 PM

What I mean, of course, is that there is no Constitutional reason. In this case Trump could not do those things because the House dems, who get to set the rules, did not allow it. So you see? That's why I say it was not a fair hearing. Constitutionally they could have allowed it, but they elected not to. Hopefully we have arrived at some sort of understanding we can agree with

talaniman · Jan 12, 2020, 04:30 AM

You aren't the only one who doesn't know the ins and outs of your own government, and the rules they make to conduct business after an election. Now the dufus has been cruising along just fine when repubs had the House, but since that has changed, so did his influence and you can thank the American people for that. Wonder why America booted repubs out of power in the House in 2018? Didn't they know the dems would go after the dufus? Of course they did, since even you acknowledge, and he did too, that would be the case.

So let's not get so hung up on calling foul now, and what's fair or not, or who get's to make the rules of the road.

tomder55 · Jan 14, 2020, 03:42 PM

jlisenbe · Jan 14, 2020, 04:11 PM

So let's not get so hung up on calling foul now, and what's fair or not, or who get's to make the rules of the road.

But that's exactly what you endlessly do, day in and day out, about Trump. Why don't you play by your own rules?

talaniman · Jan 14, 2020, 04:50 PM

What choice do I have with the dufus lying, cheating, and pushing the boundaries of good behavior day in and day out for the last 3 years? The Russians are hacking into the servers of Burisma looking for dirt on Biden and son to help the dufus get re elected again just like Mueller said they would as he gets impeached for trying to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into the Biden's.

I guess Russia is still listening.

paraclete · Jan 14, 2020, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

What choice do I have with the dufus lying, cheating, and pushing the boundaries of good behavior day in and day out for the last 3 years? The Russians are hacking into the servers of Burisma looking for dirt on Biden and son to help the dufus get re elected again just like Mueller said they would as he gets impeached for trying to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into the Biden's.

I guess Russia is still listening.

Yes Russia doesn't want Biden any more than they wanted HC. Both tarred with the same brush which is anti Russian. Russia isn't your problem, China is. you want to attack Trump, attack him on that front

talaniman · Jan 14, 2020, 05:22 PM

Fortunately Clete it's not up to you or Russsia what our government looks like, at least until the dufus showed up and invited Vlad and anybody else in the world into our elections.

jlisenbe · Jan 14, 2020, 06:06 PM

What choice do I have with the dufus lying, cheating, and pushing the boundaries of good behavior day in and day out for the last 3 years? The Russians are hacking into the servers of Burisma looking for dirt on Biden and son to help the dufus get re elected again just like Mueller said they would as he gets impeached for trying to get a foreign government to announce an investigation into the Biden's.

But you very plainly said, "So let's not get so hung up on calling foul now, and what's fair or not, or who get's to make the rules of the road." So why are so carefree about lying, cheating, and "pushing the boundaries of good behavior" ONLY when the dems do it? Why don't you follow your own rule?