can Article II (Obstruction of Congress) be laughed out on Day One?

They whole thing is Subjective. Disagreement on Policy...no Laws broken. They are pissin in the wind.

I still don’t understand what Trump did wrong aside from splint their party. Even if what they said he did is true, how is this any different from anything Obama or Bush did before him?

As I understand it, any single Senator could raise a motion to dismiss the article, it would then be put to vote by the full Senate, after argument for and against the motion (or any motion....same process).

Simple majority of 51 votes for dismissal does the trick.

IMO, immediately subsequent to opening presentations, someone should make the motion, and 51 or more should vote in favor of dismissal of article II. Then open discussion/debate as to whether live witnesses are in order or not regarding the remaining article.

quote:

---

The American Public already knows this is just dumb.

---

Mom watched most of the early coverage as she sat 2.5 hours getting her hair did and says all the taking heads on TV during the day were saying the public is NOT watching this coverage. The word from John Q Public on the street is they are bored and know it's just political BS and are not interested so not watching.

So if Turtle wants to he can drag this out as a political Chinese Water Torture slow drip for literally months if wants to until the DimProgFilth beg for relief.

The impeachment rules in the constitution are so broadly written, and because impeachment is confined within the constitution, I have come down on that there is no right or wrong answer.

It is pseudo-legal and pseudo-political. This congress has scrapped most semblance of the legal for the hyper-partisan political.

So what if you have enough cuck spineless pubs vote for witnesses? The Ws they want are all subject to valid legal claims of executive privilege. If it gets this far, the Senate will be in a position where it has to vote yea or nay as to the validity of the OOC articles.

If Trump invokes judicial review and the senate does not condemn, they have then proven the invalidity of the OOC charge. Art. 2 of 2019 peach mints dismissed.

If the Senate condemns and then convicts Trump for invoking judicial relief, the Senate condemns separation of powers, and condones the death of the republic. At that point, full civil war ensues.

The Senate has no choice but to reject OOC on this basis.

The only way such a charge could exist would be by the executive challenging congressional oversight, losing Art. III challenge, then defying the order, but thereby then establishing the requirement of an actual underlying crime to justify impeachment.

Which why the pseudo-political/criminal balance of impeachment in our constitution and our republic is brilliant. The impeachment process and trial is conducted by those who must answer to you and, knowing that the house serves the passions of the masses, placed the 2/3 req. on the Senate.

Which is why no president of the United States has ever been convicted, and will not this year.

Quick Constitutional lesson:

Each branch has defined roles. One of Congress’ roles is to investigate the other branches. It’s not in the Constitution.

That being said, denying a Congressional subpoena is obstructing Congress. However, the courts are the remedy. Not impeachment.

I'm not so sure refusing a Congressional subpoena by way of asserting executive privilege is obstructing Congress....unless this: Dems challenged the assertion of EP in court, a court orders the witnesses involved to testify, and the Trump administration then somehow blocked the testimony, in violation of the court order.

To say this action on the part of the Trump administration was obstruction at this stage is basically equivalent to saying a person who pleads the Fifth in response to a question during a Congressional hearing is guilty of obstructing Congress.

quote:

---

To say this action on the part of the Trump administration was obstruction at this stage is basically equivalent to saying a person who pleads the Fifth in response to a question during a Congressional hearing is guilty of obstructing Congress.

---

Correct, rock smashes scissors.

Its the reason executive privilege exists in the first place, to prevent just this kind of nonsense. Without it congress will continue to subpoena every one in the White House administration for the next decade, hundreds of people and constantly pepper them in front of congress under the threat of perjury. Nothing would ever get done from the executive branch, and no one would want to work there, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE GOAL OF THE DEMS.

By their definition, a presidential veto of anything passed by a democrat congress could be interpreted as obstruction of Congress. That just underscores how ridiculous their claims are.