Posted on 12/14/2019 5:38:13 AM PST by blueyon
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz were on Hannity last night (12/13/19) and Dershowitz mentioned a SCOTUS ruling that just came out that would make the obstruction charge (if voted for) go against the SCOTUS...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3800722/posts
The scotus decision is at the above link.
Dershowitz says that Scotus just acknowledged the President’s right to take subpoena’s to the courts for a court decision because of separation of powers.
If that weren’t the case, then the scotus would not have accepted the case
THANK YOU SO MUCH...........I have been going nutz trying to find the video to understand what he said...that is it, again Thank you
no problem
They rendered the meaningless article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress, even more meaningless by recognizing Trump’s right to legally challenge Congress.
Essentially, Congress is not the boss of President Trump.
The article is legally vacated, but I bet they will proceed anyway.
Since President Trump clearly has committed none of these, the Supreme Court should declare the "impeachment" unconstitutional.
The argument that high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the members of the House of Representatives say it is is spurious. Obviously a crime must have been committed, either a misdemeanor or a high crime or treason or bribery, and, if not, there is no legal--i.e. no constitutional--basis for impeachment. President Trump has committed no crime.
For the Supreme Court to rule on this would, in fact, protect the separation of powers.
either a misdemeanor or a high crime or treason or bribery,
= = =
At least one of the three Dem. Constitutional Professors at Nadler’s hearing said that ‘high’ modified both ‘crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors’.
I never heard that before, never studied it either. Don’t know the ramifications.
But Trump must be impeached.
It’s really just “Obstruction of Democratic Congressmembers” since Repupblican Congressmenbers don’t agree.
Well they didn’t know about Twitter when they drafted the Constitution...otherwise tweets would be listed with the other high crimes. LOL
THANK YOU
You know that they will. They can’t help themselves. It is like a moth being drawn into a flame.
Next the Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff show will start trying to impeach Supreme
Court and other federal judges for issuing rulings that contradict their passage of a law.
I agree that Scotus could rule on this. I don’t know if they would, but they could.
Why is it different than Congress getting overturned for an unconstitutional law?
“”They rendered the meaningless article of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress, even more meaningless by recognizing Trump’s right to legally challenge Congress.””
This is going to be fun to watch - hang on to it or delete the Article...Nancy may not get her recess next week! They’d have to go back and draft about a dozen more Articles that Swalwell thought should have been done in the first place! He is such a puke!
I don’t really see Nadler listening to the logic of what Derwhowitz said about the USSC taking that case..Nadler had trouble even saying Obstruction of Congress before the vote yesterday.
I've not yet read the decision (me bad), but my baseline reaction on this issue is straightforward. Presidents and Congress have been at odds on subpoenas and privilege claims from time immemorial. I cannot remember ANY administration, of either party, in which the issue did not arise from time to time. The particular matters at issue varied widely; some were grave, some not, but presidents have always insisted that they had some things that they were not obligated to share with Congress.
The courts have ALWAYS adjudicated these disputes.
Sometimes the president wins in court and Congress drops the claim. Sometimes Congress wins, and Nixon turns over the tapes (among many, many examples that might be recalled). Sometimes they fight the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, and the whole thing becomes moot because the president has left office before the courts can labor their way through to a decision. But the courts ALWAYS decide.
The Democrats are now claiming an utterly unlimited subpoena power, lacking any opportunity for appeal. This is risible. That this claim is being taken seriously is yet another signal of the complete collapse of integrity on the part of the media.
Trump should demand that the Demonrats be impeached for obstructing the EXECUTIVE branch, namely, the Office of the President.
At least one of the three Dem. Constitutional Professors at Nadler’s hearing said that ‘high’ modified both ‘crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors’.
And those that believe there was an actual crime
This is the strategy to follow:
(1) Have McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans absolve Trump of all wrong doing and declare the "impeachment" bogus, unconstitutional, illegal, and politically motivated (which is true).(2) Then appeal to the Supreme Court to have the "impeachment" declared bogus, unconstitutional, illegal, and politically motivated and thus nullified. Before the Court, President Trump's lawyers can subpoena as witnesses everyone involved in this "impeachment," including Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, their witnesses, and everyone even peripherally associated with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.