I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Lisa's new found courage is somehow making her even sexier than she was before!
Posted on 01/24/2020 8:04:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
He does have connections in that direction, but I suspect he also has the authority to order compliance. In any case, the correct path would be to tell the House managers to try again, investigate before they vote to impeach, and put the witnesses they want in their second (or perhaps third, or fourth) impeachment.
In the impeachment trial within the Senate, the Supremes have almost no authority. In the House, the Supreme Court is the eventual arbiter of the line between House investigative powers and Executive Privilege.
Nadler scroooood the pooch by insulting her a couple of hours into this thing. And you know what they say about a woman scorned.
Not me. She's alluding to the real reason, that being it is not in her interest that this sham go on any longer than necessary. If there are witnesses, there will be a delay as those are deposed, etc., then more sit-down and be quiet time that does Murkowski no good at all.
She's best off if this ordeal just gets done.
It'll be interesting to hear what reasons the various sinators give for their votes.
He can’t even say that.
That is up to a senate vote.
Don’t worry, there is always Mittens to take he place at the Dems’ side
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Lisa's new found courage is somehow making her even sexier than she was before!
The House created a turd...
Delivered it to the Senate...
Then they demanded the Senate to polish the turd.
No wonder they lost even the most anti-Trump Republican senators. Polishing this turd will get way too much stink on them.
New found respect for Senator Murkowski.
In a very few words, plain words, she hits it over the fence.
Is it me or has Mittens been unusually quiet?
DISMISS the whole dam thing and then start the investigations in the proper committee.
That is about it..
That back stabbing bastard is sneaking around waiting for the wind to blow.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure this makes any sense. What standing does one branch of government have to litigate against another branch, in a case like this?
It's worth noting that the one prominent challenge to a House subpoena came not from the President, but from an employee of the executive branch (Charles Kupperman). He got a subpoena from the House, and filed a legal case in the Federal courts that basically said: "I have received conflicting demands from Congress and the White House. Please tell me which one to obey."
This may be one instance where the House jackasses got it right. Rather than run the risk of losing that challenge, they withdrew the subpoena. In effect, what they probably wanted was to avoid giving the Federal courts any say in the matter at all.
Turtle has his caucus IN LINE!!! Something Pelosi obviously can’t accomplish anymore!! I am EXTREMELY HAPPY the way the republicans have been steadfastly together miracles will never cease!!! I will wait for the vote to praise them however MITTENS is a huge thorn in my side!!!
Defense may not even need and/or want to use 24 hours to wrap this up.
The spice must flow!!
I believe Murkowski’s preferred option for witnesses is there be an agreement between enough Republican and Democrat senators for witnesses and Trump to promise not to use executive privilege. But Trump already promised that he would use executive privilege on John Bolton. Murkowski doesn’t want a court fight to prolong the Senate trial. She may vote yes on witnesses that Trump won’t exert executive privilege.
In United States v. Nixon, the Supremes ruled that Nixon had to turn over materials subject to a subpoena, in that particular situation. A House impeachment is slightly different from a special prosecutor investigation, and the Supremes have the authority to decide which side wins again.
This is one of the most dysfunctional aspects of a Federal government that is larger and more meddlesome than the founders of this country ever intended.
You can't find the term "Department of Justice" anywhere in the Constitution. That's because the DOJ didn't even exist until 1870.
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.