Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 12:53:58 AM

Quote from: nutildah on October 12, 2019, 11:10:53 AM

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 12, 2019, 08:46:39 PM

You really think that because the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon must comply with the House subpoenas makes the current subpoenas unenforceable because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on them?

Did you come up with this on your own or read it in a conspiracy blog?

That's just not how it works. It's not the Supreme Courts job to sign off on every House subpoena. The rulings they make set a precedent. The Nixon case actually proves that the House does have the power to subpoena Presidential records to provide oversight of the executive branch. This is why Trumps lawyers tried to argue to a judge that the 1974 ruling (which was unanimous) was wrongly decided. The judge basically laughed in Trumps face.

No, the point is they are not comparable. You used it as an example and claimed Trump could be impeached on this fat alone, when in fact he was not legally subpoenaed, which requires force of law with a penalty for defiance. The two situations are not at all comparable. The precedent says, as I documented above, that there first needs to be a vote before a subpoena with force of law can be issued. What the democrats are doing is unprecedented in an impeachment process.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Democrats have control of the House (elections have consequences) and the House has the sole power of impeachment.

Pelosi doesn't have to structure the impeachment proceedings based on Clintons, Nixons or Johnsons and the next impeachment doesn't have to be based on Trumps. Even if it's Trump again.

She needs to hold one vote. "Should the president be impeached."

If there ends up being a trial in the Senate do you think Mitch will give in to a single request from the Democrats or base any of his decisions on what happened during Clintons trial unless it benefits him? Of course not and he shouldn't since the people put Republicans in control of the Senate.

The constitution and the law are the only rules that must be followed.