Trump impeachment: President demands immediate Senate trial

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,305
2,086
113
www.christiancourier.com
#42
The Circus begins live on YouTube tomorrow. Here's the video link:
Just an update/reminder, the Senate trial is on now. It started at 1p.m eastern standard time.
Sisters and brothers in Christ that I know are all encircling president Trump with their prayers. Some started today for this occasion, and some were committed to the prayer when this whole thing started.
 
Dec 9, 2011
11,372
987
113
#44
Politics as usual,Republicans will be for republicans and democrats will be for their party and no light will be shed on the truth enlightening the people.
 
Mar 23, 2016
3,264
843
113
#46
Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong
by Alan M. Dershowitz


  • The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

  • To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

  • Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.

  • If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" — the Impoundment Control Act—"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does — when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money— which was eventually sent without strings —he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.

To be sure, the statute requires notification to Congress, but if such notification significantly delays the president from implementing his foreign policy at a time of his choice, that too would raise serious constitutional issues.

Why then would a nonpartisan agency get it so wrong as a matter of constitutional law. There are two obvious answers: first, in the age of Trump there is no such thing as nonpartisan. The political world is largely divided into people who hate and people who love President Trump. This is as true of long term civil servants as it is of partisan politicians. We have seen this with regard to the FBI, the CIA, the Fed and other government agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan. There are of course exceptions such as the inspector general of the Department of Justice who seems genuinely non-partisan. But most civil servants share the nationwide trend of picking sides. The GAO does not seem immune to this divisiveness.

Second, even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy.

In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.

If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.


Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, November 2019. He is a Distinguished Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15462/trump-had-right-to-withhold-ukraine-funds-gao-is
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,305
2,086
113
www.christiancourier.com
#47
Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong
by Alan M. Dershowitz



  • The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

  • To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

  • Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.

  • If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" — the Impoundment Control Act—"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does — when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money— which was eventually sent without strings —he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.

To be sure, the statute requires notification to Congress, but if such notification significantly delays the president from implementing his foreign policy at a time of his choice, that too would raise serious constitutional issues.

Why then would a nonpartisan agency get it so wrong as a matter of constitutional law. There are two obvious answers: first, in the age of Trump there is no such thing as nonpartisan. The political world is largely divided into people who hate and people who love President Trump. This is as true of long term civil servants as it is of partisan politicians. We have seen this with regard to the FBI, the CIA, the Fed and other government agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan. There are of course exceptions such as the inspector general of the Department of Justice who seems genuinely non-partisan. But most civil servants share the nationwide trend of picking sides. The GAO does not seem immune to this divisiveness.

Second, even if the GAO were non-partisan in the sense of preferring one political party over the other, it is partial to Congress over the president. The GAO is a congressional body. It is part of the legislative, not executive, branch. As such, it favors congressional prerogatives over executive power. It is not surprising therefore that it would elevate the authority of Congress to enact legislation over that of the president to conduct foreign policy.

In any event, even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not— the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents. Those alleged violations were barely noted by the media. But in the hyper-partisan impeachment atmosphere, this report received breathless "breaking news" coverage and a demand for inclusion among the articles of impeachment.

If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law. But let us not continue to water down the constitutional criteria for impeachment by including highly questionable, and on my view wrongheaded, views about violations of an unconstitutional civil law.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse Publishing, November 2019. He is a Distinguished Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15462/trump-had-right-to-withhold-ukraine-funds-gao-is
Many of us knew that. Many of the fair media outlets fully explained that as well.

The Democrats on the Hill thought one of their own would become president in 2016. To assure that they started plotting against the clear front runner during the campaign and well before the election. Now that that failed, and a Republican is in the highest office, as they'd have sought impeachment against any Republican that had won that seat, they're zeal is to destroy the one that is there; Trump.

It is personal and it is the Democrats strategy to destroy Donald Trump because his election stopped their agenda from continuing to destroy America.

I pray the American people witness what the Democrats think are the best they have to offer in the debates that are ongoing now.

Joe Biden likes to think he's a front runner when the sad truth of the evidence is, he's in the early stages of dementia. :(
“It’s not that [some parents] don’t want to help. They don’t know what quite to do: Play the radio, make sure the television… make sure you have the record player on at night.” [Biden in the third presidential debate=video]

Yang isn't even in the top 5 but he's made some of the most ridiculous comments. Likely because his advisors, presuming he has them, told him if he wins the office he can always make excuses for why he can't do what he promised during the campaign.

Warren, knowing she was on a hot mic tried to get Sanders to admit he lied about her during the Boston debate.
And Pete Buttigieg has a deplorable record as mayor, so he's decidedly unfit for a higher office and yet, he appears to be more popular than any of the others. Is that really a surprise in this Sodom and Gomorrah sequel world today? He and his civil union co-contractor kiss in public when they're in cities with a large LGBTQTS populace attending. That's what the world would accept, especially Muslim countries; a homosexual first gentleman and president. Um, no. When Iran throws open homosexuals off the roofs of their highest buildings, no.

I join with others who encircle president Trump with their prayers. May he win in 2020 and keep America going strong and growing greater and greater with the dedicated effort of patriots in office. Amen.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
10,588
4,067
113
#49
Senate Republicans @ Twitter
"House Democrats’ process was a cover-up. Ours will be transparent. Their process was blindly partisan. Ours will be impartial. Their process was rigged. Ours will be FAIR. "
My question is this: Why did the Senate not rule to ignore those bogus articles of impeachment, and why did they not allow Pelosi to simply hang on to them for as long as she wanted? This whole sham impeachment would have just disappeared if the Senate had made it disappear. Instead they chose to have their own circus.
 
Dec 9, 2011
11,372
987
113
#50
JESUS died for us ,let’s represent.
Are we suppose to pray for Trump,what about the job Hillary did should we attack ?
 
Dec 9, 2011
11,372
987
113
#51
The democrats are not Innocenr,I wonder If the shoe was on the other foot If they would do what they are claiming the republicans are doing that they say Is wrong?
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,305
2,086
113
www.christiancourier.com
#52
My question is this: Why did the Senate not rule to ignore those bogus articles of impeachment, and why did they not allow Pelosi to simply hang on to them for as long as she wanted? This whole sham impeachment would have just disappeared if the Senate had made it disappear. Instead they chose to have their own circus.
I think if the Senate Republican's in majority would have dismissed the charges and refused this trial, which president Trump said he wanted, the Left would have run with that and claimed Trump had a hand in that because he really didn't want a trial.

As it is, certain members on the Left are now saying Trump admitted to obstruction due to what he said in remarks at the WEF. Linked.
Val Demings, a Democrat of course, is claiming "we have all the materials. They don't have the materials." Is Trump's admission to obstruction.

I found this article interesting. I didn't think of this as related to what's happening now.
Law Professor: Trump’s Impeachment Threatens ‘Virtually Every Elected Official’
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,305
2,086
113
www.christiancourier.com
#53
Wouldn't it spell hope prior to the 2020 election if those for whom there is evidence of criminal wrong doing were actually made to answer for that?
Had to pass this along. A picture speaks a thousand words, indeed.
 
Dec 30, 2019
60
45
18
#54
Didn't vote for Trump I didn't and don't think he has ever been presidential material ever. He highly entertained me on The Apprentice and I was very disappointed when he was elected president. That being said I have still prayed for the man to be truly converted and accept Jesus as his Savior.

How many who talk against the democrats pray for them? We are directed to pray for our enemies and to hear the talk on the forums democrats are treated/talked about as the enemy...… Just wondering anyone pray for a democrat?
Very true. When the Bible says to pray for our leaders it doesn't say Republicans only. And as much as I dislike the Democratic agenda I would never make God a politician. Praying for our leaders means all of them. And in our government that means the equal branches of government. Our Federal government and our local governments too. I pray for the leadership of this government to do the Will of God. To seek it in their decision making.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
19,733
8,131
113
54
#55
So how long is this Senate Impeachment Trial (circus) supposed to last? :unsure:
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
5,559
1,711
113
#56
So how long is this Senate Impeachment Trial (circus) supposed to last? :unsure:
I don't think even Mitch McConnell knows the answer to that. The Impeachment team wrapped up to day, Trump's team has 3 days next week, and then from there the world is possible since then Senators begin posing questions to the Impeachment team and Trump's defense team, and then they'll decide if they want to hear from any additional witnesses.
 

Billyd

Senior Member
May 8, 2014
3,310
275
83
#57
Has anyone here watched the entire trial?

I've managed to get through about an hour.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
29,969
8,416
113
65
Florida
#58
Didn't vote for Trump I didn't and don't think he has ever been presidential material ever. He highly entertained me on The Apprentice and I was very disappointed when he was elected president. That being said I have still prayed for the man to be truly converted and accept Jesus as his Savior.

How many who talk against the democrats pray for them? We are directed to pray for our enemies and to hear the talk on the forums democrats are treated/talked about as the enemy...… Just wondering anyone pray for a democrat?
You're a Democrat and I pray for you.
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
9,763
4,281
113
#60
Didn't vote for Trump I didn't and don't think he has ever been presidential material ever. He highly entertained me on The Apprentice and I was very disappointed when he was elected president. That being said I have still prayed for the man to be truly converted and accept Jesus as his Savior.

How many who talk against the democrats pray for them? We are directed to pray for our enemies and to hear the talk on the forums democrats are treated/talked about as the enemy...… Just wondering anyone pray for a democrat?

gee I pray for them just about every day now

I pray they fall into the pit that they have dug for another and that their feet are ensnared in the net they spread for another

see the Psalms

they definitely need prayer. their evil deeds need to come into the light and the entire nation should be aware of what they do and have done

I pray they cannot succeed in their evil. not much stands between the devil working through that bunch and the destruction of this country

but God is merciful and so I appeal to Him in this matter

the democrats are not my personal enemy. I do not see them that way. rather, they have given themselves over to deception and none worse than Schiff