Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Eric Holder when he was called to testify about Operation Fast and Furious.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The prosecution and the defense are the only ones who can call a witness. The court can issue a subpoena to compel the witness to appear. The court does not decide what witness to call. The procedure is the same in every court from the lowest municipal court to the Supreme Court, and that includes any trial held in the Senate.
The House managers choose to present transcripts of witness testimony from the House hearings rather than calling the witnesses, it was their decision. The testimony did not speak to a crime committed by Trump. The testimony showed a political disagreement.
As to executive privilege (that term was coined by Eisenhower in 1954), it has been used by Presidents from Washington to Trump (with the possible exception of William Henry Harrison, he didn't live long enough to ever use it).

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

[quote=Unintended Consequences][quote=Radiance3]=====================
Ninety -five percent (95%) of radical communist DIMS are dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, liars, immoral, low brainer, rude. I don't want them.[/quote/
I wonder how many Democrats you actually know. About 95% of my relatives and friends are Democrats. As far as I can tell, none of them are dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, liars, immoral, low brainer, or rude. You might like them.[/quote]
This statement you made at the end proves that you are part of the problem.
“About 95% of my relatives and friends are Democrats. As far as I can tell, none of them are dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent, liars, immoral, low brainer, or rude.”
You see, you just can’t see the trees because of the forest.
Too bad for you.

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

Sure, try surviving without the flyover states. Remember that we cling to our Bibles and our Guns!

jelun

Where did you get the idea that the WH prevented an appearance?

Eric Holder appeared before Congress 14 times, I believe.
The DOJ supplied over 7000 documents about Fast and Furious.
Obama cited EP for some of the documents requested.
That is not unusual.

jelun

PA is not a fly over state.
The fact is that Obama was right, people use or misuse the Holy Bible and God knows brandish their guns. What for?

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

No group should be above criticism, especially the most powerful group of people on Earth and the most leftie inclined.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Not many people realize this and nowadays it is hard to define but the core difference between an American Liberal and an American Conservative is in the way they interpret the constitution. Both the liberal and conservative uphold the constitution.

The liberal believes in broad interpretation and the conservative believes in strict interpretation. These two groups formed the party of Jefferson the party called the Democrat-Republican party.

Now a liberal and a conservative is needed to wisely come to a decision on both law and lifestyle. Therefore the liberal and conservative can be friends. The problem comes when the liberal or conservative becomes progressive.

A progressive conservative group as an example is the party of Hitler or the Nazi party of Germany. An example of a progressive liberal group for example is the Klu Klux Klan.

Liberals and Conservatives can peaceably check each other where as the progressive liberal or progressive conservatives cannot.

Now the spectrum of people or the population spans all groups. Generally speaking while a man is young a man is liberal, as he grows in wisdom he becomes conservative. That is a normal course of a man's life and is true for all of mankind. Christianity in it's youth was liberal against the more wise jewish faith that the Christian was born in.

But the Sadducees were progressive--liberal progressive and the Pharisees were progressive conservative. And it took the Christians to break the monopoly.

This is the model when man supports the law in a Republic. Now I explained the historical context that applies right now. Many Biden supporters claim, there is no evidence to those who support Trump. The evidence is there but it is covered up by layers of deception. It is this deception that is the same deception that caused the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD

Now Texas is attacking the problem in a strict interrogation of the constitution. Thier accusation is simple, is the constitution still the law of the land or is it another historical document collecting dust like the ten commandments of Moses? To say that only in religious circles the commandments apply but not for the whole of society? Therefore the commandments collect dust and are not adhered to?

If the constitution is still the he law of the land, as Texas contends, then the four states named in the complaint violated the constitution thereby disenfranchising the states that followed the constitution by any interpretation regardless of the winner.

So tell me as a father Pete, how do you decide this contest, if the two contestants were two of your own children?

Not that easy is it? For if you choose one then the constitution is broken. If you choose the other then you uphold the constitution but lose half the country.

Therefore what Texas is doing is invoking the mechanism the founders installed in the constitution to remedy election impropriety and unjust influence.

The evidence you seek is not the individual fraud but rather in the rules that were not enforced or subverted. By removing these already implemented safeguards the states violated the constitution therefore creating an election that is unconstitutional.

The mere sense of impropriety is all the evidence required by law to deem the election unconstitutional. Now no both liberals and Conservatives would agree on this effort but progressives either conservative or liberal would disagree.

And that's the case. Since the case is being refused to be heard in the local and state level for various reasons, texas sued the four states that subverted thier process. Notice that Arizona and Nevada are not in the suit.

This is not an issue of Trump/Biden but one of Constitutionality. Get it yet?

Unintended Consequences

If the constitution is still the he law of the land, as Texas contends, then the four states named in the complaint violated the constitution thereby disenfranchising the states that followed the constitution by any interpretation regardless of the winner.
Exactly how have they violated the constitution. If they have, then those who changed the laws should be punished, not the millions of people who voted in good faith.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

This question is a two part question. 1. Punishment for those who broke the law. 2. Fixing the error of spoiled election.

1. The punishment that the Supreme Court would give if they side with Texas, would probably be make the legislatures in the four states choose the electors. That's the mechanism in a contested election where the results are both tainted and contested. Read Bush vs. Gore and the federalist papers by both madison and hamilton.

In this case, should the Supreme Court rules in favor of Texas, the remedy would be the legislature chooses the electors because the state legislatures are close to the people and if the vote was legit, then the people would rise up against those legislatures and remove them from office. If the vote is not legit then the choice of the legislature stands.

As far as 2. See 1

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

If you seek specific reasons do what I did and read the leave Texas sent to the Supreme Court. I believe they have a case. After reading it, it is very powerful and has the potential of changing the results of the national election. If you are interested in Constitutional law, federal law, and American history, I suggest following this case.

The founders knew that at sometime in our history this would come about. They implemented a federal broad mechanisms to hold the states responsible for thier electors.

So if you are in the camp Biden won, the court is saying prove it. Likewise if you are in the camp Trump won, the court is saying prove it. The unique thing about this mechanism is that you don't have to prove it to the court because the court is a mediator in this case. It must be proven to the state legislatures.

However according to the constitution, the Supreme Court can force the state legislatures to choose electors based upon thier power and not use the popular vote because the popular vote results were unconstitutional.

The mechanism is somewhat confusing but it does work. Examples of when this mechanism was used is in the elections of 1800, 1860, 1900ish, and 2000. There were other elections where the mechanism was used for Senators and Representatives and also elected judges.

Overturning an election is greatly discouraged however if the election is unconstitutional or fraudulent in anyway this mechanism kicks in.

Mind you we live in a three tier system where each tier is equal in entity. But the powers of each tier is functional very differently. The 1st tier is the Federal Government(House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court) which is equal to the second tier(the States) which is equal to the third tier(the people).

All tiers are responsible to the third tier. The 1st tier is responsible to the second tier as well as the third tier.

That is why this case is important. Since the people of the questionable states have not stood up, now the states are standing up for them.

And that's how the mechanism works.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

It took Congress going to court to enforce the subpoenas. Like I said he claimed executive privilege, the courts disagreed.

federally indicted mattoid

Hmm, why didn't we have that happen this impeachment hearing.

Oh yeah, spineless Rs in the Senate

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Again, it appears that some people can't understand simple procedures. I'll repeat it one more time for those who are a little slow. The Senate, in its duty as the jury in an impeachment trial, it listens to the testimony of witnesses called by the House managers or those called by the President's representatives. If a witness is refusing to appear, the Senate can issue a subpoena to compel them to appear. The Senate can't take it on themselves to subpoena witnesses that haven't been called by either counsel.

PeterS

And again, you are alleging that these ballots are unconstitutional yet you waited to file your lawsuit until after the election. Trump had a legal team that measured in the hundreds looking specifically for ways to stop the voting. Don't you think that any unconstitutional ploy would have been months before the election took place until weeks after?

This just smacks of the biggest bullshit job this country has ever seen. You lost, you're unhappy about it so you want to overturn the election. Ok, so how do you do it...SCREAM...ELECTION FRAAAAUD!!!! So is this the same fraud that Trump alleged in 2016? No??? this is worse!!! In 2016 Trump only alleged that dead people and wet backs were illegally voting. This time Trump is alleging??? Ummm...Trump is alleging...that mail-in ballots COULD have been used inappropriately? Ah, so there you have it...In 2016 we (conservatives) thought dead people and wet backs were pouring over the border and voting illegally. In 2020 we (conservatives) added nefarious liberals monkeying with the absentee voting PLUS they have managed to tracelessly manipulate Dominion Software to flip votes from Trump to Biden. But damn, these liberals were brilliant enough to do this defying any ability to get caught but FORGOT to cast enough votes to add to the house and WIN the senate! What a boneheaded thing to do!

You people are honest to god certifiable. You just had SCOTUS refuse to even see the lawsuit you had for voter fraud in Pennsylvania so now you are going all-in and getting everyone to sign onto a lawsuit that is weaker than the one SCOTUS just refused to even review???

Be my guess. The more times you people lose the more certain that Biden won fair and square and this is just sour grapes by people who have a lower intellectual maturity than the whinny crybaby they elected for president in 2016 and are crying over now...