ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 14:35:52 GMT -5
The problem here is that you are confirming his guilt under Article 2. Even if someone wants to disregard all the evidence and give Trump a pass on Ukraine, saying there is no proof tying him to it, the obstruction is blatant and right out in the open. Everybody sees it, Trump brags about it, and even you confirm it. Obstruction is also impeachable, and anyone not voting to convict on that article has abdicated their responsibility to the Constitution and the country. And I would agree with you if the Dems enforced the subpoenas by going to court to prove the redacted documents were not actually classified. Or the court upholds the subpoena and makes the witness testify. Until that happens there is no Obstruction. The house has the sole power of impeachment that is fine, but the president does not report to the house they are supposed to be equal. If one doesn't cooperate then you go to the judicial and make them.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 14:41:05 GMT -5
If the Senate were to call for documents and Executive Branch witnesses, it would provide an opportunity for President Trump to counter the Article of Impeachment II charge. Or strengthen the case for it. I would like to see them do it. It is all a political thing now. The house had the chance to call all their witnesses during the investigation, instead of enforcing the subpoenas they impeached him with shotty evidence. The repub controlled senate will not let the witnesses be called now. They are not going to let the house do a shitty job and they have to do the rest. Everyone needs to face it the house had their chance and blew it.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 14:52:08 GMT -5
If the Senate were to call for documents and Executive Branch witnesses, it would provide an opportunity for President Trump to counter the Article of Impeachment II charge. Or strengthen the case for it. I would like to see them do it. It is all a political thing now. The house had the chance to call all their witnesses during the investigation, instead of enforcing the subpoenas they impeached him with shotty evidence. The repub controlled senate will not let the witnesses be called now. They are not going to let the house do a shitty job and they have to do the rest. Everyone needs to face it the house had their chance and blew it. That’s just a FAUX News talking point. These witnesses were subpoenaed and someone obstructed justice to inform them they couldn’t witness. It’s that simple. Now the Repo-Con Senate will do the same thing. The reason they have been blocked, probably twice now, is very easy to understand. Based on the witnesses already heard in the House, they would all either corroborate or perjure themselves. No way will that possibility be allowed as the Senate will also obstruct justice. So the failed methodology here is not the House’s but the Senate’s for ignoring their Constitutional duty. No surprise that.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 15:04:53 GMT -5
If the Senate were to call for documents and Executive Branch witnesses, it would provide an opportunity for President Trump to counter the Article of Impeachment II charge. Or strengthen the case for it. I would like to see them do it. It is all a political thing now. The house had the chance to call all their witnesses during the investigation, instead of enforcing the subpoenas they impeached him with shotty evidence. The repub controlled senate will not let the witnesses be called now. They are not going to let the house do a shitty job and they have to do the rest. Everyone needs to face it the house had their chance and blew it. Try it this way. You take your new car back to the dealership to work on what you feel are poorly functioning brakes. They do a shitty job "fixing" them. They tell you they did the best they could and won't do more. So you take the car down the street to a local guy. He looks at the brake, confirms the dealer did a shitty job, and sends you down the road. Wouldn't you prefer the guy fix your brakes?
|
|
jelloshots4all
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2013 15:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 4,642
|
Post by jelloshots4all on Jan 25, 2020 15:05:32 GMT -5
I disagree with the Repubs comments that this is about taking Trump off the 2020 ballot box. It is about crimes he committed in July 2019.
Quite frankly, I think impeaching Trump would give Repubs a huge boost in the 2020 election and possibly allow Repub politicians to rebuild their party. Why do you think Paul Ryan retired? He couldn't lie and drink the Trump kool aid anymore. I wish more Repubs would follow their conscience. I would prefer Pence to Trump because at least he seems more stable even though he leans far right.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 15:17:13 GMT -5
Stepford wife
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 15:19:39 GMT -5
If the Senate were to call for documents and Executive Branch witnesses, it would provide an opportunity for President Trump to counter the Article of Impeachment II charge. Or strengthen the case for it. I would like to see them do it. It is all a political thing now. The house had the chance to call all their witnesses during the investigation, instead of enforcing the subpoenas they impeached him with shotty evidence. The repub controlled senate will not let the witnesses be called now. They are not going to let the house do a shitty job and they have to do the rest. Everyone needs to face it the house had their chance and blew it. {sigh} wrong...plenty of proof..if your looking for voice recordings{believe illegal} your not going to get those...to go through the courts...would be delayed months by filings of Trump lawyers and it would have been good to have papers released that the house asked for and witnesses allowed to testify...and yes he did rape the 13 year old...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2020 15:54:31 GMT -5
The problem here is that you are confirming his guilt under Article 2. Even if someone wants to disregard all the evidence and give Trump a pass on Ukraine, saying there is no proof tying him to it, the obstruction is blatant and right out in the open. Everybody sees it, Trump brags about it, and even you confirm it. Obstruction is also impeachable, and anyone not voting to convict on that article has abdicated their responsibility to the Constitution and the country. And I would agree with you if the Dems enforced the subpoenas by going to court to prove the redacted documents were not actually classified. Or the court upholds the subpoena and makes the witness testify. Until that happens there is no Obstruction. The house has the sole power of impeachment that is fine, but the president does not report to the house they are supposed to be equal. If one doesn't cooperate then you go to the judicial and make them. Tell me this: Why would there be ANY reason to have to go to court if there was no obstruction in the first place? Answer that. House Democrats sought the testimony of several key witnesses. They were denied the opportunity. Why? Because of obstruction by the White House. Why was there obstruction? Because the evidence was there, and the president could not let it come out. If he had no reason to fear, he would have jumped at the opportunity to be proven right so he could crow about it for years. You know that. You also know the reason they did not go to court. All it would have done, through the initial phase and the subsequent appeals, was draw out the clock. Trump would never have been held accountable and would have been free to corrupt another election. Even your contention that "they should have gone to court" stipulates that the obstruction existed. Obstruction is impeachable, and Trump should be convicted at least on Article 2. The reason he won't is because there is no longer any honor or integrity left in the Republican Party. Only self-interest. If they fail on this, they will hasten their demise as a major political party in this country. Rightly so.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 16:10:56 GMT -5
And I would agree with you if the Dems enforced the subpoenas by going to court to prove the redacted documents were not actually classified. Or the court upholds the subpoena and makes the witness testify. Until that happens there is no Obstruction. The house has the sole power of impeachment that is fine, but the president does not report to the house they are supposed to be equal. If one doesn't cooperate then you go to the judicial and make them. Tell me this: Why would there be ANY reason to have to go to court if there was no obstruction in the first place? Answer that. House Democrats sought the testimony of several key witnesses. They were denied the opportunity. Why? Because of obstruction by the White House. Why was there obstruction? Because the evidence was there, and the president could not let it come out. If he had no reason to fear, he would have jumped at the opportunity to be proven right so he could crow about it for years. You know that. You also know the reason they did not go to court. All it would have done, through the initial phase and the subsequent appeals, was draw out the clock. Trump would never have been held accountable and would have been free to corrupt another election. Even your contention that "they should have gone to court" stipulates that the obstruction existed. Obstruction is impeachable, and Trump should be convicted at least on Article 2. The reason he won't is because there is no longer any honor or integrity left in the Republican Party. Only self-interest. If they fail on this, they will hasten their demise as a major political party in this country. Rightly so. As reported on CNN today {I know, CNN, but thats the cable channel I watch the most..} that in discussions with many GOP Senators...many know he lies but are afraid to go against him...don't want to be called school yard names... These Senators are not dumb people...quite capable and as one commentator mentioned the other day...very employable, many very, very comfortable...just pick one and do a google by naming who u want and ask their net worth. They really don't needv to fear or cow tow to the Donald, especially if they are not up for reelection in 2020. Did a google..Mitch McConnel...Holy S**t...$26 million plus....in 2016...... -------------------------------------------------- www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth?cid=N00003389
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 25, 2020 16:11:34 GMT -5
And I would agree with you if the Dems enforced the subpoenas by going to court to prove the redacted documents were not actually classified. Or the court upholds the subpoena and makes the witness testify. Until that happens there is no Obstruction. The house has the sole power of impeachment that is fine, but the president does not report to the house they are supposed to be equal. If one doesn't cooperate then you go to the judicial and make them. Tell me this: Why would there be ANY reason to have to go to court if there was no obstruction in the first place? Answer that. House Democrats sought the testimony of several key witnesses. They were denied the opportunity. Why? Because of obstruction by the White House. Why was there obstruction? Because the evidence was there, and the president could not let it come out. If he had no reason to fear, he would have jumped at the opportunity to be proven right so he could crow about it for years. You know that. You also know the reason they did not go to court. All it would have done, through the initial phase and the subsequent appeals, was draw out the clock. Trump would never have been held accountable and would have been free to corrupt another election. Even your contention that "they should have gone to court" stipulates that the obstruction existed. Obstruction is impeachable, and Trump should be convicted at least on Article 2. The reason he won't is because there is no longer any honor or integrity left in the Republican Party. Only self-interest. If they fail on this, they will hasten their demise as a major political party in this country. Rightly so. I think it is funny that the GOP is saying "they should have got more evidence" now. they weren't saying it when the Democrats were demanding the evidence, so that seems "convenient" to me.
in other words, I don't buy it. neither should the American public.
the degree to which this impeachment is a sham is the degree to which the GOP was involved.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 16:19:37 GMT -5
Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty.
Like you have done with Hillary.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,473
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2020 16:22:03 GMT -5
"Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt."As I stated...there was for me and so many others plenty of proof that he was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to put dirt on Biden to help the Donald in his reelection campaign...thus he gets no benefit of the doubt from me.. That u say u don't see it...u do see it , kind of admitting it in your copied post above, but it is information u don't want to see or accept because u are a Donald lover on all things, or at least, not comfortable accepting his many failings.. Your correct, I had nothing to do with law enforcement or being a lawyer beyond never having to personally deal with either of those two fields, beyond a semi friendly divorce.. What I did in my life was nothing beyond what most of us do...Work till I retired, raised two kids, both doing 50% better then I, saved a few bucks...some lucky good investments..got called to serve my country and did so...no bone spurs for me damn it..would have taken them in a GD minute. Saw action..even volunteered for the river patrols...extra $ paid plus some excitement, {young and going to live forever ,LOL} shed a bit of blood...got some decorations and got out almost 100% ok... Definitely have a seriouse dislike of the Donald...Man is a brute, a coward, dishonest, has a mental condition, Narsism}, raped a young prostitute when younger..{yes he did, numerouse times}.not a man to emulate. If not prejudiced himself, definitely caters to those who are and welcomes them into his supportive base...enjoys and promotes the divisions of the country..does everything he can to get different sides battling each other, no desire to heal or bring country together...concerns are to promote himself and family, not the welfare of the country.... I could continue and fill the page but it won't make any difference to you or other supporters of the man. I don't understand why to be honest, your undying support unless u are part of that group that is prejudiced and if so , then there is no reasoning with u...or they. Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty. As far as Trump being indicted yes that is a stain actually a stain for the whole country. The dems voted to impeach with no real proof. They couldn't get even 1 republican so they can say bi-partisan support. This impeachment weakened the whole impeachment process forever. When Shiff was talking about our allies and what they were thinking when we withheld aid from Ukraine i was thinking what are they thinking about our country as a whole where a political party hates their president so much they will try to remove him with no real evidence to do so and absolutely no support from the other political party. The dems did this not Trump. Contrary to what you may believe i have no problem with removing Trump if there was real evidence (a paper trail would be helpful), but the dems couldn't wait and enforce the subpoenas they had to rush it and in essence they blew it. Makes a person wonder why -- oh we know why it is all political nothing to do with breaking the law. They know none of the Dem candidates can beat Trump, Pence on the other hand they may have half a shot. You are the one that hates Trump so much that you want to see what is not there, you are will to say ok lets connect the dots, well we have to assume this is what he meant. That is not sufficient proof. Oh by the way no rape either. You might as well get over it he is going to be here for another 5 years. I also believe Biden is dirty as hell with this Ukraine thing, but there is no proof so I have no problem in saying he is innocent. You have repeatedly stated Hillary Clinton is guilty of some bizarre crime and she should be in jail.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,473
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2020 16:22:40 GMT -5
Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty.
Like you have done with Hillary. You beat me to it. But I posted anyway.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 16:25:38 GMT -5
Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty.
Like you have done with Hillary. ……………………..
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 25, 2020 17:51:50 GMT -5
Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty.
Like you have done with Hillary. Guess President Trump's standards aren't that high either, he went all over the country calling her "crooked Hillary"! Whatever happened to his pledge to put her in jail? He does whatever else he wants to do, surely he could have fulfilled that promise. “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. Because there has never been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been anything like it,” Trump said during the second presidential debate. www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-pledge-jail-clinton-would-be-unprecedented-n663351
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 18:50:51 GMT -5
Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty.
Like you have done with Hillary. You beat me to it. But I posted anyway. True but the evidence wasn't there so innocent she is.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,473
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2020 18:53:10 GMT -5
You beat me to it. But I posted anyway. True but the evidence wasn't there so innocent she is. You continued to say Hillary belonged in prison long after the evidence wasn't there. So hypocrite you are.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 18:54:58 GMT -5
And I would agree with you if the Dems enforced the subpoenas by going to court to prove the redacted documents were not actually classified. Or the court upholds the subpoena and makes the witness testify. Until that happens there is no Obstruction. The house has the sole power of impeachment that is fine, but the president does not report to the house they are supposed to be equal. If one doesn't cooperate then you go to the judicial and make them. Tell me this: Why would there be ANY reason to have to go to court if there was no obstruction in the first place? Answer that. House Democrats sought the testimony of several key witnesses. They were denied the opportunity. Why? Because of obstruction by the White House. Why was there obstruction? Because the evidence was there, and the president could not let it come out. If he had no reason to fear, he would have jumped at the opportunity to be proven right so he could crow about it for years. You know that. You also know the reason they did not go to court. All it would have done, through the initial phase and the subsequent appeals, was draw out the clock. Trump would never have been held accountable and would have been free to corrupt another election. Even your contention that "they should have gone to court" stipulates that the obstruction existed. Obstruction is impeachable, and Trump should be convicted at least on Article 2. The reason he won't is because there is no longer any honor or integrity left in the Republican Party. Only self-interest. If they fail on this, they will hasten their demise as a major political party in this country. Rightly so. He is well within his right to order govt employees not to comply the house is not higher than the president. It is then up to the house to have the subpoenas enforced. Yes they can charge him with obstruction like they have done but it will go nowhere only a judge can make him comply ergo no obstruction.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 18:57:41 GMT -5
True but the evidence wasn't there so innocent she is. You continued to say Hillary belonged in prison long after the evidence wasn't there. So hypocrite you are. no hypocrite, there is a difference in thinking she is guilty and to acknowledge that she is innocent until proven guilty. Something most here cannot comprehend
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,473
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2020 19:00:30 GMT -5
You continued to say Hillary belonged in prison long after the evidence wasn't there. So hypocrite you are. no hypocrite, there is a difference in thinking she is guilty and to acknowledge that she is innocent until proven guilty. Something most here cannot comprehend And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune?
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 19:03:52 GMT -5
Tell me this: Why would there be ANY reason to have to go to court if there was no obstruction in the first place? Answer that. House Democrats sought the testimony of several key witnesses. They were denied the opportunity. Why? Because of obstruction by the White House. Why was there obstruction? Because the evidence was there, and the president could not let it come out. If he had no reason to fear, he would have jumped at the opportunity to be proven right so he could crow about it for years. You know that. You also know the reason they did not go to court. All it would have done, through the initial phase and the subsequent appeals, was draw out the clock. Trump would never have been held accountable and would have been free to corrupt another election. Even your contention that "they should have gone to court" stipulates that the obstruction existed. Obstruction is impeachable, and Trump should be convicted at least on Article 2. The reason he won't is because there is no longer any honor or integrity left in the Republican Party. Only self-interest. If they fail on this, they will hasten their demise as a major political party in this country. Rightly so. I think it is funny that the GOP is saying "they should have got more evidence" now. they weren't saying it when the Democrats were demanding the evidence, so that seems "convenient" to me.
in other words, I don't buy it. neither should the American public.
the degree to which this impeachment is a sham is the degree to which the GOP was involved.
Of course. That is why it is more political than legal. The dems want him gone at all costs so they can have half a chance to get a dem in this year. The repubs didn't fall into it. BTW i'm not saying its right just the dems did a very shitty job of proving anything. In such he is innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 19:07:56 GMT -5
no hypocrite, there is a difference in thinking she is guilty and to acknowledge that she is innocent until proven guilty. Something most here cannot comprehend And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune? No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 19:22:52 GMT -5
And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune? No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. So George W. Is responsible for 9/11 and don’t forget Reagan and the Marine barracks and on and on and on. Yet when will the Repo-Cons get all blamed on that shit, Ed?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,473
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2020 19:23:20 GMT -5
And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune? No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. But you said Hillary should be in prison. Innocent until guilty, right? Or wrong when it concerns Hillary.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 19:23:40 GMT -5
And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune? No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. So George W. Is responsible for 9/11 and don’t forget Reagan and the Marine barracks and on and on and on. Yet when will the Repo-Cons get all blamed on that shit, Ed?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 19:26:43 GMT -5
And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune? No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. Of course the President is ultimately responsible, but why would the Secretary of State be responsible for an attack on the CIA?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 19:29:49 GMT -5
... He is well within his right to order govt employees not to comply the house is not higher than the president. It is then up to the house to have the subpoenas enforced. Yes they can charge him with obstruction like they have done but it will go nowhere only a judge can make him comply ergo no obstruction. So the Judicial Branch is higher than the President?
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 20:29:30 GMT -5
And you have said for quite some time Hillary Clinton is guilty of a crime and should be in prison even though she has never been charged with a crime. Are you now changing your tune? No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. Beyond knowing the word Bengazi, u don't know crap beyond hearing the word in relation to a problem of the Obama administration and Hillery being Sec of State at that time is also brought into the conversation...Since conservative sites have used theincident and throw the word out loosly whenever they want to criticize the Obama administration or Hillery u have gotten in the habit of of using the word in your complaints about the two.. Naturally those conservative sites have it all wrong as u do too but I am posting a article that does explain the whole of the Bengazi situation, both for u , though am sure u won't read it or allow it to correct your beliefs, but might be helpful to others who have heard the word "Bengasi" but really don't really know the details of the incident. ------------------------------ www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996104/benghazi-attack-clinton-obama
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 21:54:00 GMT -5
I just finished watching the video of this mornings part of the trial. Trumps lawyers made the house managers look like idiots....then that is not that hard to do.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 22:06:54 GMT -5
... He is well within his right to order govt employees not to comply the house is not higher than the president. It is then up to the house to have the subpoenas enforced. Yes they can charge him with obstruction like they have done but it will go nowhere only a judge can make him comply ergo no obstruction. So the Judicial Branch is higher than the President? No but they can enforce the subpoena, can't they? Then i don't how accurate this is as i haven't looked it up but according to the opening statements today the subpoenas were ignored do to the house had no authority to issue the subpoenas since they did not have a house vote on the committee. Interesting thought that would explain why the house didn't try to enforce the subpoenas as they would have lost in court. All I can say it is going to get interesting
|
|