House Impeachment Hearings

[beezzz]

THAT’S DIFFERENT BECAUSE SHUT UP: Flashback: Obama Fired All Bush Appointed Ambassadors In 2008.



http://www.trendolizer.com/2019/11/f...s-in-2008.html

 

[beezzz]

the reason so many have THE BUSYBODY on ignore

is cause THE BUSYBODY destroys the narrative of the LOONZ

 

[Conager]

If an accused person is able, he should be willing to prove his innocence. Trump isn't.

So you are saying that Joe and Hunter Biden should be willing to "prove" their innocence, rather than loudly proclaiming that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing and that looking for evidence of wrongdoing is wrong?

Is that anything like weak, inadmissible, hearsay evidence can be "great evidence" but strong, admissible, circumstantial evidence like the sort that yields convictions routinely means there is "no evidence?"

 

[phrodeau]

Yet another non-American (In this case a German Nazi-sympathiser) pontificating about how the accused should be compelled to prove his innocence.

Quelle surprise.

If an accused person is able, he should be willing to prove his innocence. Trump isn't.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

But its like a pardon or anything else. If it's done with a corrupt or criminal purpose it is subject to investigation and/or the courts and so not "unquestioned."

Impeachment and Congress and the Judiciary ara in the Constitution too. NOTHING any POTUS does is absolute.

He does. But, despite what Rightguard claims, career ambassadors aren't "regularly" dismissed in this context. I'm waiting for Rightguard to cite another who has been in the last twenty years.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Deplorables on the GB don't understand that the US has THREE CO-EQUAL branches of Govt. Someone should loan them a copy of our Constitution.

 

[beezzz]

[Spamming, bumping multiple threads in order to flood the forum, posting same content to multiple locations, or screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

 

[KeithD]

But its like a pardon or anything else. If it's done with a corrupt or criminal purpose it is subject to investigation and/or the courts and so not "unquestioned."

Impeachment and Congress and the Judiciary ara in the Constitution too. NOTHING any POTUS does is absolute.

We'll have to see whether the Supreme Court is going to take a strict constructionist stand on the Constitution (as Republicans claim they do) on the Trump crap coming to them. If they don't, the balance of power doctrine is exploded and the end of this republic is before us. I can't really believe that anyone gets to a seat on the Supreme Court without understanding and applying the basic tenets of the Constitution. This isn't really a Democrat/Republican thing, it's a "there's a renegade blackmailed Russian asset trying to tear it all apart" thing.

 

[Conager]

Deplorables on the GB don't understand that the US has THREE CO-EQUAL branches of Govt. Someone should loan them a copy of our Constitution.

CO-EQUAL does not appear in the constitution which you have never read and obviously did not learn the basics outlined in any civics class.

Each portion of our government has specific delineated powers and responsibilities. There are a series of checks and balances and they are clearly spelled out.

Your explanation suggests that either the courts or the Congress at their sole discretion on any matter can simply Trump trump. On some matters they have control, on some they do not.

The House of Representatives has the sole power of the purse. There's nothing co-equal about that at all. All of this works both ways.

You really are full of poop, Betty.

 

[Conager]

We'll have to see whether the Supreme Court is going to take a strict constructionist stand on the Constitution (as Republicans claim they do) on the Trump crap coming to them. If they don't, the balance of power doctrine is exploded and the end of this republic is before us. I can't really believe that anyone gets to a seat on the Supreme Court without understanding and applying the basic tenets of the Constitution. This isn't really a Democrat/Republican thing, it's a "there's a renegade blackmailed Russian asset trying to tear it all apart" thing.

The end of the Republic is before us?

Gosh that sounds really concerning.

Did you feel the same when the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress because he refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas?

How about when Obama asserted executive privilege because of his right to keep counsel with those within his executive branch on a matter that he claims that he had no counsel with them at all. He obviously couldn't have it both ways that he knew nothing about fast and furious and we can't talk about Fast and Furious because of executive privilege.

It's one thing to be a drama queen, it's another to be a drama queen with no sense of even quite recent history.

 

[icanhelp1]

If an accused person is able, he should be willing to prove his innocence. Trump isn't.

Where the fuck did you get your law degree? That's the LOONEY TOONS mantra
" guilty till proven innocent " A person accused of anything has no requirement to prove anything let alone his innocence.

 

[Conager]

Where the fuck did you get your law degree? That's the LOONEY TOONS mantra
" guilty till proven innocent " A person accused of anything has no requirement to prove anything let alone his innocence.

It's bizarre the way they've become both the party of Eugene McCarthy seeing a red under every bed and finding what used to be called Mccarthyism acceptable. I think maybe the reason why they're so anti-russian is because they miss the Soviets.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Co -equal means each branch can serve as a check on the other. Everything you described is what "Co-equal" means. Neither one has absolute power.

I was totally right. Congress and the Courts CAN at times Trump Trump. This doesn't preclude that POTUS can check them. Or that they cant Trump each other.

Co-equal means shared power. Checks and balances are spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution spells out the basis of Co-equal.

So nothing in the USC says POTUS is "unquestioned."

CO-EQUAL does not appear in the constitution which you have never read and obviously did not learn the basics outlined in any civics class.

Each portion of our government has specific delineated powers and responsibilities. There are a series of checks and balances and they are clearly spelled out.

Your explanation suggests that either the courts or the Congress at their sole discretion on any matter can simply Trump trump. On some matters they have control, on some they do not.

The House of Representatives has the sole power of the purse. There's nothing co-equal about that at all. All of this works both ways.

You really are full of poop, Betty.

 

[HisArpy]

Where the fuck did you get your law degree? That's the LOONEY TOONS mantra
" guilty till proven innocent " A person accused of anything has no requirement to prove anything let alone his innocence.

They've gone around the bend. They also believe Trump has to prove he has nothing to hide in his taxes by releasing his taxes for them to paw through.

It's really shameless that they're willing to completely destroy the country and our society in their herculean efforts to unlawfully unseat Trump.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's bizarre the way they've become both the party of Eugene McCarthy seeing a red under every bed and finding what used to be called Mccarthyism acceptable. I think maybe the reason why they're so anti-russian is because they miss the Soviets.

Notice their support for China and the CCP??

When the CCP exterminates muslims on an industrial scale it's all SHHHHHHHH....don't talk about that.

They are NEVER the bad guys.

 

[jaF0]

So nothing in the USC says POTUS is "unquestioned."

Why ya' keep playin' with 'dis Gabone?

 

[icanhelp1]

Co -equal means each branch can serve as a check on the other. Everything you described is what "Co-equal" means. Neither one has absolute power.

I was totally right. Congress and the Courts CAN at times Trump Trump. This doesn't preclude that POTUS can check them. Or that they cant Trump each other.

Co-equal means shared power. Checks and balances are spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution spells out the basis of Co-equal.

So nothing in the USC says POTUS is "unquestioned."

That's why impeachment is a political process.

 

[HisArpy]

Co -equal means each branch can serve as a check on the other. Everything you described is what "Co-equal" means. Neither one has absolute power.

I was totally right. Congress and the Courts CAN at times Trump Trump. This doesn't preclude that POTUS can check them. Or that they cant Trump each other.

Co-equal means shared power. Checks and balances are spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution spells out the basis of Co-equal.

So nothing in the USC says POTUS is "unquestioned."

There are portions of the Constitution in which the "sole authority" is expressly vested in the President.

For example:

The power to pardon is solely the President's. NO ONE, not Congress nor the Courts can intervene in this. No one can question him on his intentions when making or refusing to pardon.

The authority to command the military resides in the President. NO ONE, not the Courts nor Congress can order the military to do anything, or tell the President that he may not order the military to do something.

There are other powers vested in the President which cannot be questioned. There are powers vested in the Congress that the Courts cannot intervene in. And, there are powers vested in the Courts that neither other branch may interfere with.

So, given all of that, it seems as if you're full of it again.

 

[Conager]

Co -equal means each branch can serve as a check on the other. Everything you described is what "Co-equal" means. Neither one has absolute power.

I was totally right. Congress and the Courts CAN at times Trump Trump. This doesn't preclude that POTUS can check them. Or that they cant Trump each other.

Co-equal means shared power. Checks and balances are spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution spells out the basis of Co-equal.

So nothing in the USC says POTUS is "unquestioned."

Operative phrase. Also, I covered all of that. Do you have a diagnosed learning disability regarding reading?

CO-EQUAL does not appear in the constitution.

Did the red help?

 

[Conager]

There are portions of the Constitution in which the "sole authority" is expressly vested in the President.

For example:

The power to pardon is solely the President's. NO ONE, not Congress nor the Courts can intervene in this. No one can question him on his intentions when making or refusing to pardon.

The authority to command the military resides in the President. NO ONE, not the Courts nor Congress can order the military to do anything, or tell the President that he may not order the military to do something.

There are other powers vested in the President which cannot be questioned. There are powers vested in the Congress that the Courts cannot intervene in. And, there are powers vested in the Courts that neither other branch may interfere with.

So, given all of that, it seems as if you're full of Schiff again.

FYP.

VeraBadBabySitterCarnalKnowledgeBettyPoop literally and figuratively gets off on wallowing in Schiff.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[phrodeau]

Where the fuck did you get your law degree? That's the LOONEY TOONS mantra
" guilty till proven innocent " A person accused of anything has no requirement to prove anything let alone his innocence.

I suggest that you learn about things called alibis.

 

[Emerson40]

They've gone around the bend. They also believe Trump has to prove he has nothing to hide in his taxes by releasing his taxes for them to paw through.

It's really shameless that they're willing to completely destroy the country and our society in their herculean efforts to unlawfully unseat Trump.

People would like him to release his tax returns because he said he would release his tax returns. He said it many times in fact, both before and during his election campaign.

Do you think he should do what he said he was going to do, or are you fine with this just being another thing, in a long, growing list of things that Trump said he’d do, but doesn’t do.

 

[HisArpy]

People would like him to release his tax returns because he said he would release his tax returns. He said it many times in fact, both before and during his election campaign.

Do you think he should do what he said he was going to do, or are you fine with this just being another thing, in a long, growing list of things that Trump said he’d do, but doesn’t do.

I think when and if the audit of his taxes is finally completed, he can do as he wishes rather than what you would prefer him to do.

 

[Emerson40]

I think when and if the audit of his taxes is finally completed, he can do as he wishes rather than what you would prefer him to do.

I, and I imagine most Americans would prefer he do what he said he was going to do.


Unsurprisingly, you’re fine with it being just another lie.

 

[coati]

They've gone around the bend. They also believe Trump has to prove he has nothing to hide in his taxes by releasing his taxes for them to paw through.

It's really shameless that they're willing to completely destroy the country and our society in their herculean efforts to unlawfully unseat Trump.

Ahh, c'mon Harpy! Dry your eyes-- here's a Kleenex. You know Trump won't get convicted in the Senate, because Deplorables.

Quit catastrophizing about Hercules and "unlawful" stuff like impeachment proceedings and subpoenas for tax returns.