███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[Rightguide]

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBXmYSQ.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Clearly a Democrat "boner."

 

[Dribble]

This thanksgiving was the best ever since I have been here. I didnt come across one post by right wing idiots. It clearly demonstrates how well we can get along. Dont be stupid, we wont point it out and laugh. Be stupid...well...ya get what ya get then huh?

 

[heathergives]

This thanksgiving was the best ever since I have been here. I didnt come across one post by right wing idiots. It clearly demonstrates how well we can get along. Dont be stupid, we wont point it out and laugh. Be stupid...well...ya get what ya get then huh?

Only left wing idiots, right?

 

[cartepostale]

You censored your own post? Really? What kind of idiot are you?

 

[phrodeau]

Dayum dudly, you just proved the point that what happened with the Bidens is "normal". And that what Trump did to try to stop that crap goes against the tide in the swamp.

Good job exonerating the President even if you weren't really trying to.

If Rick Perry’s influence peddling was fine and proper, why is he refusing to answer subpoenas?

 

[KeithD]

Why is Trump's whole swampy mob refusing to respond to subpoenas? The sleazy Trumpettes on the board know why; they are just as degenerate as Trump's swarmy mob is, though.

 

[Conager]

Why was Obama's whole swampy mob refusing to respond to subpoenas? The sleazy Obamites on the board know why; they are just as degenerate as Obama's swarmy mob is, though.

Good point. Eric Holder was the first attorney general in the history of this country to be held in contempt of congress. Where do you go for redress of lawlessness when the top law enforcement officer in the land refuses to follow the rule of law?

 

[jomar]

Whataboutism is always a sound argument.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Nice try at whataboutism. Not exactly a good comparison though.

Obama never issued a blanket refusal for the "whole swampy mob," though, did he?

Anyone is allowed to contest a subpoena in court, though, which is what Holder did, FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW. It was litigated and fought in the courts. Nothing illegal about it. It ended up in a dropping of the lawsuit and an agreement on both sides. Perfectly according to the law.

Trump's trying to do the same thing for EVERYONE, and he's already been told McGahn must comply and that "Presidents are not kings." He will keep losing, but in the meantime, we must assume you'll support contempt and impeachment charges.

Good point. Eric Holder was the first attorney general in the history of this country to be held in contempt of congress. Where do you go for redress of lawlessness when the top law enforcement officer in the land refuses to follow the rule of law?

 

[Rightguide]

Why is Trump's whole swampy mob refusing to respond to subpoenas? The sleazy Trumpettes on the board know why; they are just as degenerate as Trump's swarmy mob is, though.

The congressional power to subpoena is not absolute it must have a legitimate legislative purpose. The President is not subordinate to the House. There is a such thing as separation of powers. The President has privilege over White House communications., just as congress has over it's internal communications.

 

[HisArpy]

If Rick Perry’s influence peddling was fine and proper, why is he refusing to answer subpoenas?

GOFUCKYOURSELF

 

[HisArpy]

Nice try at whataboutism. Not exactly a good comparison though.

Obama never issued a blanket refusal for the "whole swampy mob," though, did he?

Anyone is allowed to contest a subpoena in court, though, which is what Holder did, FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW. It was litigated and fought in the courts. Nothing illegal about it. It ended up in a dropping of the lawsuit and an agreement on both sides. Perfectly according to the law.

Trump's trying to do the same thing for EVERYONE, and he's already been told McGahn must comply and that "Presidents are not kings." He will keep losing, but in the meantime, we must assume you'll support contempt and impeachment charges.

The problem with your analysis is that, as usual, it falls short of the full story, facts, and reality.

The court issued an order for McGahn to tesitfy, the WH has appealed, and the SCOTUS has issued a stay. Thus the "order' is "on hold" until the issue can be sorted out. Which, as you say, is PERFECTLY LEGAL AND PROPER.

You'd have less problems if you stopped parroting the progressive talking points and actually LOOK at the facts before you open your yap.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

He's not above the house either.

The President does NOT have blanket "privilege" over all "White House" communications. Just ask Nixon

He's already lost a few rounds of this argument in court.

The congressional power to subpoena is not absolute it must have a legitimate legislative purpose. The President is not subordinate to the House. There is a such thing as separation of powers. The President has privilege over White House communications., just as congress has over it's internal communications.

 

[jaF0]

He's already lost a few rounds of this argument in court.

Until it gets to the Scrotes where he and Mitch have stacked the deck with evil.

 

[icanhelp1]

He's not above the house either.

The President does NOT have blanket "privilege" over all "White House" communications. Just ask Nixon

He's already lost a few rounds of this argument in court.

Do you actually know what happened with Nixon?

You don’t think the president has blanket privileges over WH communications.

 

[Fart_knocker]

 

[Rightguide]

Trump's trying to do the same thing for EVERYONE, and he's already been told McGahn must comply and that "Presidents are not kings." He will keep losing, but in the meantime, we must assume you'll support contempt and impeachment charges.

So according to the judge's order all McGahn has to do is appear before the committee and claim executive privilege. That's not to say the DOJ appeal to the SCOTUS wouldn't succeed. The founder's purpose in the application of the principle of separation of power was to prevent an Executive being "owned" by the House.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No, the separation of powers was for each branch to provide a check on the others so that no one is above the law. Complying with Congressionally mandated subpoenas is the law. Just ask Que.

No, she said he must testify.

In her 120-page opinion, Jackson argued that Trump's advisers do not enjoy “absolute immunity” from facing lawmakers' questions about their work under oath. She found that “no one is above the law” and took issue with Trump’s efforts to stonewall congressional oversight via a blanket order directing aides not to testify.

“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote.

That's how it works. Congress checks the Executive. If they don't like it, take it to court. The Courts arbitrate between the Exec and Congress.

So according to the judge's order all McGahn has to do is appear before the committee and claim executive privilege. That's not to say the DOJ appeal to the SCOTUS wouldn't succeed. The founder's purpose in the application of the principle of separation of power was to prevent an Executive being "owned" by the House.

 

[icanhelp1]

So according to the judge's order all McGahn has to do is appear before the committee and claim executive privilege. That's not to say the DOJ appeal to the SCOTUS wouldn't succeed. The founder's purpose in the application of the principle of separation of power was to prevent an Executive being "owned" by the House.

If it was Obama's henchmen getting subpoenaed the loones on GB would throw their hands up in protest.

They just refuse to understand how important each article and separation of power is in effectively conducting government business, especially in today's environment where nobody can keep their mouth shut i.e Schiff thinks he runs foreign policy.

 

[icanhelp1]

No, the separation of powers was for each branch to provide a check on the others so that no one is above the law. Complying with Congressionally mandated subpoenas is the law. Just ask Que.

No, she said he must testify.



That's how it works. Congress checks the Executive. If they don't like it, take it to court. The Courts arbitrate between the Exec and Congress.

Separation of powers was established in order to give each branch of government the latitude to conduct business pertinent to their areas of responsibility, not to inject themselves whenever they feel like it.

 

[Dribble]

It is fucking sad how the Republicans here have no clue as to how the Constitution works. Pretty much make any argument they have mute. Like arguing w a five yr old....except the 5 yr old has a purpose.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

It is fucking sad how the Republicans here have no clue as to how the Constitution works. Pretty much make any argument they have mute. Like arguing w a five yr old....except the 5 yr old has a purpose.

With the Nazi Trumplicans, I think that it's a combination of ignorance and a compulsion to spread propaganda.

 

[Conager]

With the Nazi Trumplicans, I think that it's a combination of ignorance and a compulsion to spread propaganda.

Speaking of arguing like a five year-old, good Godwin, man. If you have ever repeated any of the many, well-documented lies mouthed by Adam Adam Schiff, you have no standing on spreading of propaganda.

The most interesting thing about Trump is how he is able to turn otherwise fairly intelligent, historically good debaters like yourself into spluttering messes like you seem to be these days.

Dribble didn't use to spend all his time here hurling idiotic invective either. He used to pretend to have a busy, fulfilling life that afforded him little time for such foolishness.

 

[icanhelp1]

It is fucking sad how the Republicans here have no clue as to how the Constitution works. Pretty much make any argument they have mute. Like arguing w a five yr old....except the 5 yr old has a purpose.

You do understand that the house is a legislative body not a prosecutorial body, The house does have oversight responsibilities not to be confused with prosecutorial, that would be the DOJ.

 

[Dribble]

Speaking of arguing like a five year-old, good Godwin, man. If you have ever repeated any of the many, well-documented lies mouthed by Adam Adam Schiff, you have no standing on spreading of propaganda.

The most interesting thing about Trump is how he is able to turn otherwise fairly intelligent, historically good debaters like yourself into spluttering messes like you seem to be these days.

Dribble didn't use to spend all his time here hurling idiotic invective either. He used to pretend to have a busy, fulfilling life that afforded him little time for such foolishness.

Lol...it is like doing a fucking google search for "vegan strip joint". It took me 10 seconds to get an answer...something you were unwilling to do, que. Your arguments have become so childish, one doesnt have to invest much time to point and laugh at them. As I did here...20 secs tops on my phone.