Impeachment Thread

[JackLuis]

The "kiddy jails" we put in place by Barack Obama.

He isn't required by law to reveal his taxes and he has a lawful right to challenge a congressional subpoena to produce them in federal court, as the SCOTUS stated by taking his case.

The House Way and Means committee can look at ANYONE's Taxes by law. Trumpski's obfuscation is Illegal and his deternination that they have no legislative purpose is meaningless.

The question is will Roberts uphold the Law or Trumpski's bullshit!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The House Way and Means committee can look at ANYONE's Taxes by law. Trumpski's obfuscation is Illegal and his deternination that they have no legislative purpose is meaningless.

The question is will Roberts uphold the Law or Trumpski's bullshit!

I am really interested in this one. I have no feel for the case outcome, but if the court is willing to hear it, there must be some uncertainty with the current law.

 

[icanhelp1]

The House Way and Means committee can look at ANYONE's Taxes by law. Trumpski's obfuscation is Illegal and his deternination that they have no legislative purpose is meaningless.

The question is will Roberts uphold the Law or Trumpski's bullshit!

SCOTUS DOESN'T UPHOLD THE LAW! that's the job of the department of justice. SCOTUS determines if the law or enforcement of the law is constitutional!

 

[Rightguide]

The House Way and Means committee can look at ANYONE's Taxes by law. Trumpski's obfuscation is Illegal and his deternination that they have no legislative purpose is meaningless.

The question is will Roberts uphold the Law or Trumpski's bullshit!

No it isn't, anyone can contest "any" subpoena in a court of law. If you weren't so ignorant into stage 6 TDS, you'd know that.

 

[Rightguide]

I am really interested in this one. I have no feel for the case outcome, but if the court is willing to hear it, there must be some uncertainty with the current law.

The court's acceptance of the case is a de facto affirmation of the President's right to judicial review. Otherwise they would have let the lower court order stand.

 

[JackLuis]

The court's acceptance of the case is a de facto affirmation of the President's right to judicial review. Otherwise they would have let the lower court order stand.

OR
They might have realized the they needed to step in to force this impudent asshole to obey the LAW!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

OR
They might have realized the they needed to step in to force this impudent asshole to obey the LAW!

That is why I wonder, correct me if I am wrong, but if SCOTUS didn't take up the case, the lower court ruling would stand, and the subpoena documents would be released, correct?

In the end Scotus still may decide in favour of the House,

 

[JackLuis]

There are at least three cases that challenge Trump's Taxes. I wonder if they will hear all three? It could set precedent in may levels of government.

New York state already has Trump's State taxes and they are investigating his write offs and fuckery. Comparing his State and Federal returns might be very interesting. If he lied to the State and then to the Feds he might be in serious trouble.

The Ways and Means Committee has a statutory law that directs the IRS "Shall provide" language. That is pretty definitive, but Trupikin's Billy says there is no legislative purpose to giving in to the law. Thin ice Billy Boy!

Then the SDNY would like a look please!

What if they had a look at a few of the Trumpitnestas, Pence, Pelosi, Pompeo, Rudy?

 

[Rightguide]

That is why I wonder, correct me if I am wrong, but if SCOTUS didn't take up the case, the lower court ruling would stand, and the subpoena documents would be released, correct?

In the end Scotus still may decide in favour of the House,

Yes, or they may define once again the limits of congressional subpoena power and remind the House there are three branches of government.

 

[YDB95]

Yes, or they may define once again the limits of congressional subpoena power and remind the House there are three branches of government.

Congress' right to issue subpoenas has been recognised by the Court at least since Wilkinson v. United States (1961). "Trump doesn't like it" is not a valid block to that right.

 

[icanhelp1]

Congress' right to issue subpoenas has been recognised by the Court at least since Wilkinson v. United States (1961). "Trump doesn't like it" is not a valid block to that right.

Congress has a right to subpoena and the executive branch has a right to disregard it, it's called separation of powers. Then it goes to the courts for judicial review.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, or they may define once again the limits of congressional subpoena power and remind the House there are three branches of government.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

Everyone knows when (D)'s control the HoR it becomes a god like entity of ABSOLUTE POWER!!!!!

At least in "progressive" minds it does.

 

[JackLuis]

Giuliani henchman ‘remains firmly committed to providing his evidence’: Lev Parnas’s attorney

Court documents revealed on Christmas Eve that an attorney representing Lev Parnas had filed to withdraw as counsel.

Edward MacMahon cited the defendant’s “financial hardship” as a reason for wanting to leave the defense team.

But Joesph Bondy will continue to represent Parnas and says this will not change their legal strategy.

“This was a decision made in Mr. Parnas’s and Mr. MacMahon’s best interests,” Bondy posted to Twitter.

It seems they have pumped this well dry! But Lev still want to cut a deal, guys... guys, "I haff dirt on the PeeResident!"

 

[JackLuis]

Here’s why the fight over McGahn’s testimony could lead to Trump being impeached again

While preparations continue for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the House is not finished investigating Trump, and according to Business Insider, there is a possibility that Democrats could consider more articles of impeachment down the line.

One of the most likely avenues to this comes from the battle to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, which dramatically played out in a federal court on Monday.

Attorneys from Trump’s Department of Justice argued that compelling testimony from McGahn would be an improper exercise of court power, because it would interfere with the impeachment proceedings — which, constitutionally, are the sole power of Congress.

Congressional lawyers, on the other hand, told the court that McGahn’s testimony could be extremely relevant to further impeachment proceedings.

Donnie's legal team is grasping at straws as the Trumptanic sinks!

 

[JackLuis]

John Bolton leveled for running to Axios to bash Trump — but refusing to testify in impeachment trial

Appearing on CNN on Christmas morning to discuss the coming impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, former prosecutor Elie Honig said it was time for former national security adviser John Bolton to finally come for forward and tell what he knows about the president.

Noting that the Bolton sat down with Axios to discuss the president’s dealings with North Korea, Honig says he needs to do more.

Johnny B won't testify until the book is a best seller!

 

[JackLuis]

Pivotal GOP senator takes shot at McConnell for coordinating with Trump White House on impeachment

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) this week criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for saying that he was working with the White House to coordinate on President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

In an interview with local news station KTUU, Murkowski said she was “disturbed” when she heard McConnell’s remarks about coordinating with the White House during a Fox News interview, and she suggested that was not an appropriate role for the leader of the Senate to play.

It only takes three revolting GOP Senators to upset Moscow Mitch's majority. Can he lose any more?

 

[jp55665566]

The "people's house" has been thoroughly degraded by the "parodies" and lies of Adam Schiff, and his #1 enabler Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pivotal GOP senator takes shot at McConnell for coordinating with Trump White House on impeachment



It only takes three revolting GOP Senators to upset Moscow Mitch's majority. Can he lose any more?

In trying impeachments, the lack of a majority is no big deal. It would take 67 senators to convict, and that is virtually certain not to happen.

Lisa Murkowski is something of a RINO anyhow, and there is a good chance she will vote to convict.

 

[JackLuis]

In trying impeachments, the lack of a majority is no big deal. It would take 67 senators to convict, and that is virtually certain not to happen.

Lisa Murkowski is something of a RINO anyhow, and there is a good chance she will vote to convict.

It would only take a majority to "Change The Rules" however.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
In trying impeachments, the lack of a majority is no big deal. It would take 67 senators to convict, and that is virtually certain not to happen.

Lisa Murkowski is something of a RINO anyhow, and there is a good chance she will vote to convict.

It would only take a majority to "Change The Rules" however.

The impeachment process is written into the Constitution and it would take a lot more than a simple majority to change it.

 

[JackLuis]

Box says:
The impeachment process is written into the Constitution and it would take a lot more than a simple majority to change it.

The Constitution sets the form of the Impeachment, but the Senate sets the rules, like witnesses or not, facts or Rethuglicunt obstructionism. Good thing the affair is presided over by the Chief Justice and not the Vice PeeResident, otherwise we'd need Crocodile Dundee to clear out the wallabies and Koalas.

 

[jp55665566]

And... there is a GREAT demand for the new Colin Kapernick "I hate America" NIKE shoes !

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Constitution sets the form of the Impeachment, but the Senate sets the rules, like witnesses or not, facts or Rethuglicunt obstructionism. Good thing the affair is presided over by the Chief Justice and not the Vice PeeResident, otherwise we'd need Crocodile Dundee to clear out the wallabies and Koalas.

Gotta love how Jack considers anything that might interfere with the (D)'s march towards a totalitarian communist state (nothing more "American" than that in Jacks mind) = "obstructionism"

 

[jp55665566]

Gotta love how Jack considers anything that might interfere with the (D)'s march towards a totalitarian communist state (nothing more "American" than that in Jacks mind) = "obstructionism"

Such pure partisans take their comments out of any reasonable consideration.

 

[Secretive_Victoria]

I'm currently viewing Trump's impeachment from the following perspective: Impeachment is incredibly popular, while Trump is incredibly unpopular.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/impeachment-incredibly-popular/603661/