Jump to content
ShepCock

This is not an impeachment process

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

I'm just glad Nancy is pushing for a trial after no material witnesses testified, only expert witnesses called by the Democrats, none called by the GOP.

Whether or not it's actually a joke, it's sure being run like a political farce.

Pretty sure all the material witnesses that were subpoenaed ignored those subpoenas 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

I'm just glad Nancy is pushing for a trial after no material witnesses testified, only expert witnesses called by the Democrats, none called by the GOP.

Whether or not it's actually a joke, it's sure being run like a political farce.

There were no 'material witnesses' because Trump told them to disobey congressional subpoenas. wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Spur's Addiction said:

There were no 'material witnesses' because Trump told them to disobey congressional subpoenas. wonder why?

Again, because of precedent going back decades.

 

Lack of evidence = totes evidence

What sort of clownshoes justice system do you think we have here buddy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MFB said:

Link? This is unprecedented in an impeachment hearing 

It being an impeachment (fill in blank) makes no difference.  Presidential privilege is presidential privilege regardless of the circumstance.  

 

Here's your link buddy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheKOB said:

It being an impeachment (fill in blank) makes no difference.  Presidential privilege is presidential privilege regardless of the circumstance.  

 

What kinda ring around the Posey nonsense is this? It absolutely matters, this is unprecedented. Not even Nixon was this bad 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, it’s important to understand that the Trump administration’s legal position is hardly extreme. As Kupperman’s attorney, Charles Cooper, notes in his complaint, presidents of both parties have asserted this immunity for generations:

For nearly a half century, the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice has consistently opined that “‘the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee’ on matters related to their official duties” . . . OLC has reaffirmed this position more than a dozen times over the course of the last nine administrations of both political parties. (Citations omitted).

As Cooper notes, then-Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist defined the scope of the asserted immunity in 1971:

The President and his immediate advisers—that is, those who customarily meet with the President on a regular or frequent basis—should be deemed absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee. They not only may not be examined with respect to their official duties, but they may not even be compelled to appear before a congressional committee.

This opinion was reaffirmed by the Clinton administration in 1996 and by the Obama administration in 2014. As the Obama DoJ explained, this asserted immunity “is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify.” Since the president is “the head of one of the independent Branches of the federal government,” if Congress could force the president or one of his “immediate advisers” to testify, then the president’s “independence and autonomy from Congress” would be threatened.

There’s a great deal of obvious merit in this argument. If Congress could force the president or his close advisers to testify at will, then the president’s ability to make necessary, sensitive decisions that are within the scope of his core constitutional responsibilities would be seriously compromised. But it’s one thing to assert that a default immunity exists; it’s another thing entirely to assert that this immunity is absolute.

In fact, the one court that’s considered this longstanding presidential position has rejected it. In 2008, Judge John Bates (a Bush appointee) ruled that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers did not enjoy immunity from a House subpoena seeking her testimony regarding the “forced resignation” of a number of multiple U.S. attorneys in 2006. Bates’s opinion is thorough, scholarly, and compelling. He is conclusion was clear:

The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President's personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.

Bates quotes Justice Blackmun, who stated in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer that “[p]residential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.” 

 

https://thedispatch.com/p/from-david-french-how-battlestar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MFB said:

What kinda ring around the Posey nonsense is this? It absolutely matters, this is unprecedented. Not even Nixon was this bad 

Link?

 

lol.

 

Show me something that provides an exception to executive priviledge in cases of an impeachment (trial? hearing? whatever this is...) please.

Dems thinking they get to make things up as they go along is a horrible way to govern.  Haven't yall learned your lesson yet?  Anything you do will come back to bite you in the ass when the other party is in power. 

Also, the ring was around the rosie.  The posey was securely in one's pocket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

Again, because of precedent going back decades.

 

Lack of evidence = totes evidence

What sort of clownshoes justice system do you think we have here buddy?

Been hiding under a rock the past month? There were numerous officials within the state department, intelligence community, and military that have testified under oath that there was a concerted effort by this administration to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation into the Bidens, all while withholding military aide for months that had been appropriated by congress. All this has been tied to Rudy Giuliani running a shadow foreign policy at the direction of he President. All the witnesses pretty corroborate the whistleblower complaint.

Just because the ring leaders of Giuliani, Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo,Rick Perry etc. all chose to disobey congressional subpoenas, does not mean there is lack of evidence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

Haven't yall learned your lesson yet?  Anything you do will come back to bite you in the ass when the other party is in power. 

I'll put you down as turning a blind eye to corruption and abuse of power because doing so would be too hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Been hiding under a rock the past month? There were numerous officials within the state department, intelligence community, and military that have testified under oath that there was a concerted effort by this administration to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation into the Bidens, all while withholding military aide for months that had been appropriated by congress. All this has been tied to Rudy Giuliani running a shadow foreign policy at the direction of he President. All the witnesses pretty corroborate the whistleblower complaint.

Just because the ring leaders of Giuliani, Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo,Rick Perry etc. all chose to disobey congressional subpoenas, does not mean there is lack of evidence.  

Wait, you just said there were no material witnesses.  Now there were?  Talk amongst yourself and then formulate a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

Wait, you just said there were no material witnesses.  Now there were?  Talk amongst yourself and then formulate a response.

 

You claimed there were none. Your memory is starting to fde like old MountainCock.

22 hours ago, TheKOB said:

I'm just glad Nancy is pushing for a trial after no material witnesses testified, only expert witnesses called by the Democrats, none called by the GOP.

Whether or not it's actually a joke, it's sure being run like a political farce.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spur's Addiction said:

 

You claimed there were none. Your memory is starting to fde like old MountainCock.

 

what a difference 21 hours makes....

21 hours ago, Spur's Addiction said:

There were no 'material witnesses' because Trump told them to disobey congressional subpoenas. wonder why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

But enough about Biden.

lol

Where did I turn a blind eye?  Because I said that executive privilege is a thing? 

Investigate the Bidens - I don't care. But do it on the up and up with the US dep of Justice. Don't put our national security at risk by withholding military aide to a country in war with Russia, by sending your personal layer on a rogue mission to coerce them to announce a Biden investigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Investigate the Bidens - I don't care. But do it on the up and up with the US dep of Justice. Don't put our national security at risk by withholding military aide to a country in war with Russia, by sending your personal layer on a rogue mission to coerce them to announce a Biden investigation. 

I agree.  They shouldn't withhold aid. I think I posted this when this came out.

Whether or not he deserves to be removed from office for this is a matter of opinion.  Feel free to do so by the way, but you can't pretend that this impeachment whatever isn't politically motivated af.  It's all for show, the dems are desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TheKOB said:

Link?

 

lol.

 

Show me something that provides an exception to executive priviledge in cases of an impeachment (trial? hearing? whatever this is...) please.

Dems thinking they get to make things up as they go along is a horrible way to govern.  Haven't yall learned your lesson yet?  Anything you do will come back to bite you in the ass when the other party is in power. 

Also, the ring was around the rosie.  The posey was securely in one's pocket. 

lol whatever you know what I meant. 

 

Quote

For example, in both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the parties were united in their resolution that the president must provide relevant evidence when requested by Congress in the impeachment inquiry. It is inconceivable that, in either case, the president’s party would have refused to join requests for White House witnesses or documents and then argue that the case against the president could not be proved because of the absence of the very witnesses or documents the president withheld. Yet that is precisely the position the Republicans have assumed in the Trump hearings, arguing, for instance, that the whistleblower’s complaints amount to hearsay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a major obstacle to the US assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms.

Giuliani just admitted that it was Biden they were seeking to dig up dirt on and that further aid in anti-corruption reforms wouldn't come until they did...LOLOL what a freaking clown show

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Giuliani is saying out loud that corruption (1) specifically means Joe Biden, and (2) Ukraine must satisfy Giuliani and Trump by investigating it in order to get “assistance” from the United States. He is literally tweeting out the quid pro quo.

And lest there be any ambiguity as to whether Giuliani is speaking on Trump’s behalf, he has dispelled it. Giuliani called his trip “work being done by a lawyer defending his client” to the Daily Beast, and tells the right-wing news network OANN: “The president of the United States, I can tell you this, is asking for this.”

AnnualIlliterateApatosaur-size_restricte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Investigate the Bidens - I don't care. But do it on the up and up with the US dep of Justice. Don't put our national security at risk by withholding military aide to a country in war with Russia, by sending your personal layer on a rogue mission to coerce them to announce a Biden investigation. 

Do you mean like get a rogue agent from a foreign county to give an unverified dossier upon which faulty FISA warrants could be based and granted?  That kind of up and up?...just admit all you care about is the parties involved and get off your high horse 

  • High Five 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheKOB said:

Again, because of precedent going back decades.

 

Lack of evidence = totes evidence

What sort of clownshoes justice system do you think we have here .

Either you believe the State Department and NSC staff that testified or you don't.  Everything else is just an attempt to muddy the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, STS said:

Do you mean like get a rogue agent from a foreign county to give an unverified dossier upon which faulty FISA warrants could be based and granted?  That kind of up and up?...just admit all you care about is the parties involved and get off your high horse 

No that's not what I meant. Nice whataboutism.

presidential campaigns hiring a private firm to do opposition research in a foreign country =/= the President using his power of office to pressure a foreign country to interfere in an election by withholding military aide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...