The Impeachment Thread

#27,605
#27,605
Septic said:
Is there a better way to say, don't believe anything we say?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's hard to get worked about them since they so openly admit what they are, but I can't believe that some people are quoting their results. It's not just Geraldo Rivera either. Some legitimate news people are treating their polls like they are meaningful.
 
#27,607
#27,607
hog88 said:
Figured you'd miss the point.

The House could have followed the same route and went to court to have their subpoenas enforced, then if Trump ignored the court he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it, I just don't believe it's particularly convincing. Frankly, if Congress would have tried to enforce the subpoenas, it'd have to go through the DOJ and though he may have lost - the election would have come and gone. Grahams a chump whose flip flop hypocrisy has become legend on Capitol Hill.
 
#27,609
#27,609
hog88 said:
Figured you'd miss the point.

The House could have followed the same route and went to court to have their subpoenas enforced, then if Trump ignored the court he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
The “he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on” argument would be more persuasive if:
A. The Supreme Court hadn’t published an opinion in the Nixon case that already knocked that leg out from under him by eliminating any pretense of a legitimate legal dispute over whether it’s appropriate for him to comply with these subpoenas; and if

B. Trump supporters hadn’t spent the last 3 months moving the goalposts and cackling about how they were just trolling whenever Democrats fixed whatever flaw the Trumpers were complaining about.
(Exhibit A: public vs. closed door hearings. Exhibit B: the ability of the president to participate.)

Trumpists should have read their Aesop.
 
#27,610
#27,610
NorthDallas40 said:
The blue dress has a bunch of hearsay on it! 😂
Click to expand...

I disagree, never saw that either. By today's standards, evidence is only evidence when it's agreed upon.

tenor.gif




tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, tvolsfan, PointGuard and 1 other person
#27,616
#27,616
Septic said:
I didn't miss it, I just don't believe it's particularly convincing. Frankly, if Congress would have tried to enforce the subpoenas, it'd have to go through the DOJ and though he may have lost - the election would have come and gone. Grahams a chump whose flip flop hypocrisy has become legend on Capitol Hill.
Click to expand...

Oh so this IS all about the election and not about actual wrong doing. I see.

The Dems would have an actual case had they went to the courts (not the DOJ as you wrongly stated above) and the courts ruled in their favor. Face it, you made an apples to oranges comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#27,617
#27,617
RockyTop85 said:
The “he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on” argument would be more persuasive if:
A. The Supreme Court hadn’t published an opinion in the Nixon case that already knocked that leg out from under him by eliminating any pretense of a legitimate legal dispute over whether it’s appropriate for him to comply with these subpoenas; and if

B. Trump supporters hadn’t spent the last 3 months moving the goalposts and cackling about how they were just trolling whenever Democrats fixed whatever flaw the Trumpers were complaining about.
(Exhibit A: public vs. closed door hearings. Exhibit B: the ability of the president to participate.)

Trumpists should have read their Aesop.
Click to expand...

WTF are you trying to argue? Just cluttering up the bandwidth again?

If Trump would have defied the court like Nixon he would have to be impeached.
 
#27,624
#27,624
hog88 said:
Completely embarrassed. Why don't you embarrass me further and explain it?
Click to expand...

Do you remember when the White house of political strategy and outreach was formed. Congress wanted to make sure the President was following the rules and called the director of the program (Simas) to testify and the President refused to let him from testifying. Clearly Obstruction of Congress, right @RockyTop85.

When President started making all sorts of unilateral (and illegal) changes to the ACA. When IRS decided to expand ACA subsidies to be used in federal exchanges in addition to state exchanges, the administration refused to allow Treasury Department officials to testify on the rule changing process, using the excuse that the issue was soon to be decided in the Supreme Court. Clearly an abuse of power,right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top