The Impeachment Thread

#27,678
#27,678
RockyTop85 said:
As soon as you decide to articulate a specific point of contention, I’ll be happy to.
Click to expand...

My point was that if the House Dems would have went to court to enforce their subpoenas as the Senate did with Nixon and Trump defied the court he would have no leg to stand on in fighting impeachment.

Is that simple enough for you or do I need to throw in some "whereofs" or some "hereuntos" maybe a "hereinbefores" or 2 to help you understand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#27,680
#27,680
hog88 said:
My point was that if the House Dems would have went to court to enforce their subpoenas as the Senate did with Nixon and Trump defied the court he would have no leg to stand on in fighting impeachment.

Is that simple enough for you or do I need to throw in some "whereofs" or some "hereuntos" maybe a "hereinbefores" or 2 to help you understand?
Click to expand...
iu
 
#27,681
#27,681
tvolsfan said:
I’m talking about the strategy for Trump and republicans. McConnell just wants to get the trial out of the way. Trump wants a circus with everyone called to testify. This is because one of them is intelligent and the other is Trump.
Click to expand...
Ah my bad misread ya. Yeah Trump wanting a trial will be like one of them old smokey mountain wrestling shows that came on local tv in Knoxville back in the 90's. Hes a dummy and should stfu, his job would be infinitely easier. Southpark was 100% right about Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#27,683
#27,683
Sandman 423 said:
Both. I don't have a problem with President Obama blocking them from testifying. I don't have a problem with President Trump doing it either. If congress wants them to testify subpoena them and let the Judiciary do their job. Then you will have actual testimony to determine if he committed a crime.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already published an opinion holding that executive privilege does not apply when disclosure of information is required for the performance of a constitutionally mandated function of another branch of government. In that case, it was a criminal trial and, IIRC, Nixon’s counsel even conceded at the trial court level that the executive branch was accountable for information sought in an impeachment.

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are co-equal, so why does it matter whether it is the judicial or legislative branch that is telling the executive branch to provide information?

What authority does the judicial branch even have to quash or enforce a congressional subpoena? That seems like a separation of powers issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#27,684
#27,684
FLVOL_79 said:
LOL. They had actual violations of federal law which wouldnt have not been impeachable to begin with because she wasnt (and still isnt) President.. Dimocraps planned on impeaching without ANYTHING. Huge difference.

Its almost like some of yall have literally zero understanding of anything outside of your safe space.
Click to expand...

Facts. Why do you begin to screech like a vampire hit with holy water whenever you are confronted with them?

Read the quotes from GOP house members in the article I linked and explain using facts why a Republican impeachment plan for Hillary is, as you put it, a conspiracy theory on par with 9/11 truthers.

Or just screech and name call and rant about safe spaces loud enough to protect your own safe space from any intrusive realities.
 
#27,685
#27,685
Rifleman said:
Facts. Why do you begin to screech like a vampire hit with holy water whenever you are confronted with them?

Read the quotes from GOP house members in the article I linked and explain using facts why a Republican impeachment plan for Hillary is, as you put it, a conspiracy theory on par with 9/11 truthers.

Or just screech and name call and rant about safe spaces loud enough to protect your own safe space from any intrusive realities.
Click to expand...
LOL. Did you not read what I wrote? Your eyes must be red with rage..

Ill simply it. One group had what they deemed legitimate grounds for a "impeachment"..the other decided with zero information other than hurt feelings they were going to impeach. Try and figure out which is which.

I love educating you guys! Makes me feel like I am giving back to the less fortunate by allowing you to develop and use critical thinking skills.
 
#27,686
#27,686
hog88 said:
My point was that if the House Dems would have went to court to enforce their subpoenas as the Senate did with Nixon and Trump defied the court he would have no leg to stand on in fighting impeachment.

Is that simple enough for you or do I need to throw in some "whereofs" or some "hereuntos" maybe a "hereinbefores" or 2 to help you understand?
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. The court already ruled on this issue, eliminating any pretense of a legitimate legal dispute about whether it’s appropriate for Trump to comply with these subpoenas.

and

B. If 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. For example, the complaint about public vs. closed door hearings and complaints about the ability of the president to participate.

Trumpists should have read their Aesop.
 
#27,689
#27,689
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. The court already ruled on this issue, eliminating any pretense of a legitimate legal dispute about whether it’s appropriate for Trump to comply with these subpoenas.

and

B. If 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. For example, the complaint about public vs. closed door hearings and complaints about the ability of the president to participate.

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

Precedent has been set time and time again (recently) that a POTUS and his staff can ignore a congressional subpoena without repercussion. So yes, he has two legs to stand on since the House did not take it to the courts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#27,691
#27,691
hog88 said:
Precedent has been set time and time again (recently) that a POTUS and his staff can ignore a congressional subpoena without repercussion. So yes, he has two legs to stand on since the House did not take it to the courts.
Click to expand...

Which article in the constitution provides for amendments by congressional negligence?
 
#27,692
#27,692
FLVOL_79 said:
LOL. Did you not read what I wrote? Your eyes must be red with rage..

Ill simply it. One group had what they deemed legitimate grounds for a "impeachment"..the other decided with zero information other than hurt feelings they were going to impeach. Try and figure out which is which.

I love educating you guys! Makes me feel like I am giving back to the less fortunate by allowing you to develop and use critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

I see you admit you were absolutely 100% wrong about a GOP impeachment plan. I don't suspect you'll apologize to the poster you smeared, so you are dismissed.

You may change subjects and claim victory now on based straw arguments which weren't posited, but I'd suggest rushing back to the Play-doh station before the other kids appropriate the snake you spent all morning rolling out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#27,694
#27,694
RockyTop85 said:
Which article in the constitution provides for amendments by congressional negligence?
Click to expand...

Good one.

Let's hope that Trump's impeachment will set a precedent that ends congressional negligence. If it does we can expect every future president to be impeached at least once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#27,696
#27,696
BowlBrother85 said:
I would much rather be the one attacking Trump's behavior, than ever have to defend it. Trump is insecure, self-absorbed, immature, vulgar, egocentric, petty, vindictive, narcissistic, arrogant, dishonest and unrefined.
Click to expand...
And he was elected as our President. Get over it snowflake. You guys are just sore losers. Trump 2020 and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, Rifleman, volfanjustin and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top