Stjohns3269
Active Member
It’s amazing you can see conspiracy theories everywhere but when the truth is running you over daily like a steam roller you continue do feign ignorance.
Will House Dems impeach Trump?
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
It’s amazing you can see conspiracy theories everywhere but when the truth is running you over daily like a steam roller you continue do feign ignorance.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's the proof I thought you had.
What's really amazing is that people want something to be true so badly, that they can't see the actual truth right in front of them. They go to great lengths to cobble together tidbits of this and that, to come to a conclusion that something that is not there, actually exists. The "truth" is, in fact, not so much the actual truth, it's what they've convinced themselves the truth is. And they call US naive and uneducated. Proof, not feelings, are what matter when you're trying to convict someone of wrongdoing. I think it's beyond time that we flush the government of career politicians and get back to the government the framers envisioned for us.
Two terms then out, and no ludicrous retirement package.
Two terms then out, and no ludicrous retirement package.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
trump is refusing to hand over thousands of documents and is blocking numerous witnesses from testifying. It’s exactly the same. The reality is that Nixon’s supporters didn’t think he had done anything wrong either.
Neither congressional oversight nor executive privilege depend on an underlying crime
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
There are some differences I feel obligated to point out...
Trump is innocent
Clinton was guilty & should've been ran outta DC
Clinton's impeachment was conducted professionally and was legitimate
This isn't even an impeachment, yet...it's still just a Schiff show...I mean, inquiry
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
You sound so emotionally hurt, havingto watch this President DESTROY all of the hard work of the Muslim imposter...
This warms my heart...
I have asked you several times to be specific and not just parrot the talking points your handlers have programmed you with.
WHAT documents?
WHAT witnesses?
Stjohns3269
Active Member
And I answered your question.
How many times do you need to hear the same information before it sinks in?
He refuses to release the transcript of the phone call that if it says what he keeps saying it does would show his innocence and end this entire process.
The four who defied the subpoenas are John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, as well as Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry
So you ARE MRs MPD!
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
and I was specific in my answer. Either you haven’t been paying attention during those hearing you claimed to have watched or you are not just acting stupid.
All have done so based on a legal opinion provided to them by WH counsel. If at the end of litigation up to a relevant level (en-banc court of appeals or US supreme Court) it is found that that legal opinion has no merit, I have little doubt that they will testify. If they don't, that would be the point when someone could investigate the question whether president Trump has exerted undue influence to stop them from testifying. Until then, it's your opinion.
I have torn up a number of subpoenas over the years and never been held in contempt.
That translates to: "I don't know, I'm just repeating what I heard on MSNBC."
Don't worry, I won't ask you again. I just want you on record as being a mindless parrot. Maybe I can take some of the starch out of you so you don't ruin the family dinner today.
Happy Thanksgiving!
This_person
Well-Known Member
A. He's under no obligation or requirement to release.
B. If you believe that anything will end if Trump caves, you are sadly mistaken. The vitriolic hatred will just morph into a new lie.
And, if those subpoenas had enforcement authority, they would have enforced them. The subpoenas didn't, so the committee did everything it could: nothing.
These are the facts. Like them or not, agree with the reality or not, these are the facts.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Not only do I know, some of it has been posted in this thread.
I don’t need msnbc to tell me that trump blocked documents from being released. Several witnesses testified under oath that they had given the requested documents to the administration as required by subpoena and that the admin had refused to release them to the congress. But you know that since you claim to have watched the hearings, right ?
If 'House v. McGahn' (Civ 19-cv-2379) gets resolved in the Houses favor, they could file similar suits to enforce those other subpoenas. They haven't done so yet.
I just read through the opinion by judge Brown-Jackson. I don't know whether her legal arguments are sound, I do know that her decision has a fair amount of editorializing language that makes clear how deep her personal hostility towards the WH runs. It makes for nice quotable language (and the press sure lapped it up), it doesn't do anything to make the case stronger. Her decision has already been stayed by the US Court of appeals DC circuit, so nothing is happening until Jan 3rd at the first hearing. Until there is a final decision at that level, it means very little.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
From what I read she stayed her own decision for one week so that she could consider motions.
She did. But that's already moot. US court of appeals issued their stay, iow they decided not to take it up for an emergency injunction etc.
Btw. Her decision details the story citing the relevant opinions provided by the WH counsel and justice department. If you read it, you wouldn't continue to harp on that incorrect assertion that it is Trump who personally keeps anyone from testifying. Again, those opinions by the WH counsel may be incorrect, but that is for the courts to decide.
She also quotes from Nadlers written hissy-fits that make clear that none of this is about getting anyone to provide actual testimony. All this subpoena circus is supposed to accomplish is that Nadler and Schiff get someone in front of them that they can yell and sneer at.
Last edited:
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Now that’s funny. The last I checked the whitehouse counsel works for potus.
The letter directing McGahn came from the WH chief of staff. The legal opinions cited come from he DOJs office of legal counsel (OLC). The responses to the House lawsuit come from the WH counsel.
Doesn't change the fact that this wasn't just something Trump cooked up on his Android tablet. His aides not responding to the subpoenas is part of a legal process. Until that process has played out, there is simply no way this can be construed as obstruction.
If I get a subpoena for job related records and my bosses lawyer sends a 'pound sand' reply to the other side that is based on a (however faulty) legal argument, neither I nor my boss are in contempt of court until the legality of the subpoena has been decided by a competent court.
This has gone the other way around before. The FBI/DOJ wanted info from a congressional committee and both parties went to court to sort out the separation of powers dispute. Be careful what you wish for. If this goes through, president Warren with a republican congress in the second half of her single term presidency will be paralyzed by congressional meddling. Chief of staff Occasio-Cortez will be on the hill tied up in hearings every week. Harry Reid says 'hi' btw.
Last edited: