Jump to content

rednecks...Its called O-B-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Trump slammed for lawless obstruction of Congress: ‘He’s taken a sledgehammer to the Constitution’

 

“So documents haven’t been turned over by the State Department, by the Office of Management and Budget, by the Defense Department about what happened,” continued Holtzman. “He’s trying to deny not just Congress but the American people the facts. Congress tried to investigate the Mueller investigation. In other words, call witnesses such as the White House counsel, tried to get documents, tried to understand and show the American people what the report was about. The president took a sledgehammer to that. He’s tried basically to put himself above the Constitution. Congress has the power to impeach, the sole power of impeachment, and the president is obstructing that. That has to be, in my judgment, part of the articles of impeachment.”

 

What the president did is so egregious, not just with regard to Ukraine, but what part of what’s bad about his activities in Ukraine, is that he’s taken a sledgehammer to the Constitution by saying that Congress has no right to get information, and he’s cut off his committee, his administration from, and ordered and directed them not to cooperate with the committee in any way.”

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/trump-slammed-for-lawless-obstruction-of-congress-hes-taken-a-sledgehammer-to-the-constitution/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Where are these guys??????.....Pompeo....Mulvaney....Bolton....?????????

 

 

If the Republicans want more substantial and direct evidence, they should demand the testimony of Mike Pompeo, who has been implicated in the scandal by the testimony of his own subordinates including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Pompeo allegedly instructed State Department personnel to cooperate in the machinations of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s henchman on Ukraine. For that matter, they should also demand to hear from Giuliani himself under oath, who claims to be a Trump attorney but has made no court appearances on behalf of the president.

 

If the Republicans want firsthand proof of who ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine — at least until Zelensky promised to smear Biden on cable TV — they should insist on sworn testimony from Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff told the Office of Management and Budget, which he continues to oversee, to withhold that vital assistance from Kiev, without any further explanation, and it did. Surely the Republicans want to know who gave that order.

 

If the Republicans need additional evidence that Trump pushed this “drug deal,” as former national security adviser John Bolton dubbed the Ukraine bribery and extortion scheme, then they must join the Democrats in urging Bolton to step forward with the truth. Bolton has always been a dubious figure, dating back to his efforts to help the Reagan administration cover up the Iran-contra scandal. But his failure was cast into sharp relief by the words of Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert who spoke up courageously in her own testimony. Like Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes and the other witnesses who came before the committee, she did her duty.

 

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill. She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch, still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amendment Iv

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Now, you want some "obstruction" charge, but you can't find a CRIME to justify ANY SEARCH AND SEIZURE TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

 

Sorry, schitstain, but CONGRESS has NO AUTHORITY to require ANYTHING without some PROBABLE CAUSE OF A CRIME. THEY cannot just demand papers and THEN say "ah ha", we found something.

 

Yeah, that CONSTITUTION has meaning, but you goddamn SCHITSTAINS are just way tooo goddamn STUPID to comprehend what it says and MEANS!!!

 

EITHER PRODUCE THE WITNESS TO THE "crime" OR YOU GOT NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ANY DEMANDS!!!!

 

Pssst. That is your "hidden" WHISTLESUCKER!!!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax 

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax

 

 

 

 

It blows my f-king mind daily that there are so many ignorant and/or BRAINWASHED Americans that support the treasonous Traitor... He's corrupt, vile, amoral and a worthless low-life.. America will never be the same no matter what happens. Unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumbnail

 

 

Where are these guys??????.....Pompeo....Mulvaney....Bolton....?????????

 

 

If the Republicans want more substantial and direct evidence, they should demand the testimony of Mike Pompeo, who has been implicated in the scandal by the testimony of his own subordinates including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Pompeo allegedly instructed State Department personnel to cooperate in the machinations of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s henchman on Ukraine. For that matter, they should also demand to hear from Giuliani himself under oath, who claims to be a Trump attorney but has made no court appearances on behalf of the president.

 

If the Republicans want firsthand proof of who ordered the suspension of military aid to Ukraine — at least until Zelensky promised to smear Biden on cable TV — they should insist on sworn testimony from Mick Mulvaney. The acting chief of staff told the Office of Management and Budget, which he continues to oversee, to withhold that vital assistance from Kiev, without any further explanation, and it did. Surely the Republicans want to know who gave that order.

 

If the Republicans need additional evidence that Trump pushed this “drug deal,” as former national security adviser John Bolton dubbed the Ukraine bribery and extortion scheme, then they must join the Democrats in urging Bolton to step forward with the truth. Bolton has always been a dubious figure, dating back to his efforts to help the Reagan administration cover up the Iran-contra scandal. But his failure was cast into sharp relief by the words of Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert who spoke up courageously in her own testimony. Like Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes and the other witnesses who came before the committee, she did her duty.

 

“I believe that those who have information that the Congress deems relevant have a legal and moral obligation to provide it,” said Hill. She was morally and legally right, of course — and her simple statement should shame every official, both in Congress and the executive branch, still aiding Trump’s obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, benson13 said:
You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax 

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax

You've chosen to ignore content by MidnightMax

 

 

 

 

It blows my f-king mind daily that there are so many ignorant and/or BRAINWASHED Americans that support the treasonous Traitor... He's corrupt, vile, amoral and a worthless low-life.. America will never be the same no matter what happens. Unreal.

 

Poor DUMB FUC'KING SCHITSTAIN!!!

 

He GETS HIS ASS BEATEN TO A PULP BY ME ON A 5-6 TIMES DAILY BASIS and then RUNS LIKE THE PUSSY COWARD HE IS!!!
 

Hey SCHITSTAIN, trust me, EVERYONE sees how BAD I BEAT YOUR ASS, so running from it only MEANS YOU ARE A PUSSY COWARD!!!

RUN, CHICKEN, RUN!!!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is trumpy expected to aid the butt hurt dim-0-craps in their illegal treasonous coup against a duly elected President.  

It has not been proven that he broke any laws or violated the Constitution. Any reasonable person has to conclude this is a political inquisition against Trump, meant to either stop or damage him before the 2020 election. Proof of this is that the butt hurt dim-0-craps had already drawn conclusions before they even began their illegal inquisition, instead of at the end, held a great deal of the inquisition in secret away from the public and and moonbatty idiots like beaner believe their LIE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The articles of the Constitution Trump violated

As evidence of a quid pro quo builds on Capitol Hill, the Democrats are talking more about bribery. If President Trump demanded favors from Ukraine in return for military and diplomatic support, they argue, he engaged in a form of bribery and must therefore go.

There’s a good reason to make this argument: Bribery is one of two specific crimes mentioned in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution as grounds for removing a President. (The other is treason, which is virtually impossible to prove in U.S. law.) Otherwise, the Democrats would have to use the more nebulous category of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Yet bribery is also hard to prove here. Where can we draw the line between legitimate bargaining and nefarious quid pro quos? How can we distinguish a president’s due skepticism about a foreign government from criminal pressure upon that government? And as the not-ready-for-primetime Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) yelled at Wednesday’s hearings, Trump never actually received anything, whereas Ukraine did. No quid, no pro, no bribery.

There’s a simpler and more solid ground for impeachment. It comes from the preceding section of the Constitution, which requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Article II, Section 3 is no throwaway line. It is the very essence of executive authority, the standing order to every President during every day of his tenure. Read in context with Article I, the Framers’ clear intent was for Congress to make the laws, and for the President to make them happen. The executive’s special power to devise treaties, receive ambassadors and appoint judges does not change this basic framework. Nor does the expansion of presidential authority in recent U.S. history.

Presidents must respect Article II, Section 3. Period, full stop. Trump has not done so.

Specifically, he blocked the $391.5 million in aid to Ukraine that Congress had approved for Fiscal Year 2019. Most of this money came out of the National Defense Authorization Act, which required specific assurance from the secretaries of defense and state that Ukraine had undertaken certain reforms. This assurance came in May. The next month, the Pentagon publicly announced that it was going to release the funds, which are crucial to Ukraine’s survival.

Yet no money came until the story broke in September. The White House Office of Management and Budget sat on the cash. And a growing pile of evidence reveals that the president himself, acting through his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was responsible for the delay. He repeatedly told increasingly alarmed officials to “talk to Rudy” while pushing the risible notion that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election.

Of course, a president can object to foreign aid along with anything else that comes out of Congress. But he must do so in good faith — by informing Congress of his reasons, issuing a veto, or otherwise acting like an elected official who takes his duties seriously. Trump did no such thing. He ran a back-channel foreign policy in direct conflict with a congressional disbursement.

Put another way, he took care that the laws were surreptitiously undermined. This surely counts as one of the “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in the Constitution, for it does serious injury to the Constitution. No further charges are necessary.

Has anyone ever been impeached for violating Article II, Section 3? In part, yes. The eleventh and final article of impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868 noted that he had sought to “prevent the execution” of three congressional acts related to Reconstruction. More broadly, Johnson had done everything he could to block Congress from enforcing the results of the Civil War, especially when it came to protecting former slaves from white terrorists.

The parallel with Trump is clear, if less dramatic. When it comes to undermining the laws, his actions on Ukraine are the proverbial tip of the iceberg. At various points in his presidency, this man has blocked aid to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico and sought to deny immigrants, refugees and other vulnerable people the basic protections of the law, often with a sadistic glee that should be unthinkable in a democracy.

Quite simply, Trump is constitutionally incapable of doing anything in good faith. If that’s not impeachable, nothing is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump's Constitution - Forbes

www.forbes.com/.../09/15/donald-trumps-constitution

Sep 15, 2017 · Donald Trump's Constitution. He said in an interview with Fox News marking the first 100 days of his presidency that the whole American system of government is “a very rough system, an archaic system,” adding that “it’s a really bad thing for the country.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, benson13 said:

 

 

 

Trump slammed for lawless obstruction of Congress: ‘He’s taken a sledgehammer to the Constitution’

 

“So documents haven’t been turned over by the State Department, by the Office of Management and Budget, by the Defense Department about what happened,” continued Holtzman. “He’s trying to deny not just Congress but the American people the facts. Congress tried to investigate the Mueller investigation. In other words, call witnesses such as the White House counsel, tried to get documents, tried to understand and show the American people what the report was about. The president took a sledgehammer to that. He’s tried basically to put himself above the Constitution. Congress has the power to impeach, the sole power of impeachment, and the president is obstructing that. That has to be, in my judgment, part of the articles of impeachment.”

 

What the president did is so egregious, not just with regard to Ukraine, but what part of what’s bad about his activities in Ukraine, is that he’s taken a sledgehammer to the Constitution by saying that Congress has no right to get information, and he’s cut off his committee, his administration from, and ordered and directed them not to cooperate with the committee in any way.”

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/trump-slammed-for-lawless-obstruction-of-congress-hes-taken-a-sledgehammer-to-the-constitution/

 

 

Take it to the courts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...