Jump to content
leftwinger

House managers to turn attention to obstruction-of-Congress charge against Trump

Recommended Posts

Just now, NeoConvict said:

None. Lazy Democrats could not be bothered with getting judicial authority. They have no case for obstruction. 


Not laziness, urgency in instructing this president of congressional resolve.

 

This matter may end up in court yet. It’s important to challenge Trump’s assertion of legal supremacy using all available means.

Share this post


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


Not laziness, urgency in instructing this president of congressional resolve.

 

This matter may end up in court yet. It’s important to challenge Trump’s assertion of legal supremacy using all available means.

So urgent they sat on it for three weeks to screw with unwanted Senators competing for the dnc nomination. Real urgent. 

 

If it ends up in court I am sure the executive will happily comply with any requests after a successful hearing. 

Share this post


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

He issued a blanket screw off order. One easily pierced if Democrats made the effort to get judicial branch sign off on their requests. They foolishly chose to charge ahead without it. They have no case for obstruction of Congress. 

Yet here they are making a strong case. 
 

Please quote the congressional or statutory basis for your legal opinion that the House must ask the Court to rule before it can exercise it’s sole power to impeach.

Share this post


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

So urgent they sat on it for three weeks to screw with unwanted Senators competing for the dnc nomination. Real urgent. 

 

If it ends up in court I am sure the executive will happily comply with any requests after a successful hearing. 


Three weeks is but a moment. Court challenges take months and years. 
 

Do you think Trump would appeal it for a few years or would he comply as soon as a federal judge rules on what we all know to be the law? 

Share this post


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

Yet here they are making a strong case. 
 

Please quote the congressional or statutory basis for your legal opinion that the House must ask the Court to rule before it can exercise it’s sole power to impeach.

They are welcome to impeach, they don't even need a crime. They could dislike the way the presidents farts smell or the hue of his Orange skin. They just need a simple majority and they have impeachment. No one is questioning that sole right of the house. If they want to make a case for obstruction they have to show the president refused a lawful request. For any request to a coequal branch of government that is refused or disputed it's the place of the judiciary to act as a referee, as a judge to determine if the request must be honored. They are welcome to impeach but they have no grounds to claim obstruction without input from the judiciary. 

Share this post


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


Three weeks is but a moment. Court challenges take months and years. 
 

Do you think Trump would appeal it for a few years or would he comply as soon as a federal judge rules on what we all know to be the law? 

I'm sure it would have been fast tracked to the supreme court. An emergency session held. We may never know because they couldn't be bothered. Unfortunately their actions usurp power from the judicial branch. Unlawfully. As such their obstruction allegations cannot stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NeoConvict said:

Right does matter. Trump was right to investigate Bidens corrupt actions in the Ukraine. 

There was no corrupt behavior by either Biden. 

Share this post


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

Trump is lucky he is not in a country where a military coup would take him out without a trial. 

Reporting to the fbi. You already have your coup, it's failing miserably. The counter offensive will be fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hekeem Jeffries is making a legal argument about process. it’s interesting for some of us but I wonder how many people at home will tune out to watch Ellen or Judge Judy. 🤔

Share this post


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

There was no corrupt behavior by either Biden. 

Such certainty. They have never been investigated by an impartial justice department nor a non corrupt Ukraine government. 

Share this post


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

Hekeem Jeffries is making a legal argument about process. it’s interesting for some of us but I wonder how many people at home will tune out to watch Ellen or Judge Judy. 🤔

 

Even Neoconvict is not watching because does not want to know the truth.

Share this post


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

Such certainty. They have never been investigated by an impartial justice department nor a non corrupt Ukraine government. 

So you agree, no evidence of corrupt behavior. 

Share this post


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

They are welcome to impeach, they don't even need a crime. They could dislike the way the presidents farts smell or the hue of his Orange skin. They just need a simple majority and they have impeachment. No one is questioning that sole right of the house. If they want to make a case for obstruction they have to show the president refused a lawful request. For any request to a coequal branch of government that is refused or disputed it's the place of the judiciary to act as a referee, as a judge to determine if the request must be honored. They are welcome to impeach but they have no grounds to claim obstruction without input from the judiciary. 


They have numerous crimes but that’s almost a distraction. Crimes are not a prerequisite to conviction in an impeachment trial. 
 

Congress has the legal right to issue subpoenas. That has been established through centuries of jurisprudence. 

Share this post


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

So you agree, no evidence of corrupt behavior. 

Nothing obvious but enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a look. Honestly they could be just slimy but innocent but there is an equal chance they violated the law.

Share this post


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


They have numerous crimes but that’s almost a distraction. Crimes are not a prerequisite to conviction in an impeachment trial. 
 

Congress has the legal right to issue subpoenas. That has been established through centuries of jurisprudence. 

Thought my use of body odor made it clear that I agree. No crime needed but certainly handy if they want the Senate to remove. 

Share this post


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

Nothing obvious but enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a look. Honestly they could be just slimy but innocent but there is an equal chance they violated the law.

“The very fact that no acts have occurred is itself an ominous development”. 
 

you’re a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Thought my use of body odor made it clear that I agree. No crime needed but certainly handy if they want the Senate to remove. 


Yes, you did acknowledged that no crime was needed. 
 

Our disagreement is about the existence of crimes. There are numerous crimes. I have posted them here with supporting legal opinions many times. They have not been tried, of course, because the Justice Department will not indict a sitting president. 
 

Congress did not list statutory crimes in the articles of impeachment but it documented them in the legal brief. The “no crimes” defense seems like hair splitting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theLion said:

“The very fact that no acts have occurred is itself an ominous development”. 
 

you’re a joke. 

I think their actions and profits extracted from a known corrupt Ukraine oil company with ties to Russian oligarchs warrants some investigation. Particularly considering Hunters complete lack of qualifications for the position he held. Plenty of smoke to justify checking for fire. I would support this if it was a Republican vice president whose cokehead brat was being paid 50k a month by a known corrupt business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeoConvict said:

I think their actions and profits extracted from a known corrupt Ukraine oil company with ties to Russian oligarchs warrants some investigation. Particularly considering Hunters complete lack of qualifications for the position he held. Plenty of smoke to justify checking for fire. I would support this if it was a Republican vice president whose cokehead brat was being paid 50k a month by a known corrupt business. 

Nothing more of a joke than a clumsy troll repeating completely fictitious talking points. 

Share this post


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


 Yes, you did acknowledged that no crime was needed. 
 

Our disagreement is on the existence of crimes. There are numerous crimes. I have posted them here with supporting legal opinions many times. They have not been tried, of course, because the Justice Department will not indict a sitting president. 
 

 

In relation to this Ukraine kerfuffle? There is nothing justice can do to prevent accusations of crime from being alleged in an impeachment, that is out of their control. They hint at possible crimes in the articles but strangely avoid a direct accusation. That has nothing to do with justice department guidelines. They can't be a factor. For some reason I can't quite figure out they stayed away from criminal allegations, though obviously several would apply. 

Share this post


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

I think their actions and profits extracted from a known corrupt Ukraine oil company with ties to Russian oligarchs warrants some investigation. Particularly considering Hunters complete lack of qualifications for the position he held. Plenty of smoke to justify checking for fire. I would support this if it was a Republican vice president whose cokehead brat was being paid 50k a month by a known corrupt business. 


I’ve known dozens, perhaps hundreds, of board members who have limited knowledge of company operations. American lawyers sit on the boards of foreign countries to provide legal input, not operational input to board decisions. 

Share this post


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

Nothing more of a joke than a clumsy troll repeating completely fictitious talking points. 

If you can't refute the message shoot the messenger. That is what this whole impeachment really is. Biden is obviously corrupt but rather than argue his innocence you attack the person requesting a perfectly reasonable criminal investigation. This will backfire spectacularly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olivaw said:

I’ve known dozens, perhaps hundreds, of board members who have limited knowledge of company operations. American lawyers sit on the boards of foreign countries to provide legal input, not operational input to board decisions. 

 

So, Hunter was qualified? Is that your position??

 

Even HE admitted on national TV that he got the job only because of his last name.

Share this post


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

Nothing more of a joke than a clumsy troll repeating completely fictitious talking points. 

 

I find it worthless.

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...