Printable View
I will never say that Trump is not a sleaze ball. I will never say that he has never and will never do anything wrong. This “process” proves only 1 thing. You have to have more than what at best is suspect testimony, interpretation, and opinion. NO MORE OPINION WITNESSES!
Trump won’t turn over the documents or allow people at the center of the investigation testify. I wonder why. Maybe what they have to say is consistent with everything else we have heard. If it were exculpatory, he wouldn’t be fighting to keep it hidden.
You are right. They should vote to impeach immediately! Obstruction of congress...such irony.
I’m still not sure that Trump isn’t the master of playing the opposition like a fiddle. Tax returns-nah, just withhold them and piss everyone off. Saying things that are not presidential-isn’t it fun to watch their heads explode when I say things in a way that they don’t like. Witnesses and documents-just hold off until we get to the Senate and release the hounds on the Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And what will you think when he continues to block release of documents and witnesses to the Senate?
You'd be funny, if you weren't a lawyer...but you ignorance of the law is dumbfounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
"Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process - no matter how many times the executive branch has asserted as much over the years - even if the president expressly directs such officials' noncompliance," Jackson wrote, adding that "this result is unavoidable as a matter of basic constitutional law."Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
Are you saying Judge Jackson is wrong?
If so, I hope you aren’t giving legal advice.
Why is the whistle blower being blocked from testifying by Shitt? .Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Biggest problem for Dems....they obviously think they have the goods to get Trump without any of the documents and witnesses he is supposedly blocking. They can’t be upset about him allegedly withholding evidence if they are going forward.
The Articles are self defeating. Abuse of power and withholding evidence of abuse of power. If you haven’t seen evidence of abuse of power because it has been withheld, how can you charge with abuse of power?
Won’t go back to collusion or corruption because they could/would open up Hillary, Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and others for questioning. Won’t go to bribery because it will lead to same for Biden’s. They may all get called anyway.
Does the whistleblower want to testify? The statute protects him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Do we really have a whistleblower at all though? More of a leaker.
If you bothered to read the federal whistleblower statute, you would know that this leaker is specifically excluded from any coverage or protection under the statute. Just another Schiff smokescreen because he got caught with his beady eyes all over the cookie jar. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And there are exactly zero real articles of impeachment since the so-called articles fail miserably to meet the constitutional standard required. But the Republicans will play along just to get to call all of the witnesses they will get to tear into. "Abuse of power" is only in the eye of the beholder because that isn't impeachable without an underlying high crime or misdemeanor that is not identified. And "obstruction of Congress" means Trump was performing his constitutionally enumerated duties as President despite House of Representatives interference.
You are reading the wrong statute.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
“the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken.”
Educate yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
In the Constitutional Convention, Madison successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
Waiting on FBI SWAT teams to break down the doors of John Brennan at 5:00am to arrest him for perjury and lying to Congress just as they did for Stone.