If I Were President, I Could Be Charged With Obstructing Congress With One Act

  
By:  citizen-kane-473667  •  3 weeks ago  •  134 comments

If I Were President, I Could Be Charged With Obstructing Congress With One Act
VETO

Yep, that did it!  I just obstructed Congress. Maybe just for good measure, I'll cut a few of their pet projects out of my budget next year, How's that for Obstructing? Maybe I'll go on TV and tell everyone to call their Congressman to tell them NOT to vote for something I don't like.  Maybe I'll send them a postcard in the mail urging them to make those calls!  How is THAT for Obstructing Congress. Better yet, I think the next time they are gathering together at some location, I'll just pull them over with my motorcade and then just stop in the middle of the street while I shake some hands. How is THAT for Obstructing Congress???

Puhleeze, EVERY damn President who disagreed with what Congress wanted to do found a way to Obstruct them. It's all part of the whole Checks and Balances that were put in place by the framers of the Constitution. If this weren't so, then all the President would be doing is rubber-stamping whatever Congress wants to do.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1  author  Citizen Kane-473667    3 weeks ago

Or maybe I'll just cut the budget for the electricity bill for their offices...

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1    2 weeks ago

Not their offices.  I'd cut their salaries or repurpose their offices.

 
 
 
Dulay
2  Dulay    3 weeks ago

You should have stopped and thought before you posted your seed. 

VETO

The President's authority to veto a bill is in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. That's not obstruction, that's the law of the land. 

Maybe just for good measure, I'll cut a few of their pet projects out of my budget next year, How's that for Obstructing?

Just about every fucking POTUS has done just that. The POTUS doesn't appropriate, the House has the 'power of the purse'. NO President has EVER had his proposed budget passed. 

So that's not obstructing, that's just not understanding how our government works. 

The rest is just blather...

Stop and think. 

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1  squiggy  replied to  Dulay @2    3 weeks ago

So, demanding that the President, (including via his institutions) testify against himself would be blather.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  squiggy @2.1    3 weeks ago

what's he afraid of,

his  Specific Pacific Ocean of evidence that is so obvious, even to a pre -schooler, Trump hopes to illegally import and someday marry after Putin out to pastuer, with Lew, Melania ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  squiggy @2.1    3 weeks ago
So, demanding that the President, (including via his institutions) testify against himself would be blather

How could they testify against a "perfect" phone call? 

Trump says he did nothing wrong, so why not allow the people with 1st hand knowledge of this and testify to such while under oath with a threat to their freedom if they lie?

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.3  squiggy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Trump says he did nothing wrong, so why not allow the people with 1st hand knowledge of this and testify...

What he's said is irrelevant. You are demanding that he be compelled to offer testimony against himself.

"That's not obstruction, that's the law of the land." - is what the man said.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  squiggy @2.1    3 weeks ago
So, demanding that the President, (including via his institutions) testify against himself would be blather.

The only way that would be an issue is if that testimony incriminated him. Executive privilege CANNOT be used to hide a crime or wrongdoing. 

So YES, it would be blather.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
so why not allow the people with 1st hand knowledge of this and testify to such while under oath with a threat to their freedom if they lie?

As far as the oath goes, that's no guarantee of anything. The oath is not a magic spell that compels people to tell the truth. People lie under oath every day - even to Congress.

Second, what is the point of hearing from more people when Democrats don't want to hear people who have already spoken? Trump's lawyers have already pointed out that multiple people testified in the House and contradicted the charges against Trump.

But more telling is that they want to ignore the words of the president of Ukraine himself who said all of this pressure, withholding of "critical aid" or a meeting with the president, and quid pro quo stuff never happened as far as he is concerned. Talk about somebody with firsthand knowledge! But his comments are dismissed out of hand. That just shows what a farce all of this is.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
Second, what is the point of hearing from more people when Democrats don't want to hear people who have already spoken?

Republicans don't want to hear from ANYONE and they sure as hell haven't said a word about deposing anyone who has already testified. So what's YOUR point? 

Trump's lawyers have already pointed out that multiple people testified in the House and contradicted the charges against Trump.

They lied. The testimony of every witness is corroborative. 

But more telling is that they want to ignore the words of the president of Ukraine himself who said all of this pressure, withholding of "critical aid" or a meeting with the president, and quid pro quo stuff never happened as far as he is concerned. Talk about somebody with firsthand knowledge! But his comments are dismissed out of hand. That just shows what a farce all of this is.

You start your comment by stating that 'people lie every day' and end it by insisting that we should believe what Zelensky said while his nuts were in a vice.

Hilarious. 

Is it your posit that Zelensky should be deposed. I'd LOVE to see that happen.

Or how about Andrey Yermak? You know who he is right? He'd be a font of information on the shit show that Volker, Sondland, Perry and Giuliani were performing. 

Please DO bring them in and depose them. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
'You start your comment by stating that 'people lie every day' and end it by insisting that we should believe what Zelensky said while his nuts were in a vice.'

Yup, Zelensky was tRump's hostage.  Yet I get pooh poohed by all the rabid tRump supporters.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
Republicans don't want to hear from ANYONE

They don't need to hear from anyone else. They have already heard from people exonerating the president. You can always find people willing to implicate the president in this or that, but when you have people who are saying that things didn't happen, you need to acquit and move on.

They lied.

Ah, there it is. They're not in on the witch hunt with you, therefore they lied. The fact that you and so many others are willing to overturn an election based on that is disgusting.

we should believe what Zelensky

You have zero evidence that he is lying other than your own prejudice.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
Yup, Zelensky was tRump's hostage.

More bullshit fantasy. You'll say anything to support your conspiracy theory.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
You can always find people willing to implicate the president in this or that, but when you have people who are saying that things didn't happen, you need to acquit and move on.

WHO said that things didn't happen? BE specific. Trump don't count. 

Ah, there it is. They're not in on the witch hunt with you, therefore they lied.

No, I said the lied because they LIED. BOTH of Trump's main lawyers LIED. 

I actually read all of the testimony from the depositions and the hearings. Did YOU? 

The fact that you and so many others are willing to overturn an election based on that is disgusting.

I am willing to Impeach Trump because the EVIDENCE shows that he abused his power and obstructed Congress. 

Even should Trump be impeached, it would NOT overturn the election. Mike Pence was elected in 2016 and would become POTUS. Just stop with the gaslighting BS. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  squiggy @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
You are demanding that he be compelled to offer testimony against himself.

This is a lie and you know it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
As far as the oath goes, that's no guarantee of anything. The oath is not a magic spell that compels people to tell the truth.

Nope, but it invokes penalties if lies are discovered later.  Why the hell do you think every witness is put under oath, in any trial?

Second, what is the point of hearing from more people when Democrats don't want to hear people who have already spoken?

What the fuck are you trying to say?  Democrats have heard from everyone they were able to get to testify, Republicans are the ones afraid of witnesses.

Trump's lawyers have already pointed out that multiple people testified in the House and contradicted the charges against Trump.

Trump's lawyers have made other ridiculous and easily rebutted arguments as well.  None of them make sense.

But more telling is that they want to ignore the words of the president of Ukraine himself who said all of this pressure, withholding of "critical aid" or a meeting with the president, and quid pro quo stuff never happened as far as he is concerned.

Right.... Let's ask the hostage, while he is still at gunpoint, if the person holding the gun has done anything wrong.  Wow!!!!

But his comments are dismissed out of hand.

Of course they are.  His country needs the aid from America, and right now that aid is under the control of a petty vindictive man who is known for holding grudges.  Zelensky will say whatever is in his country's best interests, and right now that is anything to prevent the stoppage of aid to his country.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
WHO said that things didn't happen? BE specific. Trump don't count. 

Three hours later and still waiting for you to support your proclamation Tacos!. Since I see you're still online, I hope you are using that time to find some links. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
WHO said that things didn't happen?

Trump is being impeached because allegedly military aid was being withheld to force Ukraine to investigate, or at least announce they were investigating, the Bidens.

Aid was delivered without any investigation being launched or announced. You don't even need testimony for that. It's just a fact.

There is nothing in the infamous July 25 phone call that says Trump intends to withhold aid unless Ukraine announces this investigation. You have to use your imagination or argue subtext to find it.

The president of Ukraine has said there was no such threat or pressure.

The White House has countered that the aid was withheld because of concerns over corruption and burden sharing by our allies but the House managers claim Trump never cared about corruption or burden sharing. Existing testimony contradicts that.

Ambassador Volker testified that Trump had previously expressed a negative view of Ukraine based on past corruption.

Dr. Fiona Hill testified and acknowledged that Trump has said publicly he was skeptical about corruption in Ukraine and furthermore he was not alone in that. She said "everyone" had expressed great concerns about corruption in Ukraine.

Marie Yovanovitch testified that Trump expressed concern about Ukrainian corruption way back in June 2017.

None of this slow walking of aid is unusual for the Trump administration. They have done it to several countries, and often to the frustration of individuals in Washington. That's too bad. They aren't the president. It's not their call.

House managers also claimed Trump was not actually concerned with our allies sharing their fair share of the burden of supporting Ukraine. That is also false.

Timothy Morrison testified that Trump was concerned that Europe wasn't contributing enough to Ukraine.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale said Trump wanted our allies to share a greater burden of support.

Senator Ron Johnson wrote a letter to the House discussing Trump's burden sharing concerns.

Timothy Morrison testified that OMB was saying in July that aid was delayed because of corruption concerns. He also confirmed that there was actually an interagency effort to address Trump's concerns about corruption before aid could be released.

In September, after the news about all this broke in Politico, President Zelensky met with VP Pence. In a private meeting, the first thing Zelensky asked about was the aid. The VP didn't say anything about the Bidens. Instead he told Zelensky that they wanted Ukraine to do more to fight corruption and that they also wanted better burden sharing from Europe.

Ambassador Taylor confirmed that he saw a readout of the conversation and that is what was on it. 

House managers have also alleged that a White House meeting was conditioned on an announcement of Ukraine investigating Biden. That is also not true.

For one thing, the July 25th call was actually the third time Trump had invited Zelensky to the White House. The first time came in a phone call on April 21, and the next was by letter on May 29. Every single invitation was made without any conditions attached to it.

Morrison was tasked - along with people at the White House - with finding a way to schedule the meeting, but their schedules wouldn't allow it before September 1 in Poland. They even scheduled the meeting but had to cancel it because of a hurricane. The presidents finally did meet on September 25 at the UN, again without any conditions or Biden issues being relevant.

Ambassador Volker testified that there was no link between a meeting and any Biden investigations.

No one has ever testified that Trump said there was a link between such a meeting and investigations.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.14    3 weeks ago
Three hours later and still waiting for you to support your proclamation Tacos!. Since I see you're still online, I hope you are using that time to find some links. 

It's hard to imagine more [deleted] behavior than to attack someone for not living on their computer to answer your stupid questions after three hours. [deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.13    3 weeks ago
Nope, but it invokes penalties if lies are discovered later.  Why the hell do you think every witness is put under oath, in any trial?

I'm just telling you people lie under oath. And they get away with it, too.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

The Democrats hear what they want to hear and dismiss whatever destroys the fantasy.

Right.... Let's ask the hostage, while he is still at gunpoint, if the person holding the gun has done anything wrong.

No one has captured or threatened anyone in Ukraine. Your argument is impossible to prove, therefore it's impossible to disprove. I guess that's why it works for you.

His country needs the aid from America

The aid to Ukraine was already approved by Congress and signed by the president. By law, it had to be delivered by a certain date which had not yet been reached as of the July 25 phone call. To argue that Trump was negotiating for a Biden investigation is to argue that Trump was negotiating from a position of extraordinary weakness.

If Zelensky really felt like this was something he could negotiate - i.e. Trump wanted it so bad, he would pay for it -, he could have raised the stakes. He could have said, "sure, we'll investigate Biden, but we want more than the Javelins you are already committed to delivering. We want tanks and planes, too." But nothing like that happened.

Going the other way, if the aid were withheld permanently (btw how do you imagine Trump would get away with that?), Zelensky would be no worse off than he had been. Obama had refused to send weapons.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.16    3 weeks ago
It's hard to imagine more [deleted] behavior than to attack someone for not living on their computer to answer your stupid questions after three hours.

Hate to say it, but you still didn't answer his question.  WHO said it?

So far the only 2 you have listed is the suspect and the hostage.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.18    3 weeks ago
Hate to say it, but you still didn't answer his question.

You're as bad as he is. Were you too tired from trolling to scroll down to the very next reply? I answered the question with half a dozen names.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.15    3 weeks ago

That's a hell of a lot of words that don't support your claim that:

you have people who are saying that things didn't happen

WHO said that things didn't happen?

After you provide those links, perhaps I'll take the time to refute your other proclamations. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.16    3 weeks ago
removed for context

I'll have to take note of that term for use the next time your come back at me for replies to your posts. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.20    3 weeks ago
things didn't happen?

I will try to simplify for you.

Allegations:

Aid withheld pending Biden investigation. Didn't happen.

Aid withheld pending announcement of investigation. Didn't happen.

Trump made up story about corruption after he was caught. Didn't happen.

Trump made up story about burden sharing after he was caught. Didn't happen.

Trump conditioned White House meeting on Biden investigation. Didn't happen.

After you provide those links

What links? You didn't ask for links and I didn't promise links. The information I provided comes from the testimony in the House. You claim to have read all of the testimony, so I assume you have access to it. You shouldn't need links. Read it again. I even gave you the names. Mike Purporo went over this stuff just yesterday during the trial.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.21    3 weeks ago
I'll have to take note of that term for use the next time your come back at me for replies to your posts.

I'm not lame enough to harass someone after three hours, so you won't get the opportunity. I guess you're proud of that behavior, so what do you care?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.24  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
so why not allow the people with 1st hand knowledge of this and testify to such while under oath

Yeah maybe you can tell us why obama didn't allow his "wing-man" eric holder to testify about Fast and Furious if there was nothing to hide.

deleted

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.23    3 weeks ago

I'm merely following your MO. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.16    3 weeks ago
It's hard to imagine more [deleted] behavior than to attack someone for not living on their computer to answer your stupid questions after three hours. Just because my computer is on does not mean I am sitting at it or paying concern to impressing some random internet troll.

Very well put.

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.22    3 weeks ago
I will try to simplify for you.

With MORE proclamations? 

WHO said that things didn't happen?

I even gave you the names.

NONE of those that you named said it didn't happen. In fact, NONE of the statements that you attribute to them say that it didn't happen. 

Zelensky didn't testify under oath and Trump don't count. 

So since you've got all of those transcripts at your fingertips, quote me just ONE of the witnesses saying that that Trump did NOT withhold aid or the WH meeting to get Zelensky to announce an investigation. 

BTW, your "he was invited 3 times'. Seriously, come on. Dangle, deny. Zelensky STILL hasn't gotten a WH meeting.

You can insist that I should leave common sense at the door all you want but it will never happen. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.28  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
Ah, there it is. They're not in on the witch hunt with you, therefore they lied. The fact that you and so many others are willing to overturn an election based on that is disgusting.

Who the heaven are you calling disgusting?  This president's former national security advisor, senior official, John Bolton and his former Chief of Staff John Kelly are both attempting to overturn an election based on personal whim?

Something is wrong with Trump republicans—seriously wrong and I ain't kidding. Nobody deserves this kind of protection from his own acts and misdeeds. Moreover, republicans will continue to run behind Trump putting out political fires, because starting 'em is what Trump does. Coming soon: Impeachment II (He did it again.)

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.29  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.27    3 weeks ago
WHO said that things didn't happen?

Ambassador Sondland had a conversation with the president. The President didn't tell him aid would be conditioned on a Biden investigation. He told him he wanted Zelensky to do what he ran on: fight corruption.

I gave you names of people who testified that aid was being withheld because of concerns over corruption and burden sharing. You want to ignore that.

BTW, your "he was invited 3 times'. Seriously, come on.

Come on yourself. That's a pretty inconvenient fact, I guess, that Trump invited the man to a meeting without preconditions. Even worse that he did it three times.

Zelensky STILL hasn't gotten a WH meeting.

It didn't need to be a White House meeting. Fiona Hill testified to that. She said it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se. What's more, if it needed to be a White House meeting specifically, Zelensky would not have suggested Poland himself in the July 25 call. The whole notion that a White House meeting was somehow critical is flat out wrong.

Ambassador Volker also testified that there was no link between a meeting and investigations. I told you that already.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.30  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
I am willing to Impeach Trump because the EVIDENCE shows that he abused his power and obstructed Congress. 

No....you want to impeach him because you don't like him....and his name is not Hillary.

No denying it...

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.31  Tacos!  replied to  CB @2.1.28    3 weeks ago
Who the heaven are you calling disgusting?

I didn't call you or anyone else disgusting so get off your high horse. I called an idea disgusting. If that hurts your feelings, that's your issue.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.29    3 weeks ago
Ambassador Sondland had a conversation with the president.

WHO said that it didn't happen? 

I already KNOW what they all said DID happen Tacos!. I KNOW that Sondland said that as far as the WH meeting, there WAS a quid pro quo. 

Come on yourself. That's a pretty inconvenient fact, I guess, that Trump invited the man to a meeting without preconditions. Even worse that he did it three times.

How is it 'inconvenient'? The actual meeting was one of the somethings for something. We all KNOW that. NOT an invitation, a WH, oval office, photo op with a handshake meeting. 

Come on, just stop:

Trump: Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. ·Give us a date and we'll work that. out. I look forward to seeing you. 

Zelensky: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better...

Trump: I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.  

At their meeting at the UN Zelensky was STILL asking about the WH meeting. 

Ambassador Volker also testified that there was no link between a meeting and investigations. I told you that already.

First of all, that's false. Volker said HE didn't know it was linked at the time but when he READ the call summary he realized that it was. 

Secondly Volker didn't say it didn't happen.

Many said it DID happen, including Sondland but NO ONE testified that it didn't happen. PERIOD full stop. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.33  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.1.31    3 weeks ago

Good cleaning up a mess! Now this:

This president's former national security advisor, senior official, John Bolton and his former Chief of Staff John Kelly are both attempting to overturn an election based on personal whim? What say you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.34  Tacos!  replied to  CB @2.1.33    3 weeks ago

Who said that and why exactly should I be responding to it?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.29    3 weeks ago
It didn't need to be a White House meeting. Fiona Hill testified to that. She said it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se.

Why are you misrepresenting what Fiona Hill testified to when you fucking KNOW that her testimony is public record Tacos!? 

Look, page 147 of the transcript proves that you are misrepresenting what Fiona Hill stated in her testimony.

For those of you that want to see the proof that your comment was a mischaracterization for themselves, here is the link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/434065486/Fiona-Hill-testimony#from_embed

What Hill said it that it wasn't JUST the WH meeting that was in question, EVERY kind of meeting was contingent on the investigations.

In short the exact OPPOSITE of want you stated. 

Please STOP wasting my time with your gaslighting bullshit. If that's all you've got, take it to the peanut gallery where they'll pat you on the back for it. I have no intention of chasing down every single one of your intentional  mischaracterizations and posting proof that you are being intentionally misleading. PLEASE JUST STOP. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.35    3 weeks ago
What Hill said it that it wasn't JUST the WH meeting that was in question, EVERY kind of meeting was contingent on the investigations.

She said it didn't have to be at the White House. That's what I said. I have not misrepresented anything.

By the way, by your own words and the transcript, which I am so glad you were able to find a copy of, it is extremely clear that we are talking about investigations plural. That is, there was a genuine concern for Ukrainian corruption and the White House wanted to make sure that corruption would be dealt with. She also talks about a concern for better involvement from European allies. All of that is what I said. Thank you!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.37  CB   replied to  Tacos! @2.1.34    3 weeks ago
They're not in on the witch hunt with you, therefore they lied. The fact that you and so many others are willing to overturn an election based on that is disgusting.

This is fast-breaking current news, Tacos! John Bolton has first hand information about your 'boy' Trump asking an international leader for dirt on his political rival Joe Biden and to investigate his son. Similarly, Bolton has information on withholding of Ukraine funding that is under question and complaint.

My word, a conservative thought leader has a - noun, verb, and Donald Trump! Are Bolton and Kelly - witch-hunters?!  Well Tacos?!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.38  CB   replied to  Dulay @2.1.35    3 weeks ago

See page 145 (Smile.)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.39  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.24    3 weeks ago
Yeah maybe you can tell us why obama didn't allow his "wing-man" eric holder to testify about Fast and Furious if there was nothing to hide.

m3h5vw362ec11.jpg

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.40  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.39    3 weeks ago

Yeah I don't blame you for not wanting to remember that worthless piece of shit obama either.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.41  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.40    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.42  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.41    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
2.1.43  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.42    3 weeks ago

A racist comment if ever there is, but what else can one expect from some republicans? Oh, for a republican to come aboard NT and push back against the 'whole head is sick-ers' in their party!  'Establishment' republicans are amazingly weak, runt, and diminutive.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.36    3 weeks ago
She said it didn't have to be at the White House. That's what I said. I have not misrepresented anything.

You claim that Zelensky didn't care WHERE the meeting was, he just wanted to meet Trump and you try to use Fiona Hill's testimony to support that claim. 

THAT IS FALSE and misleading. 

Fiona Hill was answering a question about WHAT meeting Sondland was talking about, NOT what kind of meeting Zelensky wanted. 

DR. HILL: And then when Ambassador Sondland came in about specific  investigations, that's when Ambassador Bolton stiffened up and immediately, you know, brought the meeting to a halt, because he tied that to the meeting. But when I went down
 

MR. GOLDMAN: Sorry. You mean the White House meeting?

DR. HILL: To the White House meeting or to a meeting with the President. Now, just to be, kind of , clear, actually, it wasn't always a White House meeting per se, but definitely a Presidential-level, you know, meeting with  Zelensky and the President. I mean, it could've taken place in Poland, in Warsaw. It could've been, you know, a proper bilateral in some other context. But, in other words, a White House- level Presidential meeting.

So those of us that think CONTEXT is relevant, Dr. Hill was talking about what kind of meeting was being tied to the investigations and her answer was ANY kind of WH level Presidental meeting. Neither the question or Dr. Hill's answer had ANYTHING to do with what Zelensky wanted. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.45  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

Tell that to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Of course the Republicans in the House did their jobs and used the courts to compel testimony. Funny how the Democrats in the House are given a complete pass on following the rules.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.46  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.44    3 weeks ago
what Zelensky wanted

Sigh . . . so easy to find out what Zelensky wanted. From the July 25 phone call with Trump:

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. l am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.
The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

Nowhere in that conversation is either one of them stressing some critical importance to a White House meeting. It's all about just trying to find a time and place to meet to get to know each other better.

Just not a big deal happening there, but you want to pretend there is a need to impeach the president over it. How ridiculous.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.46    3 weeks ago
Sigh . . . so easy to find out what Zelensky wanted.

WTF is your point other than deflection Tacos!? 

Your claim that Dr. Hill stated that 'it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se' is FALSE. PERIOD. Full stop. 

AGAIN, WHO said that it didn't happen? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.48  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.47    3 weeks ago
Your claim that Dr. Hill stated that 'it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se' is FALSE. PERIOD. Full stop.

Nope, sorry. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.49  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @2.1.43    3 weeks ago
A racist comment if ever there is, but what else can one expect from some republicans?

Hardly a fair assessment of the statement. I can guarantee that he will ALWAYS be remembered as the first Black President of the United States of America.

What is Racist about the truth?

Now the second half of the comment is indeed debatable. Although there are some who make no bones about that being their deciding factor when they voted...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.50  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.48    3 weeks ago
comment removed for context

That would require a willful disregard of known fact of which they were aware of before posting their comment. It isn't like someone had just posted a portion of the transcript that said:

l am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine.
 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.51  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @2.1.43    3 weeks ago
A racist comment if ever there is,

A low intelligence comment if ever there is, But what can one expect from some democrats? Oh, but to come on NT and displaying their triggered feeling?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.50    3 weeks ago
It isn't like someone had just posted a portion of the transcript that said:

Nor is it like that portion of the transcript supported what he claimed but hey, far be it from me to interrupt with facts. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.53  Tacos!  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.50    3 weeks ago

Yeah, amazing. And yet somehow pointing it out gets deleted. 

 
 
 
CB
2.1.54  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.51    3 weeks ago

I rest my case.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.55  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.49    3 weeks ago

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for one's choice of president from a pure motive to see one's ;self,' barring any vileness, advance. After all, this country's past catalog of presidents were steeped in one coloration. And we all know for many citizens not all certainly, "White is right (44); Black stay back.(1)" 

Women (0); Others (0). So who can deny such people a time in the sun—up from the canopy?

A good president deals with a recession; a good president achieves healthcare for millions where one was missing for over 30 years; a good president stars no new wars; and, a good president for eight years keeps his 'nose' clean while he serves his nation. How is that for a first? I think George Washington would be proud of Barack Obama were he alive today: I can't see why not!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.56  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @2.1.54    3 weeks ago
I rest my case.

And I rest mine, Emphatically. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.57  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.48    3 weeks ago
Zelensky STILL hasn't gotten a WH meeting. It didn't need to be a White House meeting. Fiona Hill testified to that. She said it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se. 

Your claim that Dr. Hill stated that 'it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se' is FALSE. PERIOD. Full stop.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.58  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.1.57    3 weeks ago
Your claim that Dr. Hill stated that 'it just needed to be a presidential meeting, not a White House meeting per se' is FALSE. PERIOD. Full stop.

Do words mean the same thing on your planet as they do here?

DR. HILL: To the White House meeting or to a meeting with the President. Now, just to be, kind of , clear, actually, it wasn't always a White House meeting per se, but definitely a Presidential-level, you know, meeting with  Zelensky and the President. I mean, it could've taken place in Poland, in Warsaw. It could've been, you know, a proper bilateral in some other context. But, in other words, a White House- level Presidential meeting.

Lol_9f5f22_1762499.jpg

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.1.59  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.1.52    3 weeks ago

Guess you missed it...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.60  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.58    3 weeks ago
Do words mean the same thing on your planet as they do here?

Why yes Tacos!, YES they do but unlike you, I believe that the CONTEXT of that statement is important.

I posted that context by quoting the question Dr. Hill was answering in my 2.1.44 reply which I presume you read since you posted a truncated block quote from it, yet you failed to address the facts. 

The question was about what meeting Sondland was tying to investigations, NOT what kind of meeting Zelensky wanted. Any thinking person reading the quote I posted would recognize that FACT. 

Taking a one paragraph statement from a 446 page deposition, OUT OF CONTEXT, is misleading and at this point, it would be hard to believe it isn't intentionally so. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.61  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.1.59    3 weeks ago

I know you're mistaken. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2    3 weeks ago
Just about every fucking POTUS has done just that.

Just like making a claim of executive privilege

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    3 weeks ago
Just like making a claim of executive privilege

Nope. 'claiming' Executive privilege in NOT the same as formally invoking Executive privilege. If you had been listening to the House's argument, you would know WHY. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2    3 weeks ago
That's not obstruction, that's the law of the land. 

The same goes for executive privilege and the right to settle disputes in court.

You know what is not the law of the land? The idea that a crime has been committed when you try to assert your rights.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3    3 weeks ago
The same goes for executive privilege

If you had been listening to the House argument, you would KNOW that Trump NEVER formally invoked Executive privilege. So your comment is moot. 

and the right to settle disputes in court.

They are doing just that with McGahn. Trump's lawyers are making two contradictory arguments. One of those arguments is that the court would threaten their own credibility if it claimed any jurisdiction in settling disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches. The other is that Congress MUST exhaust every avenue of litigation prior to resorting to Impeachment. 

It drips with hypocrisy. 

Oh and BTFW, Congressional oversight and the 'sole power of Impeachment' in the House are the law of the land too. 

You know what is not the law of the land? The idea that a crime has been committed when you try to assert your rights.

Again, one has to ACTUALLY assert those rights.

All Trump has done is THREATEN that some time in the future he might decide to assert them.

Almost, kinda, maybe don't cut it. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.1    3 weeks ago
If you had been listening to the House argument, you would KNOW that Trump NEVER formally invoked Executive privilege. So your comment is moot.

Is this serious? Your beef is that you don't think he was formal enough in his refusal to cooperate? You don't deny that he had the right to do it. You just don't like the way he did it? And you want to impeach based on that?

Congressional oversight

of what? Congress can conduct oversight with regard to agencies or spending - that kind of thing. But oversight of the president himself - beyond impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors - isn't really a thing. Congress and the Presidency are two co-equal branches of the government. One doesn't oversee the other.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.2    3 weeks ago
Is this serious? Your beef is that you don't think he was formal enough in his refusal to cooperate?  You don't deny that he had the right to do it. 

As I said, Trump has the 'right' to invoke Executive privilege, he chose not to. 

You just don't like the way he did it?

The POINT is he didn't DO it, he claimed that he MIGHT. 

And you want to impeach based on that ?

I have already stated why Trump should be impeached. It hasn't changed in this short time. 

of what? Congress can conduct oversight with regard to agencies or spending - that kind of thing.

Oh you mean like withholding funds appropriated by the Congress in violation of the ICA? 

But oversight of the president himself - beyond impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors - isn't really a thing.

Tell that to Trey Gowdy. 

Perhaps a review of Watergate would help you understand just how ridiculous that statement is on it's face. Come on Tacos!, try harder. 

Congress and the Presidency are two co-equal branches of the government. One doesn't oversee the other.

Read it and weep. 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/273us135

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.3    3 weeks ago
Oh you mean like withholding funds appropriated by the Congress in violation of the ICA? 

What funds have been withheld? Oh wait, no funds have been withheld. They got their aid. Delaying it within the allowed time is perfectly legal and is done all the time.

Read it and weep. 

I don't read giant walls of text. If you want to point me to something, then point. I had the good manners to tell you exactly whose testimony I was referring to and where you can find it. You just post links and expect a person to hunt through it and make your point for you. Like hell! Weep yourself.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.4    3 weeks ago
What funds have been withheld? Oh wait, no funds have been withheld. They got their aid. Delaying it within the allowed time is perfectly legal and is done all the time.

That's is FALSE. 

Ukraine did NOT receive the aid that was appropriated in the 'allowed time' Tacos!. The GAO report makes that quite clear and ruled that Trump's order to the OMB was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. In order to ensure that Ukraine would EVENTUALLY receive that rest of their aid, the Congress rescinded and REAPPROPRIATED the funds in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020. 

I don't read giant walls of text. If you want to point me to something, then point. 

Read the fucking syllabus, it ain't that long. 

I had the good manners to tell you exactly whose testimony I was referring to and where you can find it.

None of which supported your claim and judging from your misleading 'interpretation' of Dr. Hill's testimony, your synopsis' are questionable. 

You just post links and expect a person to hunt through it and make your point for you. Like hell! Weep yourself.

I posted a SCOTUS ruling that proves that your claim is wrong Tacos!. Read it, don't read it, I could not care less. Whether you do read it or not doesn't reduce it's value as a FACT. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.5    3 weeks ago
That's is FALSE.

No, it's true.

I posted a SCOTUS ruling that proves that your claim is wrong

No it doesn't.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.3.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @2.3.5    3 weeks ago

Here’s a better fact.  

None of that fucking bullshit that the Democrats in DC along all the scumphuckery they attempt to constantly pull off is going to make one Damned bit of difference to anybody because at the end of the day they’re  going to get royally screwed when Trump is re-elected and all the Dem mental cases  start to queue up at oh bummer’s home for the politically insane.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.6    3 weeks ago

It IS false Tacos! and I stated why. Your comment merely proves that notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, no amount of facts will sway you from your unfounded posits. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.8    3 weeks ago
It IS false

Nope.

and I stated why

No you didn't

Your comment merely proves

You love to arrogantly declare proofs and you're always wrong about it. Yawn.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.10  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.3.7    3 weeks ago

Did your Ouija Board make those predictions for you?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.9    3 weeks ago
Nope.

Yep. 

No you didn't

You know that other members can SEE what I wrote right Tacos!? Here, I'll repost it:

Ukraine did NOT receive the aid that was appropriated in the 'allowed time' Tacos!. The GAO report makes that quite clear and ruled that Trump's order to the OMB was a violation of the Impoundment Control Act. In order to ensure that Ukraine would EVENTUALLY receive that rest of their aid, the Congress rescinded and REAPPROPRIATED the funds in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020. 

THAT is why your claim that Ukraine got it's aid in the 'allowed time' is FALSE. Now if you have something to refute my statement, have at it.

You love to arrogantly declare proofs and you're always wrong about it. Yawn.

Instead of whining and making personal comments, how about refuting what I posted using facts. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.3.12  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.3.11    3 weeks ago

They did receive the money before the deadline the problem was they didn’t have time to spend so your post is a half truth or the usual.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.13  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.3.12    3 weeks ago
They did receive the money before the deadline the problem was they didn’t have time to spend so your post is a half truth or the usual.

No they didn't. GO read the GAO ruling, it states the fact better than I could. Will you believe them when you read them is the only question. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3.14  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.11    3 weeks ago
You know that other members can SEE what I wrote right Tacos!?

Yeah, but don't make the mistake of assuming that people take what you write seriously.

how about refuting what I posted using facts. 

People do that all the time around here. I do that all the time. It never does any good because you're more interested in being contrary than in listening to other points of view.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.14    3 weeks ago
Yeah, but don't make the mistake of assuming that people take what you write seriously.

That just breaks my heart Tacos!. /s

People do that all the time around here. I do that all the time. It never does any good because you're more interested in being contrary than in listening to other points of view.

Well gee Tacos!, I refuted your comments in THIS thread with multiple statements and links. You have posted a three minute video of Jordon's questioning of Sondland as evidence of nothing. 

I have READ [listened] to your POV on this topic and countered with cogent, responsive comments. If by 'contrary' you mean that I have called you out for your false and misleading comments, then YES, I HAVE been contrary. 

But I haven't been 'contrary' just to be so, I have refuted your claims with facts and links. That's how this shit works. NONE of those facts have effected your position and you've now devolved to personal comments, which unfortunately has become your MO where I am concerned. 

I asked you a simple question which you have yet to answer.

WHO said that it didn't happen? 

You and I and probably everyone reading this post knows the answer. 

NO ONE said it didn't happen. 

That isn't a POV, that is a FACT. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2    3 weeks ago
You should have stopped and thought before you posted your seed. 

You should have stopped and thought before posting your reply.

Is, or is not, a VETO obstructing the will of Congress-legality is not the question. A cop can legally (under certain circumstances) run a red light, but that doesn't change the fact that the light was red when he went through it!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.1  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4    3 weeks ago
Is, or is not, a VETO obstructing the will of Congress

So you want me to answer a question about a LEGAL term [obstruction] without taking into consideration the MEANING of the term? 

Obstruction has a legal meaning CK. Look it up. Sheesh. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.1    3 weeks ago

I have. You should too. And then answer the question truthfully.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.3  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
And then answer the question truthfully.

I not only answered it truthfully, I answered it factually. 

Here is my answer from the very beginning of this thread:

The President's authority to veto a bill is in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. That's not obstruction, that's the law of the land. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.4  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.3    3 weeks ago

"not obstruction"

So even if he VETO's a bill. It still becomes Law with no other action needed...

Oh wait, that isn't true, is it? No, by vetoing the bill, the President has BLOCKED it from becoming a law. Yep, he obstructed the will of Congress. No matter how you try, you can't claim otherwise. Legal or illegal, it is what it is--OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.5  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.4    3 weeks ago
So even if he VETO's a bill. It still becomes Law with no other action needed...

Try reading and understanding my ENTIRE answer CK. 

Oh wait, that isn't true, is it? No, by vetoing the bill, the President has BLOCKED it from becoming a law. Yep, he obstructed the will of Congress. No matter how you try, you can't claim otherwise. Legal or illegal, it is what it is--OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS!

Tell yourself that fairytale all you want CK. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.6  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.5    3 weeks ago
Tell yourself that fairytale all you want CK. 

Sorry that reality is a bitch. You don't have to like it; you don't have to admit to it; you don't even have to acknowledge it in any way. It is what it is!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.7  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.6    3 weeks ago
Sorry that reality is a bitch. You don't have to like it; you don't have to admit to it; you don't even have to acknowledge it in any way. It is what it is!

Actually CK, I really couldn't care less what delusion you call reality. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.8  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.6    3 weeks ago

BTW, 15 hours ago you voted up a comment that said:

Veto of a bill is not obstruction as that is a privilege expressly granted.

Glad you finally admit that. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.9  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.7    3 weeks ago

And I couldn't care less about the opinions of people who can't admit when they've lost the argument. 😘

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.10  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.8    3 weeks ago

Care to post the rest of the comment? Comments are like politicians, like Trump for instance; I may not agree with everything they say, but I will support them if I agree with most of what they say.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.11  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.9    3 weeks ago
And I couldn't care less about the opinions of people who can't admit when they've lost the argument.

Yet you keep posting them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.12  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.10    3 weeks ago

It's 4.2.1 CK, you replied in part "Very good reply" and you didn't refute anything in the comment, so it looks like you agreed with it yesterday. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.13  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.12    3 weeks ago
you replied in part "Very good reply" and you didn't refute anything in the comment,

You mean the same comment that says:

So yes, the president can obstruct congress.

...and this:

The language of the charge levied is far to broad and to convict him of it would hamstring any future Presidents.

Now where have I heard THAT before, hmmm?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.14  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.11    3 weeks ago
Yet you keep posting them.

I'm not posting your comments; you are.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.15  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.13    3 weeks ago
You mean the same comment that says:

Yes, the same one that says:

Veto of a bill is not obstruction as that is a privilege expressly granted.

For once I agree with you, very good reply, thumbs up. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.16  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.15    3 weeks ago
Yes, the same one that says:
Veto of a bill is not obstruction as that is a privilege expressly granted.

I do believe I pointed out that I voted it up because I agreed with most of what he said--not all of it. I'm sure you knew that though because even though it is a privilege, it is still obstructing--no matter how much you spin attempting to deny it. Where do we go next? Do you want to argue that Rain isn't water too?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.17  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @2.4.16    3 weeks ago

Delusional. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
2.4.18  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @2.4.17    3 weeks ago

What? That rain is water?

 
 
 
CB
3  CB     3 weeks ago

If this obstruction is in context of any subpoena a presidential veto won't work .

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @3    3 weeks ago

LoL. now all that has to happen is a ruling on whether or not those subpoenas were valid to begin with!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1    3 weeks ago

Of course the subpoenas were valid

 
 
 
CB
3.1.2  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1    3 weeks ago

Is this the equivalent of Bill Clinton's need for a definition of the word "Is"? Whamo-Bamo! Republicans do not have a clear understanding on what "House" means relevant to its representative members. You're wasting your time, spinning and questioning everything. It's idle to do it here.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.3  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

And yet that same question has been put before the Senate. This is why the Democrats should have taken the subpoenas to court first instead of rushing this through like they did.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.4  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

Can you define: frivolous?

This is white-collar nonsense, rank and file people would not be permitted to pull off. Perhaps, ordinary citizens should just blow laws away with "creative"  lawyering too.

Tell me, Citizen Kane - do you want to settle this truthfully or the bullshit way?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.5  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

Depends on what you mean by that? Us low life commoners get shit on all the time simply because we are nobody's.  Celebrities and Politicos get slaps on the wrist for what would get us life in prison. So where do you want to go CB? In the direction of what should happen, what has happened in the past impeachments, or where we believe this one will go?

 
 
 
CB
3.1.6  CB   replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
Tell me, Citizen Kane - do you want to settle this truthfully or the bullshit way?

It's a simple question. 1. Truth. 2. Bullshit.

The question does not entertain how some get off, because of good lawyering. The question implies there is a right way and a wrong way which should affect us all. And, it is plain to see that people are calling wrong -right. I wish to know where you appear on the scale. We, well you anyway, can bat legalese and wanna be legalese back and forth all day. Washington is doing this in the moment.

Unfortunately, such tactics and strategies teach ordinary folks absolutely nothing, because we are not privileged to have "political" trials which can negate commonsense, reason, guilt, and punishment all while coveting the formalizing of bullshit methodologies.

Finally, the operative question here is this:

  1. Did President Donald J. Trump knowingly and with intent place a hold on Ukrainian military funding (past or future) which is illegal for even a president to do; And, did President Trump in violation of U.S. campaign finance laws ask for an investigation of a known political opponent, that is Joseph Biden, by a foreign national?

If you can answer "No." to this question with a straight face, go ahead. Try it. (I'm going to bet you guffaw ahead of time.)

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.7  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  CB @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
Did President Donald J. Trump knowingly and with intent place a hold on Ukrainian military funding (past or future) which is illegal for even a president to do ;

Yes he did. No it isn't illegal for him to do so. Why? Because the aid was tied to conditions that had to be met that were set BY CONGRESS!

And, did President Trump in violation of U.S. campaign finance laws ask for an investigation of a known political opponent, that is Joseph Bid en, by a foreign national?

Yes! From the transcript, and I suggest you read these words very carefully:

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair . A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved . Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son , that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

I added emphasis for a reason. Namely, he FIRST asked him to cooperate with the AG who is looking into possible corruption by a former Vice President who claimed to have engage in some shady tactics during his tenure.  Who better to ask to cooperate than the person in charge of the whole damn country! But somehow the fact that Biden is looking pretty corrupt, or at very least proclaiming he strong-armed another government into bending to his will, and then gets his son a job in the company being investigated for corruption is A-Okay with you? Now who is being less than honest here? It certainly isn't me...

You know what I'm not seeing?  Any Quid Pro Quo for the internal investigation he has requested. You know what else I'm not seeing? Any demands for a public announcement of that investigation into the Biden's.Do you know where all of that BULLSHIT came from? Sondland ! Where did Sondland get it from?  Trump? Nope. He said so himself that he never heard Trump demand anything in return for releasing the aid.  Everything he testified to were his own interpretations of the matter Maybe that is why the DoJ shit all over your claim of violating Campaign Finance Laws when the said this:

Further explaining the DOJ's handling of the referral, the official said the criminal division concluded that the information they had gathered did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing "of value" was clearly promised or exchange as a result of the call. 

Now CB, the ball is in your court; are you going to be honest, or are you going to sling more partisan Bullshit???

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4  Steve Ott    3 weeks ago

VETO

A proper constitutional authorize action.

Obstruction is not listed as a power of the executive branch.

Maybe you should read the constitution before expounding upon it. Here is a link if you care to read it.

https://www.usconstitution.net/

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @4    3 weeks ago
Obstruction is not listed as a power of the executive branch.

This day and age, "Obstruction of Congress" can be just saying the words "NO, See you in Court" !

I hear "made in China" pens are great "Party Favors" these days too.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4.1    3 weeks ago

I hear "made in China" pens are great "Party Favors" these days too.

i get all of my fine paper plates

from China.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
i get all of my fine paper plates from China.

Are you sure ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

Are you sure ?

only when at sea

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
only when at sea

Did the " Sirens ' tell you that ?

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.1.5  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @4.1    3 weeks ago

Your point being?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @4.1.5    3 weeks ago
Your point being?

Going to Court is NOW worse than actual "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.1.7  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

In what way?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @4.1.7    3 weeks ago
In what way?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/nadler-says-trump-is-a-dictator-because-he-would-rather-go-to-court-than-turn-over-documents/

"Nadler Says Trump Is a 'Dictator' Because He Would Rather Go to Court Than Turn Over Documents"

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) went so far as to brand Trump a "dictator" — because he refused to hand over documents to Congress immediately. Oh no! The president had the temerity to flout a congressional subpoena, preferring to litigate the matter in court. This must be an abuse of power, right? It's not like any previous administration referred to executive privilege to refuse to hand over documents to Congress, right? Certainly, Barack Obama would never, ever do that.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.1.9  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

LMAO.

DOJ tells court that Congress can't sue to enforce subpoenas

" The suggestion that Congress could impeach an official for defying a subpoena is one of several court arguments that the administration has made in recent months that's in conflict with  President Trump 's impeachment defense in his ongoing Senate trial. His defense team has argued that the president cannot be impeached on an obstruction charge for going to court to fight congressional subpoenas ."

Seems to me this administration wants it both ways. In other words, this administration is two faced and speaks with forked tongue. So, you want to explain to me which face of this administration is NOT dictatorial?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
Seems to me this administration wants it both ways.

Democrats in congress come to mind (courts take to long, we're in a hurry. The next election is soooooon) ! jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

"So, you want to explain to me which face of this administration is NOT dictatorial?"

The administrations actual "Policies" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.1.11  Steve Ott  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

1. I have no idea how you think your answer is about my reply.

2. The face that says go to court for your subpoenas or the the face that says you can't go to court.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Steve Ott @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
I have no idea how you think your answer is about my reply.

That's okay. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Steve Ott @4    3 weeks ago
Maybe you should read the constitution before expounding upon it.

That whizzing was the point flying over your head. As you noted, a VETO is a Constitutionally authorized manner in which a President CAN obstruct Congress. It sets a precedent. If the Constitution says he can Obstruct The Will of Congress, then how can he be charged with Obstructing The Will of Congress???

By the same token,  he can leave out any funding for pet projects in his budget proposal. When Congress gets it, they can put them in through amending it, but he can still refuse to sign it if they do.  Again, he has the Right to obstruct Congress.

Are you beginning to see the point now? Part of his job is to oppose Congress whenever he believes it is necessary.The language of the charge levied is far to broad and to convict him of it would hamstring any future Presidents.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.2.1  Steve Ott  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2    3 weeks ago

Ever heard of US vs Nixon? The Supreme Court ruled that presidential privilege is not absolute, albeit in a criminal case.

Now, I will grant that the House should have gone to the courts for clarification, not that the WH would have done anything the courts said. However, both sides are so hell bent on leather to point out the wrongs of the other side that neither side does a complete job. In fact, congress has acted as nothing more than a lap dog for the president for so many years, that it is hard to see how they can lay any claim to leading the country. Now is as good a time as any to re-assert their authority.

Veto of a bill is not obstruction as that is a privilege expressly granted. Even George Washington and his advisers thought that impeachment did away with executive privilege. So yes, the president can obstruct congress.

Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities

“It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, except that of an impeachment, which the resolution [requesting the papers] has not expressed.”

The language of the charge levied is far to broad and to convict him of it would hamstring any future Presidents.

I have no problems with your statement above. Every president should be wary, as the founding fathers thought.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4.2.2  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Steve Ott @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

Very good reply. We need people who will actually discuss the issues instead of toeing party lines.

A lot of this should have gone through the courts first. Instead, we got this rushed mess...

 
 
 
Steve Ott
4.2.3  Steve Ott  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4.2.2    3 weeks ago
We need people who will actually discuss the issues instead of toeing party lines.

Indeed we do.

 
 
 
squiggy
5  squiggy    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
GregTx
6  GregTx    3 weeks ago

Holy shit! Was there some type of cosmic anomaly or something today? I get home from work and hear that Feinstein might vote to acquit and Pelosi thinks the ME peace plan might be, maybe, kinda alright. Has Schumer said anything unusual today?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
6.1  author  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  GregTx @6    3 weeks ago
hear that Feinstein might vote to acquit

Maybe Feinstein can see further than her nose down the road if these charges were to stick.  Any future President that told Congress "No" would be charged with "Obstruction". If that is the case, why do we even need a President. Might as well have a token Queen or King like Britain...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @6.1    3 weeks ago

It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of Democrats voted to acquit on Article II, it's such a preposterous theory. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

They will be just a fucked if they vote to impeach on Article I. Just think of the things that could be labeled as Presidential abuse of power.

Any EO or EA that the party in power in Congress doesn't like. Think Obama's EPA and DACA.

Any treaty that the president doesn't doesn't get approval from Congress. Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal.

Deploying troops w/o formal Congressional approval. Obama with Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

Engaging in hostilities with a country we are not formally at war with; or Congress has not approved the use of military power against. Obama with his extra judicial drone killings across the ME, including two US citizens. Trump killing the Iranian General.

The Democrats didn't think this through at all. The precedent will hamstring future presidents that are not of the same party that control the House; and the Senate.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

igknorantzrulz


25 visitors