If I Were President, I Could Be Charged With Obstructing Congress With One Act
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
Who is online
425 visitors
Or maybe I'll just cut the budget for the electricity bill for their offices...
Not their offices. I'd cut their salaries or repurpose their offices.
You should have stopped and thought before you posted your seed.
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.
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.
So, demanding that the President, (including via his institutions) testify against himself would be blather.
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 ?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
They lied. The testimony of every witness is corroborative.
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.
Yup, Zelensky was tRump's hostage. Yet I get pooh poohed by all the rabid tRump supporters.
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.
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.
You have zero evidence that he is lying other than your own prejudice.
More bullshit fantasy. You'll say anything to support your conspiracy theory.
[Deleted]
WHO said that things didn't happen? BE specific. Trump don't count.
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?
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.
This is a lie and you know it.
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?
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 made other ridiculous and easily rebutted arguments as well. None of them make sense.
Right.... Let's ask the hostage, while he is still at gunpoint, if the person holding the gun has done anything wrong. Wow!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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]
I'm just telling you people lie under oath. And they get away with it, too.
The Democrats hear what they want to hear and dismiss whatever destroys the fantasy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's a hell of a lot of words that don't support your claim that:
WHO said that things didn't happen?
After you provide those links, perhaps I'll take the time to refute your other proclamations.
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 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.
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.
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?
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
I'm merely following your MO.
With MORE proclamations?
WHO said that things didn't happen?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
No....you want to impeach him because you don't like him....and his name is not Hillary.
No denying it...
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.
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.
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:
At their meeting at the UN Zelensky was STILL asking about the WH meeting.
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.
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.
Who said that and why exactly should I be responding to it?
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:
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.
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!
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?!
See page 145 (Smile.)
Yeah I don't blame you for not wanting to remember that worthless piece of shit obama either.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sigh . . . so easy to find out what Zelensky wanted. From the July 25 phone call with Trump:
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.
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?
Nope, sorry. [Deleted]
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...
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:
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]
Nor is it like that portion of the transcript supported what he claimed but hey, far be it from me to interrupt with facts.
Yeah, amazing. And yet somehow pointing it out gets deleted.
I rest my case.
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!
And I rest mine, Emphatically.
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?
Guess you missed it...
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.
I know you're mistaken.
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.
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.
If you had been listening to the House argument, you would KNOW that Trump NEVER formally invoked Executive privilege. So your comment is moot.
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.
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.
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?
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.
As I said, Trump has the 'right' to invoke Executive privilege, he chose not to.
The POINT is he didn't DO it, he claimed that he MIGHT.
I have already stated why Trump should be impeached. It hasn't changed in this short time.
Oh you mean like withholding funds appropriated by the Congress in violation of the ICA?
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.
Read it and weep.
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.
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.
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.
Read the fucking syllabus, it ain't that long.
None of which supported your claim and judging from your misleading 'interpretation' of Dr. Hill's testimony, your synopsis' are questionable.
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.
No, it's true.
No it doesn't.
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.
Nope.
No you didn't
You love to arrogantly declare proofs and you're always wrong about it. Yawn.
Did your Ouija Board make those predictions for you?
Yep.
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.
Instead of whining and making personal comments, how about refuting what I posted using facts.
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.
Yeah, but don't make the mistake of assuming that people take what you write seriously.
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.
That just breaks my heart Tacos!. /s
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.
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!
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.
I have. You should too. 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:
"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!
Try reading and understanding my ENTIRE answer CK.
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!
Actually CK, I really couldn't care less what delusion you call reality.
BTW, 15 hours ago you voted up a comment that said:
Glad you finally admit that.
And I couldn't care less about the opinions of people who can't admit when they've lost the argument. 😘
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.
Yet you keep posting them.
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.
You mean the same comment that says:
...and this:
Now where have I heard THAT before, hmmm?
I'm not posting your comments; you are.
Yes, the same one that says:
For once I agree with you, very good reply, thumbs up.
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?
Delusional.
What? That rain is water?
If this obstruction is in context of any subpoena a presidential veto won't work .
LoL. now all that has to happen is a ruling on whether or not those subpoenas were valid to begin with!
Of course the subpoenas were valid
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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.)
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!
Yes! From the transcript, and I suggest you read these words very carefully:
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:
Now CB, the ball is in your court; are you going to be honest, or are you going to sling more partisan Bullshit???
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.
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.
i get all of my fine paper plates
from China.
Are you sure ?
only when at sea
Did the " Sirens ' tell you that ?
Your point being?
Going to Court is NOW worse than actual "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
In what way?
"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.
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?
Democrats in congress come to mind (courts take to long, we're in a hurry. The next election is soooooon) !
"So, you want to explain to me which face of this administration is NOT dictatorial?"
The administrations actual "Policies" ?
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.
That's okay.
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.
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.
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...
Indeed we do.
[deleted]
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?
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...
It wouldn't surprise me if a significant number of Democrats voted to acquit on Article II, it's such a preposterous theory.
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.