Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obstructing congress. That's laughable. Trump did what any smart person would do. Took it to court.No shit. That's why I said "in a normal criminal case," which to anyone with reading comprehension, would alert them to know this is different.
As I said, executive privilege doesn't grant absolute immunity. It doesn't extend to immunity for obstructing Congress and ordering both government officials and private citizens to not cooperate, especially when subpoenaed.
Obstructing congress. That's laughable. Trump did what any smart person would do. Took it to court.
This is not a "normal criminal case." It's an impeachment. Different rules prevail. Unlike in the House you can't make up your own rules as you proceed.In a normal criminal case, the prosecution would be able to subpoena witnesses and documents. Due to the impending court battle of what is/isn't permissible, cheeto is doing everything he can to avoid (or at least delay) the prosecution from having even more evidence. That's the start of a good obstruction case.
So why is cheeto doing everything possible including intimidation, threats of firing, blatantly lying, manipulating transcripts, refusing to have anyone testify, etc. regarding this?
If you can't figure out how to add 1+1, ask Tier Three's intern for help.
ET is right; you are a liar.
This is not a "normal criminal case." It's an impeachment. Different rules prevail. Unlike in the House you can't make up your own rules as you proceed.
Show me the evidence of Trump being guilty. And don't give me that hearsay, he said she said, my cousin's babysister's brother said, BS.Really? If you were accused of something and there was evidence indicating you were guilty, you wouldn't want to clear your name if you truly were innocent? You would just ignore all of the evidence and hope the court saved you instead of clearing your name?
ET is right; you are a liar.
Of course. He did what any legal person would advise. He took it to court in the beggining.Really? If you were accused of something and there was evidence indicating you were guilty, you wouldn't want to clear your name if you truly were innocent? You would just ignore all of the evidence and hope the court saved you instead of clearing your name?
ET is right; you are a liar.
THere is not evidence and they know it. It is not about evidence. It is about trying to damage trump and trying to influence the upcoming election.Show me the evidence of Trump being guilty. And don't give me that hearsay, he said she said, my cousin's babysister's brother said, BS.
Of course. He did what any legal person would advise. He took it to court in the beggining.
That is why you are not a lawyer.
Shotgun is not a lawyer? Well, I'll be damned.Of course. He did what any legal person would advise. He took it to court in the beggining.
That is why you are not a lawyer.
That is your problem. You won't educate yourself on how these things work. He had every right to do that.Nope, it's just more evidence that he's obstructing justice by withholding the documents and testimony of people who know thing first-hand.
That is your problem. You won't educate yourself on how these things work. He had every right to do that.
Yehh, like no crime nor impeachable offense. They have no evidence of anything nor a worthwhile case. It is a sad joke.I'm not arguing he didn't have the right to do it, moron. I'm flat out stating that he's guilty of what he's accused of by the House, and more.
Show me the evidence of Trump being guilty. And don't give me that hearsay, he said she said, my cousin's babysister's brother said, BS.
Yehh, like no crime nor impeachable offense. They have no evidence of anything nor a worthwhile case. It is a sad joke.
Hearsay is all the Dems have.
Speaking of terrified. Is that why Dems didn't want repub witnesses or cross examination during Schiff's committee?That hearsay is what was testified to under oath, something the liar in chief is terrified of.
Speaking of terrified. Is that why Dems didn't want repub witnesses or cross examination during Schiff's committee?
It doesn't have to be a crime as in criminal conduct. An impeachable offense is what the House says is an impeachable offense.
more of that strange affection for faux news and tucker . . . faggit.Where has that been posted several times? I don't read every thread, because they all get wrecked by Marc22 posting absurdly stupid shit, wv-fan running around posting "faggit," and the rest of you deplorables refusing to take part in any reasonable, logical, and unbiased discussion (you to a lesser extent, as you have admitted that cheeto is a piece of shit human being). But I haven't seen this posted "several times."
But you asking this question is absolute proof that you have no idea what is going on, haven't followed a thing, and frankly, as Raoul pointed out, really have no idea of the legal process of this (this is why your firm has invested in that intern for you).
Why did the House not subpoena all of the witnesses and evidence? Well, they did to a certain extent, so your claim is not accurate.
What happened when they subpoenaed? Well, just look at McGahn. He was subpoenaed, still ordered by the administration not to comply, and now it is tied up in court for months (and possibly years). In other words, cheeto and the administration are playing the legal card to delay it as much as possible past the next election.
So even when subpoenaed, the administration is ordering them not to comply. Want more? Just look at William Barr and Wilbur Ross. They were ordered by Congress to turn over documents. But the administration barred them from doing so, and they were held in contempt.
The fvcking State Department is ordering them not to comply and not to testify. If they do testify, they get fired. If they are subpoenaed and don't challenge it, they get fired. If they are subpoenaed and don't want to get fired, they challenge it legally, which ties it up for months (and possibly years) which is exactly what McGahn has done.
The Dems are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Let's look at at Yovanovitch. The chair of the House Intelligence Committee tested that the State Department ordered her not to comply. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee testified that the State Department ordered her not to comply. The chair of the Oversight Committee testified that the State Department ordered her not to comply. AND ALL THREE CHAIRS testified came from the White House!
Want to keep going? Look at Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union. He was subpoenaed and then agreed to testify, but he was ordered by the State Department not to and ordered by them not to give any documents.
Subpoena? Sure, then wait months (or years) for the court challenges to be decided. At that point, it's a loss regardless of what the outcome is. Don't subpoena? Order the testimony? Have the subject refuse to do so based on the State Department demanding that they don't, just like the case with Barr and Ross. Have the administration order the subject not to comply with the order, build even more evidence of obstruction by the White House, but then have morons like you who watch Fox News believe that what they are saying is true.
Now, I clearly laid out why the subpoenas are a lose-lose for the Dems since the State Department is ordering the subjects not to comply and tie it up in court for months/years (which is currently the case with McGahn) and that those who testify on order but aren't subpoenaed risk the reality of being fired.
Now, it's your turn to explain the very basic and logical questions I asked. And since you mentioned it, if there is nothing to hide, why has the State Department repeatedly ordered the subjects not to comply and the White House repeatedly confirmed they will not comply at all?
You add that obstruction with the other amount of evidence (cheeto lying about so much related to it which can now not be denied, the fictional account of the transcript, etc.) and it leads to a very reasonable conclusion.
If I had what seemed like quite a bit of evidence against me about something, and I was falsely being accused, I would welcome the opportunity to try and clear my name. The very last thing I would do is order everyone to not comply, not give any information, and continue to lie about things related to it.
Let me know what time Tucker is on tonight so that I know when to expect your response.
To remove the POTUS, the Demoncrats will have to prove he broke the law. PROVE that he broke the law.
Yehh you can't prove that either. There is absolutely nothing there that is an impeachable offense.An impeachable offense occurs when a president violates the oath to abide by the constitution’s limits and respect its values. The Constitution does not mention "breaking the law" as a need for impeachment and/or removal.
Yehh you can't prove that either. There is absolutely nothing there that is an impeachable offense.
and thousands and millions more.It's already been proven adequately for sane people. Just not people like you.
and thousands and millions more.
Durham knows!That's the insane I'm talking about.
Yes, the House says he committed an impeachable offense. But the Senate will decide if he is guilty of said offense. You and shotgun don't have a vote.It doesn't have to be a crime as in criminal conduct. An impeachable offense is what the House says is an impeachable offense.
If President Trump is so guilty, then how come no Republicans and not even all the Democrats voted for impeachment? If you can’t even get all your party to vote I would say your evidence is suspect. You even had one Democrat change parties because of the lack of evidence of the charges.That's the insane I'm talking about.
An impeachable offense occurs when a president violates the oath to abide by the constitution’s limits and respect its values. The Constitution does not mention "breaking the law" as a need for impeachment and/or removal.
I agree. I doubt a republican majority will remove him from office. It would require 65% - 70%+ of Americans wanting him removed - I just don't see that happening.Well, unfortunately for you and your brethren, it's going to take legal proof of an actual law being broken before the GOP majority will remove him from office.
And then Lemmings like greed, rifle and Chevy repeat it. Pretty much the same show for the last 3-4 years. It’s amazing they never seem upset about being lied to or being made to look foolish repeating the garbage. Oh well I guess indoctrination worksSchiff makes stuff up all the time.
What was the impeachable act?I agree. I doubt a republican majority will remove him from office. It would require 65% - 70%+ of Americans wanting him removed - I just don't see that happening.
However, Trump did abuse his office by committing an impeachable offense - that's undeniable for all except the die hards. IMO, that case was made by the Dems, but the Bolton manuscript (as reported) nails down for those who say they need "first-hand" evidence/testimony.
By all accounts it was using taxpayer assets for personal political purposes.What was the impeachable act?
By all accounts it was using taxpayer assets for personal political purposes.