1. #21861
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Elect Trump, or democrats will impeach him... is a very strange slogan.
    eh, remember they did that in 2018
    even with Pelosi (wait it this a time loop? cats aren't younger, cut from work still there, nm) saying “This election cannot be about impeachment. I don’t think it’s in the interest of America’s working families to focus on that, unless we have more to go on, which we don’t at this time,”

  2. #21862
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    In the interest of not giving Trump a second term, that's where.

    If America were made up entirely of people like you and me, impeachment would be a slam dunk.

    That's the problem, I have no faith in the Senate to impeach, and I have no faith in the American people to see this as lawless behavior rather than an exoneration.

    The Dems are already set to have great wins in 2020, impeachment is a mid-court shot. If they land it, it's amazing. If not, the other team gets the ball.
    Again, the senate does not need to vote to convict for this to be a bad thing for trump. Making the evidence public is bad for trump, or he wouldn't be stonewalling. Being able to say, "Look at the evidence, and their unwillingness to follow the law," is a big loss for every GOP senator who votes against it. People didn't care about clinton's obstruction because of the subject matter starr was investigating. No one gave a shit about infidelity. People care about betraying our country to russia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  3. #21863
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    The dems pretending that they want full access to the report and are denied it? Yes, that's theater, an insincere pose.

    Or what do you mean?
    When you have the clearance to see the whole thing but can't isn't theater. That would be like me having VIP tickets to a concert and only being allowed to see the drinking fountain.

    Seriously, try less, 'cause with each post you sure are trying to.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    You do realise that there was just hundreds of former Federal prosecutors coming out to say that the report gave clear examples where Trump was implicated by the report to the extent that he would already be facing charges if he weren't President?
    Add a former Supreme Court justice that thinks Trump is abusing powers with ignoring subpoenas too. Must be just "another opinion" - @rda.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    How to double triple quadruple down after the collusion hoax was destroyed.
    How to septuple down on ignorance after not reading the report.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  4. #21864
    The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now... can CNN even survive that long at the current rate of layoffs...

    But let the lefties continue to cry as the rest of the country laughs.
    Last edited by bagelmanman; 2019-05-11 at 10:17 AM.

  5. #21865
    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now... can CNN even survive that long at the current rate of layoffs...
    bagelmanman returns every page to desperately try to spin the "hoax" narrative.

  6. #21866
    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now
    Let us know when you guys stop chanting lock her up.

  7. #21867
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    I think Pence would be a competent version of Trump. I think he is horribly wrong on a lot of issues, but I cannot call him a moron. Plus, if you think about the current political climate of it being two extremes between Trump and crazy socialist. Pence would fall closest to center. I heart conspiracy theories, I’d read one that focused on democrats sandbagging impeachment, because Pence is like Trump, but without the idiocy. Like... Pence would read security briefings... I mean... Pence would read!
    He would also be more effective at pushing his radical right wing agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Got to earn his turnips.

  8. #21868
    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now... can CNN even survive that long at the current rate of layoffs...
    Because her e-mails isnt still a thing for republicans.

  9. #21869
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapemask View Post
    bagelmanman returns every page to desperately try to spin the "hoax" narrative.
    He always counts on repeating a story it becomes true. But always forgets about the boy who cried wolf.

  10. #21870
    Quote Originally Posted by Fahrenheit View Post
    Essentially, the report was about as bad as it possibly could've been, at least in regards to Obstruction, with the rules Mueller set up for himself initially.
    This is just not true. It could have been far worse. Mueller could have directly alleged that Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice".

  11. #21871
    Quote Originally Posted by bagelmanman View Post
    The real question is will the leftists still be pushing hoaxes 6 years from now... can CNN even survive that long at the current rate of layoffs...

    But let the lefties continue to cry as the rest of the country laughs.
    Considering Republicans still cry about birth certificates, emails, Benghazi, and more and those were actual hoaxes I'm sure what are real crimes here won't be forgotten soon, but you keep trying to spin that.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  12. #21872
    I am Murloc!
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,239
    He's not gonna answer ya'll with meaningful conversation, he'll just ignore and come back later in the day with "it's a hoax har har har" best to just avoid the shit poster.

  13. #21873
    We talked about this idea briefly before, but apparently it's still on the table.

    Fining WH officials $25,000 per day they remain in contempt.

    Simply put, with the DoJ unlikely to investigate Trump's defense attorney Barr, the WH blocking testimony and subpoenas, the House is looking to hit Team Trump where it hurts: their money. If Barr were to, say, ignore a subpoena until the election, it would cost him $13 million.

    "What does the law say?"

    Honestly, the law says "comply with subpoenas". But past that, if the WH continues the route of denying checks and balances, the House can remind Trump it still holds the power of the purse strings. I would not be surprised if, should Team Trump continue being the least transparent administration + least successful member of the Party of Law and Order, if the House just stops paying the Executive Branch entirely, forcing another shutdown until Trump decides to comply with the letter of the law.

    "That sounds like it would set up a very dangerous precedent."

    So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.

  14. #21874
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    We talked about this idea briefly before, but apparently it's still on the table.

    Fining WH officials $25,000 per day they remain in contempt.

    Simply put, with the DoJ unlikely to investigate Trump's defense attorney Barr, the WH blocking testimony and subpoenas, the House is looking to hit Team Trump where it hurts: their money. If Barr were to, say, ignore a subpoena until the election, it would cost him $13 million.

    "What does the law say?"

    Honestly, the law says "comply with subpoenas". But past that, if the WH continues the route of denying checks and balances, the House can remind Trump it still holds the power of the purse strings. I would not be surprised if, should Team Trump continue being the least transparent administration + least successful member of the Party of Law and Order, if the House just stops paying the Executive Branch entirely, forcing another shutdown until Trump decides to comply with the letter of the law.

    "That sounds like it would set up a very dangerous precedent."

    So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.
    why would Barr care about the DoJ losing 13 million?
    Its not going to be his personal money.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  15. #21875
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.
    The executive branch not yielding to every stupid wish of the legislative branch immediately and unquestioningly is exactly checks and balances. I guess that's lost on some, but checks and balances work in all directions.

  16. #21876
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    This is just not true. It could have been far worse. Mueller could have directly alleged that Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice".
    No he specifically said he could not imply or allege directly that Trump committed a crime thanks to the OLC memo just clear him if the evidence suggest it but he could not do so and it was up to congress.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    We talked about this idea briefly before, but apparently it's still on the table.

    Fining WH officials $25,000 per day they remain in contempt.

    Simply put, with the DoJ unlikely to investigate Trump's defense attorney Barr, the WH blocking testimony and subpoenas, the House is looking to hit Team Trump where it hurts: their money. If Barr were to, say, ignore a subpoena until the election, it would cost him $13 million.

    "What does the law say?"

    Honestly, the law says "comply with subpoenas". But past that, if the WH continues the route of denying checks and balances, the House can remind Trump it still holds the power of the purse strings. I would not be surprised if, should Team Trump continue being the least transparent administration + least successful member of the Party of Law and Order, if the House just stops paying the Executive Branch entirely, forcing another shutdown until Trump decides to comply with the letter of the law.

    "That sounds like it would set up a very dangerous precedent."

    So does refusing to adhere to checks and balances. And, yet, here we are.
    But who is going to enforce making those people pay? here is the problem with Mueller and the democrats they are playing by a set of rules like the law, DOJ policy and the constitution things that Trump and his followers don't give a shit about. Democrats haven't learned a darn thing they are still doing things step by step and by the book (see Merrick Garland).

    This is what they need to do go straight to the courts and expedite all proceedings, summon the capital police and make a list of people that they can arrest with no warning. These are not brave people all you need is one to make an example of someone, not one of them is going to suffer for Trump they are all looking out for themselves.

  17. #21877
    Epic!
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    The executive branch not yielding to every stupid wish of the legislative branch immediately and unquestioningly is exactly checks and balances. I guess that's lost on some, but checks and balances work in all directions.
    You shouldn't just get to just ignore a lawful subpoena because you're salty about it, no matter what your station in this country is and thinking it's okay is fucking stupid.

  18. #21878
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    why would Barr care about the DoJ losing 13 million?
    Its not going to be his personal money.
    Actually, what Schiff said was a fine, so it would be. The DoJ's money was my conjecture.

  19. #21879
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    You shouldn't just get to just ignore a lawful subpoena because you're salty about it, no matter what your station in this country is and thinking it's okay is fucking stupid.
    if you're allowed to assert executive privilege over requested information, you certainly can.

    That's definition of executive privilege:
    Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions. The power of Congress or the federal courts to obtain such information is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, nor is there any explicit mention in the Constitution of an executive privilege to resist such requests from Congress or courts.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege may qualify as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2019-05-11 at 07:01 PM.

  20. #21880
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    if you're allowed to assert executive privilege over requested information, you certainly can.

    That's definition of executive privilege:
    Executive privilege is the power of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions. The power of Congress or the federal courts to obtain such information is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, nor is there any explicit mention in the Constitution of an executive privilege to resist such requests from Congress or courts.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege may qualify as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
    Correct but how do you assert executive privilege on information and people you've already cleared to be released to prosecution? that's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Trump's tactic is to simply stall he has no legal basis on it because he waived his right to executive privilege early on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •