Democrats introduce two articles of impeachment against Trump

lemmiwinx · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
Yes every Congress controlled by party opposite complains that a president abuses his power!! Obama, for example, did many things that even he said were unconstitutional while he was campaigning!!

Agreed but not every congress controlled by the opposite party is so vindictive as this one. I don't remember such hatred and vitriol when the Republicans took over the both houses during Obama's second term.

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Khayembii Communique said:
Which Biden was within his authority to do. Not sure why you can't fathom the difference.

Biden had authority to fire prosecutor who was investigating him for laundering $50k/month through his son who he installed in no show job at most corrupt company in world?

Conversely, Trump did have authority to withhold funds from country till end of fiscal year. NOw do you understand??

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

dixon01767 said:
Revealing corrupt politicians is to everyones gain.

imagine if no politician could do anything that resulted in personal political gain. We would have no politicians since that is all they do and all they are supposed to do.

ocean515 · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
and lets not forget that Turley's arguments are so good that nobody will try to refute them directly! Same with Dershowitz, another liberal!!!

Well, since they violated the narrative being sold, both Turley and Dershowitz are to be destroyed as a penalty for such arrogance and insubordination.

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
???where in Constitution does it say a quid pro quo is grounds for impeachment?????????????????????????????????? Does the liberal dare to try???

Where does it say perjury? I'll spare the viewer the obnoxious sequence of question marks.

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
Yes, the power of impeachment resides in the house, but impeachment does not negate separation pf powers ie it does not give the house the right to demand everything from the executive branch. Do you understand now??

Yes, it does. Stop asking people if they understand when you clearly don't. The Congress can ask for whatever it wants to ask for. It's up to the executive to form an affirmative defense for refusing a subpoena. Something more than, "Don't ever answer a single subpoena for any reason."

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
Where does it say perjury?

it does not say perjury. And?????????????????????????

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

lemmiwinx said:
Agreed but not every congress controlled by the opposite party is so vindictive as this one. I don't remember such hatred and vitriol when the Republicans took over the both houses during Obama's second term.

How convenient.

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
it does not say perjury. And?????????????????????????

20 more question marks? Not a good look, James972. Not at all.

I'll give you a hint. What was Clinton impeached for?

LetsGoBrandon · Dec 12, 2019

Media_Truth said:
What I've noticed from the impeachment hearings is that the Republicans do nothing but call it a farce. They don't talk about the phone call, where Trump tried to bribe Zelinsky. They don't talk about the Giuliani second channel. Typical dishonesty.

Read the transcript of the call. Trump did no such thing.

Khayembii Communique · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
Biden had authority to fire prosecutor who was investigating him for laundering $50k/month through his son who he installed in no show job at most corrupt company in world?

No, this is not what I said. In fact Biden himself had zero authority to unilaterally withhold the loan guarantees. The Executive (i.e. Obama) had the authority to do so. Biden, acting as a representative of the Executive, was entirely within his authority to threaten to withhold the loan guarantees in exchange for firing the corrupt prosecutor.

I'm not going to address the inaccuracies (lies) in your post related to the corrupt prosecutor because it's not relevant.

Conversely, Trump did have authority to withhold funds from country till end of fiscal year. NOw do you understand??

No. Again, this is wrong. Trump does NOT have authority to withhold funds til FYE. That's a violation of the ICA. The Executive must, by law, apportion the funds so that they can be spent by FYE. Which did not happen.

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
It's up to the executive to form an affirmative defense for refusing a subpoena.

exactly, and Executive Branch has done this and understands perfectly well that courts must now decide between House and Executive. House is abusing its power by impeaching for obstruction without court approval, and they will pay the price by being laughed our of Senate and with a second term for Trump!! Now are you getting it???????????

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
exactly, and Executive Branch has done this and understands perfectly well that courts must now decide between House and Executive. House is abusing its power by impeaching for obstruction without court approval, and they will pay the price by being laughed our of Senate and with a second term for Trump!! Now are you getting it???????????

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that Trump issued a blanket order to the executive branch to not cooperate with a purpose for which Congress exists. That's an obstruction of Congress AND an abuse of power out the gate.

But wait. There's more. Trump thought he could delay impeachment long enough in the courts that it would work to his advantage. Well, wouldn't you know it? Turns out that Pelosi is not only smarter than Trump is, but she also snagged a few court rulings in her favor and maintained control of timing despite Trump's and his 1-800 lawyers' ham-handed attempts to throw her off step.

I would ask you if you get it now, but it doesn't snow in July where I live (yet).

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
What was Clinton impeached for?

lying under oath!! Flynn and Popodoupolis Roger Stone etc sent to prison for it. Even on local level it is a criminal offense! NOw do you understand??

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
That's one way of looking at it.

.

dear, if there are 2 ways to look at it then the courts must decide, not the House or Executive unilaterally. Are you catching on now??? House is obstructing justice and abusing impeachment power by trying to cut courts out!!

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
she also snagged a few court rulings in her favor and maintained control of timing.

Ah, so there is no problem. the courts ruled against trump and he must turn over all requested info to House or be impeached for contempt of court for starters??????????????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
lying under oath!! Flynn and Popodoupolis Roger Stone etc sent to prison for it. Even on local level it is a criminal offense! NOw do you understand??

How was Clinton impeached if lying under oath isn't in the Constitution?

Come on. I know you can do this. I have the patience of a credentialed educator.

lemmiwinx · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
How convenient.

C'mon Obama was loved by both sides. He won a Nobel prize just for being Obama for Christ's sake.

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Khayembii Communique said:
Biden, acting as a representative of the Executive, was entirely within his authority to threaten to withhold the loan guarantees in exchange for firing the corrupt prosecutor.

.

and Trump has authority to withhold aid till end of fiscal year which is why he not being impeached for it. 1+1=2

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Khayembii Communique said:
No. Again, this is wrong. Trump does NOT have authority to withhold funds til FYE. That's a violation of the ICA. The Executive must, by law, apportion the funds so that they can be spent by FYE. Which did not happen.

obviously if true it would be a simple reason to impeach him but since the money was spent on time this is not a grounds for anyone's argument. Do you understand???

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
How was Clinton impeached if lying under oath isn't in the Constitution?

.

dear, it was considered a high crime and misdemeanor. NOw do you understand????

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
dear, if there are 2 ways to look at it then the courts must decide, not the House or Executive unilaterally. Are you catching on now??? House is obstructing justice and abusing impeachment power by trying to cut courts out!!

The courts have decided. In favor of the Democrats. Trump can appeal stuff till the cows come home. That's a common tactic among con artists who have unlimited money to spend on lawyers. Meanwhile, this asshole is about to get his dumb ass impeached and your defense (not last week, not next week, but in this moment) is that the Democrats have to wait for Trump to use up all his delay tactic abuses of the judicial branch.

Buzzer noise. See you in Senate. Maybe there you'll begin to understand what you admonish other members to understand at the end of every post you crap all over the forum. For extra credit, you'll be allowed to explain why excessive use of repetitive punctuation is discouraged sometime around 2nd grade.

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

James972 said:
Ah, so there is no problem. the courts ruled against trump and he must turn over all requested info to House or be impeached for contempt of court for starters??????????????????????? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??

That's not what the courts ruled nor what Democrats sought. Maybe read the rulings, "dear". And the Constitution. And well, anything. Read something.

James972 · Dec 12, 2019

Nalu said:
The courts have decided. In favor of the Democrats. Trump can appeal stuff till the cows come home. That's a common tactic among con artists who have unlimited money to spend on lawyers.

common tactic among innocent people on death row too. So we'll cut out due process, courts etc etc out so as not to slow down impeachments??? Is that what the libcommie wants???

Nalu · Dec 12, 2019

lemmiwinx said:
C'mon Obama was loved by both sides. He won a Nobel prize just for being Obama for Christ's sake.

If Obama had any relevance to this thread, I would engage your spork-sharp quip. But he isn't. So I won't.