• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

Chomsky said:
It's not possible Constitutionally. It can only occur un-Constitutionally. If Trump rebukes SCOTUS, tear-up the Constitution and inform the founders & framers they failed ...
Click to expand...

Well, that's a very interesting hypothetical.
Let's just take this a day at a time. Trump, for now, has exercised his constitutional rights. I have no reason to believe he would rebuke a SC decision should it get this far.
 
Chomsky said:
I say it's hit the point of sheer ridiculousness, to argue these details.

It's time Trump got charged with an "Abuse of Power" article of impeachment, as Nixon was, and just be done with it. It's senseless to debate a plethora of minutia, when the entire big-picture is staring-us right in the face.
Click to expand...
How many of these sound familiar?
interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ... and Congressional Committees
Click to expand...
approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceeding
Click to expand...
approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals
Click to expand...
making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted ...
Click to expand...
endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
Click to expand...
He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities
Click to expand...
In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Click to expand...
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.
Click to expand...
 
ludin said:
you mean the report that gave no opinion on obstruction which by default means he is innocent.
you know you are innocent until proven guilty.

since there is no opinion give on whether a crime was committed he is by default clear of any charges and
in fact did not obstruct justice.

that is how our system works tres.

this is civics 101.
Click to expand...

That's almost a good spin on it.

Can't indict because of DOJ policy and can't directly accuse as that would violate due process doesn't actually mean "innocent".

Criminals who clearly did what they were accused of get off on technicalities all the time.

I got off on a red light camera ticket once because somebody forgot to put the names on the outside of two envelopes. This broke the official chain of custody of the evidence. Even though my picture was right there in one of them. We both walked out without sanction. Neither of us was "innocent". We just got off on a technicality
 
ludin said:
no one is arguing that but you people keep saying that he lost that is it.
nope there is an appeal process.

yes he does have 7 days to get a judge to stay the ruling. otherwise it has to be turned over within that time frame.
I see no reason that an upper court judge wouldn't stay the decision.

this judge should have stayed his decision but he is an obama appointee.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are just upset and looking for people to blame. Trump is making a stupid argument and he deserved to be laughed out of the court. And no superior court will stay this ruling. It's clear cut. Congress represents the people and has the authority to investigate as it sees fit.
 
tres borrachos said:
Nobody said he was proven guilty of anything. Reading trouble today?

There was no report that declared him innocent of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

if he isn't innocent then he is guilty.
again tres you have an understanding issue.

in the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.
again this is civics 101.

so yes he is innocent as no one proved him guilty.

if you think otherwise please prove where he was shown guilty.
 
ocean515 said:
It's not my issue if you don't like my answer.

I guess you'll just have to deal with it.

Never call me a liar.
Click to expand...

I will point out you lied when you lie like you just did when you said you answered my question but all you did was evade doing so by asking a question of your own.
 
ludin said:
what abuse of power?
exercising the powers given to the executive branch is not an abuse of power.
geez don't go off the deep end.
Click to expand...

Did he ever answer your question?
I may have missed it.
 
ludin said:
cool show us the law that was broken so far no evidence of any laws broken.
and sorry so far there have been no high crimes of office. there is a reason that this is put in place.
it was reserved to stop congress from ousting a president due to politics like what we are seeing here, and
for the president to be removed something really bad must have been done.
Click to expand...
The law is whatever Congress says it is, Luden. They can call it "Abuse of Power", as they did under Nixon, and impeach and convict if they so chose. This is not necessarily about existing statute.
 
ludin said:
then let congress produce the evidence not fish find for it.
Click to expand...

:applaud

Stop making so much sense.
It makes Trump resisters restless.
 
ludin said:
then let congress produce the evidence not fish find for it.
Click to expand...
What is your argument here?

You are of the opinion that the Legislative Branch lacks any investigative powers which correspond to the Legislative Branch's Constitutional duties to make informed law and to provide oversight?

The Legislative Branch may only work with information it already has?
 
ludin said:
if he isn't innocent then he is guilty.
again tres you have an understanding issue.

in the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.
again this is civics 101.

so yes he is innocent as no one proved him guilty.

if you think otherwise please prove where he was shown guilty.
Click to expand...

Once again, there is no report that declares Trump innocent of obstruction of justice. That is a fact.

You are confusing our judicial system with the facts of the Mueller report. Trump is not in trial.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Sounds like you are just upset and looking for people to blame. Trump is making a stupid argument and he deserved to be laughed out of the court. And no superior court will stay this ruling. It's clear cut. Congress represents the people and has the authority to investigate as it sees fit.
Click to expand...

nope he wasn't laughed out of court. i have pointed this out time and time again.

Trump has under gone the same financial vetting as the past 10 president or whatever it maybe.
Do you think that the process that has vetted the past 20 presidents is good? as congress has had
0 issue with that process for the past 20 presidents.

so by default if that process has worked perfectly fine with the past 20 presidents or whatever it maybe.
then why now is that process all of a sudden flawed and stricken with errors?

it isn't. that is why their reason is bogus.

which makes their request invalid. if this judge actually had a brain in his head he would have saw this for what it is.
he should have been question the congressional lawyer over the reason.

there is nothing to investigate. no crime has been committed and congress is not a law enforcement body which has been
ruled on consistently by the SCOTUS.
 
trixare4kids said:
:applaud

Stop making so much sense.
It makes Trump resisters restless.
Click to expand...

Just browsing through threads, you strike me as somewhat of a spoon. Mind indulging us on your education?
 
ludin said:
nope he wasn't laughed out of court. i have pointed this out time and time again.

Trump has under gone the same financial vetting as the past 10 president or whatever it maybe.
Do you think that the process that has vetted the past 20 presidents is good? as congress has had
0 issue with that process for the past 20 presidents.

so by default if that process has worked perfectly fine with the past 20 presidents or whatever it maybe.
then why now is that process all of a sudden flawed and stricken with errors?

it isn't. that is why their reason is bogus.

which makes their request invalid. if this judge actually had a brain in his head he would have saw this for what it is.
he should have been question the congressional lawyer over the reason.

there is nothing to investigate. no crime has been committed and congress is not a law enforcement body which has been
ruled on consistently by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Lol, thats a bull**** argument. Not reviewing a process for the last 10 presidents doesn't mean congress isn't allowed to review for the next 10. And the judge addressed this incredibly dumb argument in his opinion. The courts don't get to decide if congresses legislative purpose might be tinged with politics. If it is something that they can legislate then they have authority. They can legislate this therefore they have authority. Period, end of story.
 
tres borrachos said:
Once again, there is no report that declares Trump innocent of obstruction of justice. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
There doesn't have to be. he is already innocent. what part of this do you not understand, or are you just being obtuse as always?

You are confusing our judicial system with the facts of the Mueller report. Trump is not in trial.
Click to expand...

the mueller report gave no opinion on the matter.
nope i am not confusing anything you seem to be.

you say he isn't innocent so therefore by default he is guilty so please
again show where he is guilty.
 
Athanasius68 said:
I think you are getting a bit hysterical for no real reason. What's happening is that Congress is asking for certain information, and the president is contesting the request.
This kind of stuff happens in every administration.
Click to expand...
At this point, yes.

But generally, these things don't make it to court. They get worked-out between the branches. We're not seeing that, here. In constitutional terms, all is well enough I suppose, as long as Trump obeys the courts. If/when he doesn't, then yes we've got troubles.

But besides the legal aspects, there's the political aspects. And personally, I'm done with him. This is too much. It's not an isolated instance here & there, but rather he has made a blanket decision that Congress has no right to oversight over him. And I can't stand for that.
 
ludin said:
There doesn't have to be. he is already innocent. what part of this do you not understand, or are you just being obtuse as always?



the mueller report gave no opinion on the matter.
nope i am not confusing anything you seem to be.

you say he isn't innocent so therefore by default he is guilty so please
again show where he is guilty.
Click to expand...


The Mueller report did not declare him innocent. That is a fact.

If I go online right now and steal someone's identity, I am guilty of a crime. If they don't catch me, I am still guilty of a crime. If I am tried and found to be not guilty, that is a different thing.

Trump was not on trial. The Mueller report didn't declare him innocent of obstruction. Your lies notwithstanding, that is a fact that people whose brains are working acknowledge.

You declared him innocent. That's your choice. But the rest of us want to see what Congress has to say about it. Unfortunately for you, that is what will happen.
 
ludin said:
you mean the report that gave no opinion on obstruction which by default means he is innocent.
you know you are innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
And innocent people cannot be investigated, right?

That's why there is never an investigation until after someone is convicted.

AFTER someone is convicted, THEN evidence establishing whether or not a crime occurred is collected.

Then, after the conviction, and after the evidence of whether or not a crime occurred is gathered, that is when the investigation actually begins.

Why is that so hard for people to get?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Even a later SCOTUS has "rebuked" (reversed precedent set by) a prior SCOTUS and, of course, the SCOTUS can simply opt not to hear any given appeal leaving our Constitution's "interpretation" in the hands of a lower court judge's decision.
Click to expand...
That besides the point. He has to adhere to the highest court's decision, or he will be acting un-Constitutionally. But we aren't there yet, so let's see how this plays-out. However, if I had to bet I'd go 50-50 that he places us in true Constitutional crisis. Let's hope I'm wrong.
 
Chomsky said:
At this point, yes.

But generally, these things don't make it to court. They get worked-out between the branches. We're not seeing that, here. In constitutional terms, all is well enough I suppose, as long as Trump obeys the courts. If/when he doesn't, then yes we've got troubles.

But besides the legal aspects, there's the political aspects. And personally, I'm done with him. This is too much. It's not an isolated instance here & there, but rather he has made a blanket decision that Congress has no right to oversight over him. And I can't stand for that.
Click to expand...

So you've changed your mind and we can ignore your quote below then?
Quote Chomsky where he wrote, "It's time Trump got charged with an "Abuse of Power" article of impeachment."

Or what are you saying?
 
tres borrachos said:
The Mueller report did not declare him innocent. That is a fact.

If I go online right now and steal someone's identity, I am guilty of a crime. If they don't catch me, I am still guilty of a crime. If I am tried and found to be not guilty, that is a different thing.

Trump was not on trial. The Mueller report didn't declare him innocent of obstruction. Your lies notwithstanding, that is a fact that people whose brains are working acknowledge.

You declared him innocent. That's your choice. But the rest of us want to see what Congress has to say about it. Unfortunately for you, that is what will happen.
Click to expand...
It isn’t possible to have an informed debate with a (willfully) uninformed person who speaks only about what they think.
 
ludin said:
There doesn't have to be. he is already innocent. what part of this do you not understand, or are you just being obtuse as always?



the mueller report gave no opinion on the matter.
nope i am not confusing anything you seem to be.

you say he isn't innocent so therefore by default he is guilty so please
again show where he is guilty.
Click to expand...

Really?

ROBERT MUELLER’S SIX CASES FOR COLLUSION
 
Chomsky said:
That besides the point. He has to adhere to the highest court's decision, or he will be acting un-Constitutionally. But we aren't there yet, so let's see how this plays-out. However, if I had to bet I'd go 50-50 that he places us in true Constitutional crisis. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

According to the Democrats we're already in a Constitutional crisis. :lol:
 
Chomsky said:
And then Executive Orders, Emergency Declarations, and Disregard of Congress will become the rule of day. Trump is virtually forcing the House to impeach. The next apex will be when Trump disregards the courts.

I surely as hell wouldn't want Pelosi's job! :doh
Click to expand...
Pelosi is the hold-up at this point.

It's not just the politics for her. She's really not that strong when it comes to fights like this.
 
ludin said:
...congress is not a law enforcement body...
Click to expand...

Is the Legislative Branch a Constitution enforcement body?

Is the Legislative Branch Constitutionally charged with any duties that could be relevant here?
Like acquiring information to make law?
Or checking to see if the Executive BRanch is on the up-and-up?

Are these Constitutional duties of the Legislative Branch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom