Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Constitutional loopholes.

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    north carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    23,194

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HumblePi View Post
    You're just mad because he's intelligent, articulate, educated prosecutor and going after your god's ass.
    I wouldn't use the word "intelligent." How about "only moderately stupid?"

  2. #22
    Sage Condor060's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Charlotte
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,030

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HumblePi View Post
    Robert Mueller's investigation report will spell out for you all 10 instance of possible obstruction of justice. All you have to do is read it then you'll have the answer to your first question.

    Mueller report: read the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice - Vox

    Your second question is immaterial as to how many times Adam Schiff has accused Trump of obstruction, that's beside the point. The point is that he has obstructed justice and the evidence of that is as open and plain as the nose on your face.

    The 300 page indictment reads:

    “Donald Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to seek to completely obstruct an impeachment inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives under Article I of the Constitution, which vests the House with the ‘sole power of impeachment,’” the report states. “He has publicly and repeatedly rejected the authority of Congress to conduct oversight of his actions and has directly challenged the authority of the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry into his actions regarding Ukraine.”

    Immediately after launching the impeachment probe, democrats made a crucial decision to largely abandon its attempts to compel the production of documents and witnesses from the administration through the courts; instead, they simply responded to each ignored subpoena by warning Trump and his aides that the refusal could be grounds for an obstruction charge.
    Democrats are just learning impaired. It doesn't matter that a president and his cabinet have immunity from ANY congressional testimony. What part of those 5 words is hard to understand? It was Obama's OLC that also declared neither Obama or his staff could be compelled to testify but that doesn't matter. The DOJ and OLC rulings doesn't matter.

    Democrats want it their way so nothing but what they want matters. This is why the DNC is bankrupt. Democrats are just ignorant of existing laws.

  3. #23
    Sage
    HumblePi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,556

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Condor060 View Post
    Democrats are just learning impaired. It doesn't matter that a president and his cabinet have immunity from ANY congressional testimony. What part of those 5 words is hard to understand? It was Obama's OLC that also declared neither Obama or his staff could be compelled to testify but that doesn't matter. The DOJ and OLC rulings doesn't matter.

    Democrats want it their way so nothing but what they want matters. This is why the DNC is bankrupt. Democrats are just ignorant of existing laws.
    Really, can't you people come up with something more original and newer? Your talking points are stale. 'brush-rinse-repeat'











    "Our children are the messengers we're sending to a future that we'll never see"
    Barack Obama 10/25/19



  4. #24
    Sage Condor060's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Charlotte
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,030

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Airyaman View Post
    And your source for this information as to articles of impeachment is...?
    Obama's OLC refused to allow Obama cabinet members to testify based on their declaration that the president and his cabinet are immune from subpoenas and testimony from Congress. Even the DOJ has the same stance.

    DOJ Position
    The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

    OLC Position in 2014 defending Obama
    "The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process," the OLC wrote. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

    Its just too bad Democrats are so learning impaired. They don't even know the laws governing Presidential immunity for congressional testimony.

    White House Cites Immunity, Rebuffs Issa Subpoena for Simas

    Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

    White House says top Obama aide will not testify before House panel - Reuters

  5. #25
    Sage Condor060's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Charlotte
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,030

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HumblePi View Post
    Really, can't you people come up with something more original and newer? Your talking points are stale. 'brush-rinse-repeat'

    So now you think the OLC and the DOJ are just providing talking points? So what is a judge's ruling now, an opinion? Laughable.

    DOJ
    Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

    OLC
    "The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process," the OLC wrote. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

    White House Cites Immunity, Rebuffs Issa Subpoena for Simas

  6. #26
    Cult of Scotty Kilmer

    Airyaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    AL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,297

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Condor060 View Post
    Obama's OLC refused to allow Obama cabinet members to testify based on their declaration that the president and his cabinet are immune from subpoenas and testimony from Congress. Even the DOJ has the same stance.

    DOJ Position
    The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

    OLC Position in 2014 defending Obama
    "The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process," the OLC wrote. "This immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers, and in the immunity of the President himself from congressional compulsion to testify."

    Its just too bad Democrats are so learning impaired. They don't even know the laws governing Presidential immunity for congressional testimony.

    White House Cites Immunity, Rebuffs Issa Subpoena for Simas

    Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President | OLC | Department of Justice

    White House says top Obama aide will not testify before House panel - Reuters
    So legal opinion that hasn't been tested in court?

    Note what Issa said: "Assertions that this administration’s taxpayer-funded political efforts should be above congressional oversight are absurd". Sound familiar?
    2020: the election of our lifetime, for realz this time! No really, this time it is. Sometimes it's best to excise the cancer before it thoroughly invades the host.

  7. #27
    Sage Condor060's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Charlotte
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,030

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Airyaman View Post
    So legal opinion that hasn't been tested in court?
    What does that mean? It worked for Obama.

    Note what Issa said: "Assertions that this administration’s taxpayer-funded political efforts should be above congressional oversight are absurd". Sound familiar?
    The point is Democrats are trying to convince voters that Trump is obstructing when they know better. If they are willing to lie about this you can guess the rest.

  8. #28
    Cult of Scotty Kilmer

    Airyaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    AL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,297

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Condor060 View Post
    What does that mean? It worked for Obama.
    Because Congress did not push the issue. Now Congress is. You can't say something is impossible when it is just a legal opinion that has not been tested.

    The point is Democrats are trying to convince voters that Trump is obstructing when they know better. If they are willing to lie about this you can guess the rest.
    If documents and people are subpoenaed, and Trump refuses to allow the documents to be turned over, or for the people to testify, that is the textbook contempt of Congress. Is it actual obstruction of Congress, which is a more serious charge? Failure to comply with subpoenas is contempt, but active blockage of them might move into obstruction.
    2020: the election of our lifetime, for realz this time! No really, this time it is. Sometimes it's best to excise the cancer before it thoroughly invades the host.

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-20 @ 09:20 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    117,716

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by marke View Post
    One of the first things the new republican Congress should do after the next election is haul Schitft before an impeachment committee and condemn him for lying to Congress, obstructing investigations into democrat corruption and violating the civil and human rights of hundreds of innocent Americans.
    When and how did Schiff LIE to Congress?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    north carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    23,194

    Re: Constitutional loopholes.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    When and how did Schiff LIE to Congress?
    You are kidding right? Don't defend the liar. People who defend the sleazeball liar just dirty their own reputations.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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