Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

[Simon W. Moon]

It's not his choice. This is a subpoena to a private company, and they will comply.

To be fair, Trump will probably be sitting somewhere doing a spectacular, world-class job of "not complying" while the accounting firm delivers the documents.

 

[Captain America]

Thanks for sharing that. Were you thinking the "cultists" would care what you think about them?

Shoo, fly, shoo.....

I have better things to do than swat at you.

I prefer to present my comments to people I feel are more deserving of response.

Nothing personal. Just too many posters and too little time. You didn't make the cut.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that Trump cultists are willing to go to defend their messiah.

They sacrifice their own credibility, their character, self-respect, any sense of honesty and they seem to not be bothered at all at the fools they are making themselves out to be. None whatsoever.

I strongly suspect they had precious little integrity to begin with. Integrity to them is nothing more than a convenience or an inconvenience, wholly dependent on whim and circumstance.

 

[What if...?]

Well, Congress can try, but the Founding Fathers created 3 branches of the Federal Government, with one holding the power to keep Congress in check.

There is a reason separation of powers exist.

Imagine Congress deciding they just don't like the duly elected President of the United States, and voting to remove them, just because. I don't think that would fly. The President is still a citizen, and is afforded the same rights as you and me.

In this matter, I think there is much evidence to suggest the House is not reflecting the "will of the people", just some people.

And even more evidence that the president is not.

The "will of the people" was trumped by the EC.

 

[What if...?]

LOL.

Ok. Feel whatever it is you need to.

At least I don't feel the need to grab ******s, right?

(And you know this "imagine" and "feel" bull**** is gonna come back to bite you, right?)

 

[ocean515]

What is it which would stop a Congress who wanted to impeach a president "just because"?

The PotUS?

The SCotUS?

What is the mechanism either of these would use to prevent such an impeachment?

I would imagine there would be a number of avenues. Likely the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is designed to keep the 3 branches of government from becoming more powerful than intended.

 

[Captain America]

I strongly suspect they had precious little integrity to begin with. Integrity to them is nothing more than a convenience or an inconvenience, wholly dependent on whim and circumstance.

I know right?!?

Anyways, like I said, not my circus not my monkey's.

I'm pretty picky as to whom I go back and forth with. And these Trump cultists have tossed any credibility they may, or may not, have had out the window a long time ago. Not an honest bone in their body. So who cares what they think or say?

If I wanted to hear from an asshole, I'd fart.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I understand that. Doesn't mean a different court won't rule otherwise.

They better get to it quickly.

Between his financial records and McGahn’s testimony, if the Dems eventually succeed in forcing his testimony, Trump will be sunk, IMO. He may finish his term, but the exposure would be a death blow to his re-election chances.

 

[What if...?]

To be fair, Trump will probably be sitting somewhere doing a spectacular, world-class job of "not complying" while the accounting firm delivers the documents.

So do you think the troops will leave for Venezuela tonight or bombs will start falling on Iran?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I would imagine there would be a number of avenues. Likely the Supreme Court.
The Constitution is designed to keep the 3 branches of government from becoming more powerful than intended.

By what mechanism do you imagine the SCotUS stopping an impeachment proceeding?

 

[ocean515]

Shoo, fly, shoo.....

I have better things to do than swat at you.

I prefer to present my comments to people I feel are more deserving of response.

Nothing personal. Just too many posters and too little time. You didn't make the cut.

Nothing personal either. I understand the concept of "making the cut". I temporarily suspended that when I made my comment to you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So do you think the troops will leave for Venezuela tonight or bombs will start falling on Iran?

If I knew which option were stupider, I would guess that one.

 

[ocean515]

And even more evidence that the president is not.

The "will of the people" was trumped by the EC.

No it wasn't.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, Congress can try, but the Founding Fathers created 3 branches of the Federal Government, with one holding the power to keep Congress in check.

There is a reason separation of powers exist.

Imagine Congress deciding they just don't like the duly elected President of the United States, and voting to remove them, just because. I don't think that would fly. The President is still a citizen, and is afforded the same rights as you and me.

In this matter, I think there is much evidence to suggest the House is not reflecting the "will of the people", just some people.

You missed the overarching point, and that's Congress reflects the right of the People to remove the President for any reason they so desire, at any time. There are absolutely no restraints upon this.

Specifically, your bolded paragraph is dead wrong. A bare majority of the House, along with 67 Senators, can remove a President for any reason they so desire. Any. Bar none! It's the Constitution.

Their (Congress) only check is the will of the People, via the ballot box.

Look, I'm not getting into what's right or wrong, likely or unlikely, ethical or unethical. I'm simply specifying the Constitutional law & process involved. And in those terms, Congress is only restrained/constrained by the citizens; definitely not the Constitution.

 

[ocean515]

They better get to it quickly.

Between his financial records and McGahn’s testimony, if the Dems eventually succeed in forcing his testimony, Trump will be sunk, IMO. He may finish his term, but the exposure would be a death blow to his re-election chances.

Perhaps.

The sad part will be the likely misrepresentation, lies, and distortion the NDP's MSM partners will continue to engage in once the information is leaked by the various NDP House members.

 

[ocean515]

By what mechanism do you imagine the SCotUS stopping an impeachment proceeding?

It would likely depend on the effort, the evidence, etc..

Do you think a Congress hostile to a duly elected President can just remove them without due process?

 

[Chomsky]

What is it which would stop a Congress who wanted to impeach a president "just because"?

The PotUS?

The SCotUS?

What is the mechanism either of these would use to prevent such an impeachment?

Yours is exactly the point I was trying to make, in my replies here.

 

[ocean515]

You missed the overarching point, and that's Congress reflects the right of the People to remove the President for any reason they so desire, at any time. There are absolutely no restraints upon this.

Specifically, your bolded paragraph is dead wrong. A bare majority of the House, along with 67 Senators, can remove a President for any reason they so desire. Any. Bar none! It's the Constitution.

Their (Congress) only check is the will of the People, via the ballot box.

Look, I'm not getting into what's right or wrong, likely or unlikely, ethical or unethical. I'm simply specifying the Constitutional law & process involved. And in those terms, Congress is only restrained/constrained by the citizens; definitely not the Constitution.

I'm not so sure of that Chomsky.

Why do you think the separation of powers exists?

By your suggestion, Congress would be taking control of the Executive Branch, and deciding who they will allow to sit in the White House. Congress does not have that power.

 

[What if...?]

No it wasn't.

I know you feel that it is.

But I seriously doubt that any reasonable person would agree that a legal technicality that handed the presidency to the guy who got 3 million less votes is the "will of the people".

"Will of the constitution" or "will of the founders" or "will of a bone thrown to the slave states to get them to sign onto the Constitution" maybe.

"Will of the people" is whoever got the most votes by any logical definition.

 

[Craig234]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that Trump cultists are willing to go to defend their messiah.

They sacrifice their own credibility, their character, self-respect, any sense of honesty and they seem to not be bothered at all at the fools they are making themselves out to be. None whatsoever.

I think it's based on their fear and ignorance that has been hyped and built by propagandists - fear of Democrats.

I literally had a trump supporter in an online game say yesterday, that 'the only people who have a problem with trump are criminals and welfare queens'. That's the level of ignorance that makes them blindly support trump. The propagandists know how to manipulate those people. For them it's easy to equate Satan, commies, Democrats. Easy choice. Love the Republicans. It shows many Americans are incapable of rationality and easy to manipulate by monied interests.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Perhaps.

The sad part will be the likely misrepresentation, lies, and distortion the NDP's MSM partners will continue to engage in once the information is leaked by the various NDP House members.

You don’t think the sad part would be if what most Americans already believe about Trump was proven to be true?

 

[What if...?]

I'm not so sure of that Chomsky.

Why do you think the separation of powers exists?

By your suggestion, Congress would be taking control of the Executive Branch, and deciding who they will allow to sit in the White House. Congress does not have that power.

Can the SC overrule an impeachment?

Serious question.

 

[Captain America]

If I knew which option were stupider, I would guess that one.

I don't think for a second that Trump wouldn't start a war to deflect what is going on around him right now.

But, then again, I could be wrong. Even though he talks a lot of macho bull**** he has pretty much shown himself to be somewhat a ***** when it comes to military attacks, invasions, etc. That's probably the only thing about him I like. He's not a George W. Bush/Dick Cheney kinda guy.

 

[Captain America]

I think it's based on their fear and ignorance that has been hyped and built by propagandists - fear of Democrats.

I literally had a trump supporter in an online game say yesterday, that 'the only people who have a problem with trump are criminals and welfare queens'. That's the level of ignorance that makes them blindly support trump. The propagandists know how to manipulate those people. For them it's easy to equate Satan, commies, Democrats. Easy choice. Love the Republicans. It shows many Americans are incapable of rationality and easy to manipulate by monied interests.

Yeah. I know that. That's why I rarely waste my time talking to these dumbasses.

I can't wait until Trump gets kicked to the curb and I get my television set back.

 

[ocean515]

I know you feel that it is.

But I seriously doubt that any reasonable person would agree that a legal technicality that handed the presidency to the guy who got 3 million less votes is the "will of the people".

"Will of the constitution" or "will of the founders" or "will of a bone thrown to the slave states to get them to sign onto the Constitution" maybe.

"Will of the people" is whoever got the most votes by any logical definition.

A legal technicality? So are you suggesting the provisions of the Constitution are legal technicalities?