Second verse, same as the first!!

[Praxas]

LOL

Riiiggghhhtttt. That's it. Of course. Good for them.

:lamo

It’s a legislative reason so you and your boy trumptard continue to lose. :lamo

 

[ocean515]

It’s a legislative reason so you and your boy trumptard continue to lose. :lamo

Lose? Calling the game a bit early, aren't you? Would that be like claiming Hilldebeast would win?

But their invented excuse was presented. Have to see if that lie holds up in a court not run by an Obama Judge.

 

[Praxas]

Lose? Calling the game a bit early, aren't you? Would that be like claiming Hilldebeast would win?

But their invented excuse was presented. Have to see if that lie holds up in a court not run by an Obama Judge.

All that is required is to provide a legislative reason which they did. They have met the requirements. That’s it, game over for you and your boy trumptard. That’s why now TWO federal judges have upheld congress decision. So much winning :lamo

 

[ocean515]

All that is required is to provide a legislative reason which they did. They have met the requirements. That’s it, game over for you and your boy trumptard. That’s why now TWO federal judges have upheld congress decision. So much winning :lamo

I agree, all they had to do was invent whatever claim they did, in order to meet what they imagined was the requirements for seeking the information.

Whether that obvious lie holds up in a court not controlled by an Obama Judge remains to be seen. Citizens have rights, at least they do at this point, and so appeal is the course that is being sought.

 

[Praxas]

I agree, all they had to do was invent whatever claim they did, in order to meet what they imagined was the requirements for seeking the information.

Whether that obvious lie holds up in a court not controlled by an Obama Judge remains to be seen. Citizens have rights, at least they do at this point, and so appeal is the course that is being sought.

It's not a lie, thanks to the corruption from Trump, disclosure and ethics laws will need to change to prevent such a crook like your boy Trumptard from breaking the law. The lie is that you care about the law and want to fight corruption. Trump supporters don't give a **** about the law and excuse any corruption from Trumptard. You and your ilk are what's wrong with America.

 

[ocean515]

It's not a lie, thanks to the corruption from Trump, disclosure and ethics laws will need to change to prevent such a crook like your boy Trumptard from breaking the law. The lie is that you care about the law and want to fight corruption. Trump supporters don't give a **** about the law and excuse any corruption from Trumptard. You and your ilk are what's wrong with America.

Well, that claim is in itself a lie. Clearly the various rubes in the House lied about the reasons they were seeking the financial records. Just look at House calendar, and no activity is taking place related to the reason they gave in their laughable requests.

But honest citizens will have to wait and see how the process works.

If the records are released, and obviously when the New Dems illegally leak them, what will be fun is crushing the idiots who will be proving they have no clue what a tax return is.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I'm sure the forces guiding the New Democratic Party in the House have a long list of Obama Judges who owe them favors.....

Have you ever read a judicial opinion? In their rulings, they address issues raised by both sides, show how they considered these issues, discussed previous decisions (precedent) as well as their own reasoning in coming to the decision that they did. In any appeal, the new judge also reads the full text of the previous decision, looking to see if there is a flaw in their reasoning that affected their conclusions.

No, you believe that judges at all levels are all just political hacks who serve up their decisions to the highest bidder.

 

[ocean515]

Have you ever read a judicial opinion? In their rulings, they address issues raised by both sides, show how they considered these issues, discussed previous decisions (precedent) as well as their own reasoning in coming to the decision that they did. In any appeal, the new judge also reads the full text of the previous decision, looking to see if there is a flaw in their reasoning that affected their conclusions.

No, you believe that judges at all levels are all just political hacks who serve up their decisions to the highest bidder.

Yes I have read many judicial opinions.

Why do you think in both cases, they were Obama Judges who issued the rulings? Coincidence?

You understand application of law, and the case law, etc. cited, are representative of the perspective (bias) every Judge brings to their decisions?

If every ruling was perfect, and backed by solid cites, how could it be that rulings are frequently overturned under appeal?

 

[Ikari]

Meh, it seems that perhaps the Congress will get a hold of his tax records, but I don't know exactly what will come of it. I don't have much faith that anything will. Unless it can be used to show that he was breaking laws, things are too polarized these days for something like this to really have an effect.

 

[Chomsky]

If you look at history, both when Nixon and Clinton were under investigation, legislative things still got done with the White House working with the congress. So the idea that the investigation should stop all legislation is because Trump fears the outcome of said investigation and will do anything to stop it.

Absolutely. And under Reagen, too. Trump is conning, as usual.

 

[Chomsky]

Sorry this took so long.

I'm old enough to remember when Pelosi said "Bush wants a blank check for his wars that we won't give him!" and then proceeded to give him just that. I don't know where this idea that she's a tough leader is coming from, because most of her time in Congress has been spent being a doormat for Republicans, sorry to say. From the unpopular wars and entitlements, all the way to gun control, Pelosi hasn't been much different than any of her contemporaries in caving to the Republican propaganda machine.

When it was the Iraq war, she was afraid of Bush shutting down the government over any bill with a time table for withdraw, to keep funding his deeply unpopular war, and being labeled as not supporting the troops. She literally had the high ground of public support, yet still caved, and mostly because of Republican propaganda. Bush played one of the biggest bluffs in politics and it worked like a charm on her and Reid.

Don't count her reasons for not going for impeachment being based on sound political theory. In all likelihood, she's made the call to not impeach no matter what he does, and I'd bet the reasons are largely a fear of Republican backlash.

Alright, fair enough. I'm not going to debate Pelosi's past behaviour from this time period. While I always followed national politics reasonably, I didn't play really close attention to Pelosi until she became Speaker under Obama.

So with that, I'll respect your opinion of that time period.

But I did like what she did under Obama with the ACA, and also how she handled Trump up 'till now. In fact, I thought she's was brilliant during the shutdown. But then let's face it, she was giving a killer strong hand, and Trump was a very weak, unskilled, and a stumbling ineffectual adversary (in that round).

So I dunno'. She looks pretty good up 'till now since '08, but your points about her earlier period may be valid. So for now, I'm going to evaluate her in the moment. It does seem we are coming to an inflection point, where Trump is pushing us to a tipping point. But like I said, although she seems to be holding a sometimes pacifist attitude towards Trump, I'm still not ready to withdraw my support from her.

It's amazing how both parties fear the Republican base, but neither fear the Democratic one.

This is a great point.

And I believe that's because the GOP base is so fully & singularly united behind Trump, with Trump holding Presidential powers! So of course the GOP base is highly empowered!

OTOH the Dem base, while motivated against Trump, is divided politically in terms of direction and in having their protagonist. And most importantly, the Dem's power instrument (Pelosi) does not seem to be holding equal power against the GOP's power instrument (Trump). Trump can act through immediate Executive Order or Emergency Order, even if illegal, only to be stopped at some much later time by the courts. Pelosi on the other hand, can do little immediately, but instead must go through the courts in an attempt to cause action. So Trump's power is actual and immediate, Pelosi's is theoretical and distant to not at all.

It seems the only way Pelosi can force immediate action from Trump, is through the threat of impeachment, which of course is a hollow threat at this time. So she is essentially impotent to cause an immediate action of any sort. Constitutional actions require the courts. And political actions like successful impeachment require her to build consensus amongst the body politic. This last will take time, if it even can be done, and requires her and the Dems to educate the public. I doubt it would happen. So it seems the best to be done is educate the public in advance of the election. Ironically, this education might best be done via an impeachment investigation and/or hearing. I think they (Dems) have to do the official impeachment examination at the least.

 

[bongsaway]

Trump fought the law and the law won. I want to see the dems start impeachment hearings now, however, I will defer to pelosi and her experience. I don't see how the dems can avoid at least an impeachment inquiry. Patience grasshopper, that's what I keep telling myself.

 

[MovingPictures]

OTOH the Dem base, while motivated against Trump, is divided politically in terms of direction and in having their protagonist. And most importantly, the Dem's power instrument (Pelosi) does not seem to be holding equal power against the GOP's power instrument (Trump). Trump can act through immediate Executive Order or Emergency Order, even if illegal, only to be stopped at some much later time by the courts. Pelosi on the other hand, can do little immediately, but instead must go through the courts in an attempt to cause action. So Trump's power is actual and immediate, Pelosi's is theoretical and distant to not at all.

It seems the only way Pelosi can force immediate action from Trump, is through the threat of impeachment, which of course is a hollow threat at this time. So she is essentially impotent to cause an immediate action of any sort. Constitutional actions require the courts. And political actions like successful impeachment require her to build consensus amongst the body politic. This last will take time, if it even can be done, and requires her and the Dems to educate the public. I doubt it would happen. So it seems the best to be done is educate the public in advance of the election. Ironically, this education might best be done via an impeachment investigation and/or hearing. I think they (Dems) have to do the official impeachment examination at the least.

Thanks, the sentiment to respect is mutual.

It seems that Pelosi has made the calculation that impeachment is simply off the table, and is herself trying to run out the clock on it. See, if she can stall it a few months, then when we finally do get witnesses before the Judiciary, she can say "well, gee, the election is even closer now!", and hope that ends it.

That's a really bad strategy. If she won't even allow the House to hold debate on the issue, then the Barr summary will stand as the final word, and Trump will go into 2020 with it and vindication. Trump will walk away with less official Congressional rebuke than Clinton did, and history will judge Pelosi as having enabled Republican corruption.

The 1998 Republican House never called any witnesses during Clinton's impeachment, they just used Starr's report as their roadmap to it. The current House can do the same thing, IMHO.

We don't need all of these public witnesses statements for the same content that's in the SC report. Just subpoena Mueller and demand he answer questions publicly. Then open an impeachment hearing and subpoena the full FBI interviews of Sessions, Comey, Coats, Rogers, Hicks, McGhan, Lewandowski, Bannon, Flynn, Cohen, and McFarland, along with any evidence they gave to the SC for their interview, as well any internal counterintelligence memos.

That's all we need.