• 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!

Nadler lays an egg while Corey soars.


Help me understand how you think. You believe Trump and his people have done nothing wrong. Yet you support Trump hiding his tax returns, hiding his financial records, ordering his staff not to answer questions. If he didn't do anything, why does he have to hide and evade questions?


because you are setting a precedent

you are asking for items for which you have no LEGAL RIGHT TO SEE

Trump doesnt have to give his taxes.....forget what he promised....i am not his fan....i didnt vote for him....politicians lie

dont care about ALL of that....the law says he has to be 35, a citiizen, and give a financial package....he did all of that

just because every other president has given tax returns doesnt mean he is REQUIRED to....

now we can change the laws to MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT....and based on the public outcry, it would probably pass

but dont try to change the rules in the middle....

and he doesnt have to sit for derogatories or interviews with investigators....again the law....

just as you wouldnt have to sit and answer questions if being interrogated for a crime....

and as far as the subpoenas, he told congress he is not going to allow them to put on a circus sideshow to sway the elections

they have all the evidence....and documents...and interviews....now they have to make the decision to impeach or not

their choice
The Treasury Department has to provide tax returns of any citizen to particular House committees. It is black letter law that was written specifically to combat corruption in the White House during the 1920's. This is an area that could lead to impeachment. An enumerated power of the Executive is to "take care" that laws are enforced (Article 2 Section 3). By allowing his branch of government to obstruct actual law, the President has violated his oath of office.
 
You didn't answer the simple quesiton put to you. Again:
Do you think a president (any president) can in theory abuse their power or use it for corrupt purposes?

That's not asking about any specific instance or event or president.
If you are asking if its possible for them yo abuse their power of office, thats kind of a silly question to ask generically. Thats possible for anyone in any position of trust. Simply because he took a position that some dont agree with does not qualify it as being an abuse of office.

I dont know his reason for revoking their waiver but he does have the authority to do it. Its not illegal ecen if it deemed undesirable.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
There is an interesting thing about when Trump’s clowns and cronies testify.

At first, the Trumpster crowd cheers, because they got the clown show that they love so much. They high five each other and declare that their hero got away with it again!

Then people start examining what the witness said, or tried not to say.

And the story changes. Lewendowski lied flagrantly, lied about lying, and claimed an executive privilege he is not legally entitled to, and broke the law under the instructions of the President’s lawyers.

That’s what happened. The parsing, buffoonery, cheap insults and grandstanding do not change that.

Yeah, but the ONLY "parsing, buffoonery, cheap insults and grandstanding" came from the Dims on the committee who were DESPERATE for a gotcha....
 
The Treasury Department has to provide tax returns of any citizen to particular House committees. It is black letter law that was written specifically to combat corruption in the White House during the 1920's. This is an area that could lead to impeachment. An enumerated power of the Executive is to "take care" that laws are enforced (Article 2 Section 3). By allowing his branch of government to obstruct actual law, the President has violated his oath of office.

i know what the law reads

do you know why it was written?

do you know WHY congress wants his tax returns NOW....

neither does the rest of the world.....and until they can provide a BONA FIDE reason for getting them....they are not being released

go read the law, and the reason the LAW WAS PASSED originally and then tell me if it should be used the way the democrats want to use it now

and take off the partisan glasses before you do so.....

fishing license NOT GRANTED....
 
i know what the law reads

do you know why it was written?

do you know WHY congress wants his tax returns NOW....

neither does the rest of the world.....and until they can provide a BONA FIDE reason for getting them....they are not being released

go read the law, and the reason the LAW WAS PASSED originally and then tell me if it should be used the way the democrats want to use it now

and take off the partisan glasses before you do so.....

fishing license NOT GRANTED....

Yes, it was written in response to Teapot Dome, a scandal of corruption in the White House. The House wants the returns to check out possible corruption in the White House. They do not need a reason. It is apparent you didn't read the law or you would have known that no reason is needed, only a request.
 
Actually, Nader pointed out repeatedly that it is inappropriate and he is considering holding Lewandowski in contempt of Congress for it. I hope he does and sends Lewandowski to prison.

Boo hoo. Nadler's just pissed because Lewandowski made him look like a *****.
 
Boo hoo. Nadler's just pissed because Lewandowski made him look like a *****.

On the contrary. The Democrats should be delighted. Lewandowski provided text book impeachment grounds for obstruction of Congress. And the bonus prize is exposure of Lewandowski as the puffed up ignorant, lying, rube he is even after having been played by his betters - the “Forest Gump” of corruption as he was called. And ohh the sound bites he offered up to obliterate his futile attempt to run for office...I can see the ads already..”I have no obligation to be honest...” Hell, we could even toss him in jail for contempt if Nadler is so inclined. There are Champagne corks popping at the DNC.
 
If you are asking if its possible for them yo abuse their power of office, thats kind of a silly question to ask generically. Thats possible for anyone in any position of trust.

1. It's the key issue being discussed, and you think that's silly?
2. When not directed at Trump (generically), you agree that a president can be guilty of abuse of power. Which is the OPPOSITE of the position the Republicans/Trump/Barr, etc., have taken on the issue.

Essentially Republicans are arguing that as a matter of law/constitutional powers, POTUS (generically) cannot use a POTUS power illegally. That using POTUS power is by definition, legal.
As such, they argue he cannot obstruct justice by using presidential authority to stop an investigation of himself. That asking Cory to tell Jeff to un-recuse and stop investigating him is NOT obstruction, because as POTUS he cannot use his power corruptly/abuse it. By definition they argue, it's POTUS power and it is always used correctly/appropriately, since he's the chief executive.

You apparently disagree, and agree with me and many Democrats that a president can in fact use presidential power, in a way that constitutes a crime.

But when asked directly about Trump and his acts of obstruction, what will you do..disagree with historic trouble13 above because now it's about Trump?
Simply because he took a position that some dont agree with does not qualify it as being an abuse of office.
Who claimed it was? No one, this is a strawman.
 
1. It's the key issue being discussed, and you think that's silly?
2. When not directed at Trump (generically), you agree that a president can be guilty of abuse of power. Which is the OPPOSITE of the position the Republicans/Trump/Barr, etc., have taken on the issue.

Essentially Republicans are arguing that as a matter of law/constitutional powers, POTUS (generically) cannot use a POTUS power illegally. That using POTUS power is by definition, legal.
As such, they argue he cannot obstruct justice by using presidential authority to stop an investigation of himself. That asking Cory to tell Jeff to un-recuse and stop investigating him is NOT obstruction, because as POTUS he cannot use his power corruptly/abuse it. By definition they argue, it's POTUS power and it is always used correctly/appropriately, since he's the chief executive.

You apparently disagree, and agree with me and many Democrats that a president can in fact use presidential power, in a way that constitutes a crime.

But when asked directly about Trump and his acts of obstruction, what will you do..disagree with historic trouble13 above because now it's about Trump?

Who claimed it was? No one, this is a strawman.

I agree that a president can commit crimes while holding office BUT he can not be prosecuted for them while holding office.

Say for instance while standing on a debate stage he pulled out a gun and shot the democrat nominee dead in front of the entire nation. As blatant as that is he could not be charged with any crime. He would need to be impeached first and then removed from office before he could be charged. Its one of many protective cloaks the president gets that the rest of us do not.

The question did Trump attempt to obstruct justice in this particular circumstance is complicated because we two things overlapping that is csusing a conflict. Trump has the legal authority to do everything he has done and nothing he did actually prevented the investigation from reaching its natural conclussion.

I honestly do not see a case for obstruction but to those who do, i respect the difference of opinion. I say if they feel strongly enough in thier opinion, they need to follow the procedure. Impeach him, get the senate to remove him, and then prosecute him.

So far they have not even impeached him. This is why its important to impeach him even if you dont think you can get the senate to go along. Until he is impeached, Trump has no obligation to answer the charges. Once he is impeached, a tangible charge is made and Trump will be forced to plead his defense in a senate trial run by justice roberts in front of the entire nation.

That is what is suppose to happen not this nonsense of we can impeach but we are not going to. Just do ot and let the chips fall where they may.


BTW, you were right about your strawman comment. It was unintentional on my part but my thoughts drifted off into another thread while responding in this one and i accidentally responded to something else. my appologies to you for that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I agree that a president can commit crimes while holding office BUT he can not be prosecuted for them while holding office.
That is a different discussion. That is largely supported by DOJ and was not violated or contested here.
What Republicans are arguing is that while in office Trump cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice if he's exercising a presidential power - even if he's using it to stop a federal investigation into his own corrupt or criminal behavior (before after election is irrelevant).

Let that sink it. It's the opposite of what you believe. They are saying by virtue of being POTUS, stopping an investigation to hide his own wrongdoing *cannot be obstruction of justice* (or abuse of power, etc.)


Trump has the legal authority to do everything he has done
That's what abuse of power is right? Using legal power in an illegal way. I don't see why you think that's a wrinkle here, but it's obviously dealt with in other areas of law all the time.

and nothing he did actually prevented the investigation from reaching its natural conclusion.
That is 100% not relevant to the obstruction statute. It's intent to obstruct. Being successful at it or not, is 100% not a factor in whether or not it was a crime.
Once he is impeached, a tangible charge is made and Trump will be forced to plead his defense in a senate trial run by justice roberts in front of the entire nation.
Republicans control the branch that runs the trial, and the executive, Trump would never have to answer a single thing. That's why Democrats can't pull the trigger on this...it's a political matter and Senate/executive/scotus vs the house, wins.

BTW, you were right about your strawman comment. It was unintentional on my part but my thoughts drifted off into another thread while responding in this one and i accidentally responded to something else. my appologies to you for that.
Kudos to you. I do it sometimes as well.
 
On the contrary. The Democrats should be delighted. Lewandowski provided text book impeachment grounds for obstruction of Congress. And the bonus prize is exposure of Lewandowski as the puffed up ignorant, lying, rube he is even after having been played by his betters - the “Forest Gump” of corruption as he was called. And ohh the sound bites he offered up to obliterate his futile attempt to run for office...I can see the ads already..”I have no obligation to be honest...” Hell, we could even toss him in jail for contempt if Nadler is so inclined. There are Champagne corks popping at the DNC.

so we can expect Nancy to get off her ass and start proceedings any day then....yeah any day now....any day now......any dayyyyyy nooooowwwwww......
 
so we can expect Nancy to get off her ass and start proceedings any day then....yeah any day now....any day now......any dayyyyyy nooooowwwwww......

The Democrats are playing the long game and are meticulously gathering the necessary evidence to do just that. They have more than enough to impeach him but the desired next step is removal from office and Moscow Mitch would never let that happen. The Democrats need the Senate. The best case scenario is that the problem solves itself in 2020. If that doesn’t happen then you should expect the Democrats to move forward.
 
The Democrats are playing the long game and are meticulously gathering the necessary evidence to do just that. They have more than enough to impeach him but the desired next step is removal from office and Moscow Mitch would never let that happen. The Democrats need the Senate. The best case scenario is that the problem solves itself in 2020. If that doesn’t happen then you should expect the Democrats to move forward.
I think Democrats have very little game to play. Republicans control the Executive Branch, SCOTUS (5/4), and the Senate.
Democrats have the House.

Republicans have more cards than Democrats here, it's why Democrats cannot politically do more, politically. All comes down to the next election in the short-term.
 
That is a different discussion. That is largely supported by DOJ and was not violated or contested here.
What Republicans are arguing is that while in office Trump cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice if he's exercising a presidential power - even if he's using it to stop a federal investigation into his own corrupt or criminal behavior (before after election is irrelevant).

Let that sink it. It's the opposite of what you believe. They are saying by virtue of being POTUS, stopping an investigation to hide his own wrongdoing *cannot be obstruction of justice* (or abuse of power, etc.)


That's what abuse of power is right? Using legal power in an illegal way. I don't see why you think that's a wrinkle here, but it's obviously dealt with in other areas of law all the time.


That is 100% not relevant to the obstruction statute. It's intent to obstruct. Being successful at it or not, is 100% not a factor in whether or not it was a crime.

Republicans control the branch that runs the trial, and the executive, Trump would never have to answer a single thing. That's why Democrats can't pull the trigger on this...it's a political matter and Senate/executive/scotus vs the house, wins.


Kudos to you. I do it sometimes as well.
I hear what your saying i just see it differently. Even if Trump had gotten Mueller replaced because he didnt like the job he was doing it would not qualify as obstruction unless you could demonstrate that it was done as an effort to prevent something from being discovered or happebing within the investigation.

If you think thatbwas the case i have to ask, what was it that you think he was trying to prevent from being discovered or hsppening?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
And when they couldn't get anywhere, they broke the House rule and had a "civilian" lawyer badger Lewandowski.

Rep. Collins (R): “This move to have private consultants question a witness during an oversight hearing is an egregious violation of the Rules of the House and pretends that the Judiciary Committee’s Article I oversight authority extends to private attorneys when it doesn’t,” Collins said in a statement. “I cannot believe that Judiciary Democrats are outsourcing their pseudo-impeachment inquiry to paid consultants.”

Berke was hired as a consultant by the democrats and is not on the committee staff, however, the democrats rolled him out turning the "hearing" into a court case.

Only proving how impudent the Democrats are.
 

Help me understand how you think. You believe Trump and his people have done nothing wrong. Yet you support Trump hiding his tax returns, hiding his financial records, ordering his staff not to answer questions. If he didn't do anything, why does he have to hide and evade questions?


because you are setting a precedent

you are asking for items for which you have no LEGAL RIGHT TO SEE

Trump doesnt have to give his taxes.....forget what he promised....i am not his fan....i didnt vote for him....politicians lie

dont care about ALL of that....the law says he has to be 35, a citiizen, and give a financial package....he did all of that

just because every other president has given tax returns doesnt mean he is REQUIRED to....

now we can change the laws to MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT....and based on the public outcry, it would probably pass

but dont try to change the rules in the middle....

and he doesnt have to sit for derogatories or interviews with investigators....again the law....

just as you wouldnt have to sit and answer questions if being interrogated for a crime....

and as far as the subpoenas, he told congress he is not going to allow them to put on a circus sideshow to sway the elections

they have all the evidence....and documents...and interviews....now they have to make the decision to impeach or not

their choice

Every word of your post is false. Every one.

The subpoena of Trump’s tax records from the IRS (not Trump), is perfectly legal. There is no question about that. The IRS does not have to secure the permission of the person under investigation in order to do that, either. That’s how they caught Al Capone!

Your claim that Presidents don’t have to sit for interoggatories is also false. Bill Clinton testified before the Grand Jury.

The subpoenas are legal too. Indeed, Trump’s pitiful and typically dishonest excuse that “he told congresss he is not going to allow them to put on a circus sideshow......” is ironic at best.

Because his political allies did their level best to put on a circus sideshow, to the obvious delight of Trump and his base.

They don’t have all the evidence. And there are still many matters pending, arising from Trump’s flagrant, corruptions, disloyalty, greed, and total lack of credibility.

Stop telling us that he is some wronged party. He isn’t. He and his minions did the things that are in the Mueller Report.

And he and his minions are doing everything they can, and a lot of things that aren’t legal, to try and keep the testimony of the named participants off the nation’s television screens.

I doubt that one in ten on this forum has actually read the Mueller Report. Few of the right wingers have (although I have encountered Trumpsters who claimed to have read the report before making flagrantly false assertions about it).

If anyone is setting precidents, it’s Trump. And not because he has some overarching ambition to destroy our government, the Consitution and tear down our institutions. That just come’s naturally. It’s his vulgarity, his need for constant attention, his greed, and his obsession with pushing the envelope for no other reason than because he gets off on doing what he’s warned not to do.

After all, as a kid, daddy made sure there were no consequences. And, as he was slowly going through his inheritence, on a series of broken promises, defaults and bad deals, he’s always had lawyers to deliver the settlement checks, make the payoffs, while Trump sails on, oblivious to the sinking balance.

Trump has seized the power of the purse, simply by declaring an imaginary emergency. This is a favorite ploy of dictators, and it is how most of the more famous ones succeeded in suspending the rule of law.

He’s running a full on campaign to obstruct any and all congressional oversight.

He’s trying to deny Congress a whistleblower complaint that should have, by law, been turned over to Congress a while ago.

And Trump is generally behaving like a third world tinpot dicatator.

If he is allowed to get away with these things, he will have set the precidents that will make it all that much easier for some future tyrant to seize power. Trump asserts taht they can defy Congress. He’s getting ready to take aim at the Courts. He has tried to actually in a unilateral fashion at every opportunity. Circumventing Congress’ power to confirm nominees (a Consititution functions that Trump evades by putting lackeys in “acting” roles). And he talks openly about suspending elections or artificially extending his term. Nothing in his buffoonish, reckless behavior suggests that he not be taken seriously.

Trump won’t be a dictator, or a king. He’s too lazy and too stupid.

But he will have put in place all the tools for the next one that comes along, and bewitches enough of the public with a cult of personality like this.
 
The WH believes they have the legal authority.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I doubt that.

Trump has never worried about legal authority.

His MO is to break the law and then try and bully or obstruct until he gets away with it.

The oversight function of Congress is an Constitutional right.

It was tested by the Nixon people in Watergate and again during the Clinton impeachment. Each time, a sitting President tried to conceal information or try and prevent certain witnesses for testifying.

The failed both times.

This is a matter of Presidential accountability.

Trump does not recognize accountability. Not out of some high minded principle. Everyone knows better than that. Trump is not high minded and has no principles. He has never been held responsible for anything in his entire life.

And his MO has always involved doing reckless, stupid things, while leaving the messes behind for the lawyers to straighten out.
 
The scariest part of the whole spectacle was when Lewandowski admitted to lying any time he wants, except when he's under oath.

The NH Republicans are not happy with him right now. He all but ensured Jeanne Shaheen's re-election in a seat the GOP thought *may* be up for grabs. I'm going to vote for Lewandowski in the primary to ensure he's the candidate, knowing that he will lose to Shaheen - who I never believed I would vote for, but I sure as Hell will now. Sending a lying Trump butt sniffer to DC isn't something I want to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom