The Impeachment Thread

#12,956
#12,956
Schiff and Nadler’s Joint Statement Oozes With Hypocrisy


DECLASSIFIED - The Epoch Times

Published on Oct 28, 2019
According to multiple sources, the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the origins of the Russia inquiry has shifted into a criminal probe. When news of this major development broke, it was clear that the investigation had taken a more serious turn. Of course, some people did not take kindly to this news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Svr
#12,959
#12,959
Mick said:
You have reduced yourself to that I see. Your posts never have had substance.
Click to expand...

Yes I’ve reduced myself to pointing out facts , it’s a lot simpler than trying to spin things for an agenda . You should try it .
 
#12,960
#12,960
1972 Grad said:
Who has he trashed that didn't attack him first?
Click to expand...

Well, the most blatant and outrageous was his attack on McCain's military record. Sure they had some back and forth on political differences but Trump had no standing to attack McCain on his service record. He attacked the wife of Kazir Khan for just standing on stage with her husband. She never said a word. I can't count how many members of his own government he's basically trashed publicly and out of the blue after they didn't work out. Then there's any journalist who ever wrote a truthful article about him that was not flattering. The truth is not an attack.

And he and his mob are already attacking the messengers testifying before congressional committees. I guess you've forgotten almost everyone involved in the Mueller probe most who never said anything about him publicly.
 
#12,961
#12,961
Hunerwadel said:
Well, the most blatant and outrageous was his attack on McCain's military record. Sure they had some back and forth on political differences but Trump had no standing to attack McCain on his service record. He attacked the wife of Kazir Khan for just standing on stage with her husband. She never said a word. I can't count how many members of his own government he's basically trashed publicly and out of the blue after they didn't work out. Then there's any journalist who ever wrote a truthful article about him that was not flattering. The truth is not an attack.

And he and his mob are already attacking the messengers testifying before congressional committees. I guess you've forgotten almost everyone involved in the Mueller probe most who never said anything about him publicly.
Click to expand...
Barr must have misplaced that memo he wrote about not commenting on ongoing investigations.
 
#12,962
#12,962
Hunerwadel said:
Well, the most blatant and outrageous was his attack on McCain's military record. Sure they had some back and forth on political differences but Trump had no standing to attack McCain on his service record. He attacked the wife of Kazir Khan for just standing on stage with her husband. She never said a word. I can't count how many members of his own government he's basically trashed publicly and out of the blue after they didn't work out. Then there's any journalist who ever wrote a truthful article about him that was not flattering. The truth is not an attack.

And he and his mob are already attacking the messengers testifying before congressional committees. I guess you've forgotten almost everyone involved in the Mueller probe most who never said anything about him publicly.
Click to expand...
Your side said much worse about McCain, remember when he was a nazi? Your media makes s up and prints complete lies and doesn't report other stuff, they deserved to be bashed. They are indeed the enemy of the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#12,963
#12,963
Hunerwadel said:
Well, the most blatant and outrageous was his attack on McCain's military record. Sure they had some back and forth on political differences but Trump had no standing to attack McCain on his service record. He attacked the wife of Kazir Khan for just standing on stage with her husband. She never said a word. I can't count how many members of his own government he's basically trashed publicly and out of the blue after they didn't work out. Then there's any journalist who ever wrote a truthful article about him that was not flattering. The truth is not an attack.

And he and his mob are already attacking the messengers testifying before congressional committees. I guess you've forgotten almost everyone involved in the Mueller probe most who never said anything about him publicly.
Click to expand...
And the first grenade was thrown by McCain, before the primaries of the 2016 election, when McCain called Trump's supporters radicals and something worse (I've forgotten exact word), at an Arizona event.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#12,965
#12,965
1972 Grad said:
And the first grenade was thrown by McCain, before the primaries of the 2016 election, when McCain called Trump's supporters radicals and something worse (I've forgotten exact word), at an Arizona event.
Click to expand...

Here is the chronology of events after a political rally in Arizona:

McCain on July 11, 2015:
"It's very bad.....his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me. Because what he did was he fired up the crazies."

Trump, 7 days later July 18, 2015:
"He's not a war hero" comments

Trump took offense at the statement calling his supporters "crazies." He has their backs. McCain started it.
 
#12,970
#12,970
1972 Grad said:
Here is the chronology of events after a political rally in Arizona:

McCain on July 11, 2015:
"It's very bad.....his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me. Because what he did was he fired up the crazies."

Trump, 7 days later July 18, 2015:
"He's not a war hero" comments

Trump took offense at the statement calling his supporters "crazies." He has their backs. McCain started it.
Click to expand...
I would prefer our politicians not act like third graders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
#12,972
#12,972
newyorkvol said:
Maybe this is where I learn something. My impression was that when a law isn’t clear or has multiple ways to be interpreted, it the job of the judge to make the case it’s being applied to. And one of the first things a judge relies upon when making application is to look at precedent. In this case, I understand that the constitution doesn’t clearly say how the House should start an impeachment inquiry, but there is precedent. She ruled against precedent and with the party line that she has been associated with. And if a person is issued a subpoena and their lawyer believes it to be done illegally, does that person, any person, have to comply before the legality of the subpoena has been established?

But I’m not anywhere close to a lawyer and could be completely wrong. I would be glad to see trump elected out of office next year, but I’m afraid of what the political parties are doing bending and twisting the everything to suit their political needs.



Edit: My point is that if there was a house vote to begin an inquiry that was then run through the Judiciary committee like the previous two impeachment’s, then there would be no question of the legality of the subpoenas and need for trump to comply.
Click to expand...
I understand your edit as to what your point is.
Congress’s prior actions that are not required by law or the constitution are not legal precedent.
This judge can only enforce what’s required under the law. She’s bound by the plain language of the constitution, laws, and rules.

If those are ambiguous, she’s then bound by any supervisory court’s prior opinions. That’s legal precedent.

If there are no opinions on point or if they’re unclear, she can look to other sources to interpret any ambiguity. That would include the interpretations of non-supervisory courts, secondary sources of legal opinion (law review articles treatises, etc). She can also look at the behavior of the parties and how they interpreted the language.
Here, there’s no ambiguous language that suggests that a vote is required. There’s nothing that you would look at and say that if they don’t have a vote, some other provision fails.

Congress doesn’t make law simply by behaving a certain way. Even if the colloquial meaning of the word “precedent” and “legal precedent” were the same, congressional oversight has been generally respected and requests for documents have been complied with by most presidents. The courts have upheld congressional oversight in at least one instance (Nixon) where the president attempted to refuse to comply. That compliance certainly has not always followed some vote because it has not always been part of an impeachment proceeding. The Benghazi proceedings and Iran Contra being sort of recent, highly publicized examples. So there’s an equally established precedent that Trump is violating.
This administration has made a number of frivolous claims of privilege (Corey Lewandowski representing the most laughable), just to try to stall and send this to the courts. His lawyers had to know this outcome was inevitable because his arguments were totally baseless. He’s just trying to drag things out and get to the next news cycle, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol and Mick
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top