• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
My bad. The personal attack was at the end of your first paragraph. I actually addressed your second paragraph, so I don't know where you got that I was ignoring it. Maybe because I didn't quote it? I'm sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...
You did kinda respond to my second paragraph and I overlooked it. Sorry.

As far as the personal attack (the bit about lots of words?), report it if you think it's out of bounds. Don't look that way too me, but go ahead if you feel otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Trump's base (i.e. the ones who have gone "full retard", and are more for Trump than the GOP in general) may only be a minority, but when you have elections that are decided by a few thousand votes, a small minority who decides "I liked Trump and won't vote for Pence in 2020 or my local senator because they voted Trump out" could have a big effect.

Many senators have an approval rating only a few percentage higher than their disapproval.
Click to expand...
That works both ways.

Don't forget we are talking about incumbents here, not much of a primary threat.
 
alfaniner said:
The new Term of the Week is "Never-Trumper".
Click to expand...
Not new, it came around during the 2016 primary. Trump has drudged it up because more than just the Democrats are against him. If you are a Democrat or a never-Trumper then your criticism of Trump is of course, lies.

See I was ninja'd.
 
Trump just stated he does not need a special team to handle impeachment "I am all the team we need".

Just keep thinking the way Donnie, just keep thinking the way,and you will be doing half the Democrats work for them.
 
Trebuchet said:
Unfortunately he's probably smart enough not to give a statement under oath like Clinton did.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, the written questions he answered in the Mueller Report were effectively under oath.

Considering that Mueller claimed that statement that Trump's "written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete... but where he did that his answers showed he wasn’t always being truthful" was generally true, there is room to charge him with either lying to the FBI or perjury.
 
alfaniner said:
The new Term of the Week is "Never-Trumper".
Click to expand...

Oh, for ****'s sake...

It's just that Trump started saying it a lot in the last couple days. I didn't claim he invented the term (like he did "priming the pump").

Call it his Meme of the Week. Whatever you like.
 
Another witness is asking for a judge to decide if he should or should not testify:

House Democrats had subpoenaed the witness, Charles M. Kupperman, who served as Mr. Trump’s deputy national security adviser, to testify on Monday. But in an effort to stop Mr. Kupperman from doing so, the White House said on Friday that the president had invoked “constitutional immunity,” leaving Mr. Kupperman uncertain about what to do.

“Plaintiff obviously cannot satisfy the competing demands of both the legislative and executive branches, and he is aware of no controlling judicial authority definitively establishing which branch’s command should prevail,” the suit said.

...

“Constitutional immunity” is essentially executive privilege on steroids. Mr. Kupperman said in the lawsuit that Mr. Trump’s White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, had ordered him not to comply with the subpoena. The president’s legal team apparently issued the same advice it had given other former top White House aides, like Mr. Cipollone’s predecessor, Donald F. McGahn II, who had been asked to testify before lawmakers in the spring: They are absolutely immune from being forced to testify to Congress about their official duties, meaning they do not even have to show up.

“The president, however, acting through the White House counsel, has asserted that plaintiff, as a close personal adviser to the president, is immune from congressional process, and has instructed plaintiff not to appear and testify in response to the House’s subpoena,” the lawsuit said.

Administrations of both parties have taken that position. Steven A. Engel, the Trump-appointed head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, asserted in a 15-page legal opinion last summer that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

...

Mr. McGahn defied the subpoena, citing the White House’s instructions, and in August, the House Judiciary Committee filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial ruling that the Justice Department is wrong, and an order requiring Mr. McGahn to testify. That litigation is not yet resolved.

Mr. Kupperman appears to be trying another route. Instead of defying his own subpoena and waiting to be sued, as Mr. McGahn did, he is going to court himself — suing both Congress and Mr. Trump for putting him in what he portrayed as an impossible position, and asking a judge to resolve the legal issue and tell him what to do.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Segnosaur said:
Some good news for the Democrats on the legal front front:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...grand-jury-material-to-house-democrats-000299
A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Justice Department must turn over former special counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury evidence to the House Judiciary Committee...
...
In a double victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Judge Beryl Howell — the chief federal judge in Washington — ruled that the impeachment inquiry Democrats have launched is valid even though the House hasn't taken a formal vote on it. The decision rejects arguments by DOJ and congressional Republicans that a formal vote is necessary to launch impeachment proceedings.


Expect more whining from the Republicans.
Click to expand...


“Congress’s need to access grand jury material relevant to potential impeachable conduct by a president is heightened when the executive branch wilfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence.”

- Judge Howell ruling that the House's Impeachment inquiry is legal.
 
Here's a great overview of all the impeachment goings ons currently.

This part touches upon another attempt at enhanced interrogation of law to stretch the notion of executive privilege.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/impeachment-recap-lev-parnas-igor-fruman-and-bill-taylor.html
In the drama of Ukraine-gate (a.k.a Ukraine-ghazi, a.k.a. Uncle Rudy’s Wild Ride), the questing couple whose artful failures reveal the icy abyss deep in the heart of human existence is the Ukrainian-Floridian lawyer duo Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.

Parnas and Fruman are the kind of guys you call “entrepreneurs” with very raised eyebrows; the kind of guys who scheme to sell liquified natural gas to a Ukranian state-owned energy company; the kind of guys, in other words, who are perfect informal associates of President Trump’s informal diplomatic channel in Ukraine. Through big-dollar donations to the GOP — and payments to Rudy — the allegedly Russian mob-affiliated Parnas and Fruman secured clout with congressional Republicans, and meetings with Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. at Mar-a-Lago. They used that influence to push for the firing of Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (whom they deemed insufficiently cooperative in advancing their business goals), and advertised their ties to Trump when trying to sell Ukranian energy executives on the merits of their gas deal. Meanwhile, they did the president a solid by imploring Ukranian prosecutors to investigate Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

In court this week, Parnas’s attorney argued that some of the prosecutors’ evidence may be subject to executive privilege — the presidential power to withhold information in the name of the public interest. His reasoning: Parnas had hired Giuliani as a lawyer, at the same time that Giuliani was serving as the president’s lawyer — ergo, by the transitive property of executive attorney-client privilege … maybe Trump can make some of the evidence against Parnas go away? “I don’t know any more about how to invoke executive privilege than anyone else,” Parnas’s attorney assured reporters after the hearing. Well, fair enough.
Click to expand...
 
Orphia Nay said:
“Congress’s need to access grand jury material relevant to potential impeachable conduct by a president is heightened when the executive branch wilfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence.”

- Judge Howell ruling that the House's Impeachment inquiry is legal.
Click to expand...

Expect to hear that Howell was appointed by Obama therefore she's out to get Trump at all costs.
 
dudalb said:
.
Just keep thinking the way Donnie, just keep thinking the way,and you will be doing half the Democrats work for them.
Click to expand...

Aren't the democrats doing "half the work" because they are so focused on Trump that they neglect their own duties? Pelosi's district is a shameful slum.
 
Joecool said:
Aren't the democrats doing "half the work" because they are so focused on Trump that they neglect their own duties?
Click to expand...

Nope. Democrats have passed many bills since they took control 10 months ago only to have Mitch kill the bills in the Senate. Try again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom