Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats are looking for a pretext to impeach Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    actually they do.

    Now to remember the supreme court case that covers that.

    did some research and a lot of things point to this but don't have time to fully delve into it.
    McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)


    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/
    Actually they better- before you end up with another 'Not from the old parties rich showman campaigner" like- John Romulus Brinkley
    Note: Any comparison to any current politician is ,uhhhh, well,,, ummm..
    Last edited by marktwain; 18 Nov 19, 13:48.
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by American87 View Post
      What the Democrats really want is to get Trump out of office before the election. The House can impeach the president at any time, but Republicans in the Senate will block them. That's why they need to turn public opinion in their favor: to put enough pressure on Republicans in the polls to convict Trump. That's why Schiff is holding these investigations, even though it all started with a rumor, and even though Trump proved himself not guilty in the transcript. It's a witch hunt, covered by the media, designed to turn public opinion against Trump and Republicans. It's also partly a cover for Joe Biden, whose scandal the left has swept under the rug in the hopes that Trump won't be around to bring it up in 2020.

      I'm not sure how long this inquiry will last. Dems might keep it up for the sake of optics, like they did the Mueller investigation. Or they might drop it completely. Since the whole affair has driven Trump's poll numbers up, Nervous Nancy might pull the plug if Lying Pencil-Neck Schiff doesn't deliver the goods.
      just like republicans were trying to imnpeach Obama. Or prove he not an American. Cant rember who was trying to do that hmmm.

      The thing here is Trump was dumb enough to actually provide them a good reason to pull the trigger.

      So by your argument since the Nixon impeachement started as a rumor what he did was ok.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

        see
        "Separation of powers".

        Congress has no authority under the constitution to engage in "oversight of the executive branch".

        Voters do that.
        No, the voters do not. And, yes, Congress most certainly does.

        https://www.thoughtco.com/congressio...rsight-4177013

        Congressional oversight is an implied power given by the Constitution. There are three types of powers: specified, implied, and those powers the government has by the fact that it is a government.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

          see
          "Separation of powers".

          Congress has no authority under the constitution to engage in "oversight of the executive branch".

          Voters do that.
          LOOLOL

          Funny though that according to the constitution the sole power for impeachment and the trial of the chief of the Executive Branch lies with the Congress and not with the voters. Separation of power comes also with checks and balances and the impeachment process is one such example.
          Last edited by pamak; 18 Nov 19, 15:33.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            Republicans are looking for a pretext to hold Trump unaccountable (again) when he uses shady people like his personal lawyer to push for an investigation of his political opponent.
            Since when is opposition research a crime? The whole Russian Collusion narrative was based, to a large extent, on the dirty "dossier," which was fake opposition research. Anyway, politicians investigate each other every election. Democrats only care because they're going to get screwed over this particular investigation.
            "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

            "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by craven View Post

              Good point have you complained about all those witch hunts that occurred during Obama s time
              Obama was president three years ago. I really don't care to discuss your problems with Republicans during his terms. The Democrats are now on a witch hunt to unseat the sitting president, because they coudln't beat him in an election.
              "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

              "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by craven View Post

                just like republicans were trying to imnpeach Obama. Or prove he not an American. Cant rember who was trying to do that hmmm.

                The thing here is Trump was dumb enough to actually provide them a good reason to pull the trigger.

                So by your argument since the Nixon impeachement started as a rumor what he did was ok.
                It was Hilary who started the rumor Obama was African. Did you vote for her? Obama described himself as born in Africa when he was at Harvard. I don't know. Apparently he was lying then.

                What's a "good reason to pull the trigger?" Impeachment is not a legal proceeding; there's no statutes or required evidence. The Democrats can impeach Trump just because they feel like it. And what did Trump provide? A transcript that proves he did nothing wrong. There's literally no evidence to base an investigation on. Lying Pencil-Neck Schiff is on a witch hunt trying to find something, but the original evidence for his investigation has evaporated.
                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by American87 View Post

                  Since when is opposition research a crime? The whole Russian Collusion narrative was based, to a large extent, on the dirty "dossier," which was fake opposition research. Anyway, politicians investigate each other every election. Democrats only care because they're going to get screwed over this particular investigation.
                  Since opposition research is conflated with the official duties of the president.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by American87 View Post

                    It was Hilary who started the rumor Obama was African. Did you vote for her? Obama described himself as born in Africa when he was at Harvard. I don't know. Apparently he was lying then.

                    What's a "good reason to pull the trigger?" Impeachment is not a legal proceeding; there's no statutes or required evidence. The Democrats can impeach Trump just because they feel like it. And what did Trump provide? A transcript that proves he did nothing wrong. There's literally no evidence to base an investigation on. Lying Pencil-Neck Schiff is on a witch hunt trying to find something, but the original evidence for his investigation has evaporated.
                    Actually- no.
                    The story that Hillary Clinton started the Obama birth rumours \began somewhere in the bowels of the republican linked internet sites.
                    \FREEREPUBRlIC HAD THE rumour rolling when he was a congressman.
                    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                      Actually- no.
                      The story that Hillary Clinton started the Obama birth rumours \began somewhere in the bowels of the republican linked internet sites.
                      \FREEREPUBRlIC HAD THE rumour rolling when he was a congressman.
                      Actually, Obama started the rumor when he described himself as a native born African while at Harvard. I guess some site might have picked up on this, but it wasn't mainstream until Hillary introduced it.
                      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                      "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        Since opposition research is conflated with the official duties of the president.
                        Are you saying opposition research is a crime? Because it's not. And it's certainly not a crime when investigating possible corruption on the part of the former Vice President. That might not even be considered opposition research, but Trump just doing his job.
                        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          LOOLOL

                          Funny though that according to the constitution the sole power for impeachment and the trial of the chief of the Executive Branch lies with the Congress and not with the voters. Separation of power comes also with checks and balances and the impeachment process is one such example.
                          Please read what I said again and try not to feel too ashamed.
                          You will note that I wasn't speaking about "impeachment". I spoke of "oversight". I suggest you check your definition again.

                          Once again, congress has no authority to engage in oversight of the executive branch. But nice try at changing the subject.
                          But what do I know, I just push carts.
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                            Please read what I said again and try not to feel too ashamed.
                            You will note that I wasn't speaking about "impeachment". I spoke of "oversight". I suggest you check your definition again.

                            Once again, congress has no authority to engage in oversight of the executive branch. But nice try at changing the subject.
                            But what do I know, I just push carts.
                            I read it and I told you that impeachment is a form of oversight. When a president abuses his power and is impeached and removed this IS a form of oversight.
                            I even tried to explain it to you but as usual you make claims and you stick to them without using any reasoning.

                            You confuse the limits of the oversight with the concept itself. While Congress does have restrictions in its oversight, it is completely nuts to claim that Congress has no authority to engage in oversight of the Executive Branch.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post

                              No, the voters do not. And, yes, Congress most certainly does.

                              https://www.thoughtco.com/congressio...rsight-4177013

                              Congressional oversight is an implied power given by the Constitution. There are three types of powers: specified, implied, and those powers the government has by the fact that it is a government.


                              I'm sorry, but the post I responded to argues that congress gets to oversee the running of the executive branch.
                              It does not.

                              You said:
                              What is needed is for oversight from Congress to be enforced and to not allow the executive branch not only to ignore Congressional subpoenas and to actively encourage or forbid those who are subpoenaed to ignore the subpoena. That is against the law and is against the rule of law.

                              If those who either refuse or are forbidden to testify before a Congressional committee had nothing to hide there wouldn't be a problem.


                              Congress has every right to investigate anything it likes, but it doesn't have any authority to run the executive branch.


                              I'm curious,when Holder was subpoenaed by congress and then he ignored it why weren't you demanding congressional oversight then?
                              Weird. It almost seems your outrage is selective.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                I read it and I told you that impeachment is a form of oversight. When a president abuses his power and is impeached and removed this IS a form of oversight.
                                I even tried to explain it to you but as usual you make claims and you stick to them without using any reasoning.

                                You confuse the limits of the oversight with the concept itself. While Congress does have restrictions in its oversight, it is completely nuts to claim that Congress has no authority to engage in oversight of the Executive Branch.
                                Ahh, I was unaware that you were changing what you meant and what I said.
                                Forgive me.
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X