Trumps direct and to the point letter to Nancy Pelosi

a reply to: toolgal462

The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to interfere in impeachment proceedings. Sorry.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

Please. A congressional subpoena is equal to a warrant in a impeachment inquiry. The Judicial branch doesn't oversee Congress and regulate it's power of impeachment.

When it comes up against executive privilege it is equal to Congress subpoena. Only the 3rd equal branch of government (Judicial) can clarify whether executive privilege is proven.

Edit add: Thus why prior executive privileges called upon by prior administrations towards Congress were referred to Judicial to confirm or deny.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They have the right to rule in Trump's favor when he cites his executive privilege, therefore making the house subpeona null and void....duh

a reply to: CynConcepts
a reply to: toolgal462

When it comes up against executive privilege it is equal to Congress subpoena.

President Trump has not cited or declared executive privilege. He has ordered his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas as illegitimate.

ETA: Trump is claiming "absolute immunity" which is not something that is legally extent.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah I'd ignore REEE-tards as well.

CUH
CUH
CUH
CULTURE WAR CHOKE YOURSELF

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts
a reply to: toolgal462

When it comes up against executive privilege it is equal to Congress subpoena.

President Trump has not cited or declared executive privilege. He has ordered his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas as illegitimate.

ETA: Trump is claiming "absolute immunity" which is not something that is legally extent.

In other words, he is using his executive privilege and advising others in his administration to also use executive privilege.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: toolgal462

The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to interfere in impeachment proceedings. Sorry.

That works both ways. With a split Congress, the only way they can effectively force the POTUS to cooperate with an impeachment investigation is through the SCOTUS intervening and declaring Congress' demands are Constitutional. If the court remains on the sidelines, as they have, then they are effectively saying Congress only recourse is to incorporate the POTUS' refusal to comply into their articles of impeachment... but since that's all going before a Senate which has a close to zero percent chance of removing the POTUS, none of it matters.


The Dems, whichever way this is sliced, are wasting tax payer dollars and precious legislative time on a case they have no chance of winning.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That works both ways. With a split Congress, the only way they can effectively force the POTUS to cooperate with an impeachment investigation is through the SCOTUS intervening and declaring Congress' demands are Constitutional.

"The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment". Trump's refusal to acknowledge Congress' authority constitutes "obstruction of Congress", a high crime and an impeachable offence.

Dear lord it's like talking to the wall.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That works both ways. With a split Congress, the only way they can effectively force the POTUS to cooperate with an impeachment investigation is through the SCOTUS intervening and declaring Congress' demands are Constitutional.

"The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment". Trump's refusal to acknowledge Congress' authority constitutes "obstruction of Congress", a high crime and an impeachable offence.

Yup... see how far that moves the US Senate.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts
a reply to: toolgal462

When it comes up against executive privilege it is equal to Congress subpoena.

President Trump has not cited or declared executive privilege. He has ordered his staff to ignore congressional subpoenas as illegitimate.

ETA: Trump is claiming "absolute immunity" which is not something that is legally extent.

In other words, he is using his executive privilege and advising others in his administration to also use executive privilege.

Trump has NOT claimed executive privilege! He has claimed "absolute immunity", a nonexistent legal status. If Trump was to claim executive privilege, he would have to acknowledge Congress' authority and send documents, which could be redacted. He hasn't. He could send witnesses who refuse to answer questions, based on executive privilege, but he won't.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Whelp, they either call one or some of the witnesses in question, or they address obstruction of Congress charges. Calling one or some of the Democrat's witnesses, if Trump acquiesced, would immediately invalidate the Dem's "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What crime is he obstructing from? Obstruction?

a reply to: toolgal462

You can't be arrested because you're orange but you can be arrested without evidence. There only needs to be reasonable suspicion. Court determines if there is evidence.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

An officer cannot legally enter and search your home without a judicial warrant if you say NO! That is what Trump said. He told Congress to get a judicial warrant.

What do you think all of the hearings in the last few weeks have been? Gathering evidence to establish whether a crime was committed or not. Turns out, not only was there a crime committed (abuse of power) but the administration committed another crime by not fully cooperating (obstruction of congress) with the investigation.

Yes, that is also where the 'due process' argument falls apart. The hearings weren't trials and the administration did have plenty of opportunities to explain exactly what they were trying to accomplish. Instead they demanded "due process" when none was required and when they did get their chance to speak they stayed silent.

He broke the law numerous and multiple times and Congress is really only holding him accountable for the two offenses.

a reply to: neutronflux

Trump isn't being impeached for obstruction of justice, which would at least attempt, to conceal a crime. He's being impeached for obstruction of Congress, by refusing to acknowledge Congress' constitutional authority.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Okay, but in order to have reasonable suspicion, wouldn't you have to have some evidence of being part of a criminal act?

Like, you are pulled over and drugs are found in your car...That would be evidence of criminal behavior, but you may be innocent because you didn't know drugs were inn your car?

Circumstantial evidence at the very least is needed. Right?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: StallionDuck

Metaphors don't count.

I think Pelosi's description of Trump's rambling rant as "sick" is a metaphor for that which Trump is anxiously puking up.

That would mean that she's simply a dimwit and shouldn't be in any form of leadership role. That's like calling air heavy. It makes zero sense. Though, it wouldn't surprise me because she is retarded.... But I believe she's a liar and she's doing this so people like yourself run with it and repeat it.

Just like what's happening right now.... Just because you say the same thing over and over, it doesn't make it true.

Try harder. You're seriously reaching.

a reply to: links234

What evidence has been presented of these alleged crimes? Or non crimes, in this case. But please indulge me.

What evidence of crimes has been presented?