Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

executive privilege is NOT a law and isn’t in the constitution.  So it doesn’t “absolutely” protect anything.  When you have time, check out how the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Nixon’s use of it.  

 

15 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Pretty sure executive privilege was waived as soon as Trump decided to comment on it in public. How can you assert executive privilege when the conversation will be sold on bookshelves in March? 

 

No.  What the Ds want is testimony from the National Security Advisor over direct communications that he had with the President.  Do you realize how harmful that would be for the rest of our future?  Presidents have to keep things secret in case a hostile congress impeaches for the usual political anger.  No one would want that standard, at least not applied to Presidents of their own party. 

15 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What is this pertaining to?

Your tidbit that some Rs signed off on the firing of the UKR prosecutor who wanted to look into Burisma.  As if any of them knew who he was...

Link to post

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have long ago proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest and resistant to facts and reason.

Interesting thing about this.     Shokin was widely viewed as a corrupt prosecutor by almost all of our allies.  It was widely known within our our foreign policy team that he actually neede

You would invoke Alan Dershowitz to defend Donald Trump.  He defended Epstein and procured his sweetheart deal that allowed him to continue raping children. Epstein pled the 5th when as

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

What the Ds want is testimony from the National Security Advisor over direct communications that he had with the President. 

 

You mean the communications that didn't happen!?! 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

8 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

No.  What the Ds want is testimony from the National Security Advisor over direct communications that he had with the President.  Do you realize how harmful that would be for the rest of our future?  Presidents have to keep things secret in case a hostile congress impeaches for the usual political anger.  No one would want that standard, at least not applied to Presidents of their own party. 

That’s true, except if it involves concealing evidence of suspected wrongdoing by the president. If there is a reasonable belief that this has occurred then Congress has the right to investigate and obtain that information.  The president cannot hide behind privilege if he has done wrong.  Otherwise Congress’ constitutional authority would be diminished and the president’s activities would be unchecked. That’s exactly what is happening in this case. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

 

No.  What the Ds want is testimony from the National Security Advisor over direct communications that he had with the President.

Communications the President commented on in public therefor can no longer be protected under executive privilege 

 

  Do you realize how harmful that would be for the rest of our future?  Presidents have to keep things secret in case a hostile congress impeaches for the usual political anger.  No one would want that standard, at least not applied to Presidents of their own party. 

Your tidbit that some Rs signed off on the firing of the UKR prosecutor who wanted to look into Burisma.  As if any of them knew who he was...  They knew who Shokin was. A corrupt prosecutor who never prosecuted a single case and used his position to extort money out of the wealthy. That's why he was fired.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Your tidbit that some Rs signed off on the firing of the UKR prosecutor who wanted to look into Burisma.  As if any of them knew who he was...

so you are saying that the republicans are signing s#!t without even bothering to find out what it is they are signing?   that sounds like a real group of professionals right there.

  • Plus1 4
Link to post
9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Your tidbit that some Rs signed off on the firing of the UKR prosecutor who wanted to look into Burisma.  As if any of them knew who he was...

OMG.....that's funny. 

 

So...this is the excuse their coming up with? So....everyone in the EU and IMF didn't read it either nor know who he was?

And.....you do understand that he was pressed to be fired because he was NOT investigating Burisma....right?  You do know that's why all of our European allies wanted him fired too....right???

Please tell me you understand that.

 

Oh...this is priceless.

 

You might want to go read the link I provided to you in the other thread on the Biden issue.

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

9 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

No.  What the Ds want is testimony from the National Security Advisor over direct communications that he had with the President.  Do you realize how harmful that would be for the rest of our future?  Presidents have to keep things secret in case a hostile congress impeaches for the usual political anger.  No one would want that standard, at least not applied to Presidents of their own party. 

 

Your tidbit that some Rs signed off on the firing of the UKR prosecutor who wanted to look into Burisma.  As if any of them knew who he was...

 

In case you didn't hear @Decoy73...

 

You know what else is harmful for the future, Joe? A president and administration that KEEP CRIMING and then try to claim Congress has no right to investigate it. Executive privilege does not cover illegal behavior bud.

 

But by god. If you believe the bold, Hillary Clinton should've just hunkered down and refused to comply with an obviously politically motivated set of investigations into Benghazi. Obama should've told the GOP to pound sand. After all, hostile Congress, secret information, right?

 

Alas, as I've pointed out before, HRC obviously has a bigger set of testicles than your boy. Must sting knowing that, huh?

 

Good lord your arguments are made in absurdly bad faith at this point.

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

But how does he know it's the whistleblower if no one does! Says Trumpers as if multiple people couldn't potentially be the whistleblower and as if the whistleblower even matters. So ridiculous 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...