The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[Notre Dame Joe 1,452]

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...

[Notre Dame Joe 1,452]

9 hours ago, QMany said:

With these lies, we must ask: has anyone ever seen Ted Cruz and @Notre Dame Joe in the same place?

 

I can't grow a goatee, the mustache just doesn't join the beard.  I should've been the leprechaun though, I'm a natural for the single U no-stache look.

[QMany 5,477]

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!?! 

[QMany 5,477]

 

Not just "accepting information from foreign countries" but bribing foreign countries with taxpayer money to announce ginned-up investigations. 

[TGHusker 5,900]

15 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

 

pattern of behavior 

 

I wish the SDNY would blow the lid off of this and make the information public asap. 

[Decoy73 1,165]

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. 

[Nebfanatic 6,316]

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.

 

[commando 9,149]

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.

[BigRedBuster 24,827]

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.

[BigRedBuster 24,827]

 

I had to come back and read NotreDameJoe's post again just to make sure I didn't dream that.

That's priceless.

[Danny Bateman 9,922]

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.

[QMany 5,477]

We have reached the Orwellian gaslighting phase of Trump's trial.

[commando 9,149]

i think we may owe Bill an apology.  maybe he thought getting a BJ was in the best interest of the country.   a relaxed president is better than a tensed president.

[BigRedBuster 24,827]

Quote

Washington (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said. 

 

 

[Nebfanatic 6,316]

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