Reply With Quote
Laws kind of matter, sorry.
It was a representative sample of old white people.Only 801 people polled in a state with over 5 million people
Ducks hanging from polls.
Laws kind of matter, sorry.
Which law(s)?
nunes counts on gullible idiots tbh...
yes, in the inquisition, you had the right to face your accuser before being sentenced/punished
same with trump here. this impeachment inquiry isnt ending with punishment. if they actually impeach him, trump has his trial before the senate before he can be punished (removed from office)
and then signs off with gutter tier remarks
At least we agree the impeachment is DOA
impeachment probably gonna happenAt least we agree the impeachment is DOA
removal, probably not gonna happen
they should release a memo of the call drafted by biden aids and call it a transcript tbh
oversight for thee, but not for me
Even people that obviously hate Trump said the transcript was accurate.
I do, him or Hillary. That's some must see TV.
The political goal of this affair is to drag this show into the election year, and through election. Do you want to vote for a guy who is about to be impeached?
Not to Trump
That was the ostensible goal of six Benghazi investigations.
"Trump’s campaign spent more than $1 million on Facebook ads in October that mentioned “impeachment,” according to an analysis by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic group.
But while the Trump campaign was the largest player, it was far from alone.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the campaign arm of Senate Republicans spent nearly $200,000 on Facebook ads referring to impeachment during that same time..."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ds/4114206002/
4D cheese
Which law did he break?
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 would arguably be one. It was mentioned in the hearing yesterday.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-...nt-control-actThe Impoundment Control Act applies whenever the president wishes to hold back on spending temporarily, which is called a deferral, and when he wishes to cancel a spending permanently, known as a rescission. In both cases, the law requires the president to notify Congress promptly what he wants to do and why.
For rescissions, the president must spend the money unless Congress affirmatively approves his request not to spend. For deferrals, the law gives the president more leeway, so long as he spends the money during the current fiscal year. Even then, the law is clear that deferrals are allowed only to provide for contingencies, because of changes in the law, or to achieve greater efficiencies...
Congress now knows that back in mid-July, Trump ordered that the millions that Congress had appropriated for military and other aid to Ukraine be put on hold. But the Impoundment Control Act [2 U.S.C. §684] requires much more of the president: he must explain the reasons for the deferral in a special message to Congress, including any legal authority for doing so, as well as the length of time for which the money will be withheld.
Most significantly, he is required to include “all the facts, cir stances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed deferral.”
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/...ity?1574321282
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-21-2019 at 02:43 AM.
No crime need be alleged or proven in an impeachment. Maladministration and abuse of power short of blatant illegality are enough.
Seems a bit quaint from the POV of the present, but the articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson included several specifications for intemperate remarks:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory..._Johnson.htm#7That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and cons utionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby...
...Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.
Blake made the claim then ran away after posting an emoji.
lol
"i'm a democrat"
Accurate doesn't mean it was complete. The released notes were certainly damaging as is, however, if it was such a "perfect call", why not show to the world what that looks like?
Now Biden was in the administration when this happened, right? So why doesn't the presidency just look in it's own archives for the call? rhetorical question, they probably already did.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions