Does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
I'm just going to enjoy the boutons meltdown, tbh
Does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
A dispute?
What dispute?
These guys can exonerate Trump and we are done with this mess.
Show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
Just say: Presidential candidates, as long as they aren’t Trump, are immune from any investigations into corruption.
It's still stonewalling, tbh... I mean, if it's the "perfect call" and there are no issues, he would actually want these subordinates to actually step in and testify to that effect, right?
Congress: we demand these witnesses
Executive: no, we say they have immunity
Again, does the executive branch not have a right to ask the judicial branch to settle a dispute with the legislative branch?
You don’t want that.
You really don’t want that put together and corroborated by all in the WH.
So just say it was a perfect phone call:
The President can ask a foreign country and their intelligence to investigate a political opponent. So that the president can aid his re election. That’s really all you need. That the call. If you want to eviscerate Trump, then bring up the $ that his men can corroborate. Do we really want to torture the poor guy, he was stupid enough to make the call. There are laws protecting brains dead people.
You don’t want that.
You really don’t want that put together and corroborated by all in the WH.
So just say it was a perfect phone call:
The President can ask a foreign country and their intelligence to investigate a political opponent. So that the president can aid his re election. That’s really all you need. That the call. If you want to eviscerate Trump, then bring up the $ that his men can corroborate. Do we really want to torture the poor guy, he was stupid enough to make the call. There are laws protecting brains dead people.
Sure, but there’s no dispute where there’s no subpoena. Team Trump is all in on stonewalling, the only consequences they’ll have to face for that, for good or for ill, are political.
There’s nothing to prevent the House from issuing subpoenas now or at some time in the future, or adding new articles of impeachment, or from transmitting supplementary information as it becomes available.
Remember Benghazi?
Call it what you whatever you want, does the executive branch have that right?
Trump is probably enjoying watching the frantic dems step on their s over and over again all while his approval ratings reach and all time high during and after impeachment.
saved for future reference
Sorry, but show me exactly where he threatened them by withholding aid.
The executive branch (Trump) has been impeached.
Its too late for that. Get your WH witnesses out that know you have done nothing wrong and have them testify.
Dont be stupid. Do what’s good for the country. Get this president back, fully exonerated and backed by both parties, that now know he is a honest, selfless man who wants the USA to be the best. No matter who is president.
Nobody said they don't have a right to preclude the witnesses that have first hand knowledge that he's an innocent man. It's just seems counter-intuitive.
If there’s no dispute where’s there’s no subpoena then there is no obstruction of Congress.
House claims that right is obstruction of Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/u...raine-aid.html
And It does not even matter.
The call was enough.
You are making a disingenuous tautological argument that fools no one.
We know what our president said on the phone, and we know why he has vacillated on letting witnesses and do ents be shown that could exonerate him. Because he is guilty of selling our country out for his re election. This awful argument is for the liars who are ignorant and beholden to the red team.
That’s not threatening Ukraine. Try again, show me where he threatened them by withholding aid.
And this is the Trumpy that enjoyed the excruciating pain of putting pizza and child parts together.
” No, I’ll take the impossible puzzle to solve over blatant stuff that, when put together, shows the moon is round. I like my theories and my rational possibilities to be... well... irrational.”
You claim Trump obstructed congress by going to the courts and asking them to resolve. Make your case. Explain to me how he doesn’t have that right and it’s obstruction of Congress. Had congress sought subpoenas and Trump ignored even after a court issued an order than you’d have actual obstruction. You don’t have and you know it. Looking forward to the inbound babble.
Yes it is.
Read the article.
All we need to put this to bed is the WH players on the stand.
Personally the phone call is enough.
I don’t need him shot for treason and bribes.
Last edited by pgardn; 01-22-2020 at 12:45 AM.
Right on cue
No legal dispute.
It's clear tthere'a a political.one. Ken Starr thought Clinton's claims of executive privilege were contemptuous, abusive and impeachable, the idea isn't so out there as you make it sound. It used to be the Starr/Kavanaugh party line.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)