revkevsdi Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 8 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said: So basically a politician can pretty much do anything to get reelected as long as they think their re-election is in the public interest...good to know and it's filed away for later. That’s what he’s saying. Zambo and Highmark bought into it. There is a precedent. Nixon claimed nothing he does is illegal because he is the President. Nixon was a piker compared to Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 On 1/29/2020 at 8:52 PM, revkevsdi said: Would you like to hear from a Judge who is a regular on Fox news? What is that evidence? Well, it consists of administration officials' emails -- emails from people that Trump appointed -- that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. And those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and he did so pursuant to the "favor" request, and the aid sat undistributed for sixty days until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear and he released the aid. This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery. That's the refusal to perform a governmental obligation -- distributing the money -- until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress. Well, if the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of his own Justice department? When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with those House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's subordinates followed his orders and threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions, throwing them in a drawer, were lawful and proper, and it was the burden of the House of Representatives to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas. Wow. That puts the cart before the horse, because, under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." Thus the House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials. We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Richard Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence. Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial? It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment, arguments that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because some Republican senators have told him so. Wow. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and to the law. What is required for removal of the president of the United States? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in President Trump's case the evidence is ample and essentially uncontradicted. @Highmark crickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2020 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2020 12 hours ago, revkevsdi said: @Highmark crickets. Who is this Judge Napolitano? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Rigid1 Posted January 31, 2020 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, Highmark said: Who is this Judge Napolitano? i would assume so, man that guy is pissed Trump passed him by, he has been irate ever since.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted January 31, 2020 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Rigid1 said: i would assume so, man that guy is pissed Trump passed him by, he has been irate ever since.. Love to see these "emails" he is referring to. An email where someone states an opinion is no more relevant than the opinions they were giving in House Inquiry testimony. End of case right here. Not one witness can say Trump told them there was a quid pro quo yet we have a witness that is deep in the middle of this that has said Trump told him there absolutely was no quid pro quo....in fact "he wanted NOTHING." Edited January 31, 2020 by Highmark 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.