Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a baseless article of impeachment, so facing it isn't a problem. Suggesting that someone should waive their rights rather than face a baseless charge that will be almost instantly dismissed isn't very good advice.
Just because someone is corrupt enough to bring baseless charges doesn't mean that the person they bring them against did anything wrong.
As I said, Trump would rather face an obstruction of Congress charge than let the truth come out. Regardless as to whether you believe the charges are "baseless," you can draw your own conclusions about whether the truth helps or hurts his case given those facts.
As I said, Trump would rather face an obstruction of Congress charge than let the truth come out. Regardless as to whether you believe the charges are "baseless," you can draw your own conclusions about whether the truth helps or hurts his case given those facts.
Right, you see failure to waive your rights as "obstruction of Congress", also you fantasize about how you might have had evidence of all the things you desire to be true if only the president had waived his rights, but it's very unlikely to be true.
The facts are that none of the BS that was thrown against the wall by House Democrats has been supported by any evidence and the articles of impeachment are both baseless.
I think the most amusing part of all of this is knowing if in the course of their own congressional reelection to office, an opponent pulled the same stunt Trump did against those who seem to have condoned his behavior, they'd be yelling bloody murder and shriek that there should be accountability. Every. last. one.
As I said, Trump would rather face an obstruction of Congress charge than let the truth come out. Regardless as to whether you believe the charges are "baseless," you can draw your own conclusions about whether the truth helps or hurts his case given those facts.
The only way he could have "obstructed" congress is if congress had gone to the judicial branch for subpoenas, they did NOT do that...it is the Presidents right to exert executive privilege. The congress COULD override that by going to the judiciary, but again, they did NOT do that!
Right, you see failure to waive your rights as "obstruction of Congress", also you fantasize about how you might have had evidence of all the things you desire to be true if only the president had waived his rights, but it's very unlikely to be true.
The facts are that none of the BS that was thrown against the wall by House Democrats has been supported by any evidence and the articles of impeachment are both baseless.
Whether "right" or "wrong" in the abstract, Trump surely knew that if he directed the entire Executive branch from responding to subpoenas and letting the truth come out that he would, of course, he would face an impeachment charge for obstruction. By choosing to nevertheless stay that course, he has informed us that he would rather face an impeachment charge for obstruction than let the truth come out.
As I said, use your common sense and draw your own conclusions from those facts - they stand independent of opinions about what is "fair" or the President's "rights" should be.
Whether "right" or "wrong" in the abstract, Trump surely knew that if he directed the entire Executive branch from responding to subpoenas and letting the truth come out that he would, of course, he would face an impeachment charge for obstruction. By choosing to nevertheless stay that course, he has informed us that he would rather face an impeachment charge for obstruction than let the truth come out.
As I said, use your common sense and draw your own conclusions from those facts - they stand independent of opinions about what is "fair" or the President's "rights" should be.
"right" and "wrong" is really all that matters. Trump acted within his rights to invoke Executive privilege, there was a process the House could have used in order to attempt to overturn that privilege, but they refused to do so because they knew they'd lose in court.
The fact that the House majority was willing to embarrass themselves with baseless impeachment articles as a result doesn't mean that the president was wrong to exercise his rights.
You are basically saying that if someone refuses to be interrogated without counsel present it means they are guilty. It's a line of thought that is as foolish as it is fallacious.
They've told us for years regarding cops, "if you have nothing to hide, why deny them?" Now suddenly the shoe is on the other foot with Trump.
So....you're saying you support people being charged with crimes for refusing illegal searches? Just want to make sure you are going on record with that claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
