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 not about the election. It is about whether the president held up taxpayer money for personal political gain.
All of this nonsense has been about Trump winning an election that was stacked against him, although its interesting many of you -still- do not understand that.
SCOTUS decides, not lower courts. So, again, WHY didn't Pelosi and the House Dems pursue the legal route of requiring them to testify? Especially now that we know the Articles of Impeachment really weren't urgent at all. Pelosi is still sitting on them.
This con man & grifter President is fast losing the confidence of the people.
He has repeatedly lost in the Courts in his claim of "absolute immunity" from Congressional oversight. A Federal Judge rejected his claim of "absolute immunity" to prevent former aides from testifying before Congress. Another federal judge approved a Freedom of Information Act request for internal White House emails about his actions to block military aid to Ukraine.
He's losing in his efforts to cover up his accounting records sought by both Congress & NY State criminal prosecutors. He claims "absolute immunity" here also, & has already lost in federal court appeals. The SCOTUS has agreed to review these cases although decisions are not expected until the end of June.
Quote:
Trump has refused to release any impeachment-related documents to Congress. He has asserted a right to prevent all his aides and even former aides from testifying. He has forced Congress to litigate everything. Should he continue to lose, as he has consistently lost up until now, his attempts to protect himself from oversight will hobble the presidency long after he leaves it.
Heads, Trump Wins. Tails, We All Lose.
Either the president will be elevated above all ordinary law, or future presidents will be hemmed in.
Let's face it squarely, litigation was a significant part of his 'business model' before, is it surprising he would continue this lifelong model as POTUS?
His 'par for the course' business model consisted of him claiming, "I won't settle". It's all bluster & with little effect, & is part of the con.
When sued, he would respond by counter-suing, by making false & sometimes frivolous claims, by refusing reasonable settlements, & by dragging on lawsuits for years, & so on.
He often just threatened counter-lawsuits. A cursory look at many of these scenarios revealed he rarely followed through with his threatened lawsuits & almost always lost when he did.
He conned his way in, continues the con, & expects applause in his persistent efforts to cover up all wrongdoing as POTUS.
Don't get fooled again, there's too much for US to lose.
This con man & grifter President is fast losing the confidence of the people.
I disagree. Biden looks much more like a con man and grifter.
Quote:
He has repeatedly lost in the Courts in his claim of "absolute immunity" from Congressional oversight. A Federal Judge rejected his claim of "absolute immunity" to prevent former aides from testifying before Congress. Another federal judge approved a Freedom of Information Act request for internal White House emails about his actions to block military aid to Ukraine.
What did SCOTUS say? That's who decides. Why? The three equal branches of the Fed Gov. SCOTUS is the authority in the Judiciary Branch, not the lower courts. That's why SCOTUS has issued several injunctions in Trump's favor when the Dems have taken their issues to court.
I disagree. Biden looks much more like a con man and grifter.
What did SCOTUS say? That's who decides. Why? The three equal branches of the Fed Gov. SCOTUS is the authority in the Judiciary Branch, not the lower courts. That's why SCOTUS has issued several injunctions in Trump's favor when the Dems have taken their issues to court.
The Senate impeachment trial should be postponed until the SCOTUS weighs in?
The Senate impeachment trial should be postponed until the SCOTUS weighs in?
I could agree to that.
The House Dems never took it to SCOTUS. They now have no say in the Senate proceedings (not enough votes). Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler had their chance and blew it.
The House Dems never took it to SCOTUS. They now have no say in the Senate proceedings (not enough votes). Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler had their chance and blew it.
It would make no sense for the Constitution to allow Congress to impeach a president who can then claim "absolute immunity" for himself & all staff members (former & present), refuse to provide any & all testamentary doecuments & evidence & therefore block any & all inquiry, investigation & impeachment proceedings.
The White House has repeatedly lost every case in the lower courts. & they still have no legitimate legal arguments or a valid defense strategy.
Why are you unwilling to be guided by the SCOTUS decisions?
It would make no sense for the Constitution to allow Congress to impeach a president who can then claim "absolute immunity" for himself & all staff members (former & present), refuse to provide any & all testamentary doecuments & evidence & therefore block any & all inquiry, investigation & impeachment proceedings.
The White House has repeatedly lost every case in the lower courts. & they still have no legitimate legal arguments or a valid defense strategy.
Why are you unwilling to be guided by the SCOTUS decisions?
Because they have the final say if they decide to hear the case.
Because they have the final say if they decide to hear the case.
Agree. I was attempting to address her assertion here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The House Dems never took it to SCOTUS. They now have no say in the Senate proceedings (not enough votes). Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler had their chance and blew it.
It would make no sense for the Constitution to allow Congress to impeach a president who can then claim "absolute immunity" for himself & all staff members (former & present), refuse to provide any & all testamentary doecuments & evidence & therefore block any & all inquiry, investigation & impeachment proceedings.
Trump's not claiming "absolute immunity." It's called executive privilege, as established by SCOTUS.
Quote:
"Executive privilege is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the foundation of U.S. law. But the Supreme Court has said that it is "fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution."
Why are you unwilling to be guided by the SCOTUS decisions?
That was Pelosi's, Schiff's, and Nadler's call in the House. They were unwilling. Go figure. /shrug
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.
