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.
The explanation notes a policy difference. The authorization that allowed such a hold was based on a different legal interpretation. We don't impeach presidents for having differing legal opinions. That's what the courts are for. If so, Obama should have been impeached for illegally appointing officials while the Senate was still in session (he argued the Senate was in recess though it was clearly not), but something tells me youd have a problem with that
Moving on, your rebuttal would mean more if what the GAO found was actually what Democrats impeached the president for. But it's not. And the GAO does not put forward the partisan Democrat excuse for the hold to help a personal re-election campaign Democrats are on their own there. But it shouldn't shock you given that democrats have been holding votes to impeach the president since he took office (this was attempt 3 or 4 I believe). As I've mentioned before, when there can be numerous reasons behind an act, actual intent is required. Democrats provided their guess on why the president did what he did (i.e. to target a political opponent for partisan reasons) despite no proof of intent.
Why does everything Trump does revert back to a "But Obama" narrative? Can't we sty focused on the events which are front and center? The impeachment as fact and the dealings the Trump administration has had with Ukraine?
Why does everything Trump does revert back to a "But Obama" narrative? Can't we sty focused on the events which are front and center? The impeachment as fact and the dealings the Trump administration has had with Ukraine?
Or are we doomed to endless deflection?
Because it SHOWS THE DOUBLE STANDARD of the commie left!
Yes, nothing says "non-partisan" more than dismissing anything and everything that doesn't equate to Trump ballwashing as "fake" or "partisan" or "deep state", right DRob?
So if you like what Trump is doing - at least based on my list above, it's what you call "ballwashing".
You are part of the reason people continue to walk away from Democrats. You can't resist insulting people for no reason.
What Pelosi did was not illegal. What Trump did was. Not that it matters to many.
What Pelosi did while not illegal, it was immoral to not thoroughly and IMPARTIALLY investigate before impeachment vote. The contempt of congress charge is laughable without a court ruling on Executive Privilege vs Contempt of Congress limits.
What Trump did is not illegal either, the Dems DID NOT allege a crime - this is the ONLY impeachment where no actual criminal offense has been alleged.
So if you like what Trump is doing - at least based on my list above, it's what you call "ballwashing".
You are part of the reason people continue to walk away from Democrats. You can't resist insulting people for no reason.
Stay classy...
Who said my thoughts on who is ballwashing Trump is based off of your one post? I form my opinions based on one's extensive and obvious posting history.
I wonder if McConnell, GOP, Trump supporters will even care that Trump's withholding Ukraine was illegal? Seems illegality is in the eye of the beholder these days. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...ffice-n1117031
It basically is when the people deciding the legality of anything are the ones charged with making the laws in the first place. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about owing military aid to Ukraine or any other country, strings attached or otherwise. I know you hate Trump and everything but this the truth no matter who is currently in office or how you feel about them.
What Pelosi did while not illegal, it was immoral to not thoroughly and IMPARTIALLY investigate before impeachment vote. The contempt of congress charge is laughable without a court ruling on Executive Privilege vs Contempt of Congress limits.
Where did Trump claim executive privilege? Pat Cippollone's October 8, 2019 letter said the Executive would not cooperate with any subpoena because Trump deemed the process "illegitimate". It did not assert executive privilege.
The process for asserting and dealing with executive privilege is outlined in US v. Nixon and Oversight Comm. v. Holder: When subpoenaed, the Executive responds to the subpoenas and asserts privilege over specifically identified documents or testimony and explains the basis for the claim of privilege. That assertion can then be challenged in Court.
Here, Trump just had the Executive ignore the subpoenas. He did not assert privilege and her certainly did not meet the requirements for properly asserting privilege as set forth in Nixon and Holder.
If they want to debate whether it is impeachable, that's a great idea. But instead they push all their energy to hide that it even happened.
"It" and "it".
What in the world is "it" supposed to be?
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.
Democrats are on their own there. But it shouldn't shock you given that democrats have been holding votes to impeach the president since he took office (this was attempt 3 or 4 I believe). As I've mentioned before, when there can be numerous reasons behind an act, actual intent is required. Democrats provided their guess on why the president did what he did (i.e. to target a political opponent for partisan reasons) despite no proof of intent.
