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.
And I repeat for the 10th time, why didn't the republican controlled congress do anything about it?
1) They knew they would be called racist.
2) They weren't driven by ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) and didn't want to put the country through the turmoil of an impeachment, driven by partisan hatred.
I've been saying for a year that Kellyanne and George and collaborating on a tell-all book as soon as Trump is out of office, and that she is working in the WH just to gather intel.
There will most certainly be a lot of books written, none of them positive, and if Trump is acquitted the GOP will wear the stench of aiding and abetting a criminal as long as histories are written.
You know I had a dream early on in this madness that Mike Pompeo was the whistle-blower. But I like your theory better. The fact that she's a woman makes it all the more plausible. That would be awesome!
You know I had a dream early on in this madness that Mike Pompeo was the whistle-blower. But I like your theory better. The fact that she's a woman makes it all the more plausible. That would be awesome!
It's been pretty well established that it is a diehard Trump hater in the CIA who was looking for a "gotcha" on Trump for years.
2) They weren't driven by ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) and didn't want to put the country through the turmoil of an impeachment, driven by partisan hatred.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,477 posts, read 12,496,511 times
Reputation: 10442
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphfr
Yes Berdee. Thank you for making my point.
litigate: to carry on a legal contest by judicial process
judicial process: the series of steps in the course of the administration of justice through the established system of courts
investigate: to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry
systematic inquiry: Systemic inquiry is inquiry, research, or evaluation that is based on systems concepts or systems principles.
research: Research is a process of systematic inquiry that entails collection of data; documentation of critical information; and analysis and interpretation of that data/information
I think that covers it.
Lol, nope. You had a swing and a miss
"to investigate and decide upon questions of law and fact presented in such an action"
Why did you overlook "fact presented"?
Fact
n. an actual thing or happening, which must be proved at trial by presentation of evidence and which is evaluated by the finder of fact (a jury in a jury trial, or by the judge if he/she sits without a jury)
Presented (adjective)
Meaning:
Given formally or officially
(and for extra credit, lol)...
fact finder (finder of fact)
n. in a trial of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution, the jury or judge (if there is no jury) who decides if facts have been proven.
The gist of the matter...
"which must be proved at trial by presentation of evidence(<--the House's job) and which is evaluated by the finder of fact(<--the Senate's job)"
you better call Mitch and let him know, cuz he's not letting someone out on bail for felony indictments come and testify in front of the Senate....ain't happening pal... git your boys back together, issue some more subpeonas....lol these phony charges aren't even impeachable...
And yet you'll want us to believe that Clinton should have been impeached over getting oral sex from an intern was when he was impeached was NOT phony... You don't care about rule of law until a Democrat is in office, admit it. I highly doubt you would have been sitting down accepting this if it were Obama and not Trump. I can say I would have held the same beliefs that the President should be impeached, not censured (an entirely meaningless gesture) and removed from office for what Trump is alleged to have done regardless if it was Democrat or Republican.
It is. In a criminal trial it would be obstruction of justice. A crime.
Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is a crime consisting of obstructing prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials.
In the context of impeachment obstruction is not a crime but an impeachable offense. It may not sway the Senate but it is impeachable, obviously.
It is not obstruction when never formally request information and it is not obstruction if never go through the process of judicial review of the issue.
If it was a criminal court, one side can request info but is not obstructed until a court forces the compelling of info and the other side then refuses.
If there is a disagreement on the issue of executive privilege - the courts are there to adjudicate the issue between the 2 equal branches. This was done in both the Nixon and Clinton cases.
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.
You don't care about rule of law until a Democrat is in office, admit it. I highly doubt you would have been sitting down accepting this if it were Obama and not Trump. I can say I would have held the same beliefs that the President should be impeached, not censured (an entirely meaningless gesture) and removed from office for what Trump is alleged to have done regardless if it was Democrat or Republican.
