D
drcube
Guest
No, your comment just didn’t make sense to me.
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
A lot of those bills deserved to die; perhaps all of them.
One act mentioned in the article is the Fair Drug Pricing Act, which requires publication of trade secrets of drug companies if they raise prices more than 10% in any one year. Of course, if they just price them super-high to begin with, they avoid those disclosures.
The “Equality Act” severely punishes workers or employers for discriminating in any way against LGBT people, including in education (think gym class dressing rooms) and public accommodations (think rest rooms) for those who consider themselves “misgendered”. “Girls sports” would be open to boys who said they think they’re really girls. It would prevent medical people from refusing “medical” procedures to “change” one’s sex, including the gender of minors. Basically, the purpose is to prevent anyone from questioning the propriety of the LGBTQ agenda under penalty of law.
If I was McConnell, I would let junk like that rot on my desk too.
One act mentioned in the article is the Fair Drug Pricing Act, which requires publication of trade secrets of drug companies if they raise prices more than 10% in any one year. Of course, if they just price them super-high to begin with, they avoid those disclosures.
The “Equality Act” severely punishes workers or employers for discriminating in any way against LGBT people, including in education (think gym class dressing rooms) and public accommodations (think rest rooms) for those who consider themselves “misgendered”. “Girls sports” would be open to boys who said they think they’re really girls. It would prevent medical people from refusing “medical” procedures to “change” one’s sex, including the gender of minors. Basically, the purpose is to prevent anyone from questioning the propriety of the LGBTQ agenda under penalty of law.
If I was McConnell, I would let junk like that rot on my desk too.
7_Sorrows:
That simply isn’t true. The Democratic-controlled House has been legislating. The Republican Majority Leader in the Senate has refused to take House-passed bills up.
Democratic senators tweet photos of pile of House-passed bills 'dead on Mitch McConnell's desk' | TheHill
As to wasting money:
Trump’s Golf Trips Could Cost Taxpayers Over $340 Million
Do you really believe this? Democrats aren’t in the habit of losing elections and impeaching the winner because their feelers got hurt. This President, on the campaign trial and while in office, has been running roughshod over the norms of propriety and the norms of government.
Democrats are not making things up.
M
mrad25
Guest
The question comes down to whether you think Trump committed a crime or criminal like activity that reaches the threshold of what is impeachable under the Constitution. Let’s face it “obstruction of justice” is a last minute throw in from the initial “abuse of power” argument. In my opinion the two charges are extremely weak, and there actually are no crimes here. The President had a right, actually under his oath a duty, to ask for an investigation into any “possible” criminal activity with Ukraine and/or relating to the 2016 election or any person. He also had a right to claim Executive Privilege on subpoenas or to challenge the subpoenas in court. And the President has a right to hold up aid to a country as well. He will be acquitted and it will be another wasteful investigation against Trump. If Trump wins in 2020, it will be no different and will continue with the Democrats.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Dems calling Trump’s exercising his rights an “abuse of power” or “obstruction of justice” reminds me of a story a lawyer told me. In a trial, he was giving the other party a very hard time on cross examination. It made opposing counsel nervous. Finally, opposing counsel objected to my friend’s line of questioning. “On what basis” asked the judge. “That it’s unfair to my client” responded the other lawyer. “” Of course" responded the Judge “That’s what he’s supposed to be. Overruled.”
“Abuse of power” and “obstruction of justice” to the Dems is actually “using power at all, and insisting on his rights”. And the Dems claim it’s unfair because they don’t like it.
“Abuse of power” and “obstruction of justice” to the Dems is actually “using power at all, and insisting on his rights”. And the Dems claim it’s unfair because they don’t like it.
D
drcube
Guest
Nah, the Democrats mean something very specific by ‘abuse of power’. Trump used his office to extort a foreign government to investigate his political enemies by withholding funds earmarked for that government by Congress. And the Democrats mean something very specific by "obstruction of justice’ by blocking the testimony and evidence that would shed more light on this activity. But you knew that already.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think that a fair reading of what Trump did leads to the contrary perspective. We have agreements with Ukraine on matters such as these. We have, in law, processes by which we assess progress on anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine., We have, in law, processes by which proceed on international investigations. Trump circumvented all of this and engaged in a “drug deal” with his personal attorney and some interesting folk on the payroll of oligarchs to mover thus deal forward to the benefit of Trump.
Some are trying to advance the idea that this is not what the founders had in mind by “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but the evidence from their writings is that such abuses of the public trust is precisely what the they had in mind.
But the story here is a blanket coverage that i9mpeded lawful investigation. Trump has been indiscriminate and refused all cooperation. His impeachment lawyer Ken Starr is on the record as considering far more limited conduct as impeachable.
You might read the impeachment brief from the House managers. It would enable you to speak about what the Democrats are saying and what the don;t like, that is grounded in reality.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The scandal of a Vice President of the U.S. threatening a foreign government’s aid if they didn’t fire that government’s appointed prosecutor is something a president should cause to be investigated. But Trump didn’t actually threaten to withhold aid and the president of Ukraine says he didn’t. But Biden shouldn’t be immune from investigation just because he’s seeking office. Trump certainly was investigated when he ran and the left didn’t think a thing of it.
Trump didn’t block testimony. He said he would invoke executive privilege if certain people were subpoenaed to testify. If he was wrong in doing it, the courts would decide it, as they have in the past. But the Dems never called them, never challenged executive privilege. They wanted to get him impeached as soon as possible so they blew it off. And now, having done so, they want to complain about it. That’s not wrongful obstruction of anything.
But none of this disputation means anything anyway. The Dems have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment of his election and grasped at straws to get it done so they could get the government to pay for their political advertisement, and media organizations to spend sponsor money on it. Billions in free political propaganda. Add that to Bloomberg’s likely $2 billion and Steyer’ likely billion and the Dems are going to be able to massively outspend Trump like they did in 2016. For the sake of the American people and the unborn, it will hopefully do them no more good this time than in 2016.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
A distinction without difference. Did you think he ought to not tell his employees he was invoking executive privilege as to their testimony? Did you think they should be obliged to read his mind?
he told them that and he told the Democrats in congress. Did you expect him to formally invoke it in a court somewhere when the Dems didn’t bother to challenge him?
Every exercise of one person’s right is potentially “obstruction” of the purposes of one who does not want him to exercise that right. The Dems could have subpoenaed those people and let the Courts decide whether Trump was right or they were. But they didn’t.
Last edited:
H
Horton
Guest
Can you back up these claims? What do they mean by Abuse of Power? What do they mean by Obstruction of Justice? Specifically please.
D
drcube
Guest
Yes, I am well aware of your attempts to make Biden pushing US policy (in agreement with the EU, IMF and anti-corruption Ukrainians) to seem somehow nefarious, but it wasn’t and the facts back that up.
Of course he blocked testimony and the courts would very much like to stay out of a battle between the other two co-equal branches of government. That’s why you ended up with the obstruction of justice issues.
Well, I think it’s more like the Democrats figured that Trump was so ethically challenged that he would be unable to avoid impeachment. And that proved to be true.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Abuse of power” in the Dem charge of it means “we don’t want you to have any power”. By “Obstruction of Justice” they mean “You dared to assert your rights”.
D
drcube
Guest
Abuse of power: extorting Ukraine to investigate a political enemy of the President by withholding money earmarked for Ukraine by Congress.
Obstruction of Justice: preventing evidence to be presented to Congress.
D
drcube
Guest
Of course, it doesn’t mean this. Repeating the same falsehood over and over again doesn’t make it true.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Shokin is charged with nothing, anywhere.
It’s their job, and one they have exercised in the past.
Going by Democrat standards, Trump is, indeed “ethically challenged”. He supports prolife causes contrary to the pro-abortion ethics of the Dems. He supports full employment contrary to Hillary’s “we’re going to destroy your well-paying jobs, but we have some nice welfare for you”. He supports my paying less taxes contrary to the Dem ethic that says I’m not entitled to what I earn. He supports ridding the world of monsters like Baghdadi and Soleimeni contrary to the Dem ethic of “let them kill some more innocent Arabs and some Americans with them”. It goes on and on.
Ethically challenged indeed.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Invoking privilege is the President’s right. He has not done that. He has obstructed the investigation by telling employees to not cooperate. That is a huge distinction with a difference. One he can do, the other he can’t.
The people were subpoenaed and they refused to cooperate, under the President’s direction. That’s obstruction.
The reason that the House isn’t pursuing a legal strategy is that, 1) they don’t have to - it’s simply added to the obstruction evidence 2) using the courts runs out the clock and there will never be impeachment.
Remember, the President has the right to invoke executive privilege but he hasn’t. He’s peddling something the White House calls “Absolute Immunity” which doesn’t apply to this case.
H
Horton
Guest
What proof do you have these allegations are true?
D
drcube
Guest
Shokin was corrupt.
To prevent full oversight by Congress.
No, I meant ethically challenged like voters, wives, customers and suppliers can’t trust him.
The transcript of the call and Mulvaney’s comments.
H
Horton
Guest
I know, right? Someone really needs to tell the Dems!
D
dvdjs
Guest
- Status