Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulinVA said:
Invoking privilege is the President’s right. He has not done that.
Click to expand...
You’re right in a strictly legal sense. He told the Dems he would, though, if it came to court. But the Dems didn’t want to challenge it so they didn’t. And he told his employees he would as well, and expected them to comply with what he had a right to do.
PaulinVA said:
The people were subpoenaed and they refused to cooperate, under the President’s direction. That’s obstruction.
Click to expand...
Not sure who you’re talking about. The ones the Dems are so anxious to get now were never subpoenaed. But even if they had been, the privilege is that of the president. That’s exercising a right, not “evidence of obstruction”.
PaulinVA said:
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.
Click to expand...
You expect us to believe the Dems won’t keep up a constant clamor for Trump’s head to the election if the Senate doesn’t convict?
PaulinVA said:
Remember, the President has the right to invoke executive privilege but he hasn’t.
Click to expand...
That’s something you invoke in Court in order to prevent congressional interference with executive decisionmaking. You don’t invoke it formally until then.
 
dvdjs said:
We have agreements with Ukraine on matters such as these.
Click to expand...
Yes we do. The President also has a duty as well with matters such as these.
dvdjs said:
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
Click to expand...
Disagree. He asked for potential criminal matters to be looked into,well within his authority as President and with the US/UKR treaty on such matters. His personal attorney if representing Trump against false claims or criminally malicious claims made against him has a right to investigate such matters as well as they pertain to Trump personally.
dvdjs said:
But the story here is a blanket coverage that i9mpeded lawful investigation.
Click to expand...
If charges were brought against the President, then the argument it impeded the investigation is not accurate. Again well within Trump’s legal right to 1) Claim executive privilege and 2) challenge subpoenas.
 
You keep attacking me and still not keeping up with the conversation. I don’t care what Schiff, Nadler, et al. wrote in this document, as everything they wrote is a twist of what actually happened.
 
drcube said:
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.
Click to expand...
They haven’t in the past. Look at the stay the Supreme Court issued recently on the House subpoena on Trump’s taxes.
 
Horton said:
You keep attacking me and still not keeping up with the conversation. I don’t care what Schiff, Nadler, et al. wrote in this document, as everything they wrote is a twist of what actually happened.
Click to expand...
That’s not an attack; it is simply giving you the information you requested.
 
mrad25 said:
They haven’t in the past. Look at the stay the Supreme Court issued recently on the House subpoena on Trump’s taxes.
Click to expand...
It’s up to Congress to decide impeachment and, if they feel this rises to the level of impeachment, then it is their decision. I can’t remember another President blocking testimony to Congress. It would be a shame if another President took this path. I doubt a Republican Congress would appreciate it if a Democratic President blocked testimony.
 
drcube said:
Abuse of power: extorting Ukraine to investigate a political enemy of the President by withholding money earmarked for Ukraine by Congress.
Click to expand...
The money was released. It was also released on schedule and with the proper reviews that go into releasing such money. Many factors go into the release of aid, or even withholding aid. To claim it was solely to investigate a political opponent is short sighted.
 
mrad25 said:
The money was released. It was also released on schedule and with the proper reviews that go into releasing such money. Many factors go into the release of aid, or even withholding aid. To claim it was solely to investigate a political opponent is short sighted.
Click to expand...
The money was released after Trump became aware of the whistleblower report. He was caught; he released the money to attempt to cover up his crime.
 
drcube said:
It’s up to Congress to decide impeachment and, if they feel this rises to the level of impeachment, then it is their decision. I can’t remember another President blocking testimony to Congress. It would be a shame if another President took this path. I doubt a Republican Congress would appreciate it if a Democratic President blocked testimony.
Click to expand...
He didn’t block testimony. He acted well within his legal rights. Executive Privilege is such a thing and subpoenas can be challenged in courts. If it holds up an investigation then so be it, cry about it if you want but nothing illegal about it.
 
mrad25 said:
He didn’t block testimony. He acted well within his legal rights. Executive Privilege is such a thing and subpoenas can be challenged in courts. If it holds up an investigation then so be it, cry about it if you want but nothing illegal about it.
Click to expand...
He blocked testimony. The purpose of executive privilege isn’t to cover up crimes.
 
mrad25 said:
The President also has a duty as well with matters such as these.
Click to expand...
He does: to execute the law, and stay within the law.
mrad25 said:
with the US/UKR treaty on such matters.
Click to expand...
Nope. The treaty spell out the manner for conducting such work. It does not involve the President, and it does not include the administration asking for specious investigations, asking for public announcement of said investigations, and establishing quid pro quo that that afford personal poltical gain. This is creepy stuff. It is the founder’s nightmare.
mrad25 said:
If charges were brought against the President, then the argument it impeded the investigation is not accurate.
Click to expand...
According to his league team it is.
Horton said:
You keep attacking me
Click to expand...
Huh? You had asked:
Horton said:
What do they mean by Abuse of Power? What do they mean by Obstruction of Justice? Specifically please.
Click to expand...
in response to this:
drcube said:
the Democrats mean something very specific by ‘abuse of power’
Click to expand...
I posted a link to the brief that spells out what they mean by Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice. I am sorry, but I have no idea why you, @Horton , imagine my providing you with the very information that you asked to be an attack. :confused:
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
I posted link to the brief that spells out what they mean by Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice. I am sorry, but I have no idea why you imagine my providing you the very information that you asked to be an attack. :confused:
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn’t think you were attacking Horton. He did. I thought you were polite. Maybe telling the truth is an attack to some?
 
drcube said:
The money was released after Trump became aware of the whistleblower report. He was caught; he released the money to attempt to cover up his crime.
Click to expand...
That’s your claim. Again there are many reviews, schedules and so forth that goes into when aid can be released as well as when it can also be withheld. Aid isn’t released all at once either. From what I have seen and heard the aid was released after all the necessary reviews were completed. The first package of aid was also released well before the phone call as well.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Huh?

Holder was even held in contempt of congress for outright refusing to provide evidence to congress. When the Repubs held the house, it was a constant thing. Every president has asserted it, and more than once. Obama did at least nine times.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) News and Politics – 5 Jun 19

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from…​

After the long and thorough, and, of course, incredibly expensive Mueller investigation, Democrats were left distraught over a lack of any crime to justify going forward with impeachment. In the wake of the Mueller report, they’ve since promised new…
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the Republicans should have impeached Holder.
 
mrad25 said:
That’s your claim. Again there are many reviews, schedules and so forth that goes into when aid can be released as well as when it can also be withheld. Aid isn’t released all at once either. From what I have seen and heard the aid was released after all the necessary reviews were completed.
Click to expand...
That fits the timeline.
 
It’s not up to you to decide how I feel. I get the Democratic party as a whole wants complete control over everything a person does, says, and thinks…but that hasn’t happened, and it’s never going to.

Besides I give very little credence to what some of the posters on CAF claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top