Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aquinas11 said:
Three words

Separation
Of
Powers

Executive has right to have Judicial branch rule on whether subpoenas legal

You’ve just proved why CONGRESS is guilty of abuse of power
Click to expand...
Three words: Checks and Balances
 
Ridgerunner said:
False, of course. Settling a case is not “stipulating to corruption”. That’s just the Dem spin.
Click to expand...
I said “settled or stipulated to his corruption”. He settled Trump University, which alleged corruption (well really fraud), and he signed something stipulating to the fraud for Trump University.

What I said was the truth.
Ridgerunner said:
No call to be snide. If the left wing ABA only refused to endorse nine out of Trump’s 187 appointments, that’s astonishing. Less than 5%.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry, it wasn’t as high as I thought.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
No it doesn’t. That’s his right. If you’re charged with a crime, your lawyer can’t testify against you if you claim privilege. Nor (for now) can your confessor.

As I mentioned previously, Clinton invoked privilege a number of times. He won some in the courts and lost some. It’s for the courts to determine if challenged, not the Dem party.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is for Congress to decide if it is impeachable or not and they did.
Ridgerunner said:
They did not convict Clinton.
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t. They should of, but Trump has taken it to a whole new level.
 
Yes and Dems destroying it by removing check & balance on Legislative
 
I already said I have been and will continue to ignore you,guess you missed that in my post🤨
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
Actually, it is for Congress to decide if it is impeachable or not and they did.
Click to expand...
Might as well impeach for preferring GM to Ford, or attending the Presbyterian Church instead of the Episcopal. That’s so ridiculous, but I guess it does reflect the Dem contempt for the rights of individuals when opposed to their purposes.
drcube said:
They should of
Click to expand...
Wrong. They should not have impeached Clinton based on what they had, and the Senate would not convict based on what they had. Incidentally, Ken Starr missed the whole thing with Watergate. At that time, a friend of mine was President of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, which had jurisdiction over that S&L. He was practically pulling his hair out because Starr never did investigate what he should have.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
Yes and Dems destroying it by removing check & balance on Legislative
Click to expand...
By using the checks and balances provided by the Constitution, they are removing the ‘check & balance’ in the Constitution. That’s not logical.
 
Maximus1 said:
The Ukraine depends on us completely. Loosing the support of the Commander in Chief would be devestating.
Click to expand...
Ukraine does not depend on the U.S. completely. It has other choices. The support of the president does not determine whether congress votes aid. It is true, however, that Trump provided actual weapons where Obama would not.
 
Plus note how Dems refused to give them arms in 2008-2016 but once Trump starts to help them defend themselves? Suddenly Dems all concerned w Ukraine getting arms

People need to stop taking Dems seriously on this and on everything

Everything they do is fake outrage
 
Ridgerunner said:
Might as well impeach for preferring GM to Ford, or attending the Presbyterian Church instead of the Episcopal. That’s so ridiculous, but I guess it does reflect the Dem contempt for the rights of individuals when opposed to their purposes.
Click to expand...
Potentially they could. I would expect backlash if they did.

That said, in this case, they impeached on Trump extorting the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponents by withholding funds earmarked for them by Congress.
Ridgerunner said:
Wrong. They should not have impeached Clinton based on what they had, and the Senate would not convict based on what they had. Incidentally, Ken Starr missed the whole thing with Watergate. At that time, a friend of mine was President of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, which had jurisdiction over that S&L. He was practically pulling his hair out because Starr never did investigate what he should have.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Clinton committed perjury and that is a betrayal of the high office he was holding. Now, I am sure you believe you have inside information on Clinton’s other crimes, but I have to doubt it.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
impeached on Trump extorting the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponents by withholding funds earmarked for them by Congress.
Click to expand...
Biden did that on video & Dems cool w it

Trump does NOT do it on Phone & Dems irate

Again people stop taking these people seriously , it’s ALL FAKE
 
I know you’re not sure which is the problem

Founders set up 3 branches so whenever dispute between Exe and Leg, either can go to third Jud for decision
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
If you wan to know what the founders meant by “high criomes and misdemeanors”, all tha you have to do is read what they wrote about it. Links have been provide here numerous times. Just a bit of reading will disabuse you of the notion it is about "specific crime under our federal criminal code "
Click to expand...
False. Lots Constitutional scholars who disagree with this notion you are trying to put forward. The Constitution is clear treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors - which amount to those crimes similar of treason, bribery. It doesn’t say no crimes are impeachable or one can be impeached on subjective intent, which is a very dangerous road to go down and not what the Founders intended by any means. That’s all they have here “subjective intent” on why Trump asked for an investigation into possible crimes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top