Donald Trump

doodah · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:21

https://twitter.com/x/status/1220227689296146433

I'm sure we'll hear nothing from the likes of his best buddy Bibi, AIPAC, the GOP or Fox News...

Terminal_Boy · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:23

robfosters said:
No one will care. Is Clinton only remembered for his impeachment?

It’s only trump haters who will give a flying fig about it in the future.

No, it’s the BJ in the Oval Office, using his intern as a humidor and the paying off of numerous sexual assault accusers he’ll be remember for.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:24

plasmahal said:
He has not stopped the people the dems wanted to testify. The office of the president has executive privilege.

Here's how it basically works in this scenario (under tried and tested separation of powers):

The house Subpoena a witness to testify.

The office of the president has executive privilege to deny the subpoena on the grounds of XYZ.

The house then start court proceedings to overrule the executive privilege.

The court then rules. If in favour of the house, then the witness will have no choice but to testify. If in favour of the office of the president, then the witnesses do not testify.

As established, only one of the several witnesses the dems want were subpoena'd, were denied at step 2 and the house failed to take if further through the process. As for the other witnesses, the house never even bothered.

I have never denied that the administration (like all of them in one or another) is trying to hide something, but the separation of powers are clear and there for good reasons.

OK, please show what constitutional crimes have been committed and enshrined in the articles of impeachment?

More and more constitutional scholars, Attorney generals and lawyers everyday join the many already stating there are none. And this is why this is going to fail.

What has executive privilege got to do with answering the simple question of : "Did Trump withhold the aid and the Whitehouse meeting to try and force Ukraine to announce an investigation into Burisma?"

It's all very simple. All his cabinet need to do is answer that question under oath.

Why would he not want them to testify if it is all a hoax and a sham? Multiple sworn testimonies saying he didnt do it would likely put the whole thing to bed.. so where are they?

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:25

Jono8 said:
It's all very simple. All his cabinet need to do is answer that question under oath.

And they could have done that if the house did their job properly.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:29

plasmahal said:
And they could have done that if the house did their job properly.

But why would the president try and block all requested and subpoena'd testimony if he is innocent?

Even recently the Whitehouse has said they would try and block or classify Parnas' and/or Bolton's testimony. Why?

robfosters · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:33

Terminal_Boy said:
No, it’s the BJ in the Oval Office, using his intern as a humidor and the paying off of numerous sexual assault accusers he’ll be remember for.

Still didn’t stop him leaving office with the highest approval rating of a president since the Second World War.

chroniclard · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:53

Jono8 said:
But why would the president try and block all requested and subpoena'd testimony if he is innocent?

Even recently the Whitehouse has said they would try and block or classify Parnas' and/or Bolton's testimony. Why?

national security :rolleyes:

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 13:55

chroniclard said:
national security

But even that is a terrible argument. Wouldn't testifying that they DIDN'T try to extort a foreign country for personal political gain HELP national security??

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 14:03

Jono8 said:
But why would the president try and block all requested and subpoena'd testimony if he is innocent?

Has nothing to do with that, it's about executive privilege and if the WH feels there are security and confidentiality issues, which is their concern. It's constitutional made that way and works both ways. If the white house wants confidential info from the house, they can refuse. Does this mean the house is guilty of hiding something?

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 14:05

chroniclard said:
national security

Which is a genuine concern given the track record of confidential leaks from the house from both democrats and republicans.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 14:10

plasmahal said:
Has nothing to do with that, it's about executive privilege and if the WH feels there are security and confidentiality issues, which is their concern. It's constitutional made that way and works both ways. If the white house wants confidential info from the house, they can refuse. Does this mean the house is guilty of hiding something?

Ok, let's take your scenario into account.

Lets say you have been charged with a crime and you have been taken to court and sat in front of a judge and jury. You know that what you are being accused of is not true, and you can happily testify under oath that this is the case (remember, because you know the accusations are false). You also have 5 or 6 people directly involved in said accusation that can also confidently testify under oath that the charges are made up/false. You also have a wealth of documents that prove your innocence.

However, instead of testifying you are innocent, and getting all those five or six people to also do the same and releasing the documents that exonerate you, you instead try to block any attempt by your associates to do so or the court to compel them to.

Do you not see how insane that is? That is what Trump is doing.

Jono8 · 23 Jan 2020 at 14:14

plasmahal said:
Which is a genuine concern given the track record of confidential leaks from the house from both democrats and republicans.

If he is concerned about this, he can classify the information and get the members of congress cleared to view classified information, to view it in private.

Kenai · 23 Jan 2020 at 14:51

Jono8 said:
Do you not see how insane that is? That is what Trump is doing.

Not that insane when you consider the jury (senate) is effectively stacked with his mates that will never return a guilty verdict no matter what

neckbeardthethird · 23 Jan 2020 at 14:59

So many of his cabinet/team are going to throw him under the bus for book sales once he leaves office, going to be great entertainment

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 15:05

Jono8 said:
Ok, let's take your scenario into account.

It's not my scenario, it's how the US government works.

Not my fault if you cannot grasp that and cling to some sort of pointless fantasy that the US government works the same way as an individual on trial in a normal court of law.

chroniclard · 23 Jan 2020 at 15:10

plasmahal said:
It's not my scenario, it's how the US government works.

Not my fault if you cannot grasp that and cling to some sort of pointless fantasy that the US government works the same way as an individual on trial in a normal court of law.

Doesnt matter how it works. There are no valid reasons to obstruct to this level. Unless the testimony would be incriminating, as if we need anymore. Crooked Donald.

plasmahal · 23 Jan 2020 at 15:31

chroniclard said:
There are no valid reasons to obstruct to this level.

Valid reasons have been stated, you just choose to ignore them.

chroniclard · 23 Jan 2020 at 16:00

plasmahal said:
Valid reasons have been stated, you just choose to ignore them.

Weak excuses have been made you just choose to naively believe them.

Trusty · 23 Jan 2020 at 16:12

chroniclard said:
Weak excuses have been made you just choose to naively believe them.

Obama and the gun running scandal? That was ok though?

I don't think you quite grasp that the president is an enforcer, he's allowed leeway to do what he thinks is necessary.

deuse · 23 Jan 2020 at 16:44

I see that democrat Tulsi Gabbard is suing H(hag) Clinton $50 million