***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

1…367368370372373…526

Comments

  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    edited December 2019
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,024
    EdsonNascimento said:
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    It's ironic that you accurately point out that the subpoena is not criminally binding and then bring in teh standard of proof applicable only during criminal trials.  Pick an angle and go with it, otherwise you look like the person you just accused of parroting.  

    Now what is absolutely true is that balance of power, and checks and balances in our gov't are reliant on congressional oversight on the executive branch.  It's fundamental to the Constitution and was adjudicated clearly in US v Nixon.  So while the exec branch isn't behaving criminally by not honoring subpoenas, it's 100% impeachable.  
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,315
    EdsonNascimento said:
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    Because, “only the guilty plea the 5th.” Three guesses as to who you can attribute that quote to. I guess congressional oversight of the executive branch is no longer valid and can be dismissed? Can’t wait for the “outrage” and whining when a dem lead executive branch dismisses Congress. Oh wait, been there, done that.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    EdsonNascimento said:
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    You are amazed that we believe everything the democrats say without question then you end your post with a dumb republican talking point. This isn't about process.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,224
    2018
    EdsonNascimento said:
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,224
    2018
    Screwed up quote , if he’s so innocent like the Brazilian seems to want to believe why has he blocked his immediate staff from testifying on his behalf to prove him innocent? 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,987
    I look forward to having a president who works for us again, thinks about us. I remember those days very fondly.



    Falling down,...not staying down
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,224
    2018
    Kat said:
    I look forward to having a president who works for us again, thinks about us. I remember those days very fondly.



    mrussel1 said:
    CM189191 said:
    wherein future President Pelosi calls soon to be former President tRUmp a 'coward'

    These fucking jip joint reporters and hacks think they can out maneuver Nancy all the time.  She beats them all like a drum.  She's one of the best speakers in history, a total powerhouse.  
    He gets his briefings from Putin..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Smellyman
    Smellyman Asia Posts: 4,528
    2018
    josevolution said:
    Kat said:
    I look forward to having a president who works for us again, thinks about us. I remember those days very fondly.



    mrussel1 said:
    CM189191 said:
    wherein future President Pelosi calls soon to be former President tRUmp a 'coward'

    These fucking jip joint reporters and hacks think they can out maneuver Nancy all the time.  She beats them all like a drum.  She's one of the best speakers in history, a total powerhouse.  
    He gets his briefings from Putin..

  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,224
    2018
    Baffoon will hate to have this * next to his name in the political history books! Even if he doesn’t get removed by Senate GOP who have decided that the constitution is just a peice of paper & the Baffoon is above the law ..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,374
    being impeached and removed will make him singularly notable. he would be in a league of his own......
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,118
    2018
    EdsonNascimento said:
    What happened to the quid pro quo and bribery charges?
    read the specifics of the charges. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,118
    2018
    EdsonNascimento said:
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    but he's not attending to any business. the only "work" he does is his rallies to his gullible/racist supporters. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,987
    I heard him ask China to interfere in our election with my own ears. I don't need any Democrat to tell me what he did. I heard it.

    The rest of the story has been filled in by the testimony. There was no testimony by soul-eater's inner circle to say why he's not guilty...because he is and they likely are to differing degrees. That's what soul-eater does. He makes sure those closest are complicit so they won't testify because they'd be testifying against themselves. There are supposed to be witnesses in the Senate trial but I bet it won't be the soul-eater's men.

    Falling down,...not staying down
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,599
    2019
    And away we go...
    www.myspace.com
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,374
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    EdsonNascimento said:
    mfc2006 said:
    I just find it mind boggling that they can ignore these subpoenas. If I ignored a subpoena, I'd probably be arrested.
    As Sciff and Nadler themselves pointed out, this is not a legal proceeding.  Any subpoena issued by the House is just an invitation to appear.  

    So, if you ignored a house subpoena in this case, you would not be arrested (I am not advising you to ignore one.  You shouldn't, but then again if you were being accused of something, you can plead the 5th anyway. This is effectively the same thing. And do you really want the President siting through something like this instead of tending to business - whether you like what he's doing or not).

    That's also why Graham and McConnell have stated they will NOT subpoena Schiff and others.  Because that will be a legal proceeding and would put everyone in an extremely awkward position.  The Dems did something for show, and you're gobbling it up.

    It's amazing how the Dems have convinced many of you that what comes out of their mouth is truth without question.

    We should all remember - the accused does not have to prove their innocence. Why has that become a topic of this process?
    but he's not attending to any business. the only "work" he does is his rallies to his gullible/racist supporters. 
    to be fair, watching fox "news" most of the day and tweeting all day into the night is more than a fulltime job.......
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,995
    2 articles are not enough.

    i guarantee trump believes that Rudy can lawyer him out of 2 articles. The dems should have come out with 5 or 6. Then the conversation would be about the potential to resign without being arrested instead of trying to weasel out of only 2 articles. Dems needed to come out aggressively and let the entire world know that they are not fucking around. Trump still thinks this is a joke. He is in serious legal jeopardy but he does not believe it. If they had come out with 5 or 6 separate articles they have a better chance of one of them sticking.

    leave it to the dems to mismanage a slam dunk. 
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 31,024
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    2 articles are not enough.

    i guarantee trump believes that Rudy can lawyer him out of 2 articles. The dems should have come out with 5 or 6. Then the conversation would be about the potential to resign without being arrested instead of trying to weasel out of only 2 articles. Dems needed to come out aggressively and let the entire world know that they are not fucking around. Trump still thinks this is a joke. He is in serious legal jeopardy but he does not believe it. If they had come out with 5 or 6 separate articles they have a better chance of one of them sticking.

    leave it to the dems to mismanage a slam dunk. 
    Why do you think that 2/3 of the Senate would slam dunk 1 or 15 articles?  
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 40,118
    2018
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    2 articles are not enough.

    i guarantee trump believes that Rudy can lawyer him out of 2 articles. The dems should have come out with 5 or 6. Then the conversation would be about the potential to resign without being arrested instead of trying to weasel out of only 2 articles. Dems needed to come out aggressively and let the entire world know that they are not fucking around. Trump still thinks this is a joke. He is in serious legal jeopardy but he does not believe it. If they had come out with 5 or 6 separate articles they have a better chance of one of them sticking.

    leave it to the dems to mismanage a slam dunk. 
    I think if they came out with more, it would look like they were just throwing shit at the wall and hoping some of it stuck. keep it to the articles you know he's guilty of. you don't want to give credence to the witch hunt narrative. 

    I don't think rudy can lawyer him out a paper bag. 
    Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer



  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    2 articles are not enough.

    i guarantee trump believes that Rudy can lawyer him out of 2 articles. The dems should have come out with 5 or 6. Then the conversation would be about the potential to resign without being arrested instead of trying to weasel out of only 2 articles. Dems needed to come out aggressively and let the entire world know that they are not fucking around. Trump still thinks this is a joke. He is in serious legal jeopardy but he does not believe it. If they had come out with 5 or 6 separate articles they have a better chance of one of them sticking.

    leave it to the dems to mismanage a slam dunk. 
    I don't see how more articles would make any difference. The republican senate is gonna be it's shitty self regardless of how many articles there are. I want the republican senators in swing states on the record. That is what will probably really matter at the end of the day.

    Now the case could be made that the democrats should wait for subpoenas to make their way through the courts for a stronger case, but the republicans have used the weakness in the american system to their benefit to drag this shit out. So I can understand why they aren't doing that.

Categories