New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Trump will be acquitted, because it is a poor case

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member

Bugsy McGurk

President
Why is it a “poor case”?

You think it’s unclear whether Trump engaged in a shakedown of Ukraine to force them to announce investigations that would help him politically?

You think it’s unclear whether he ordered his people to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony?

What’s “poor” about it?
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Why is it a “poor case”?

You think it’s unclear whether Trump engaged in a shakedown of Ukraine to force them to announce investigations that would help him politically?

You think it’s unclear whether he ordered his people to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony?

What’s “poor” about it?

For the 83902th time you were told. Subpoenas can be litigated

The House put the cart before the horse- and are paying for it now in a bumbling mess they created.

Had they been pragmatic and actually were open with everything. Been patient and allowed the system to work- with actual evidence OF AN ACTUAL CRIME - they may have gotten some republicans to come to their side.


But they chose another route. To impeach someone without a crime. First time ever.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Our political discourse however has been damaged beyond repair. Let's hope then our government and our constitution is not damaged beyond repair, too.

Wishful thinking and hatred do not a case make. what a bunch of hatemongers think he meant when he said whatever they think he said won't make it either.

Let's hope the evidence bears me out to be wrong

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475855-democrats-worry-impeachment-acquittal-will-embolden-trump

This has basically made impeachment a regular thing now.
The bar was lowered so far- and the constitution dragged through the gutter so much , for what ? Butthurt politics because your party lost ?

Hell, at this point - I give Boehner credit when he stained day one point blank he wouldn't impeach Obama.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Why is it a “poor case”?

You think it’s unclear whether Trump engaged in a shakedown of Ukraine to force them to announce investigations that would help him politically?

You think it’s unclear whether he ordered his people to defy subpoenas for documents and testimony?

What’s “poor” about it?

It is the president's prerogative to order his people to defy subpoenas.

What shakedown of Ukraine? What monies remain withheld?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
This has basically made impeachment a regular thing now.
The bar was lowered so far- and the constitution dragged through the gutter so much , for what ? Butthurt politics because your party lost ?

Hell, at this point - I give Boehner credit when he stained day one point blank he wouldn't impeach Obama.
For the 83902th time you were told. Subpoenas can be litigated

The House put the cart before the horse- and are paying for it now in a bumbling mess they created.

Had they been pragmatic and actually were open with everything. Been patient and allowed the system to work- with actual evidence OF AN ACTUAL CRIME - they may have gotten some republicans to come to their side.


But they chose another route. To impeach someone without a crime. First time ever.
That is correct.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
For the 83902th time you were told. Subpoenas can be litigated

The House put the cart before the horse- and are paying for it now in a bumbling mess they created.

Had they been pragmatic and actually were open with everything. Been patient and allowed the system to work- with actual evidence OF AN ACTUAL CRIME - they may have gotten some republicans to come to their side.


But they chose another route. To impeach someone without a crime. First time ever.
Thoroughly ridiculous. Asserting that presidents can flout all subpoenas based upon frivolous and concocted grounds, tying up impeachment related subpoenas for years, means that impeachment is a non-existent remedy. But it does exist - it’s in the Constitution. No honest, patriotic American takes that view.

But you don’t dispute the facts as to Article II. You instead claim that presidents can obstruct at will. Quite deplorable.

And you ignore Article I altogether.
 
Our political discourse however has been damaged beyond repair. Let's hope then our government and our constitution is not damaged beyond repair, too.

Wishful thinking and hatred do not a case make. what a bunch of hatemongers think he meant when he said whatever they think he said won't make it either.

Let's hope the evidence bears me out to be wrong

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475855-democrats-worry-impeachment-acquittal-will-embolden-trump
how can you say its a poor case before the case has even been made?
 

SouthernBoyI

SouthernBoy
Let an old dog who spent 30 years directing administrative law/investigations/ hearings....

The hearing/ trial is limited to the 4 corners of the documents /charges/articles that have been presented.

So all this talk about witnesses and new evidence is bs.

The disgusting part is that everyone involved knows it.

SB
It is a shet show for the uninformed public
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
how can you say its a poor case before the case has even been made?
Not again. The house said that this was an ironclad case of the utmost urgency, we cannot spare another minute with Trump in office. How can you now be saying the case isn't made?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
It is the president's prerogative to order his people to defy subpoenas.

What shakedown of Ukraine? What monies remain withheld?
See above as to your view that presidents can obstruct presidential impeachment investigations at will by tying things up in court for years, thereby negating Congress’s ability to use the Constitution’s impeachment clause altogether.

As to the shakedown, it is no defense to say that Trump’s covert scheme was uncovered, forcing him to ultimately release the funds. Bank robbers are still guilty if they get busted before running off with the loot.

In any event, you do not dispute the facts underlying either Article. You seem to conclude that the impeachment case is “poor” because presidents should be able to engage in such conduct at will. If so, we become akin to a monarchy.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Thoroughly ridiculous. Asserting that presidents can flout all subpoenas based upon frivolous and concocted grounds, tying up impeachment related subpoenas for years, means that impeachment is a non-existent remedy. But it does exist - it’s in the Constitution. No honest, patriotic American takes that view.

But you don’t dispute the facts as to Article II. You instead claim that presidents can obstruct at will. Quite deplorable.

And you ignore Article I altogether.


Uh It's the law.

The House Democrats didn't first ask the courts to compel witnesses to testify but instead jumped straight to declaring Trump's blocking their testimony an impeachable offense. So much for the separation of powers.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
See above as to your view that presidents can obstruct presidential impeachment investigations at will by tying things up in court for years, thereby negating Congress’s ability to use the Constitution’s impeachment clause altogether.

As to the shakedown, it is no defense to say that Trump’s covert scheme was uncovered, forcing him to ultimately release the funds. Bank robbers are still guilty if they get busted before running off with the loot.

In any event, you do not dispute the facts underlying either Article. You seem to conclude that the impeachment case is “poor” because presidents should be able to engage in such conduct at will. If so, we become akin to a monarchy.
This is very odd. I didn't say anything of the kind. I will comment however and say that even the president is entitled to due process and if it needed to go to the courts to be adjudicated then it should have gone to the courts. This is America after all

Meanwhile you may want to re-read what I said, not to mention our encounters in the past, and then comment again

I dismiss the rest of your nonsense. Not what I said
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Let an old dog who spent 30 years directing administrative law/investigations/ hearings....

The hearing/ trial is limited to the 4 corners of the documents /charges/articles that have been presented.

So all this talk about witnesses and new evidence is bs.

The disgusting part is that everyone involved knows it.

SB
It is a shet show for the uninformed public
Yeah, why should there be witnesses as in prior impeachments? And documents? Forget about it. Trump brags that only he has them.

Well, we can always look back with fondness at the country we once had, governed by the rule of law.
 

JuliefromOhio

Senator
Supporting Member
It is the president's prerogative to order his people to defy subpoenas.

What shakedown of Ukraine? What monies remain withheld?
That would be an imperial presidency. Is that acceptable in our Constitution? No, because the Constitution and SCOTUS have confirmed that subpoenas can not be defied in impeachment hearings.
 
Top