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

White House legal team hates the constitution

Mick

The Right is always right
1. The evidence is that people were communicating to Ukraine that an announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden was required for both the meeting in the WH and the release of aid.
2. While nobody can say those were the instructions from Trump, it is clear that they were all given that impression.. My bet is from Giuliani.
3. It is also clear that congress passed legislation that was intended to force the president to notify congress if an appropriation were put on hold. He defied that law. He put himself into a position above that co-equal branch in Congress.

How is what the democrats are doing somehow not in keeping with the founders? Trump put that hold on aid in spite of the advice of the other people involved. Pence's aid, Jenifer Williams testified as to her impression of what Trump was saying, as did Lt.Col. Vindman.

Bolton called the scheme a "drug deal".

What is the dem end game? Putting boundaries on the actions of this president. Do you honestly not see a problem in Trump sending Giuliani to conduct a shadow foreign policy?
You have no problem with Trump lying about knowing Parnas? How about the surveillance conducted on the ambassador or the implication that they were discussing killing her?

Back to the topic...aren't the Trump defense team arguing that impeachment is wrong, no matter what the motivation? Was the impeachment of Clinton an attempt to overturn an election?
I couldn't get through this gabble because my eyes were watering from laughing so hard. Whether it was your insertion about what "John Bolton said" without ever being able to actually QUOTE John Bolton......to citing Vindman whose own boss, Tim Morrison, said was whiny and butthurt......to your insistent cries that aid delivered before the deadline as being illegal......to a man who has been felony indictments over his head, Parnas, as being your star witness.....to your conspiracies regarding assassination attempts on ambassadors.

You are just posting insanity. Here's the facts. No one told Zelensky the aid was conditioned on Joe Biden. That is simply untrue. Zelensky has been clear on this fact many times. This case is so weak that Dems knew from the beginning that they were going to lose some of their own while getting ZERO Republicans to join them. They knew it would lead to no conviction. They are violating the Constitution in the fact they are weaponizing impeachment for political partisan purposes. The founders almost didn't include impeachment in the Constitution out of this very real fear that we are seeing in America today. That is the biggest reason they included the 2/3 super majority needed for conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment weaponized by partisans to put "boundaries on a President" is one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution and the purpose of impeachment that I have ever seen claimed. That is a mentally sick position. I knew this....but wow. Impeachment has ONE purpose and ONE purpose only......and that is removal of a President for "high crimes and misdemeanors". If you feel "boundaries" are needed then you introduce legislation and if it is valid, non-partisan, it will pass the House and Senate (and if vetoed by the POTUS) then 2/3 can override it. That's how Congress provides legitimate boundaries. Boundaries that are not partisan.

Thanks for embarrassing yourself and admitting this a corrupt kangaroo effort undergone by partisan left wing factions to undermine an election and the Constitution. You do more harm to your own arguments than anything I could add.

Lulz
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
So @middleview if one political party decides to attempt to impeach the opposing party's current president without even a charge of a specific defined crime, the opposing party should gleefully welcome it and do everything in their power to allow it.

That's just adorable.

I think any party who has a president would defend their leader. I'd expect it. To demand otherwise of your opponent is.. well.. obtuse.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Trump tainted the 2016 election by accepting Putin's help. Trump has already tainted the 2020 election by illegally soliciting help AND using Russian propaganda against Biden.
Squawk.......the Russians are coming.......the Russians are coming. Read the dossier!

The low IQ of the electorate getting lower IQs by the day apparently. Conspiracist, paranoid freaks.

Lulz
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Trump tainted the 2016 election by accepting Putin's help. Trump has already tainted the 2020 election by illegally soliciting help AND using Russian propaganda against Biden.
No proof of either you poor thing.
Nice excuses though!
Those and two bucks can get you on the subway.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
No. We are talking about the attack on the founding fathers and the impeachment clause.
Precisely we are. So why are Dems ignoring the founders and their dire warnings on partisan impeachment attempts and plowing through anyway?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Shiff is stating the fact that Trump is attempting to involve other countries in smearing his opponents. His statements suggesting that both Ukraine and China should investigate Biden's actions 4 years ago has no other motivation than Trump's desire to stay in power.

If Trump could jimmy public opinion through tactics like that, how could you trust that we'd get an honest vote?
Sort of like saying if the DNC recruits a British spy to acquire Russian intel about Trump and put together a “dossier” it may impact our elections.
You mean like that?

More projection! Wow , serious case here.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So @middleview if one political party decides to attempt to impeach the opposing party's current president without even a charge of a specific defined crime, the opposing party should gleefully welcome it and do everything in their power to allow it.

That's just adorable.

I think any party who has a president would defend their leader. I'd expect it. To demand otherwise of your opponent is.. well.. obtuse.
As Dershowitz stated...impeachment does not require a criminal offense...but that was when it was Clinton being impeached...and that's different, right?

There is a difference between an open minded review and trial and a "gleeful welcome".

Trump waited three years to suggest to Ukraine and China that they investigate Joe Biden. Meanwhile his own DOJ has seen no reason to open an investigation. Ask yourself why. The USA has it's own laws related to any act by Joe Biden that may have been corrupt...I guess Trump's own people don't see a crime.

Coincidentally, we have Giuliani running around ordering State Department people to help him get Trump reelected and with no governmental oversight into his actions. You guys have whined about Hunter Biden being paid by Burisma for what ever he was working on...wouldn't you like to have Rudy take the stand and tell us how much he's getting paid and who in the Ukrainian government he's been talking to on our behalf?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Precisely we are. So why are Dems ignoring the founders and their dire warnings on partisan impeachment attempts and plowing through anyway?
The OP was about the republicans attack on the constitution....they have said impeachment is a coup. Impeachment is overturning an election and has no place in our government.

Care to comment?
 

Mick

The Right is always right
You're head would have exploded if Hillary had refused to testify in the Benghazi hearings using executive privilege.
First, Hillary wasn't testifying in an impeachment. Stark difference. I seem to recall President Trump allowing everyone and his dog talk to that invalid Mueller investigation. Secondly, Obama declared Eric Holder's emails between Holder and his Mom were executive privilege in Fast and Furious. Jesus Christ! If such nonsense was okay then one would think that private discussions between the actual POTUS and chief of staff would apply now, wouldn't it?

Unless of course one is severely mentally ill.........
 

Mick

The Right is always right
The OP was about the republicans attack on the constitution....they have said impeachment is a coup. Impeachment is overturning an election and has no place in our government.

Care to comment?

The founders said partisan impeachments would likely be coup attempts and they almost wrote impeachment out of the Constitution solely on those grounds. Going to address how PARTISAN impeachments are not legitimate now or continue to bobble your head up and down?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The founders said partisan impeachments would likely be coup attempts and they almost wrote impeachment out of the Constitution solely on those grounds. Going to address how PARTISAN impeachments are not legitimate now or continue to bobble your head up and down?
You see it as partisan...I see that Trump in fact did ask for the announcement of an investigation because he wanted to eliminate Biden from the primaries, interfering in the election.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
You see it as partisan...I see that Trump in fact did ask for the announcement of an investigation because he wanted to eliminate Biden from the primaries, interfering in the election.
I see it for what IT IS:




I see it for what it is. The yes vote got zero Republicans. The no vote got both Republicans and Democrats. That's a partisan impeachment.

And the greatest attempt here to interfere in our elections are Democrats who know their case is fatally flawed pushed it through in hopes of hurting President Trump politically. THAT is your election interference.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
No proof of either you poor thing.
Nice excuses though!
Those and two bucks can get you on the subway.
The proof is documented.....in Trump's own words on camera...for Russian interference and his request for Ukraine's interference. Unless you're going to claim that when Trump opens his mouth, he's lying. Ha ha.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Sort of like saying if the DNC recruits a British spy to acquire Russian intel about Trump and put together a “dossier” it may impact our elections.
You mean like that?

More projection! Wow , serious case here.

That's different.......and all. Haven't you heard?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
First, Hillary wasn't testifying in an impeachment. Stark difference. I seem to recall President Trump allowing everyone and his dog talk to that invalid Mueller investigation. Secondly, Obama declared Eric Holder's emails between Holder and his Mom were executive privilege in Fast and Furious. Jesus Christ! If such nonsense was okay then one would think that private discussions between the actual POTUS and chief of staff would apply now, wouldn't it?

Unless of course one is severely mentally ill.........
1. Why is executive privilege less valid during a congressional witch hunt (like the 8 investigations into Benghazi) than during an impeachment?
2. The subpoena issued for Holder's email was a search for mud and was related to email from the period after the F&F operation had been shut down. All documents from prior to that date had been turned over. That amounted to about 8,000 pages of email.

The claim that someone claimed executive privilege for Holder's email to his mother or wife came from Newsmax. I can find no reliable or verifiable source.
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Sort of like saying if the DNC recruits a British spy to acquire Russian intel about Trump and put together a “dossier” it may impact our elections.
You mean like that?

More projection! Wow , serious case here.
So somehow the DNC hiring a law firm and asking them to dig up dirt on the opposition, something all campaigns do, and that law firm hiring an investigation firm and that firm hiring a citizen of another country is the equivalent...in your addled brain, of asking another country to announce the investigation into one of your opponents.

Wow...

There is no law related to hiring citizens of other countries to do work for a campaign. However, if you see nothing wrong with inviting Ukraine, China or perhaps Russia to help Trump stay in power....say so.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I see it for what IT IS:




I see it for what it is. The yes vote got zero Republicans. The no vote got both Republicans and Democrats. That's a partisan impeachment.

And the greatest attempt here to interfere in our elections are Democrats who know their case is fatally flawed pushed it through in hopes of hurting President Trump politically. THAT is your election interference.
And because you're not partisan at all :rolleyes:, you don't see the republican vote as simply a bunch of repubs in lock step as if they honestly felt Trump had not attempted to get an investigation announced to impact the possibility of Trump having to face Biden in the general election?

There was no other rational explanation for the call for an investigation.
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
As Dershowitz stated...impeachment does not require a criminal offense...but that was when it was Clinton being impeached...and that's different, right?

There is a difference between an open minded review and trial and a "gleeful welcome".

Trump waited three years to suggest to Ukraine and China that they investigate Joe Biden. Meanwhile his own DOJ has seen no reason to open an investigation. Ask yourself why. The USA has it's own laws related to any act by Joe Biden that may have been corrupt...I guess Trump's own people don't see a crime.

Coincidentally, we have Giuliani running around ordering State Department people to help him get Trump reelected and with no governmental oversight into his actions. You guys have whined about Hunter Biden being paid by Burisma for what ever he was working on...wouldn't you like to have Rudy take the stand and tell us how much he's getting paid and who in the Ukrainian government he's been talking to on our behalf?
If Clinton didn't commit perjury, I'd agree he shouldn't have been impeached. He dug his own grave. There was a static, quantifiable crime.

Once you start making it 100% political without defined crimes, it gets very Salem Witch Trials-esque... which is why I'd wager you'll see Trump not be impeached.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If Clinton didn't commit perjury, I'd agree he shouldn't have been impeached. He dug his own grave. There was a static, quantifiable crime.

Once you start making it 100% political without defined crimes, it gets very Salem Witch Trials-esque... which is why I'd wager you'll see Trump not be impeached.
Clinton lied under oath. It was not perjury. For it to have been perjury the question would have to have been pertinent to the accusation of having harassed Jones for refusing to have sex with him.
 
Top