DOJ Moves To Block Democrats Hypothetical Removal Proceedings Impeachment Fakery

a reply to: Deetermined

I guess we just ignore Micheal Cohen and that whole thing that implicated the president more directly Nixon in watergate?

a reply to: Pyle

Except that is false and there was nothing there. What did Trump do, what is the evidence, source it.

a reply to: Pyle

They can start the oversight inquiry, that does not entitle them to the powers granted during an impeachment inquiry.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

oh my... yeah its all false.

The emouluments clause infractions, the campaign fraud, the obstruction of justice.

it was all false.

Guess we can all go back to sleept again. You got this right?

a reply to: Liquesence



Trump actually thinks he can litigate his way out of this. Boy oh boy is he learning the hard way.

a reply to: ketsuko

How many hearing and investigations went onto Benghazi?
Huh?

How many?

Eleven thats how many.

So let us know when we approach that number.

Lets act like there is nothing to see here. Ha ha ha.

a reply to: burntheships

They are not having impeachment proceedings.
They will do that starting early next year I imagine but right now they are simply pulling their case together.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Backwards how? Explain that please. If its not just hot air.
How is this supposed to work.... in your own words please.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Backwards how? Explain that please. If its not just hot air.
How is this supposed to work.... in your own words please.

How's it supposed to work? If you have it all backwards, but believe you have it forwards instead, then how can anyone tell you anything to make you see straight? Pray for a miracle. Try that.

a reply to: burntheships

I think you got it backwards... The DOJ is trying to save the Democrats from themselves, cause when Nadler reached his inevitable conclusion and tried to remove the president it would have caused a crisis in the govt wrecking the stock market (due to the uncertainty) and utterly destroying what was left of the DNC leaving us with 1 party to rule the country.

a reply to: Pyle

Because the complaint isn’t supposed to go to the DOJ. The complaints are supposed to be handled by people outside the normal chain such as the Office of Special Consuel.

You're wrong again. Let's look at the statutes for how the Intelligence Community Inspector General's office is supposed to work...

(f)Limitations onactivities

(1)The Director of National Intelligence may prohibit the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community from initiating, carrying out, or completing any investigation, inspection, audit, or review if the Director determines that such prohibition is necessary to protect vital national security interests of the United States.

(2)Not later than seven days after the date on which the Director exercises the authority under paragraph (1), the Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees an appropriately classified statement of the reasons for the exercise of such authority.

www.dni.gov...

So, in reality, the only legitimate complaint that Schiff has right now is the fact that he hasn't received a formal written statement from the DNI on why he's not allowed a copy of the complaint.

Once again, I'll remind you that Schiff already has a proven record of leaking illegally to the press AND the DNI may not want to tip Schiff off to the fact that this report or complaint is being used as evidence in an official proceeding, but doesn't want to tell him that.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Deetermined

I guess we just ignore Micheal Cohen and that whole thing that implicated the president more directly Nixon in watergate?

What is it that we're ignoring about Michael Cohen? That the Special Counsel charged him with an excessive campaign donation? If you're talking about paying off women, that's been going on forever and history has already proven such activities don't affect elections anyway. The only thing that would make this a true crime is if Trump used campaign money to pay off these women, but he didn't. There is no way to prove that this payoff had any other value to Trump's campaign.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Deetermined

I guess we just ignore Micheal Cohen and that whole thing that implicated the president more directly Nixon in watergate?

Wasn't it revealed later that it was a different Michael Cohen altogether, and that's why we haven't heard his name in the media this past year?

a reply to: Deetermined

You do know your link says nothing about DNI consulting with DOJ to not release information. DNI can stop the IG from releasing information but not the DOJ. DOJ's only part is for criminal referrals. The whole process is supposed to be as far outside the normal chains as possible so politics or retribution isnt a factor.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

oh my... yeah its all false.

The emouluments clause infractions, the campaign fraud, the obstruction of justice.

it was all false.

Guess we can all go back to sleept again. You got this right?

The emoluments clause does not hinge on yours or our views, but what the Constitution requires. Some Constitutional experts contend that the provision only applies to appointed offices.

The Congressional Emoluments Clause forbids members of Congress from accepting federal jobs whose “emoluments” have been increased during their time in Congress. The Presidential Emoluments Clause bans the president from receiving “emoluments” beyond his statutory compensation from either the federal government or from any of the states.

What if I told you that while the founding fathers wanted to dissuade conflicts of interest, they also wanted to encourage successful business people to serve in government? After all, in that era the career politician did not exist.

And what fraud and obstruction?

Because I don't see anyone talking about that. Instead, I see everyone reverting back to "Orange man racist".

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Deetermined

I guess we just ignore Micheal Cohen and that whole thing that implicated the president more directly Nixon in watergate?

Wasn't it revealed later that it was a different Michael Cohen altogether, and that's why we haven't heard his name in the media this past year?

Michael "Trump lawyer and former Deputy Finance Chair for the GOP" Cohen. I dont know how you can think that was a different person.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Liquesence

DOJ Moves To Block Democrats Hypothetical Removal Proceedings Impeachment Fakery

You mean DOJ tries to prevent Congress from exercising its Constitutional right, granted to it by the Constitution of the United States of America?

That should concern every American, but apparently some think it's just fine.

Nice move from the DOJ to preserve the rule of law!

You mean subvert the rule of law and Congress's Constitutional right of checks and balances against the executive branch?

That is a lie. They can initiate impeachment. What they can't do is not initiate it and then demand files as if they had.

Wrong.

They can investigate what they want, and request or subpoena information, when they suspect criminality. They have the right to oversight. It's a constitutional right.

Then, they can impeach when they have facts/evidence.

But I know you guys hate the Constitution because "Dear Leader" and all.

It's a smart political maneuver; from now on the party holding the house but not holding the white house can "suspect criminality" in the president and with only 24 votes can proceed to use all congressional powers to conduct opposition research on their political opponent. Its much cleaner and easier to manage than weaponizing the FBI.

Of course one day the American people will get tired of the theatrics; but for now it makes for a good show.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a "intent to violate a person's constitutional rights law "?

Then asshats like this could be charged & tried for trying to circumvent the law to suit their twisted plans.

Would be fun for jerks like beto too.

Imagine that nimrod sitting in jail for saying "hell yeah, were going to take your ar15".

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Deetermined

You do know your link says nothing about DNI consulting with DOJ to not release information. DNI can stop the IG from releasing information but not the DOJ. DOJ's only part is for criminal referrals. The whole process is supposed to be as far outside the normal chains as possible so politics or retribution isnt a factor.

The statutes don't say anything about the DNI consulting with the DOJ or anyone else because it's not important. The DNI gets to make the ultimate decision on what to do with the information regardless of who else he consults with along the way.

I made an error in my previous post about the DNI not sending Schiff an official statement. The DNI did send Schiff a statement as to why he was not releasing the information to the intelligence committee, so they are covered.

Schiff is just whining because he's claiming that a DNI has never withheld such information from intelligence committees in Congress before, even though the statute clearly shows that the DNI can. Someone needs to remind Schiff that we've never had Congressional intelligence committees behave the way he or the rest of the current committee behaves today. He blew his own chances of being considered a responsible member of Congress.

a reply to: Deetermined

Someone needs to remind Schiff that we've never had Congressional intelligence committees behave the way he or the rest of the current committee behaves today. He blew his own chances of being considered a responsible member of Congress.

We've never had a president who disrespects our Intelligence Community and so irresponsibly handles classified information.

I've got to admit that I have no idea how a intelligence whistleblower's complaint is supposed to be handled, and I can't help but wonder if this information and its handling had something to do with Dan Coats' resignation, as I said earlier.

These aren't normal times.

Can anyone explain how this is not covered by the separation of powers. Trias Politica.
Congress cannot just get -anything- they want. There are exceptional rules to circumvent this separation. Not just a political hack like Nadler just making up an impeachment, just in wording.

This again is just playing to the Dem base, not to reality. Giving the Democrat/MSM media some soundbites to claim Orange Man Bad, thats all...

There are some weird Republicans, but they look pretty normal next to these whack jobs in the Democrat party.