Trump’s EU ambassador ordered to not give deposition

originally posted by: thedigirati
sucks to be dems trying to impeach it sounds like you are saying Extorris

is that infact what you are saying???

because when this goes before the SCOTUS, they first thing SCOTUS does is look for that which cam before.

If I read that correctly?

Yes SCOTUS looks for precedent. And SCOTUS precedent sided with the impeachment inquiry against Nixon VS. Executive Privilege.

It did not help that the President's attorneys at the time literally argued that a President was given the powers of a "King" in four year intervals. this is similar to AG Barrs "Unitary Executive" theory. SCOTUS Excoriated Nixon's legal team on this argument. Balance of powers and such.

The bigger question is HOW LONG such suits take to wind through the courts today.

That is why any Subpoena refusals will most likely simply add to the Obstruction of Congress and Obstruction of Justice charges in an impeachment.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

YES. GOP are present in every committee and able to redirect or clarify statements by those giving depositions.

Why not simply tell the truth and destroy the investigation? The GOP can shout SEE!! and cite actual under oath testimony.

Forbidding the first witness to testify is a bad sign.

a reply to: Extorris

Yes SCOTUS looks for precedent. And SCOTUS precedent sided with the impeachment inquiry against Nixon VS. Executive Privilege.

congress had a floor vote to begin impeachment in that case
this congress does not

bet that precedent means something to the scotus

a reply to: Extorris

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

allow me to introduce you to a friend of mine

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the burden of proof is not on the accused
someone told you wrong

I mean if someone was going to hack;

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

Yes SCOTUS looks for precedent. And SCOTUS precedent sided with the impeachment inquiry against Nixon VS. Executive Privilege.

congress had a floor vote to begin impeachment in that case
this congress does not

Congress's floor vote circa Nixon was political messaging, not necessity. Ditto now.

The House of Representatives has complete dominion over how they conduct Impeachment proceedings. No vote required.

There is no legal or constitutional argument to be made that the House must vote to begin proceedings.

It does serve as a deflection talking point to identity-politics soldiers though.

Say it over and over and over...Sway those that don't have time to research.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

I would agree with you if this was the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time the left has attempted to unseat the fairly elected President. We must be into double digits by now, and when this fails they will try something new (or dredge up an old one with "new" developments!) so unless you've got lib tunnelvision I think my response is more than reasonable. BAMN to the end, you guys are living it.

a reply to: Lysergic

It has been discussed in another thread.

It's an Exploit.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

I would agree with you if this was the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time the left has attempted to unseat the fairly elected President.

A fairly elected President can not be "unseated"
They can only be impeached and convicted and that requires an indictment by the majority of the House and 2/3rds vote by the Senate.

So if the House presented indisputable evidence that convinced the Majority of the insanely partisan GOP in the senate to remove the POTUS I am OK with that and so are the founders and would hope you would be too.

the Victim posing by the right wing is not your color.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

Yes SCOTUS looks for precedent. And SCOTUS precedent sided with the impeachment inquiry against Nixon VS. Executive Privilege.

congress had a floor vote to begin impeachment in that case
this congress does not

Congress's floor vote circa Nixon was political messaging, not necessity. Ditto now.

The House of Representatives has complete dominion over how they conduct Impeachment proceedings. No vote required.

There is no legal or constitutional argument to be made that the House must vote to begin proceedings.

It does serve as a deflection talking point to identity-politics soldiers though.

Say it over and over and over...Sway those that don't have time to research.

Yep SCOTUS looks at Precedent, even if what came before was for "show" it set a "Precedent" ( that word again my goodness)

But sure it can be whatever you like.

we will know for sure in what 6-7 years??

🥱🥱🥱😴😴😴😴😛😛😛

a reply to: thedigirati

Right.

Can a POTUS pardon themselves?

The Dems are not going to play by the Constitution rules so the Gops are not going to play with them at all.

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: Lysergic

It has been discussed in another thread.

It's an Exploit.

I enjoyed your wild speculations more.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
The Dems are not going to play by the Constitution rules so the Gops are not going to play with them at all.

Can you please direct me to the "rules" you are referring to?

a reply to: Extorris

No one knows for sure yet.

it will be a fun exercise


like this is.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

I would agree with you if this was the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time the left has attempted to unseat the fairly elected President.

the Victim posing by the right wing is not your color.

Watching you guys flail on here keeps me grinning all day long! I don't think I'm doing the "victim posing" right.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

I would agree with you if this was the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time the left has attempted to unseat the fairly elected President.

the Victim posing by the right wing is not your color.

Watching you guys flail on here keeps me grinning all day long!

Then I recommend you stay here. The world at large is not as gullible outside the bubble.

Meanwhile the GOP Led Senate Committee releases report demolishing Trump's conspiracy theories around 2016 election

Senate Intel's newest Russia report undermines pro-Trump conspiracy theories
www.politico.com...

a reply to: Extorris
Why are you still posting dawg? We made a bet and as of today, nothing has happened to Trump?
Begone!

a reply to: PurpleFox

You bet that Trump would not turn over the WB Complaint and if he did you would delete your account.

Want a thread link?

Strange you would promote you breaking your word.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

HERE IS YOUR POST AS CLEAR AS DAY..>WHY YOU STILL HERE?
PurpleFox

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
There is no impeachment inquiry underway. Not by Schiff, not by Pelosi. What we have is, as Trump accurately described it, a kangaroo court with no legal standing, that is making up the rules as it goes along.

Heck, Schiff wants to have the the latest "whistleblower" testify secretly, without any Republicans present. Yes, really. They're so far beyond deranged, Trump might seriously need to ask the Supreme Court to intervene and enforce something approaching Due Process.

Truth.

Let us reiterate, THERE IS NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

Exactly, but the Dems and the leftest realize the Americn left is stupid enough to think there is.

Propaganda and head games