It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeachment!!

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer
Question, when Congress wants evidence from the WH and the WH says they are not entitled to it what is Congress recourse?


They'll presumably subpoena whichever witness they wish to hear from. The house's investigation was a preliminary finding and had effectively no subpoena power like the senate will have, ergo its not shocking that all the antagonistic witnesses in Trump's circle were forbid from testifying.

And if I was concerned with fools calling me foolish I probably would have never joined ATS in the first place


edit on 50pm19fpmWed, 11 Dec 2019 12:19:01 -0600America/ChicagoWed, 11 Dec 2019 12:19:01 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So they had no subpoena power, how can Trump obstruct them? Do you even follow what you say? You just admitted they lacked legal authority to subpoena, but claim Trump illegally obstructed them by not having people testify when Congress lacked the authority to have them testify against WH wishes.

You guys are so crazy.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

So they had no subpoena power, how can Trump obstruct them? Do you even follow what you say? You just admitted they lacked legal authority to subpoena, but claim Trump illegally obstructed them by not having people testify when Congress lacked the authority to have them testify against WH wishes.

You guys are so crazy.


Huh, now you're conflating my comments on Trump intentionally keeping witness from giving testimony with the articles of impeachment laid out by the house without actually having read the articles as it pertains to Obstruction of Justice. Why is it you will argue with me about it at length but won't take the time to actually read what the house is sending to the senate?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Trump has executive privilege. Using it is not obstruction. It's hilarious how clueless you are. The remedy is get a court order to override it. Congress is not above the Executive branch.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Trump has executive privilege. Using it is not obstruction. It's hilarious how clueless you are. The remedy is get a court order to override it. Congress is not above the Executive branch.


You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses, but ultimatley refusal by Trump means the legal wrangling to force them to appear would take the better part of a year before they were resolved, and at which point we'd likely be upon the next election. Because of the nature of what they're accusing Trump of, its pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to wait for a cheating president to have one more opportunity to cheat before you get a chance to question witnesses. Ergo, the better option it to do as they did, move forward with the understanding that Trump is withholding witness testimony because its ALL bad for him, and put it in the hands of the Republican senate to ignore so that at least there is political fallout from their refusal to call witnesses.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses, but ultimatley refusal by Trump means the legal wrangling to force them to appear would take the better part of a year before they were resolved, and at which point we'd likely be upon the next election. Because of the nature of what they're accusing Trump of, its pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to wait for a cheating president to have one more opportunity to cheat before you get a chance to question witnesses. Ergo, the better option it to do as they did, move forward with the understanding that Trump is withholding witness testimony because its ALL bad for him, and put it in the hands of the Republican senate to ignore so that at least there is political fallout from their refusal to call witnesses.

So because they accuse him of something the Executive Branch loses all it's power? Guilty until innocent? Your actual argument is that Trump is following the law, and so he is obstructing justice because it will take longer than you like before we know he truth.

It's just crazy how you admit Trump is doing things he has every legal right to do, and the courts are the answer, but you don't like it so charge and impeach.

The more you post the crazier you are getting.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses, but ultimatley refusal by Trump means the legal wrangling to force them to appear would take the better part of a year before they were resolved, and at which point we'd likely be upon the next election. Because of the nature of what they're accusing Trump of, its pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to wait for a cheating president to have one more opportunity to cheat before you get a chance to question witnesses. Ergo, the better option it to do as they did, move forward with the understanding that Trump is withholding witness testimony because its ALL bad for him, and put it in the hands of the Republican senate to ignore so that at least there is political fallout from their refusal to call witnesses.

So because they accuse him of something the Executive Branch loses all it's power? Guilty until innocent? Your actual argument is that Trump is following the law, and so he is obstructing justice because it will take longer than you like before we know he truth.

It's just crazy how you admit Trump is doing things he has every legal right to do, and the courts are the answer, but you don't like it so charge and impeach.

The more you post the crazier you are getting.


He has every right to tell his people to not testify, and the house has every right to subpoena them to testify. Since it wouldn't get through the courts fast enough to come out before the 2020 election, its effectively a neutered subpoena power that Trump has foisted on the house (which is not the intent of the constitution). In this case the time sensitive nature of the information being critical is why he is guilty of obstruction.

The more you respond to me with the same circular argument the crazier you sound.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses, but ultimatley refusal by Trump means the legal wrangling to force them to appear would take the better part of a year before they were resolved, and at which point we'd likely be upon the next election. Because of the nature of what they're accusing Trump of, its pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to wait for a cheating president to have one more opportunity to cheat before you get a chance to question witnesses. Ergo, the better option it to do as they did, move forward with the understanding that Trump is withholding witness testimony because its ALL bad for him, and put it in the hands of the Republican senate to ignore so that at least there is political fallout from their refusal to call witnesses.

So because they accuse him of something the Executive Branch loses all it's power? Guilty until innocent? Your actual argument is that Trump is following the law, and so he is obstructing justice because it will take longer than you like before we know he truth.

It's just crazy how you admit Trump is doing things he has every legal right to do, and the courts are the answer, but you don't like it so charge and impeach.

The more you post the crazier you are getting.


He has every right to tell his people to not testify, and the house has every right to subpoena them to testify. Since it wouldn't get through the courts fast enough to come out before the 2020 election, its effectively a neutered subpoena power that Trump has foisted on the house (which is not the intent of the constitution). In this case the time sensitive nature of the information being critical is why he is guilty of obstruction.

The more you respond to me with the same circular argument the crazier you sound.


So, if the Executive branch uses the courts of the USA to rule on whether they need to dance to the tune of a co-equal branch, it's obstruction of justice?




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses


I think you forgot when you said this ....


The house's investigation was a preliminary finding and had effectively no subpoena power


Per your own admission they had no power to subpoena. Crazier and crazier every time you post, you can't even keep your story straight.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses, but ultimatley refusal by Trump means the legal wrangling to force them to appear would take the better part of a year before they were resolved, and at which point we'd likely be upon the next election. Because of the nature of what they're accusing Trump of, its pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to wait for a cheating president to have one more opportunity to cheat before you get a chance to question witnesses. Ergo, the better option it to do as they did, move forward with the understanding that Trump is withholding witness testimony because its ALL bad for him, and put it in the hands of the Republican senate to ignore so that at least there is political fallout from their refusal to call witnesses.

So because they accuse him of something the Executive Branch loses all it's power? Guilty until innocent? Your actual argument is that Trump is following the law, and so he is obstructing justice because it will take longer than you like before we know he truth.

It's just crazy how you admit Trump is doing things he has every legal right to do, and the courts are the answer, but you don't like it so charge and impeach.

The more you post the crazier you are getting.


He has every right to tell his people to not testify, and the house has every right to subpoena them to testify. Since it wouldn't get through the courts fast enough to come out before the 2020 election, its effectively a neutered subpoena power that Trump has foisted on the house (which is not the intent of the constitution). In this case the time sensitive nature of the information being critical is why he is guilty of obstruction.

The more you respond to me with the same circular argument the crazier you sound.


So, if the Executive branch uses the courts of the USA to rule on whether they need to dance to the tune of a co-equal branch, it's obstruction of justice?


Exactly!!! We don't want to wait so Trump must do what we say and ignore the Constitutional rights of the Executive branch and bow before Schiff or IMPEACH!



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses, but ultimatley refusal by Trump means the legal wrangling to force them to appear would take the better part of a year before they were resolved, and at which point we'd likely be upon the next election. Because of the nature of what they're accusing Trump of, its pretty obvious why you wouldn't want to wait for a cheating president to have one more opportunity to cheat before you get a chance to question witnesses. Ergo, the better option it to do as they did, move forward with the understanding that Trump is withholding witness testimony because its ALL bad for him, and put it in the hands of the Republican senate to ignore so that at least there is political fallout from their refusal to call witnesses.

So because they accuse him of something the Executive Branch loses all it's power? Guilty until innocent? Your actual argument is that Trump is following the law, and so he is obstructing justice because it will take longer than you like before we know he truth.

It's just crazy how you admit Trump is doing things he has every legal right to do, and the courts are the answer, but you don't like it so charge and impeach.

The more you post the crazier you are getting.


He has every right to tell his people to not testify, and the house has every right to subpoena them to testify. Since it wouldn't get through the courts fast enough to come out before the 2020 election, its effectively a neutered subpoena power that Trump has foisted on the house (which is not the intent of the constitution). In this case the time sensitive nature of the information being critical is why he is guilty of obstruction.

The more you respond to me with the same circular argument the crazier you sound.


So, if the Executive branch uses the courts of the USA to rule on whether they need to dance to the tune of a co-equal branch, it's obstruction of justice?



Perhaps if I give a super simple example you'll understand it better.

I witness an assault. The judge/lawyers for the prosecution ask me to come in to testify but I tell them I'm actually moving to North Korea in a month and plan on cutting contact off with the rest of the world and remaining there for the rest of my life. The statue of limitations for the crime lasts for 10 years, so if they don't get my testimony before I go they won't ever get it and the statute of limitations would run out. In essence they can then hold me in jail for obstruction of justice UNTIL I testify, because the circumstances of my travel arrangements preclude any other option or recourse for them to convince me to testify.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

You misunderstand me. The house can subpoena witnesses


I think you forgot when you said this ....


The house's investigation was a preliminary finding and had effectively no subpoena power


Per your own admission they had no power to subpoena. Crazier and crazier every time you post, you can't even keep your story straight.


They don't have any subpoena power because the courts won't enforce any subpoenas before the upcoming election, which is what they're sayings is being unlawfully influenced. How pants on head silly do you have to be to willfully keep misunderstanding that?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Then it sounds like the courts are the problem, charge them. I would ask you to source these silly claims, but you are 0 for everything so far when I ask.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Your analogy is off. The witness is the wife of the alleged attacker. They demand the wife testify and the wife claims spousal exemption and refuses. No obstruction, it's her Constitutional right.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

..but you are 0 for everything so far when I ask.


says the dude who can't even read a 9 page report.......



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I see no obstruction in it. You claimed it exists. I asked where, you can't show me. Don't make the claim if you can't back it up. You are 0 for everything in backing up claims.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Your analogy is off. The witness is the wife of the alleged attacker. They demand the wife testify and the wife claims spousal exemption and refuses. No obstruction, it's her Constitutional right.


No, once again your response here demonstrates that you still are missing the point. Its not about desire, its about the timeframe that working through the courts to resolve subpoenas would push any testimony to after the event the 'prosecution' is saying is being corrupted through illegality.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

I see no obstruction in it. .


That's because you haven't read it. I fail to see how you not seeing something you didn't read makes you sound clever....



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Your analogy is off. The witness is the wife of the alleged attacker. They demand the wife testify and the wife claims spousal exemption and refuses. No obstruction, it's her Constitutional right.


No, once again your response here demonstrates that you still are missing the point. Its not about desire, its about the timeframe that working through the courts to resolve subpoenas would push any testimony to after the event the 'prosecution' is saying is being corrupted through illegality.

Time frame doesn't matter. The Executive Branch does not lose it's Constitutional powers because you don't like the time frame. It's an argument Schiff can make to the courts to get them to rule faster. It's not an argument to place Congress above the Executive. Sorry you hate the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Your analogy is off. The witness is the wife of the alleged attacker. They demand the wife testify and the wife claims spousal exemption and refuses. No obstruction, it's her Constitutional right.


No, once again your response here demonstrates that you still are missing the point. Its not about desire, its about the timeframe that working through the courts to resolve subpoenas would push any testimony to after the event the 'prosecution' is saying is being corrupted through illegality.

Time frame doesn't matter. The Executive Branch does not lose it's Constitutional powers because you don't like the time frame. It's an argument Schiff can make to the courts to get them to rule faster. It's not an argument to place Congress above the Executive. Sorry you hate the Constitution.


Lol, ok now you sound butt-hurt because the house is exercising their legal and lawfully appointed powers to pass to the senate articles of impeachment. Nothing illegal has occurred from the house in their efforts to impeach Trump, so why are you so upset?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join