Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As is their right.

By what authority?

The president cannot be investigated? Not in this country.

The authority is the Constitution as affirmed by the Supreme Court. If they want to overrule Executive privilege they need to show a compelling reason why. A whistleblower's comments about a phone call that is now public doesn't seem to qualify to me.

Maybe you can explain what that compelling reason is.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
ITT: People dismissing anything and everything that might incriminate Trump while accepting anything and everything that might incriminate Democrats.

Like clockwork. 😂

"those that forget history are destined to repeat it"

Look at the history.

originally posted by: Phage
Sure, I'm sure that ignoring subpoenas would work real well for me.

Your recourse would be to sue the city and get the courts to see if the city is in the right. Trump is basically doing the same thing.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe you can explain what that compelling reason is

An impeachment inquiry.

Nixon tried stonewalling. Guess what? He quit to make it go away.

Clinton new better than to fight it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe you can explain what that compelling reason is

An impeachment inquiry.

Nixon tried stonewalling. Guess what? He quit to make it go away.

Clinton new better than to fight it.

That's not a compelling reason. You have it backwards. You need evidence to override Executive privilege, you can not override it in the hopes of finding something wrong.

Ordering compliance with a trial subpoena "forthwith," the court rejected Mr. Nixon's broad claims of unreviewable executive privilege and said they "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."

www.washingtonpost.com...

That's the standard required to override Executive privilege according to the SC.

What demonstrated specific need is there here? What is the exact crime? What is the evidence? What will they uncover exactly with a subpoena?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You need evidence to override Executive privilege, you can not override it in the hopes of finding something wrong.

Has executive privilege been invoked? It doesn't seem be part of that rather idiotic letter from the White House attorneys. Mostly they just say that Congress cannot investigate the president.

What demonstrated specific need is there here? What is the exact crime? What is the evidence? What will they uncover exactly with a subpoena?

A complaint has been filed. The complaint is being investigated. Is it your contention that the administration cannot be investigated?

a reply to: Phage

just curious, when was Nunes consulted? got a link to that Phage??? from your quote it looks like they do.

"upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member", what does that mean Phage?

a reply to: Phage

According to the Constitution no one can be investigated in the hopes of finding a crime. If we have a crime that was committed what was it, what's the evidence?

Didn't Schiff say they were going to impeach him for blocking the impeachment investigation? So basically start an investigation without a crime then get them on not cooperating on the witch hunt? And Americans are okay with that?

a reply to: thedigirati

The history of Donald Trump being a dirtbag? Yeah, you guys are definitely repeating history.

a reply to: thedigirati

"upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member", what does that mean Phage?

It means, "Hey, Devin! I'm issuing a subpoena."

How do you think it went when Nunes issued them?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thedigirati

"upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member", what does that mean Phage?

It means, "Hey, Devin! I'm issuing a subpoena."

How do you think it went when Nunes issued them?

Fully agree. What we need are representatives who are about doing what is right and not political points, who can sit down and discuss things and have actual compromise. Both parties suck.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

According to the Constitution no one can be investigated in the hopes of finding a crime.

A complaint was made. Through channels. An investigation is being conducted. That investigation is being stonewalled.

Didn't Schiff say they were going to impeach him for blocking the impeachment investigation?

I think he said that's a possibility for an Article.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice. Alexander Hamilton, in justifying placement of the power to try impeachments in the Senate, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Impeachment and Removal - CRS, pg. 7

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: thedigirati

The history of Donald Trump being a dirtbag? Yeah, you guys are definitely repeating history.

nope no bias at all, you are above it all😲🤣😲🤣😲🤣😁😁😁

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

According to the Constitution no one can be investigated in the hopes of finding a crime.

A complaint was made. Through channels. An investigation is being conducted. That investigation is being stonewalled.

Didn't Schiff say they were going to impeach him for blocking the impeachment investigation?

I think he said that's a possibility for an Article.

The one about the call which has been made public? Sounds like all that is required to me.

And Schiff talking about starting an investigation so he can impeach Trump for not cooperating with another witch hunt is fine. What has America come to.

In my America anyone on either side of the aisle is gone for that.

a reply to: Phage

I didn't know he had, was that before or after 2018??

just curious....

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm still on the don't impeach side (in the minority, according to polls). But that doesn't mean I don't want to learn more about the situation.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Phage

I didn't know he had, was that before or after 2018??

just curious....

That sounds like a personal problem. You have some catching up to do.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm still on the don't impeach side (in the minority, according to polls). But that doesn't mean I don't want to learn more about the situation.

Learning more about what exactly. They want to impeach over a phone call. That call is now public. Sounds like we know the situation. If there is something wrong in that call then start the vote. Otherwise there is nothing to investigate.

I have consistently said I want anyone who did wrong to be punished. We have his whole phone call. It's time to put up or shut up, there is zero reason for Trump to do anything but stonewall an obvious witch hunt.

Had Trump not released the call then yes, there would be merit in a subpoena for it. The courts would probably have sort it out.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They want to impeach over a phone call.

You think the phone call was "perfect." I don't. I want to see the investigation continue.

Had Trump not released the call then yes, there would be merit in a subpoena for it.

You're confident that the "transcript" is all there is to the matter. I'm not.