The Impeachment of President Trump
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
No, but apparently you're talking to voices in your head, as nobody cited Fox News.
Here, look again:
"Overall, we rate The Balance Least Biased based on minimal use of loaded language and balanced reporting of financial news. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing and a clean fact check record." - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-balance/
So again, whatever you need to tell yourself to maintain your obviously false or biased view of reality.
I didn't say you did.
Last edited by a moderator:
So uhm basically, please correct me if I am wrong, but...Trump is appealing against the constitutional right of Congress to impeach him by ignoring the subpoena ? Yes? is that it.... ok.. I see...lol
what a joke....
what a joke....
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
So not only was that a complete non-sequitur, it was also imagined (as I still don't see anyone else who cited Fox News), and an excuse for name-calling.
Classy. But that often happens when facts upset your apple cart.
I've yet to see you not be wrong. Trump didn't appeal impeachment, as that is a political, not a judicial, process. Trump appealed subpoenas, which if challenged, relies on the court to enforce. And had the Democrats simply waited to get a court ruling, likely in their favor, their impeachment effort would have at least had some veneer of legal legitimacy. As it stands, being too impatient to get a court ruling means the "obstruction of Congress" is complete BS, as you cannot legally obstruct something just because the other guy is impatient. And them delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial just proves their impatience and need to remove the president were just lies to begin with.
Last edited by a moderator:
What were the grounds for appealing the subpoenas?
What were the grounds for his challenging the constitutional requirements and obligations of Congress?
what was his oath of office again?
Trump has sought to stone wall Congress and attempt to avoid impeachment by appealing the subpoenas. A part of his strategy to dis-empower Congress and preventing them from carrying out their constitutional obligations. He has indeed appealed against his impeachment by default and broken his oath of office.
The Democrat majority Congress has a mandate to ensure Trump is held accountable.
Well.... he has been impeached and will eventually stand trial in the Senate.
He will do anything he possibly can to ensure the trial in the Senate is a ridiculous charade and worse he has the solid backing of those who should know better.
Until the Senate can provide a reasonable trial process Congress has every reasons to with hold. Quite justifiable to with hold when the Senate has already admitted to corruption.
Last edited:
And an analogy is lost on you.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Executive privilege and legal immunity, both used by many presidents, including the Obama administration in refusing Congressional subpoenas.
Again, he has not challenged any constitutional obligations of Congress. He is just asking the judiciary to settle a dispute between the legislative and executive branches. All completely legal, as laid out in the Constitution...that he is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend, even against Democrats in Congress seeking to sidestep the judiciary's legal role in such matters.
Appealing subpoenas as a Constitutional recourse would never avoid impeachment, as is obvious in the fact that the House voted to impeach, even without those witnesses. And had they allowed the time for judicial rulings, their second article of impeachment wouldn't be a complete joke.
How did he supposedly "dis-empower Congress and preventing them from carrying out their constitutional obligations"? They still impeached him, genius. Legal appeals are literally preserving the Constitution, rather than letting Dems run roughshod over legal remedies to conflicts between separate but equal branches of government.
The Dems only have a majority in the House, not all of Congress. And what you think he has to held accountable for is just as ignorant as your demonstrated illiteracy of the US Constitution, law, and government.
Exactly, which shows your nonsense about dis-empowering Congress to be an ignorant lie.
They know better than you and the wholly politically motivated Dems.
Again, The House is not all of Congress. Congress is composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. So more of your obvious ignorance. As long as the House withholds (one word) the articles, nothing will happen. The House has zero say over the operation of the Senate, and vice versa. And your notions of corruption are just as demonstrably ignorant as everything else you say.
Again, keep telling yourself whatever you need to.
My mom says I'm special.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
I'm sure she's right.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Faux(fake) Pews(its a religion of fakeness of their conspiracy theories lining up in their pews)
FauxPews
fakes sitting in their church
get some pew pew pews
By directing Federal employees to openly defy Congressional investigation, and withhold testimony from oversight committees - among other obstructions.
A 10% spending cut from sequestration, even if real (it wasn't), does not account for a 25+% reduction of the deficit - apparently Obama's efforts to restore some sanity to the US economy following the Republican crash and utter budgetary fiasco (W was fighting the Iraq War off budget, for chrissake) managed to cut the Republican budget deficit by a third or more in only three years despite active obstruction from the Republican Congress. Who knew?
I hadn't realized Obama had done that much that quickly - he appeared largely ineffectual at the time, unable to get much of anything past the Senate Republican filibuster while insisting on negotiating with Republican Congressmen and appealing to reason - a deluded strategy some had hoped to avoid by installing a non-Clinton in the White House.
Of course the Republican hole was too deep for any one President to fill even in two terms - the US economy was near collapse, remains fragile and debt-ridden; meanwhile the loss of wealth suffered by the ordinary citizen during the Republican Party disaster has yet to be made up.
whynwhynwhy
Registered Member
It's just like the game of thrones. Both parties have been playing favoritism.
In that analogy, the Republican Party is the White Walker side. The other "Party" is everybody else.
Which "Party" is yours?
whynwhynwhy
Registered Member
Honestly, I'm not a member of those interest groups(lobbyists). So I'm actually a freethinker. I like both though. One party is like the old-fashioned food. The other is like...quite similar to the fast food. Lol.
So in a choice between the White Walkers and the Human Beings, you would be neutral - no preference.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
as/re impeachment, I keep thinking:
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,. And then is heard no more. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing
seriously
what are the odds that 2/3 of the the senate will vote for impeachment?
I suspect that a person with an IQ of 90 could have figured out that this would likely go no-where?
Ok
Then why do it?
Pandering?
To whom?
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,. And then is heard no more. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing
seriously
what are the odds that 2/3 of the the senate will vote for impeachment?
I suspect that a person with an IQ of 90 could have figured out that this would likely go no-where?
Ok
Then why do it?
Pandering?
To whom?