Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Chachie]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Start jailing people who refuse to comply, charged with obstruction of justice. 

 

 

Why this hasn't been the case from the start, I'll never understand. No matter how many times Congress says "Nobody is above the law," we find out minutes later that plenty of people are WAY above the law. 

 

I know, I know- due process. Poop on that. Due process is exactly how and why the White Haus and Field Marshall Barr will skate on all this. Just wait them out and laugh while they bawl.

[twa]

Congress is not the LAW, there are certainly things beyond congress's reach.

[NoCalMike]

Well looks like Hope Hicks is cooperating, at least partially. Trump probably not thrilled. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by NoCalMike

[Cooked Crack]

Carter Page is the new MLK according to conservatives.

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The demands are unprecedented.....some even ridiculous, such as all of the redacted parts of the Mueller report. 

 

It will all work out in time. 

 

 

 

 

 

Unprecedented situations are pretty likely to have unprecedented reactions. Not since Nixon have we seen a POTUS with so much evidence against him that he committed crimes while in office. And Trump has even more evidence against him than Nixon did. Way more documented incidents of potential obstruction.

 

Also, Nixon released his tax returns and didn't have a ton of shady overseas business dealings that could potentially impact or compromise his decision making as POTUS. 

 

Nixon never tried to illegally shift funds from the military into a pet project to please his supporters.

 

Nixon can't even touch Trump as far as how much shady crap he has going on.

 

Seeing the unredacted report in light of all of this is understandable, especially if they are moving towards impeachment hearings. As is wanting to see his tax returns.

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The demands are unprecedented.....some even ridiculous, such as all of the redacted parts of the Mueller report. 

 

It will all work out in time. 

 

 

 

 

 

Admiring the notion of someone who had no problem with the Whitewater or Benghazi investigations except for the fact that he's sure Hillary didn't hand over enough, announcing that it is perfectly acceptable for an Executive to refuse to comply with any congressional subpoenas whatsoever, from an investigation which began weeks ago, because . . . . Wait for it . . . . . The demands are unprecedented. 

 

(Insert definition of chutzpah here.)

[twa]

Moving towards is not legal justification, IF they want to actually start impeachment proceedings we can address what changes are likely.

 

Do you have any evidence his shifting of funds is illegal???....the folk overseeing it seem to have a different opinion.

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Admiring the notion of someone who had no problem with the Whitewater or Benghazi investigations except for the fact that he's sure Hillary didn't hand over enough, announcing that it is perfectly acceptable for an Executive to refuse to comply with any congressional subpoenas whatsoever, from an investigation which began weeks ago, because . . . . Wait for it . . . . . The demands are unprecedented. 

 

(Insert definition of chutzpah here.)

 

There was quite a bit not turned over during those investigations as well as fast and furious.

 

Chutzpah is your mantle 

[Larry]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

Congress is not the LAW, there are certainly things beyond congress's reach.

 

Congress' authority to oversee the other two branches SUPERCEDES the law. (Because it's a constitutional authority, rather than a legislated power.)

 

It's kinda like executive privilege, except congress's oversight authority actually exists in the constitution. 

[mistertim]

Just now, twa said:

Moving towards is not legal justification, IF they want to actually start impeachment proceedings we can address what changes are likely.

 

Do you have any evidence his shifting of funds is illegal???....the folk overseeing it seem to have a different opinion.

 

That's like telling a cop who sees what looks like a bag of cocaine sitting in a car center console that he can't search without an arrest warrant. Shouldn't they have access to all of the facts before having to proceed to impeachment?

 

As far as the folks overseeing the fund-shifting, they've basically been the only ones who have said "yes, this is totally legit" outside of pure partisan hacks who may have once been lawyers. I can't think of any objective lawyers who have chimed in on this who have said "yep, totally on the level". 

[NoCalMike]

In a way you can say all this refusal to turn over documents is a test run, should the House actually start impeachment proceedings.  Who is to say if they go down that road, that suddenly documents start getting turned over?  Highly doubt it. 

[twa]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Congress' authority to oversee the other two branches SUPERCEDES the law. (Because it's a constitutional authority, rather than a legislated power.)

 

It's kinda like executive privilege, except congress's oversight authority actually exists in the constitution. 

 

Congresses oversight is over legislation  and impeachment

 

btw

 

Quote

 

No provision of the Constitution expressly authorizes either house of Congress to make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions effectively and advisedly.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/05-congressional-investigations.html

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

That's like telling a cop who sees what looks like a bag of cocaine sitting in a car center console that he can't search without an arrest warrant. Shouldn't they have access to all of the facts before having to proceed to impeachment?

 

As far as the folks overseeing the fund-shifting, they've basically been the only ones who have said "yes, this is totally legit" outside of pure partisan hacks who may have once been lawyers. I can't think of any objective lawyers who have chimed in on this who have said "yep, totally on the level". 

 

Congress is not a cop, not even a judge or jury UNLESS impeachment proceedings begin....investigation is part of impeachment hearings.

[mistertim]

38 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Congresses oversight is over legislation  and impeachment

 

btw

 

 

 

 

Congress is not a cop, not even a judge or jury UNLESS impeachment proceedings begin....investigation is part of impeachment hearings.

 

Just so I understand....NOW you're a strict constructionist? I assume you were outraged by the Behghazi and email investigations then? 

[visionary]

 

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Well looks like Hope Hicks is cooperating, at least partially. Trump probably not thrilled. 

She is?

[twa]

25 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Just so I understand....NOW you're a strict constructionist? I assume you were outraged by the Behghazi and email investigations then? 

 

I thought them handled poorly, I'm not even outraged at some of the committees present demands....amused maybe .

 

speaking of which, some of congresses legal moves are a real hoot.

 

 

[Chachie]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

So the United States does negotiate with Terrorists. NK and Barr.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

Congresses oversight is over legislation  and impeachment

 

btw

 

 

 

 

Congress is not a cop, not even a judge or jury UNLESS impeachment proceedings begin....investigation is part of impeachment hearings.

 

Admiring the suddenly-discovered rule that congress may not request any information whatsoever from the executive branch until AFTER impeachment. 

 

It's amazing how many rules didn't exist until the President was Republican. 

[twa]

Admiring the way you manufacture bs.

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, twa said:

Admiring the way you manufacture bs.

 

Well it does seem to be your position, more or less. That the House can't demand documents about POTUS from the WH unless they've begun impeachment hearings. At least you keep returning to that. Is that not your stance?

Edited June 5, 2019 by mistertim

[twa]

59 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Well it does seem to be your position, more or less. That the House can't demand documents about POTUS from the WH unless they've begun impeachment hearings. At least you keep returning to that. Is that not your stance?

 

they can demand anything, however the law does not support that unilateral demand 🧐

 

the rules on executive privilege and immunity both exist and matter, as do prohibitions on GJ info and other ongoing legal matters

 

Impeachment hearings increase the need and right to testimony/documents by nature of exercising impeachment powers rather than legislative ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

they can demand anything, however the law does not support that unilateral demand 🧐

 

the rules on executive privilege and immunity both exist and matter, as do prohibitions on GJ info and other ongoing legal matters

 

Impeachment hearings increase the need and right to testimony/documents by nature of exercising impeachment powers rather than legislative ones.

 

 

Hold on a second. Executive privilege is mentioned in the Constitution as many times as Congress's ability to subpoena documents from the executive branch is...zero. You can't have it both ways. Either you're a strict constructionist or you aren't.

[twa]

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Hold on a second. Executive privilege is mentioned in the Constitution as many times as Congress's ability to subpoena documents from the executive branch is...zero. You can't have it both ways. Either you're a strict constructionist or you aren't.

 

so neither exist

 

when have I ever claimed to be a strict anything???  

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

I want to hear it! We need to know what these traitors were saying and doing.

[visionary]