Cooked Crack Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Gowdy getting an early start at his future job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 I'd say that's true of a bunch of our foreign policy positions and allies. They no longer trust us. Because Trump and Republicans. That's just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 The Nation: Don’t Count the Senate Out on Impeachment Talk about pure fantasy. There is no way in hell, you will get 20 GOPers to convict Trump. I doubt you even get 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said: I'd say that's true of a bunch of our foreign policy positions and allies. They no longer trust us. Because Trump and Republicans. That's just sad. At this point there is only one element allies can trust - Trump calls them human scum (Hint they are not Dems). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Yeah right. The GOP created Donald Trump, bent over for Donald Trump, and is actively helping Donald Trump destroy every American alliance & democratic norm for some votes and donors. The GOP is a bunch of whores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 I'm shocked. Anybody else shocked? Can we change the name to "Obstruction of Justice Department"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 14 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: The Nation: Don’t Count the Senate Out on Impeachment Talk about pure fantasy. There is no way in hell, you will get 20 GOPers to convict Trump. I doubt you even get 5. How many GOP senators in races they could lose? If the poll results start turning on them in there races, I can see some freaking out (they already scared about it in private) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Yeah, the real trial of Donald Trump, and the real jury, is the public square. Where, unfortunately, there are a lt less rules. (And one side is perfectly fine with breaking all of them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 14 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: The Nation: Don’t Count the Senate Out on Impeachment Talk about pure fantasy. There is no way in hell, you will get 20 GOPers to convict Trump. I doubt you even get 5. There's either going to be 1 (Romney) with 2-3 Dems voting no... or there's going to be 40. It will be near unanimous either way. GOP won't force members to take hard votes... if someone important decides that Republicans have a much better shot in 2020 without Trump than with him, they'll all bail on him at the same time. I don't really see it... yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Larry said: I'm shocked. Anybody else shocked? Can we change the name to "Obstruction of Justice Department"? Not sure if we can, but we definitely should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Please proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: So, Don, You gonna tell the Obstruction of Justice Department to quit demanding that every search warrant has to go through the Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 So............he wants to be impeached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Frankly, I think each and every person who defies these subpoenas should be in a holding cell. They know they have been legally and properly executed. They know that if it were any other President that they would obey them. Hell, Bill Clinton never tried to block them in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 24 minutes ago, visionary said: "Says this may warrant contempt proceedings" I hope Chairman Schiff will understand why some of us will regard this threat as laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 21 minutes ago, Burgold said: Frankly, I think each and every person who defies these subpoenas should be in a holding cell. They know they have been legally and properly executed. They know that if it were any other President that they would obey them. Hell, Bill Clinton never tried to block them in this way. last i checked, subpoenas were not optional. must be nice to have that kind of privilege regardless of 45's ultimate fate, the damage to the institutions repubs used to pretend to hold sacrosanct is evident and will not be repaired in my lifetime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, StillUnknown said: last i checked, subpoenas were not optional. must be nice to have that kind of privilege regardless of 45's ultimate fate, the damage to the institutions repubs used to pretend to hold sacrosanct is evident and will not be repaired in my lifetime Disagree. There could be a genuine desire to try to plug many of the holes 45 exploited before someone else tries again. If it does happen, the discussion will be had in the first term, and whether we trust it will depend on when its tested again. I believe the institutions didnt totally collapse and held their ground better then most government could hope for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 44 minutes ago, Burgold said: Frankly, I think each and every person who defies these subpoenas should be in a holding cell. They know they have been legally and properly executed. They know that if it were any other President that they would obey them. Hell, Bill Clinton never tried to block them in this way. I don't think I'd be quite that broad with that brush. OK, maybe 99% of them are simply giving the finger, while making some kind of mumbo-jumbo that they know isn't valid in the first place. Something comparable to claiming "this subpoena is invalid because it's not on green paper." But, say, Krupperman's lawsuit, which I read as saying "Hey, your honor, I've got orders here, ne from the Congress, one from the Attorney General, giving me contradictory orders. Can you give me a ruling on what's the legal thing to do?" sounds to me like a valid question to ask a court. If we're voting on Contempt resolutions, I'm not sure I'd vote for one for him. At least based on what tiny bit I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Larry said: I don't think I'd be quite that broad with that brush. OK, maybe 99% of them are simply giving the finger, while making some kind of mumbo-jumbo that they know isn't valid in the first place. Something comparable to claiming "this subpoena is invalid because it's not on green paper." But, say, Krupperman's lawsuit, which I read as saying "Hey, your honor, I've got orders here, ne from the Congress, one from the Attorney General, giving me contradictory orders. Can you give me a ruling on what's the legal thing to do?" sounds to me like a valid question to ask a court. If we're voting on Contempt resolutions, I'm not sure I'd vote for one for him. At least based on what tiny bit I understand. I can buy that with the caveat that the Attorney General's orders are likely unlawful and he should face consequences for pushing this practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 I don't have an issue with someone asking a judge for guidance if they are being told two different things. However, if the judge rules that they need to comply with the subpoena and then they simply move onto some other reason why they aren't going to show up, then there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, Burgold said: I can buy that with the caveat that the Attorney General's orders are likely unlawful and he should face consequences for pushing this practice. Congress can impeach the AG. I sure think Obstruction of Justice is warranted. Betsy de Vos ignoring court orders might well qualify, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.