Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns!!!!!
Democrats lose again!!!!!
Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns!!!!!
Democrats lose again!!!!!
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The House already impeached Trump. That is their duty. They had the opportunity to gather whatever evidence they felt necessary. They had the opportunity to have whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
Quit with the troll crap. I am not. Obama similarly ordered his people to refuse testifying. Remember Lois Lerner? She was the IRS head who committed terrible crimes. She was never held accountable. She refused to testify even though what she did was terrible. Every recent president has ordered their minions to not testify. I think they should testify but this is the way it is.
Even with the shorter days, some senators are nodding off. R’s are obviously resentful of having to do their jobs.
jesseriley wrote:
Even with the shorter days, some senators are nodding off. R’s are obviously resentful of having to do their jobs.
I just hope that they check on Bernie from time to time.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The House already impeached Trump. That is their duty. They had the opportunity to gather whatever evidence they felt necessary. They had the opportunity to have whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
^This
Are you on drugs Sally? You know damn well Trump prevented all the key witnesses with first hand knowledge from testifying. We would be looking at a year or more if they choose to fight it in court AND DONALD TRUMP KNOWS THAT! He is obstructing Congress. I couldn’t care less if the whistleblower or Hunter testify. Has absolutely nothing to with whether Trump did what he did.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
Quit with the troll crap. I am not. Obama similarly ordered his people to refuse testifying. Remember Lois Lerner? She was the IRS head who committed terrible crimes. She was never held accountable. She refused to testify even though what she did was terrible. Every recent president has ordered their minions to not testify. I think they should testify but this is the way it is.
you are a troll.
You said the Congress could have any witness they wanted and whatever evidence they wanted. That is a lie and you absolutely knew it was a lie when you wrote it.
You said it to troll.
Obama has nothing to do with this.
You said something you knew to be false, in order to get a reaction.
Liar and a troll you are. Clear as day.
Fat hurts wrote:
It is being reported that Tiny tried to repeal the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This is a very effective law that keeps companies around the world from engaging in bribery and extortion. Other developed nations have similar laws and these laws are broad enough that they cover a huge proportion of all businesses all over the world. Basically, any entity that does business in a country with a FCPA law can be prosecuted no matter where the corruption actually took place.
But Tiny argued that businesses should be allowed to demand and accept bribes. He said it wasn't fair.
You (and you liberal friends) are taking a narrow view of the corruption legislation. No sane republican is for corruption. The problem is the laws the libs want to pass have side effects. Yet simple and effective anti corruption legislation such as term limits for politician are ignored.
As usual, the issue is not as simple as the headlines imply. For a more in depth view of the situation you can read this paper.
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/2/153/4952051Trollminator wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Yep, that's reality...
Philbin following up w/ argument that Dems didn't show up with the evidence that the WH blocked so oh well.
This is not reality. Shifty claims he has overwhelming evidence. Please put it forward. There is no need for anything else. Why fish when the fish is already on the hook?
This is actually insane, their defense against accusations that trump abused his power for personal gain is to blame the House for not being able to extract additional evidence.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The House already impeached Trump. That is their duty. They had the opportunity to gather whatever evidence they felt necessary. They had the opportunity to have whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
It is called separation of powers. Trump is not subordinate to the house. The house can not force Trump to do anything it wants, just like Trump can not force the House to do what it wants.
-its_baddude wrote:
agip wrote:
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
It is called separation of powers. Trump is not subordinate to the house. The house can not force Trump to do anything it wants, just like Trump can not force the House to do what it wants.
Sally was saying something different- that the house could get from the exec branch whatever it wants. You are arguing my side here, thanks.
agip wrote:
-its_baddude wrote:
It is called separation of powers. Trump is not subordinate to the house. The house can not force Trump to do anything it wants, just like Trump can not force the House to do what it wants.
Sally was saying something different- that the house could get from the exec branch whatever it wants. You are arguing my side here, thanks.
This is one thing I am curious about. The House has oversight over the executive but how much power does the executive have to resist this oversight?
There are plenty of trolls who post on both sides of this issue on this thread so this question isn't for one of them since they will just answer in trollese.
This question is for someone who has some knowledge...
If Joe and Hunter Biden did something illegal in Ukraine, and if that's what Trump thinks, wouldn't it make sense to have the DOJ investigate instead of a foreign government? Am I missing something here?
I'll take the answer off the air.
Thank you!
question for someone who isn't a troll... wrote:
There are plenty of trolls who post on both sides of this issue on this thread so this question isn't for one of them since they will just answer in trollese.
This question is for someone who has some knowledge...
If Joe and Hunter Biden did something illegal in Ukraine, and if that's what Trump thinks, wouldn't it make sense to have the DOJ investigate instead of a foreign government? Am I missing something here?
I'll take the answer off the air.
Thank you!
Trump ask Ukraine to assist Barr.
As I said, this question is for someone who isn't a troll....
Beyond that, did the DOJ open an investigation on the Bidens? I didn't see that they did... maybe because they haven't done so but I could be wrong.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
Sally was saying something different- that the house could get from the exec branch whatever it wants. You are arguing my side here, thanks.
This is one thing I am curious about. The House has oversight over the executive but how much power does the executive have to resist this oversight?
it's always been a battle. Not Constitutionally clear. SCOTUS has said, more or less, that Congress has oversight of the exec branch because it has a responsibility to make sure the exec branch is spending Congress' money as congress told it to do. .
But that is a bit vague.
Here it's perfectly relevant...congress said give the money to ukraine and trump refused. GAO found that illegal,and I'm sure SCOTUS would rule Congress had the right to investigate with the help of the exec branch.
That’s obviously DOJ’s job, to open an investigation because an anonymous dumb@ss wants one.
For a smart poster you seem to have missed the point... they haven't opened an investigation because no laws were broken and the DOJ is aware of that...
Barr’s DOJ has opened several such investigations, but Hunter may be too obviously biased even for them.