Trump impeachment testimonies start today

Ok, so we've come full circle back to prosecuting for ignoring a subpoena.
Please refund me 5 minutes of my life.

 

Could you point me to the part in the Constitution or the law that ascribes to the Executive oversight duties over the legislative branch?

Unless you can point to that, the fact stands that the AG can subpoena Nadler's tax and financial records under the same conditions and authority he has to subpoena any other private citizen's.

 

Yes we do. Unless your argument is that we are all completely brain dead.

( HON. WILLIAM H. PAULEY III ):Mr. Cohen, it's my judgment, sir, that on 18 CR 602* that you be sentenced to a term of 36 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release on each count to be served concurrently with the sentence that I will impose in a moment on 18 CR 850.
(*18 Cr. 602: Counts Seven and Eight: Campaign Finance Violations)​

As a matter of fact, the payment was what made this sentence more severe.

"Further, Mr. Cohen committed two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 presidential election with the intent to influence the outcome of that election. He made or facilitated payments to silence two women who threatened to go public with details of purported extramarital affairs, and Mr. Cohen admitted that he did so in coordination with and at the direction of Individual One."
...
"Mr. Cohen's crimes implicate a far more insidious harm to our democratic institutions, especially in view o"f his subsequent plea to making false statements to Congress. Thus, the need for general deterrence is amplified in this case."
...
​

Only thing we don't know is who the hell is "Individual One".... hmmmmm... I wonder....

 

Not according to the Constitution.

 

No

 

Yes, you are correct that he can, but only for specific probable cause (though there is a twist about congresspeople being free from arrest while serving in congress.) But the AG cannot issue a subpoena to any congressperson or any of their staff without specific cause and for the purpose only to explore what they are doing. That would be a clear violation of the separation of powers, and which also puts a very high bar on the specific probable clause purpose requiring an explicit and egregious act. The executive branch does not have oversight authority or responsibility over congress, congress people, or congressional staff. Congress has no general oversight authority or responsibility over the personnel in the executive branch other than specific cause that legislation is not being followed.

 

Your post is curious and interesting; I will have to do more research. The single slippery word is "each" where the judge says he is giving a three-year sentence "on each count." If accurate it would not be what the judge agreed to with the SDNY on grouping the counts with one group sentence. Maybe "each" is just throw away boiler plate and not literal. Or maybe "each count" only includes 6 of the 8 counts. Or maybe he meant what he said which was each count got a three-year sentence which would mean that the judge ignored his agreement with the SDNY and in fact Cohen was sentenced to three years for counts 7 and 8 which were the campaign contribution counts -- in which case you would be correct.

 

• Count 7: Causing an Unlawful Corporate Contribution
• Count 8: Excessive Campaign Contribution

 

Yeah he is on probation for each count....the Judge didn't depart at all from his sentencing guidelines

 

Then your claim that Trump is running a dictatorship is an oxymoron.

 

So you believe that Fidel Castro, just to put one example, was not running a dictatorship because they had periodic presidential elections (I think it was every 6 years). Which, BTW, Fidel always won with 100% of the vote. Your "logic" implies that that wasn't a dictatorship.

 

Ok, then I guess you are implying that Democratic Party will be eliminated and the US will become a single-party state where the President will be running unopposed?
Is that where you are trying to take it?

 

I have no idea what a Trump dictatorship would look like. But it would be ugly.

 

So, you claim dictatorship is inevitable and yet have no idea of how it’s going to happen?

You just have an urge to talk crap about the president from opposing party no matter how ridiculous some of your claims are. “He will be a dictator! I don’t know how, I don’t know when, but I know that because I hate his political views!” That’s all that your claim about dictatorship is coming down to.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Trump, but claiming that he will become a dictator when there is a record number of judicial injunctions against his administration from local courts is ridiculous.

 

False! I have never said such a thing.

Please don't compensate for the fact that you can't respond to what I do say by making up crap that I didn't say!

 

Oh really? Your words right here:

So, see, again, you claimed that Trump will become a dictator but then you claim you never said that. Anat happened? Did you start to see how ridiculous your claim is? If so then just admit it and move on.

 

What the f...

How dishonest!

No!!!! My words here

In other words, if all those things continue unchallenged and unpunished, that will mean we have a dictator.

The worst kind of dishonesty there is is taking words out of context. You deserve no respect!

Go away!

 

You did that again!
What you are saying is that if trump is re-elected he will be a dictator.

 

You need to learn that you can't have a normal political discussion with crazy.

 

Ha ha, did you write the OP, or was it hacked by the Russians.

 

Stop taking my words out of contest. If Trump is re-elected AND his crimes go unpunished AND he continues committing the same crimes (stonewalling oversight, usurpation of the powers of other branches of government, disregarding the constitution and the laws, etc)... he will, in fact, be a dictator.

That's the definition of dictator: somebody with absolute power.

As for your questions. Not knowing when, how it will happen or how it will look like, if there will be elections, if there will be other political parties... and so on... none of that removes that fundamental fact.

 

I’m not. Could it be that you don’t understand what you are saying?

Well, punishing a POTUS is impeachment. Impeachment is not really happening now, so, all you are saying is that if Trump is elected and....

... he continues to do what he does, which re-election will be interpreted by him as approval of the way he is doing things, therefore not changing anything.

There you go, you made the same argument for the third time - if trump is re-elected then he will become a dictator.

Funny enough, you can’t even explain how and why this will happen. But if he does win in 2020 I can safely assume you will cry, not realizing that your own extreme rhetoric contributed to his win. You claim Trump will be a dictator without any proof for only one reason - his political views differ from yours.

 

The testimonies will be a waste of time. Nothing more than a continued attempt to go take have at him other than the Porn star every one else already testified multiple times. When will they stop eAting our money and get something constructive done.

Time for term limits. The Democrat lead House hearings have accomplished little if nothing

.

 

I hoped he will admit he was wrong when I cornered him, but his strategy of denying his own words and then repeating them in the same post is just cute and hilarious at the same time.

 

Right. Trump is acting as a dictator now. And he is being protected by corrupt lackeys. And he is not being held accountable. Therefore if, as you say, nothing changes, he could perpetuate himself as a dictator. Which means that we will be officially living in a dictatorship (QED)

See? It wasn't that hard to understand.

You took one step forward only to then take three backwards. Again: No! You might believe that omitting the "Ands" is helping you make your strawman credible. But it's only showing that you have no arguments so you can only resort to obfuscating by dishonestly taking statements out of context.

You need me to explain to you how or why somebody who has absolute unchecked power is a dictator? That's like asking me to explain how or why a circle is round. It's the definition!

I expect that kind of constant "why" questions from my 6 year old niece. But never thought I'd see them in a Political Forum.