This is why the facts, no matter how you twist them, will not exonerate Trump

I have been trying to drive that point home but can't seem to make any headway

 

AMEN to that! ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

"Obstruction of Congress"

All the Democrats should be impeached for Obstruction of Presidential Duties.

Let's see, who continuously obstructs the Executive by withholding funding for national security along the border? Democrats
Who obstructs the President's foreign policy making? Democrats
Who screwed the country for political gain by delaying the USMCA trade deal? Democrats

It's a short bus clown show. Just when you thought the idea of an island tipping over was bad.......

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday that President Trump will not face conviction and removal in the GOP-controlled Senate as the House continued to debate articles of impeachment.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...diciary-debates-articles-impeachment-n1100121

They already figured out things including the risks involved.

 

In this thread, I think that you have done a really good job of getting Trump supporters to demonstrate why the facts don't matter.

 

There have yet to be some facts presented.

 

Well...what would you expect when the defendant gets to instruct the Jury. Roberts, as the Judge is almost irrelevant in this unless he grows a set and actually ACTS like a judge.

 

Certainly not when they are ignored. You are almost as bad as Congressional Republicans....ALMOST.

 

McConnel and the rest of the senate has been watching the democratic house. They already know what is coming. It would be surprising, if they did not know the outcome of the senate trial.

 

You want Roberts to ignore the Constitution? Fascinating.

 

What is there to ignore? What facts have been presented?

Answer: none.

 

Wrong


Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in ...

Wikipedia › wiki › Executive_privil...
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

 

Cite the clause in the Constitution that gives a House Committee supremacy over the executive branch. I seem to remember executive privilege that can be exerted to protect conversations between the President and those around him. If a Committee wants to compel testimony, there are judicial remedies. As it stands, Trump delivered testimony in the form of the transcript of the call in question. Nothing else needs to be said. Trump was not obligated to release the only facts of the case, but did. Since Democrats want to make stuff up because they don't have a candidate who can beat Trump, they should run to the courts and make their case.

 

Them not realizing that sole power of impeachment only means no other body can carry out impeachment. It does not confer absolute power to deny the rights of the accused.

Of course they do understand, so they're really just creating theater for their woke audience.

 

They know this. They don't want this.
They are putting on a political show with no teeth, giving their wokesters a gum job to get giddy over.

 

Actually, I want him to champion it.

 

By ignoring it and doing the bidding of the dem clown show. Interesting.

 

Hah! Exactly what I'm looking for. The fact that you resort to a strawman that was preemptively debunked right on the first paragraph of the OP shows me that you got the point, and that you don't like it.

Two possibilities: he either gets removed and Republican give themselves a fighting chance. Or he isn't and they pay the price. Because as I have shown, and as your post denotes (probably by accident) you have realized, the facts won't exonerate him from Article 2, no matter what.

I predict the same I have predicted on every thread about this: it won't get him removed. Which, as I have said over and over, is the worst outcome for our Constitution but, electorally speaking, the best outcome for Democrats. But every time a Republican accuses me of "thinking" exactly the opposite of what I have said, I know I have made my point.

 

Yeah, the dem clown show narrative without proof is the worst outcome for our Constitution. The dem clown show spying on members of Congress, the press, and others is the worst outcome for our Constitution. The highly partisan dems unilaterally trying to remove the President is the worst outcome for our Constitution.

But hey, live in your fantasy world where normal people don't understand your 'truth' and can see what is happening right before our eyes.

 

Article 2 section 4 does not give the house authority to deny rights or uniformly override executive privilege. Sorry for your 2nd grade understanding.

 

Then why didn't the Dems choose to pursue legal action against those who defied their subpoenas?

Why did they go straight for impeachment without litigating any of it in the courts?

 

I don't need to be too knowledgeable to rebut you. I just need to be more knowledgeable than you.. And that's a pretty low bar.

I mean...

... how knowledgeable would I even need to be to understand the difference between "the courts" and the House of Representatives. Or to know that nowhere in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution is there any reference to "the courts". Which makes your quote absolutely ludicrous.

False! When addressed by the courts, rejected! (U.S.. v Nixon - Judiciary v Miers) as explained by Nadler yesterday.

But you can stop there because it's irrelevant. Not only has the President not invoked Executive Privilege (the cases in which the President can invoke it are limited, and not applicable here) but this is Impeachment.

Happy to know you understand that it's an "excuse". But I think that the fact that they haven't invoked executive privilege is clear sign that the're not going to use it. But, if they did... it would make me extremely happy. I'd love to see them trying to defend before the American people that the President of the United States can do whatever the hell he wants because he has this "absolute immunity". Democrats would have a field day....

 

You're not debating Trump, you're debating Socratica, and doing it poorly.

What specific piece of physical evidence are you asking for, so that your Nixon comparison has a lick of applicability?

 

I hope Trump calls up a random country...Macedonia maybe...puts the call live on the Internet...and asks Macedonia to look into Joe Biden after this current attempt is over.

**** Democrats.

 

I don't understand where your confusion lies. The congressional subpoena power isn't absolute; therefore, if they believe someone should comply with a Congressional Subpoena, they need to settle that matter in court.

The president doesn't need to invoke it; he has it. Plan in simple.

On July 9, 2007,counsel to Ms. Miers informed Chairman Conyers that, pursuant to letters received from the White House Counsel, Miers would not answer questions or produce documents. The next day Ms. Miers’scounsel announced that she would not appear at all. Also on July 10, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion stating that “Ms. Miers is [absolutely] immune from compulsion to testify before the Committee on this matter and therefore is not required to appear to testify about the subject.” Citing previous OLC opinions, the opinion asserted that since the President is the head of one of the independent branches of the federal government, “If a congressional committee could force the President’s appearance, fundamental separation of powers principles—including the President’s independence and autonomy from Congress—would be threatened.” Consequently, “[t]he same separation of powers principles that protect a President from compelled congressional testimony also apply to senior presidential advisors” because such appearances would be tantamount to the President himself appearing. The fact that Ms. Miers was a former counsel to the President would not alter the analysis since, in OLC’s view, “a presidential advisor’s immunity is derivative of the President’s.” Neither Ms. Miers nor Mr. Bolten complied with the subpoenas by the return dates.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf

You're not saying anything but an opinion, but I guess that's the problem; all you seem to have is an opinion. You've cited zero facts, legal opinions, or evidence but you've accumulated 15,000+ post in two years so I guess that makes you qualified for something.