U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[Jingthing 66,710]

2 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

which legal congressional rules ??? due process which gives also republicans subpoena power ???

the legal letter sent by the legal cousilor to pelosi on the 81019 explained it.

anyway the last word will be having the supreme court again and thats months away.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Congress makes the rules.

That's in the constitution. 

As far as minority party subpoena powers, so sorry, that was in the old rules before the REPUBLICANS changed them!

So cry me a river on that one.

Very short sighted of them.

The "legal" letter was not a legal letter. It was a political letter basically saying that in the U.S. system the president is not subject to congressional oversight. That's ultimately what this is going to be about. Do Americans want to give presidents now and in the future full dictator powers or will we continue respect the founders design -- that CONGRESS is a coequal power with the executive.

If we end up with presidents having dictator powers, say ba-bye to American democracy.

REAL conservatives, REAL republicans don't want to have presidents have dictator powers.

Would they want Elizabeth Warren to have dictator powers?

[mtls2005 13,670]

15 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

thats very easy ....the legal letter sent by the whouse legal counselor to pelosi on the 8.10.19

Precious. "legal letter". Yeah, right.

 

This letter isn't worth the paper it's written on. It offers only the most fleeting and spurious legal opinion - It's mainly one long whiney Trump-like tweet. Invoking a 1950's case, Watkins vs. United States, which is not even close to this situation, and is thus a joke.

 

Simply saying something is illegitmate and unconstitutional is hardly a valid legal precedent, nor does it make something "true".  By the way, I am handsome.

 

Pat Cippolone will rue the day he signed that bit of guano.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by mtls2005

[Thomas J 1,852]

Compare what Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian President versus what Joe Biden in his own words said he did and tell me which one used his position unlawfully. 

[Jingthing 66,710]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

Precious. "legal letter". Yeah, right.

 

This letter isn't worth the paper it's written on. It offers only the most fleeting and spurious legal opinion - It's mainy one long whiney Trump-like tweet. Invoking a 1950's case, Watkins vs. United States, which is not even close to this situation, is a joke.

 

Simply saying something is illegitmate and unconstitutional is hardly a valid legal precedent, nor does it make something "true".  By the way, I am handsome.

 

Pat Cippolone will rue the day he signed that bit of guano.

 

 

 

 

Yes his name will live in infamy if he's not totally forgotten, he'll hope that he is totally forgotten.

[mtls2005 13,670]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Compare what Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian President versus what Joe Biden in his own words said he did and tell me which one used his position unlawfully. 

 

Several points...

 

Joe Biden is not the President

Joe Biden is not the subject of an impeachment inquiry

Joe Biden was fulfilling his duties as VP, in full view, with the backing of the U.S. and many, many partners, in getting corrupt prosecutor removed.

This "story" has been fully debunked.

 

Joe Biden used his position lawfully.

 

Trump appears to have acted illegally, for his own personal benefit.

 

That said, I'm sure that the president will cooperate with the investigation as he did nothing wrong?

[roobaa01 1,617]

12 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Precious. "legal letter". Yeah, right.

 

This letter isn't worth the paper it's written on. It offers only the most fleeting and spurious legal opinion - It's mainly one long whiney Trump-like tweet. Invoking a 1950's case, Watkins vs. United States, which is not even close to this situation, and is thus a joke.

 

Simply saying something is illegitmate and unconstitutional is hardly a valid legal precedent, nor does it make something "true".  By the way, I am handsome.

 

Pat Cippolone will rue the day he signed that bit of guano.

 

 

 

 

assumptions only.

the correct piano chord is to call a vote, call the house of reps to vote on a motion to start impeachment inquiry but instead it was just a hypothetical political gambit- but the dems are going to find out if 217 vote. thats when the supreme court will rule months away.

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

[candide 10,177]

33 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Compare what Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian President versus what Joe Biden in his own words said he did and tell me which one used his position unlawfully.

He got a corrupt prosecutor (who was not investigating his son) fired. He did it to get her with the IMF and the EU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/imf-warns-ukraine-halt-40bn-bailout-corruption-christine-lagarde

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

[Tippaporn 8,375]

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

[bristolboy 18,041]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

Ho-ho-ho indeed!

"Mr. Gowdy was particularly critical of the State Department for not complying with requests for documents, and those past comments about the importance of responding document requests are likely to resurface in any defense of Mr. Trump."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-legal-team.html

[Tippaporn 8,375]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ho-ho-ho indeed!

"Mr. Gowdy was particularly critical of the State Department for not complying with requests for documents, and those past comments about the importance of responding document requests are likely to resurface in any defense of Mr. Trump."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-legal-team.html

As long as the requests are legit.  If they're not then I would predict that Gowdy would argue the case quite well.

[bristolboy 18,041]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

As long as the requests are legit.  If they're not then I would predict that Gowdy would argue the case quite well.

The House has the strong backing of the Constitution. The case was much more ambiguous when Gowdy led the House inquiry.

[Eric Loh 18,859]

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

If the Benghazi hearing was his finest moment, there is nothing to worry about him going anywhere.

[Rimmer 10,429]

Two off topic flames have been removed.  

[Becker 8,128]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

You mean Benghazi-Gowdy, the zealot who wasted millions of tax payers' dollars on a wild goose chase that (as opposed to the Mueller investigation) led to 0 (zero) convictions??

Yeah, I'm sure the dems are quaking in their boots!

[RideJocky 1,009]

You mean Benghazi-Gowdy, the zealot who wasted millions of tax payers' dollars on a wild goose chase that (as opposed to the Mueller investigation) led to 0 (zero) convictions??
Yeah, I'm sure the dems are quaking in their boots!

Yes, everyone knew it was the video that set off the Benghazi attack.