Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Since Mueller determined that neither Trump nor ANYONE in his campaign conspired with or colluded with any foreign government then we can be pretty damned sure that our President isn't under the thumb of a foreign adversary. This had descended to nothing more than political harassment by way of the legal system.It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.
"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."
"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."
"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"
The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch
And before you bitch about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.
Just sayin'.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.
"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."
"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."
"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"
The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch
And before you bitch about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.
Just sayin'.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
After two plus years and $40M, there is No There There.
Since Mueller determined that neither Trump nor ANYONE in his campaign conspired with or colluded with any foreign government then we can be pretty damned sure that our President isn't under the thumb of a foreign adversary. This had descended to nothing more than political harassment by way of the legal system.Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.
Just sayin'.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
It doesn't take collusion or conspiracy for a President to be exposed to some kind of pressure by a foreign adversary. Putin was asked and answered very clearly, that he wanted Trump to win the election. Without his tax returns we have no idea where he is getting his money from, including business 'loans.' We already know he can't get a loan from U.S. banks because he has lost so much money and filed bankruptcy so many time.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.
Just sayin'.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
After two plus years and $40M, there is No There There.
Oh? Have you seen the full unredacted Mueller report? Do tell, I'd love to hear what hasn't been reported yet.
Since Mueller determined that neither Trump nor ANYONE in his campaign conspired with or colluded with any foreign government then we can be pretty damned sure that our President isn't under the thumb of a foreign adversary. This had descended to nothing more than political harassment by way of the legal system.It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.
Just sayin'.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
It doesn't take collusion or conspiracy for a President to be exposed to some kind of pressure by a foreign adversary. Putin was asked and answered very clearly, that he wanted Trump to win the election. Without his tax returns we have no idea where he is getting his money from, including business 'loans.' We already know he can't get a loan from U.S. banks because he has lost so much money and filed bankruptcy so many time.
Trump has been audited for decades. There is no there there. If there were, it would already have been found by Meuller or leaked to the press. This is document dive is a Beria-esque police state tactic.
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.
Just sayin'.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
After two plus years and $40M, there is No There There.
Oh? Have you seen the full unredacted Mueller report? Do tell, I'd love to hear what hasn't been reported yet.
Read it yourself. 98% is not redacted. The redacted bits pertain to Grand Jury investigations.
The bottom line: no indictments. Hence, no there there.
What exactly is wrongdoing here?
Really? It's not some kind or information that Congress shouldn't be able to get. It's one of Congress responsibilities to oversee the Executive branch from wrong doings... it's in the Constitution.
"It's in Constitution."
This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?
It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.
"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."
"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."
"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"
The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch
And before you bitch about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
Really? It's not some kind or information that Congress shouldn't be able to get. It's one of Congress responsibilities to oversee the Executive branch from wrong doings... it's in the Constitution.
"It's in Constitution."
This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?
It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.
"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."
"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."
"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"
The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch
And before you bitch about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Finally, you posted the text of the constitution that claims congressional oversight. Unlike you, I don't rely on Wikipedia or TV shows to tell me what to think or write, since everything you post here is already written someplace else. You're too dumb to post something on your own.
Have you noticed, and your Wikipedia link also state it, that congressional powers are implied to enumerated powers of Congress. Those enumerated powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. and are related to government official business that they have oversight of. To this extent, I agree with you.
Today we have Democrat party that hijacked the House of Representatives as a tool used, not to comply with constitutional activities like passing legislation, budgets, spending, etc, but dedicate six committees to destruction of the president they don't like. Scores of subpoenas were issued, not about presidents official conduct, not about his conduct as president, but demanding his personal financial information, bank accounts, tax returns, demanding information about his businesses, all that occurred before he became president.
Democrats got their criminal investigation based on hoax that appointed Mueller as special prosecutor, and when Mueller didn't deliver the result they wanted, they're claiming congressional oversight to go after the president and people related to him personally or professionally, to get what they want.
One thing you mentioned above is "checks and balances" and they're also exercised by separation of powers. Congressional oversight doesn't give them unlimited power. Congressional subpoenas that Congress is not using to conduct official government business, but abusing that power to get what they can't legally get, can be challenged. Challenging subpoena is not obstruction of justice, it's a dispute that can get resolved thru the court.
Congress claim they have right to something, president claim executive privilege. Exercising executive privilege is not obstruction of anything, it's president's power to tell congress, it's not your business and you can't have it. That issue can be settle in court, and I hope it will be.
Let's say you're in court testifying as witness, and prosecuting lawyer ask you a question, and defending lawyer object that question, it's up to the judge to decide is question allowable, and is objection sustained. That is part of normal legal procedure and that's what we have now in between congress and executive branch. But no, Democrats are screaming that "objection" to their subpoenas and requests are obstruction. No, it's not, it's part of our legal system that is based on laws and checks and balances.
Now go back to CNN and MSNBC and see if you can find something to refute what I just said.
"It's in Constitution."
This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?
It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.
"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."
"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."
"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"
The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch
And before you bitch about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Finally, you posted the text of the constitution that claims congressional oversight. Unlike you, I don't rely on Wikipedia or TV shows to tell me what to think or write, since everything you post here is already written someplace else. You're too dumb to post something on your own.
Have you noticed, and your Wikipedia link also state it, that congressional powers are implied to enumerated powers of Congress. Those enumerated powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. and are related to government official business that they have oversight of. To this extent, I agree with you.
Today we have Democrat party that hijacked the House of Representatives as a tool used, not to comply with constitutional activities like passing legislation, budgets, spending, etc, but dedicate six committees to destruction of the president they don't like. Scores of subpoenas were issued, not about presidents official conduct, not about his conduct as president, but demanding his personal financial information, bank accounts, tax returns, demanding information about his businesses, all that occurred before he became president.
Democrats got their criminal investigation based on hoax that appointed Mueller as special prosecutor, and when Mueller didn't deliver the result they wanted, they're claiming congressional oversight to go after the president and people related to him personally or professionally, to get what they want.
One thing you mentioned above is "checks and balances" and they're also exercised by separation of powers. Congressional oversight doesn't give them unlimited power. Congressional subpoenas that Congress is not using to conduct official government business, but abusing that power to get what they can't legally get, can be challenged. Challenging subpoena is not obstruction of justice, it's a dispute that can get resolved thru the court.
Congress claim they have right to something, president claim executive privilege. Exercising executive privilege is not obstruction of anything, it's president's power to tell congress, it's not your business and you can't have it. That issue can be settle in court, and I hope it will be.
Let's say you're in court testifying as witness, and prosecuting lawyer ask you a question, and defending lawyer object that question, it's up to the judge to decide is question allowable, and is objection sustained. That is part of normal legal procedure and that's what we have now in between congress and executive branch. But no, Democrats are screaming that "objection" to their subpoenas and requests are obstruction. No, it's not, it's part of our legal system that is based on laws and checks and balances.
Now go back to CNN and MSNBC and see if you can find something to refute what I just said.
Unlike you, as I said, it has nothing to do with wikipedia or tv. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
And your smart ass response I already predicted, that's why from the very jump I told you to Google and educate yourself from whatever crap source you want to believe.
I've taken several course in getting my degrees that involve knowing the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and laws... but since I can't remake Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and take you into a phone booth and go back in time to those classes to show you how learning takes place, I'm forced to send you links because you don't trust my posts... and no matter what sites I linked you'd bitch about it. It's almost like I'm psychic.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
To conduct the investigation, you have to have a crime.
What exact crime president conducted that needs to be investigated.
I'm wondering how many times I'll have to ask this question before you provide the answer.
Your turn, go!
It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.
"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."
"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."
"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"
The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch
And before you bitch about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Finally, you posted the text of the constitution that claims congressional oversight. Unlike you, I don't rely on Wikipedia or TV shows to tell me what to think or write, since everything you post here is already written someplace else. You're too dumb to post something on your own.
Have you noticed, and your Wikipedia link also state it, that congressional powers are implied to enumerated powers of Congress. Those enumerated powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. and are related to government official business that they have oversight of. To this extent, I agree with you.
Today we have Democrat party that hijacked the House of Representatives as a tool used, not to comply with constitutional activities like passing legislation, budgets, spending, etc, but dedicate six committees to destruction of the president they don't like. Scores of subpoenas were issued, not about presidents official conduct, not about his conduct as president, but demanding his personal financial information, bank accounts, tax returns, demanding information about his businesses, all that occurred before he became president.
Democrats got their criminal investigation based on hoax that appointed Mueller as special prosecutor, and when Mueller didn't deliver the result they wanted, they're claiming congressional oversight to go after the president and people related to him personally or professionally, to get what they want.
One thing you mentioned above is "checks and balances" and they're also exercised by separation of powers. Congressional oversight doesn't give them unlimited power. Congressional subpoenas that Congress is not using to conduct official government business, but abusing that power to get what they can't legally get, can be challenged. Challenging subpoena is not obstruction of justice, it's a dispute that can get resolved thru the court.
Congress claim they have right to something, president claim executive privilege. Exercising executive privilege is not obstruction of anything, it's president's power to tell congress, it's not your business and you can't have it. That issue can be settle in court, and I hope it will be.
Let's say you're in court testifying as witness, and prosecuting lawyer ask you a question, and defending lawyer object that question, it's up to the judge to decide is question allowable, and is objection sustained. That is part of normal legal procedure and that's what we have now in between congress and executive branch. But no, Democrats are screaming that "objection" to their subpoenas and requests are obstruction. No, it's not, it's part of our legal system that is based on laws and checks and balances.
Now go back to CNN and MSNBC and see if you can find something to refute what I just said.
Unlike you, as I said, it has nothing to do with wikipedia or tv. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
And your smart ass response I already predicted, that's why from the very jump I told you to Google and educate yourself from whatever crap source you want to believe.
I've taken several course in getting my degrees that involve knowing the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and laws... but since I can't remake Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and take you into a phone booth and go back in time to those classes to show you how learning takes place, I'm forced to send you links because you don't trust my posts... and no matter what sites I linked you'd bitch about it. It's almost like I'm psychic.
Going to the law school, studying constitution, yet referring to Wikipedia when making the argument about the law.
And I don't trust you because you are shilling for marxism and socialism, on the top of all, which is a real gem.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
To conduct the investigation, you have to have a crime.
What exact crime president conducted that needs to be investigated.
I'm wondering how many times I'll have to ask this question before you provide the answer.
Your turn, go!
First off, a President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Second off, in order for the Congress to do their job of oversight and correctly run an investigation, it means they are going to have to look for info related to the acts they believe is worthy of impeaching the President, which can include his tax returns and other financial information.
Your claim is "It's in Constitution".
I asked you to cite the Constitution.
You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.
I can't dumb it down any more...
Quote the constitution. Can you?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Finally, you posted the text of the constitution that claims congressional oversight. Unlike you, I don't rely on Wikipedia or TV shows to tell me what to think or write, since everything you post here is already written someplace else. You're too dumb to post something on your own.
Have you noticed, and your Wikipedia link also state it, that congressional powers are implied to enumerated powers of Congress. Those enumerated powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. and are related to government official business that they have oversight of. To this extent, I agree with you.
Today we have Democrat party that hijacked the House of Representatives as a tool used, not to comply with constitutional activities like passing legislation, budgets, spending, etc, but dedicate six committees to destruction of the president they don't like. Scores of subpoenas were issued, not about presidents official conduct, not about his conduct as president, but demanding his personal financial information, bank accounts, tax returns, demanding information about his businesses, all that occurred before he became president.
Democrats got their criminal investigation based on hoax that appointed Mueller as special prosecutor, and when Mueller didn't deliver the result they wanted, they're claiming congressional oversight to go after the president and people related to him personally or professionally, to get what they want.
One thing you mentioned above is "checks and balances" and they're also exercised by separation of powers. Congressional oversight doesn't give them unlimited power. Congressional subpoenas that Congress is not using to conduct official government business, but abusing that power to get what they can't legally get, can be challenged. Challenging subpoena is not obstruction of justice, it's a dispute that can get resolved thru the court.
Congress claim they have right to something, president claim executive privilege. Exercising executive privilege is not obstruction of anything, it's president's power to tell congress, it's not your business and you can't have it. That issue can be settle in court, and I hope it will be.
Let's say you're in court testifying as witness, and prosecuting lawyer ask you a question, and defending lawyer object that question, it's up to the judge to decide is question allowable, and is objection sustained. That is part of normal legal procedure and that's what we have now in between congress and executive branch. But no, Democrats are screaming that "objection" to their subpoenas and requests are obstruction. No, it's not, it's part of our legal system that is based on laws and checks and balances.
Now go back to CNN and MSNBC and see if you can find something to refute what I just said.
Unlike you, as I said, it has nothing to do with wikipedia or tv. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
And your smart ass response I already predicted, that's why from the very jump I told you to Google and educate yourself from whatever crap source you want to believe.
I've taken several course in getting my degrees that involve knowing the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and laws... but since I can't remake Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and take you into a phone booth and go back in time to those classes to show you how learning takes place, I'm forced to send you links because you don't trust my posts... and no matter what sites I linked you'd bitch about it. It's almost like I'm psychic.
Going to the law school, studying constitution, yet referring to Wikipedia when making the argument about the law.
And I don't trust you because you are shilling for marxism and socialism, on the top of all, which is a real gem.
Not sure if you know this or not, but those little numbers at the end of pieces I shared from Wikipedia, lead to citations to legitimate resources.
The second statement is a strawman, because at no point have I ever said I support Marxism and socialism.
So that's where you go when you get beat down in discussion? Building strawman arguments you have nothing to support it with?
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
To conduct the investigation, you have to have a crime.
What exact crime president conducted that needs to be investigated.
I'm wondering how many times I'll have to ask this question before you provide the answer.
Your turn, go!
First off, a President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Second off, in order for the Congress to do their job of oversight and correctly run an investigation, it means they are going to have to look for info related to the acts they believe is worthy of impeaching the President, which can include his tax returns and other financial information.
The constitution is clear for what president can be impeached.
First off, you claim you're studying the law but you're ignoring the 25th Amendment, meaning you're full of shit.
Second, Congress oversight doesn't give them unlimited powers, nor putting them above the law they're claiming they follow. To prevent their abuse of power, there are checks and balances, and president can exercise his executive privilege to challenge their claims. That dispute should be resolved in front of third co-equal branch of government, the Supreme Court.
Third, what exact crime president committed that requires congressional investigation in order to invoke 25. Amendment?
It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "
Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia
Congressional oversight - Wikipedia
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.
Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.
Finally, you posted the text of the constitution that claims congressional oversight. Unlike you, I don't rely on Wikipedia or TV shows to tell me what to think or write, since everything you post here is already written someplace else. You're too dumb to post something on your own.
Have you noticed, and your Wikipedia link also state it, that congressional powers are implied to enumerated powers of Congress. Those enumerated powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. and are related to government official business that they have oversight of. To this extent, I agree with you.
Today we have Democrat party that hijacked the House of Representatives as a tool used, not to comply with constitutional activities like passing legislation, budgets, spending, etc, but dedicate six committees to destruction of the president they don't like. Scores of subpoenas were issued, not about presidents official conduct, not about his conduct as president, but demanding his personal financial information, bank accounts, tax returns, demanding information about his businesses, all that occurred before he became president.
Democrats got their criminal investigation based on hoax that appointed Mueller as special prosecutor, and when Mueller didn't deliver the result they wanted, they're claiming congressional oversight to go after the president and people related to him personally or professionally, to get what they want.
One thing you mentioned above is "checks and balances" and they're also exercised by separation of powers. Congressional oversight doesn't give them unlimited power. Congressional subpoenas that Congress is not using to conduct official government business, but abusing that power to get what they can't legally get, can be challenged. Challenging subpoena is not obstruction of justice, it's a dispute that can get resolved thru the court.
Congress claim they have right to something, president claim executive privilege. Exercising executive privilege is not obstruction of anything, it's president's power to tell congress, it's not your business and you can't have it. That issue can be settle in court, and I hope it will be.
Let's say you're in court testifying as witness, and prosecuting lawyer ask you a question, and defending lawyer object that question, it's up to the judge to decide is question allowable, and is objection sustained. That is part of normal legal procedure and that's what we have now in between congress and executive branch. But no, Democrats are screaming that "objection" to their subpoenas and requests are obstruction. No, it's not, it's part of our legal system that is based on laws and checks and balances.
Now go back to CNN and MSNBC and see if you can find something to refute what I just said.
Unlike you, as I said, it has nothing to do with wikipedia or tv. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
And your smart ass response I already predicted, that's why from the very jump I told you to Google and educate yourself from whatever crap source you want to believe.
I've taken several course in getting my degrees that involve knowing the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and laws... but since I can't remake Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and take you into a phone booth and go back in time to those classes to show you how learning takes place, I'm forced to send you links because you don't trust my posts... and no matter what sites I linked you'd bitch about it. It's almost like I'm psychic.
Going to the law school, studying constitution, yet referring to Wikipedia when making the argument about the law.
And I don't trust you because you are shilling for marxism and socialism, on the top of all, which is a real gem.
Not sure if you know this or not, but those little numbers at the end of pieces I shared from Wikipedia, lead to citations to legitimate resources.
The second statement is a strawman, because at no point have I ever said I support Marxism and socialism.
So that's where you go when you get beat down in discussion? Building strawman arguments you have nothing to support it with?
I do know what those little numbers means, but if you wan't to make an argument, than you are the one who has to present the argument, not me.
You lefties love to claim "it's a law", without referring to the law itself.
You claimed earlier "it in constitution" without actually citing the constitution. I had to ask multiple times before you actually cited that congressional oversight is "implied" power, therefore it can be challenged.
When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.
To conduct the investigation, you have to have a crime.
What exact crime president conducted that needs to be investigated.
I'm wondering how many times I'll have to ask this question before you provide the answer.
Your turn, go!
First off, a President doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. Second off, in order for the Congress to do their job of oversight and correctly run an investigation, it means they are going to have to look for info related to the acts they believe is worthy of impeaching the President, which can include his tax returns and other financial information.
The constitution is clear for what president can be impeached.
First off, you claim you're studying the law but you're ignoring the 25th Amendment, meaning you're full of shit.
Second, Congress oversight doesn't give them unlimited powers, nor putting them above the law they're claiming they follow. To prevent their abuse of power, there are checks and balances, and president can exercise his executive privilege to challenge their claims. That dispute should be resolved in front of third co-equal branch of government, the Supreme Court.
Third, what exact crime president committed that requires congressional investigation in order to invoke 25. Amendment?
Ignoring the 25th Amendment? The 25th Amendment only matters if the President is actually removed from office. That's not going to happen unless an absolute bombshell is dropped. The House will have enough votes to impeach, but the Senate isn't going to remove him from office... and his cabinet sure as hell aren't going to all agree he is incompetent and needs removed.
Now let's look at your second argument. Congress unlimited powers? Once again you fall into the trap of yet another logical fallacy, Fallacy of Multiplication. Every post you drop one. Either you are really bad at debating or you are doing it on purpose to see if I will call you out on them.
Finally, you posted the text of the constitution that claims congressional oversight. Unlike you, I don't rely on Wikipedia or TV shows to tell me what to think or write, since everything you post here is already written someplace else. You're too dumb to post something on your own.
Have you noticed, and your Wikipedia link also state it, that congressional powers are implied to enumerated powers of Congress. Those enumerated powers are listed in Article I, Section 8. and are related to government official business that they have oversight of. To this extent, I agree with you.
Today we have Democrat party that hijacked the House of Representatives as a tool used, not to comply with constitutional activities like passing legislation, budgets, spending, etc, but dedicate six committees to destruction of the president they don't like. Scores of subpoenas were issued, not about presidents official conduct, not about his conduct as president, but demanding his personal financial information, bank accounts, tax returns, demanding information about his businesses, all that occurred before he became president.
Democrats got their criminal investigation based on hoax that appointed Mueller as special prosecutor, and when Mueller didn't deliver the result they wanted, they're claiming congressional oversight to go after the president and people related to him personally or professionally, to get what they want.
One thing you mentioned above is "checks and balances" and they're also exercised by separation of powers. Congressional oversight doesn't give them unlimited power. Congressional subpoenas that Congress is not using to conduct official government business, but abusing that power to get what they can't legally get, can be challenged. Challenging subpoena is not obstruction of justice, it's a dispute that can get resolved thru the court.
Congress claim they have right to something, president claim executive privilege. Exercising executive privilege is not obstruction of anything, it's president's power to tell congress, it's not your business and you can't have it. That issue can be settle in court, and I hope it will be.
Let's say you're in court testifying as witness, and prosecuting lawyer ask you a question, and defending lawyer object that question, it's up to the judge to decide is question allowable, and is objection sustained. That is part of normal legal procedure and that's what we have now in between congress and executive branch. But no, Democrats are screaming that "objection" to their subpoenas and requests are obstruction. No, it's not, it's part of our legal system that is based on laws and checks and balances.
Now go back to CNN and MSNBC and see if you can find something to refute what I just said.
Unlike you, as I said, it has nothing to do with wikipedia or tv. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
And your smart ass response I already predicted, that's why from the very jump I told you to Google and educate yourself from whatever crap source you want to believe.
I've taken several course in getting my degrees that involve knowing the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and laws... but since I can't remake Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and take you into a phone booth and go back in time to those classes to show you how learning takes place, I'm forced to send you links because you don't trust my posts... and no matter what sites I linked you'd bitch about it. It's almost like I'm psychic.
Going to the law school, studying constitution, yet referring to Wikipedia when making the argument about the law.
And I don't trust you because you are shilling for marxism and socialism, on the top of all, which is a real gem.
Not sure if you know this or not, but those little numbers at the end of pieces I shared from Wikipedia, lead to citations to legitimate resources.
The second statement is a strawman, because at no point have I ever said I support Marxism and socialism.
So that's where you go when you get beat down in discussion? Building strawman arguments you have nothing to support it with?
I do know what those little numbers means, but if you wan't to make an argument, than you are the one who has to present the argument, not me.
You lefties love to claim "it's a law", without referring to the law itself.
You claimed earlier "it in constitution" without actually citing the constitution. I had to ask multiple times before you actually cited that congressional oversight is "implied" power, therefore it can be challenged.
I'm not a leftie, and you sure as hell didn't know what those little numbers mean, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did.
You're acting like a child who is repeatedly correct and you are so stubborn, you say you already knew it despite your previous statements.
Unlike you, as I said, it has nothing to do with wikipedia or tv. It's about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
And your smart ass response I already predicted, that's why from the very jump I told you to Google and educate yourself from whatever crap source you want to believe.
I've taken several course in getting my degrees that involve knowing the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and laws... but since I can't remake Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and take you into a phone booth and go back in time to those classes to show you how learning takes place, I'm forced to send you links because you don't trust my posts... and no matter what sites I linked you'd bitch about it. It's almost like I'm psychic.
Going to the law school, studying constitution, yet referring to Wikipedia when making the argument about the law.
And I don't trust you because you are shilling for marxism and socialism, on the top of all, which is a real gem.
Not sure if you know this or not, but those little numbers at the end of pieces I shared from Wikipedia, lead to citations to legitimate resources.
The second statement is a strawman, because at no point have I ever said I support Marxism and socialism.
So that's where you go when you get beat down in discussion? Building strawman arguments you have nothing to support it with?
I do know what those little numbers means, but if you wan't to make an argument, than you are the one who has to present the argument, not me.
You lefties love to claim "it's a law", without referring to the law itself.
You claimed earlier "it in constitution" without actually citing the constitution. I had to ask multiple times before you actually cited that congressional oversight is "implied" power, therefore it can be challenged.
I'm not a leftie, and you sure as hell didn't know what those little numbers mean, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did.
You're acting like a child who is repeatedly correct and you are so stubborn, you say you already knew it despite your previous statements.
And there you go... every of your "arguments" ends this way. Non-argument.
