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.
That’s a gross misinterpretation of the 10th amendment.Why not?
shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Implicit in their authority to legislate and to impeach the president.
Do you think they have the power to impeach a president but not investigate him? That would not be rational.
Really, the 10th amendment says there are no implied powers in the Constitution, only those enumerated apply.
.
The "investigating a political opponent" line currently used by the left is nothing but desperate spin, as they all agree a political opponent of an incumbent white house is not immune from investigation.Since when are we cool with politicians directing investigations against their rivals? That’s some real corrupt Soviet tactics right there.
That’s a gross misinterpretation of the 10th amendment.shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Implicit in their authority to legislate and to impeach the president.
Do you think they have the power to impeach a president but not investigate him? That would not be rational.
Really, the 10th amendment says there are no implied powers in the Constitution, only those enumerated apply.
.
Congress does not have the power to impeach if they can’t investigate. That should be obvious.
How does the court “enforce” Congress’s subpoena anyway? Can’t the executive tell them to piss off just like they tell Congress to?
So you think the Senate must treat this impeachment charade with more dignity and respect for American jurisprudence and our constitution than did the Hysterical House Dems? Turley rightly noted in his testimony before the Judiciary that charging Trump with obstruction for pressing his constitutional rights in courts is indeed abuse of power ... by congress.. Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.
the The FISA Court just declared the investigation run by Obama's administration - especially the Deputy US AG and FBI - was illegal, as they committed serious FISA Court Abuses that jeopardized / jeopardizes our National Security by putting the very existence and continued operation of the FISA Court at risk.Schumer Declared If the GOP Plays By Same Rules The House Dems Did, They're 'Engaged In A Cover Up'
Pure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.
Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.
Any of the witnesses that Nadler wouldn't allow to 'testify' while this mess was being heard in the House.
For example?
Who should be on that stand if not Mulveney who held up the aid on Trump's orders, or Juliani who was SMACK MIDDLE OF THE ENTIRE THING and who Trump referred EVERYONE to deal with including the President of Ukraine?
You want to get to the truth you ask the people involved, not put up sideshow about people who had nothing to do with real-time events this whole thing is about.
Sounds like something the democrats should have done.
You mean like this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D024.pdf
MR. GOLDMAN: This is the deposition of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Mr. Mulvaney was subpoenaed to appear at 9:00 a.m.
It is 9:07 a.m. He is not here.
the The FISA Court just declared the investigation run by Obama's administration - especially the Deputy US AG and FBI - was illegal, as they committed serious FISA Court AbusesPure bullshit. Name just ONE relavant witness Democrats did not want to interview.
Republicans want to to have a testimony of everyone EXCEPT ANYONE DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the Ukrainian drug deal Trump is accused of.
Any of the witnesses that Nadler wouldn't allow to 'testify' while this mess was being heard in the House.
For example?
Who should be on that stand if not Mulveney who held up the aid on Trump's orders, or Juliani who was SMACK MIDDLE OF THE ENTIRE THING and who Trump referred EVERYONE to deal with including the President of Ukraine?
You want to get to the truth you ask the people involved, not put up sideshow about people who had nothing to do with real-time events this whole thing is about.
Sounds like something the democrats should have done.
You mean like this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D024.pdf
MR. GOLDMAN: This is the deposition of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Mr. Mulvaney was subpoenaed to appear at 9:00 a.m.
It is 9:07 a.m. He is not here.
The Supreme Court says they doWhat would happen if you ignored a subpoena?
Issued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.
.
Why not?
shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Wants the Senate trial to be limited to only what the House presented. He says that’s only fair. He’s an idiot.
it was just on TV. I will add link as soon as it becomes available.
McConnell's laughing too hard. Someone slap him before he has a seizure.
Of course it does snowflake.Schumer is demanding conditions the Democrats refused to give Trump / the GOP during their proven latest coup attempt that was shown to still have no crime, no evidence, & no witnesses.the The FISA Court just declared the investigation run by Obama's administration - especially the Deputy US AG and FBI - was illegal, as they committed serious FISA Court AbusesAny of the witnesses that Nadler wouldn't allow to 'testify' while this mess was being heard in the House.
For example?
Who should be on that stand if not Mulveney who held up the aid on Trump's orders, or Juliani who was SMACK MIDDLE OF THE ENTIRE THING and who Trump referred EVERYONE to deal with including the President of Ukraine?
You want to get to the truth you ask the people involved, not put up sideshow about people who had nothing to do with real-time events this whole thing is about.
Sounds like something the democrats should have done.
You mean like this?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D024.pdf
MR. GOLDMAN: This is the deposition of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Mr. Mulvaney was subpoenaed to appear at 9:00 a.m.
It is 9:07 a.m. He is not here.
Nothing you just said has anything to do with what you quoted.
Go get your head checked out, something is terribly wrong with you.
The Supreme Court says they doIssued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.
.
Why not?
shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
Held in this case that the Senate had power to cite for contempt a witness charged with having permitted the removal and destruction of papers which he had been subpoenaed to produce.
Cocaine Mitch tells Crying Chuck to Pump a Duck.Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
The Senate Democratic leader wants to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and other White House officials, and subpoena documents the White House has withheld.
Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
WASHINGTON — As the House prepared to make President Trump only the third president in American history to be impeached, the Senate’s top Democrat on Sunday laid out a detailed proposal for a Senate trial “in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly” — including subpoenas for documents the White House has withheld and witnesses it has prevented from testifying.
Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape and scope of the proceedings. Mr. McConnell had said last week that he was “taking my cues” from the White House, prompting Democrats to accuse him of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice” in the trial.
In the letter, Mr. Schumer proposed a trial beginning Jan. 7 that would give each side a fixed amount of time to present its case, and called for four top White House officials who have not previously testified — including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser — to appear as witnesses.
Mr. Schumer also called for the Senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the events at the heart of the charges against Mr. Trump: his campaign to enlist Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. And he set forth a specific timetable for each side to present its case, modeled on the one used when President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999. Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
.....................................................................................................................................
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.
They can hold Hillary in contempt. AwesomeThe Supreme Court says they doIssued by a judge, I'd probably be in trouble. Thankfully Trump doesn't have that concern.
.
Why not?
shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
Held in this case that the Senate had power to cite for contempt a witness charged with having permitted the removal and destruction of papers which he had been subpoenaed to produce.
Schumer... isn't he the guy that was patting Christine Blasey-Ford on the back, the woman who falsely accused Brett Kavanaugh of ungentlemanly things in high school or junior college 30 years earlier, address unknown, date unknown, and 5 alleged witnesses, none of who remembered having being together at the same time with others she named and claimed they knew? She did not inform the police, did not go to a doctor for a medical exam, and who was known to get drunk a lot by people who did remember her.I don't give a FUCK what you think schumer!
You are in the minority...SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
which was a partisan pissin' match
so i'd expect nothing less this time 'round
~S~
Except that it was about perjury, an actual crime that anyone else would have faced a prison sentence for and the vote was bi-partisan.
That was the House's job. The Senate is The JURY. When the Prosecution (The House) has failed, you want the Jury to jump in and resurrect their failed case?Schumer is asking for all the pertinent evidence to be presented. What's wrong with that?Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
which was a partisan pissin' match
so i'd expect nothing less this time 'round
~S~
LOLThe Supreme Court says they doWhy not?
shitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
Held in this case that the Senate had power to cite for contempt a witness charged with having permitted the removal and destruction of papers which he had been subpoenaed to produce.
You should have kept reading. From your link:
63 App.D.C. 342 72 F.2d 560, reversed.
Supreme Court, D.C., affirmed.
Certiorari, 293 U.S. 543, to review the reversal of a judgment discharging a writ of habeas corpus by which the above-named respondent sought to gain his release from the custody of the above-named petitioner, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.
.
House Republicans are children. If they were truly interested in the truth, it wouldn't have been partisan.
Sure! They couldn't make their case in The House, so let's do a Hail Mary in The Senate!You have evidence now? LolSchumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
The Senate Democratic leader wants to seek testimony from Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton and other White House officials, and subpoena documents the White House has withheld.
Schumer, Pushing McConnell to Negotiate, Lays Out Plan for Impeachment Trial
WASHINGTON — As the House prepared to make President Trump only the third president in American history to be impeached, the Senate’s top Democrat on Sunday laid out a detailed proposal for a Senate trial “in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly” — including subpoenas for documents the White House has withheld and witnesses it has prevented from testifying.
Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, presented the proposal in a letter to his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell, in an opening move to force Republicans to negotiate over the shape and scope of the proceedings. Mr. McConnell had said last week that he was “taking my cues” from the White House, prompting Democrats to accuse him of abandoning his duty to render “impartial justice” in the trial.
In the letter, Mr. Schumer proposed a trial beginning Jan. 7 that would give each side a fixed amount of time to present its case, and called for four top White House officials who have not previously testified — including Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser — to appear as witnesses.
Mr. Schumer also called for the Senate to subpoena documents that could shed light on the events at the heart of the charges against Mr. Trump: his campaign to enlist Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. And he set forth a specific timetable for each side to present its case, modeled on the one used when President Bill Clinton was tried in 1999. Mr. Clinton’s trial lasted about five weeks.
.....................................................................................................................................
Chuck should know better by now than to think McTurtle has an interest in anything approximating the kind of deliberative trial the Senate is obligated conduct. This is why it was so important for Trump's specious narrative of an unfair process in the House to have been spewed (just as it was equally important to make the similarly, objectively false accusations about the Mueller probe). All the trained seals repeat the sham process lie endlessly and will keep doing so all through the phony process Mitch is about to orchestrate in close consultation with the WH (Mitch has adopted the Trumpian strategy of violating rules, ethics, and law right out in the open). Why does McTreason think he can get away with it? Because he knows from experience The Following will swallow any ball of shit he feeds them. They rather like it.
LOLThe Supreme Court says they doshitt ain't no judge, no matter what he thinks. He has to go to one to enforce his subpoenas. So simple even an idiot like you should understand.
.
Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas. They have since the early days of the Republic.
What part of the Constitution says that Congress has to go to a court?
What part of the Constitution says they have the authority to issue subpoenas? I'll be damned if I can find it.
.
Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
Held in this case that the Senate had power to cite for contempt a witness charged with having permitted the removal and destruction of papers which he had been subpoenaed to produce.
You should have kept reading. From your link:
63 App.D.C. 342 72 F.2d 560, reversed.
Supreme Court, D.C., affirmed.
Certiorari, 293 U.S. 543, to review the reversal of a judgment discharging a writ of habeas corpus by which the above-named respondent sought to gain his release from the custody of the above-named petitioner, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.
.
Dumbfuck, that was appeals court's ruling that was reversed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed; and that of the Supreme Court of the District should be affirmed.
Yes they did, and YOU know it, just read the online transcripts and you can see EVERY lying Republiscum had the exact same time to question each witness as the Dems.No they didn’t.LIAR!The DEM led House of Representatives holding their inquiry behind closed doors without a chance for their witnesses to be cross examined.
The Republiscum had EQUAL time to cross examine EVERY witness.
When the worthless lying scum Right tell such obvious lies they expose the fact that they themselves KNOW they are WRONG!
