Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[M14 Shooter]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

There’s nothing “illegal” about a subpoena issued by Congress.

Did you notice how you didn't actually address what I actually said?
I did.
Why did you not actually address what I actually said?
Because you know you can't.

 

[Faun]

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

And until they do, Trump hasn't been impeached, Halfwit.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Sure, dumbfuck. Suuure. Shit, even Fox news published...

 

[Auld Phart]

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Bill served another term you idiot

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

^ What an idiot.

the two of you are in the running for densest poster of the day.

Neither impeached president served another term after he was impeached

 

[M14 Shooter]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

Fawn is too fucking stupid to comprehend that.

He chooses to lie to himself.
As such, there's no reason to what worry about what he has to say.

 

[colfax_m]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

There’s nothing “illegal” about a subpoena issued by Congress.

Did you notice how you didn't actually address what I actually said?
I did.
Why did you not actually address what I actually said?
Because you know you can't.

I did respond. Perhaps you didn’t understand?

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

How’s that? Simpler?

 

[M14 Shooter]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Bill served another term you idiot

Bill was impeached in 1998.
What other term did he serve? What other term was he able to serve?

Kinda ironic that you called him an idiot - eh?

 

[Nostra]

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Oh? How many terms do you thinkClinton served, if not two?

2

But he did not serve a new term AFTER he was impeached.

You are dealing in big numbers that are beyond the cognitive skills of Fawn the Idiot.

 

[Auld Phart]

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

That's simply not true. Impeached Trump obstructed the House. That resulted in Article II.

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

 

[Nostra]

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Correct.
The Executive Branch only need respond to -legal- subpoenas; the EB cannot be -forced - to comply until said subpoena is ruled legal by a court.
If the EB - then - refuses to comply, it can be considered obstruction.
But not until.

There’s nothing “illegal” about a subpoena issued by Congress.

Did you notice how you didn't actually address what I actually said?
I did.
Why did you not actually address what I actually said?
Because you know you can't.

I did respond. Perhaps you didn’t understand?

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

How’s that? Simpler?

It does when challenged in a court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

Not until a court determines the subpoenas are legal and the person is required to answer it.
When did that happen?

Kinda ironic you called him an imbecile - eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

 

[Mac-7]

Dems have had their witnesses testify already in the house proceedings

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Ignore it?

no problem

Pass a nonbinding contempt of congress ?

again no problem unless the senate agrees

or impeach him

which is also meaningless unless they submit it to the senate and get a conviction

so all you have is going to court which the dems didnt do

 

[colfax_m]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege. You will have to find a new excuse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Bill served another term you idiot

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

he was impeached in 1998.

was he reelected in 2000?

^ What an idiot.

the two of you are in the running for densest poster of the day.

Neither impeached president served another term after he was impeached

Because they already served two, dope.

 

[Mac-7]

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify. Still, you falsely claimed she didn't call every witness she could have. That's not true. Impeached Trump blocked some of their witnesses.

The bottom line is that dems voted to impeach without the evidence they needed to make it stick

Again not true. They already have the evidence to make it stick. They can already show that Impeached Trump used the power of his office to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

Pelosi does not agree

she wants new witnesses in the senate

which means she pushed an impeachment cake through the House that was only half baked

 

[M14 Shooter]

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Thats naive

of course pelosi was in control of schiff and nadler

as for executive privilege, pelosi could have gone to the courts to secure testimony but chose not to

That's no guarantee those witnesses could have been compelled to testify. Still, you falsely claimed she didn't call every witness she could have. That's not true. Impeached Trump blocked some of their witnesses.

The bottom line is that dems voted to impeach without the evidence they needed to make it stick

Again not true. They already have the evidence to make it stick. They can already show that Impeached Trump used the power of his office to solicit a foreign national to investigate a political rival.

Pelosi does not agree
she wants new witnesses in the senate

Because she knows the testimony she has does not prove guilt of the charges she brought.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What dems are saying is that grump must waive his constitutional rights as a coequal branch of government

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

 

[Faun]

Let me type that very slowly:

Whenever prosecutors call forth witnesses at trial, they admit they have insufficient evidence.

That's the demented talking point you want to run with, while also having your pants down to your ankles?

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Ignore it?

no problem

Pass a nonbinding contempt of congress ?

again no problem unless the senate agrees

or impeach him

which is also meaningless unless they submit it to the senate and get a conviction

so all you have is going to court which the dems didnt do

Impeachment is hardly meaningless.

 

[Mac-7]

Absolutely

pelosi could have called every witness she wants during the house investigation

but she failed to do so

which means the House acted with insufficient evidence

a) Pelosi wasn't calling any witnesses during the inquiry or the hearing. Committee chairmen were.

b) Committee chairman called upon some witnesses who were prevented from testifying by Impeached Trump.

Dems failed to follow the proper proceedure and now you’re holding a big bag of NOTHING

Sorry ‘bout that

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

Trump voters do not agree