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.
Ahhh...............the Obama appointed hack who spent 10 years working for Patrick Leahy.The subpoenas were invalid. This has been explained to you in great detail. That's why the House Clowns withdrew them and didn't go to court. They new they would lose.
You should be upset with your House Clowns for their clusterfuck.
Go ahead and explain to me, again, in great detail, how the President's lawyers said they weren't legal. When you're done, I'll link, again, the Court decision on the validity of the impeachment inquiry.
You do know lawyers just say crap sometimes, don't you?
You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.
There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.
When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.
The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal
Actually, yeah. I'll bet even you could figure out that when the President says, "we're not giving you anthing" or "we're not cooperating", he's asserting Privilege, notwithstanding any legal proceedings he has to go through to make it official.
That's the thing about legal claims. They have to be made legally. "Nancy, you so mean" doesn't do it.
Face it. The House Democrats fucked up bigly. Because they are incompetent and stupid.
Face it. A corrupt President was caught in a textbook impeachable offense, but the cult, or tribalism, or whatever the fuck it is, is so strong that Trump supporters are willing to accept it. Evidence is ignored, witnesses are smeared, and the argument boils down to, 'He's innocent because Democrats!' The moving goalposts are an insult, and if you're on the side calling for less evidence, you're being played.
Well..........NO. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. This is why we have inquiries and trials. The Democrats have totally sucked at both. They have no idea what they're doing. That's obvious even to a non-legal like me. It's ok. 2024 is not that far away. Maybe by some miracle the Democrats will clean up their shit by then.
I'm hoping.
They put on a good case. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't hold him under until he stops thrashing.
The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal
There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.
When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.
The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal
Oh, puleeze. That would get tossed in a real court in a NY minute.
It was issued October 25, 2019. How long is a NY minute?
That ruling should have been appealed and a stay issued to stop the inquiry. I have no idea what was done about it. But to me it clearly violates the Constitution. In plain language.
why should he? his testimony isn't in with the two articles. that's what is before the senate, two articles that were walked over after being voted on. you don't think they're any good? me either, i'd dismiss them and send them back. then you can ask bolton to testify. that's how it's done.In the Court of Hannity, yeah. Not in a real court.
And she didn't just say it now, she ruled on October 25, 2019, and Trump's spokespeople have been gaslighting you ever since.
You know what's funniest of all in Starr's fountain of lies? His whining about how the House impeachment investigators were not under oath - given ... neither is he.
And that's when he claimed that Trump, in the last months of 2019, rejecting any and all cooperation with the House inquiry, followed the OLC opinion, issued on "January 19, 2020".
I actually, for once, agree with Starr: The defense team should take Starr's advice, and make their case under oath.
Good catch. I don't think many are listening to Trump's lawyers. They're wondering, 'why don't you want Bolton to testify?'
where's the SCOTUS ruling?The subpoenas were invalid. This has been explained to you in great detail. That's why the House Clowns withdrew them and didn't go to court. They new they would lose.
You should be upset with your House Clowns for their clusterfuck.
Go ahead and explain to me, again, in great detail, how the President's lawyers said they weren't legal. When you're done, I'll link, again, the Court decision on the validity of the impeachment inquiry.
You do know lawyers just say crap sometimes, don't you?
You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.
There's a federal court ruling saying the House inquiry was valid, relying on precedent When you have one from a higher court contradicting it, link us up.
When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.
The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal
obammy's not in office today, can we stick to trump?Bullshit? So do you or do you not agree with the use of Executive Privilege?
In which case? I haven't seen anyone invoke it yet, although Lindsey Graham was encouraging the admin to do it. I have read a couple of crackpot letters from the White House to the House - saying we're not giving you anything. Are you thinking about that?
Actually, yeah. I'll bet even you could figure out that when the President says, "we're not giving you anthing" or "we're not cooperating", he's asserting Privilege, notwithstanding any legal proceedings he has to go through to make it official.
That's the thing about legal claims. They have to be made legally. "Nancy, you so mean" doesn't do it.
Face it. The House Democrats fucked up bigly. Because they are incompetent and stupid.
Face it. A corrupt President was caught in a textbook impeachable offense, but the cult, or tribalism, or whatever the fuck it is, is so strong that Trump supporters are willing to accept it. Evidence is ignored, witnesses are smeared, and the argument boils down to, 'He's innocent because Democrats!' The moving goalposts are an insult, and if you're on the side calling for less evidence, you're being played.
when the SCOTUS rules you're correct!When you have a link to that ruling, link us up. And it better be good because what you're asserting directly contradicts the WH defense team. And I think they've looked at this more thoroughly than you.
The article has a link to the 75-page opinion. It was in all the papers.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal
Oh, puleeze. That would get tossed in a real court in a NY minute.
It was issued October 25, 2019. How long is a NY minute?
That ruling should have been appealed and a stay issued to stop the inquiry. I have no idea what was done about it. But to me it clearly violates the Constitution. In plain language.
Well, that ought to be good enough for all of us.
You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.
challenging a subpoena illegal?You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.
Say, dummy, is issuing a subpoena the same as impeaching the president?
Assuming you can come up with the right answer, why would you argue that, because the latter needs a House vote, the former requires one, too?
You still hung up on that? Have you ever read the Constitution where is says the HOUSE has the sole power to impeach the President? Not the Intel Committee Chair, Not the Judiciary Chair, not the Speaker of the House. It says, the "House". That means the HOUSE has to vote to authorize the subpoenas. They didn't do it because they were trying to be cute and run their little inquiry in the basement. Morons.
Say, dummy, is issuing a subpoena the same as impeaching the president?
Assuming you can come up with the right answer, why would you argue that, because the latter needs a House vote, the former requires one, too?
I <3 Jay Sekulow. I've always been impressed by him - and wow, his closing argument was incredibly compelling.
You do understand we're talking about a dispute between two co-equal branches of our government, right? It's not like your Olde country that only had one branch lead by one psychopath.
You do understand we're talking about a dispute between two co-equal branches of our government, right? It's not like your Olde country that only had one branch lead by one psychopath.
What we were actually talking about is how you can't even ascertain that a single paragraph of yours is internally consistent. Smart move to avoid that, and to brain-fart in several directions to distract from it.
I <3 Jay Sekulow. I've always been impressed by him - and wow, his closing argument was incredibly compelling.
"We don't give a shit! You must acquit!" It's catchy!
You have to admire his flexibility. One day his whole argument was there was no direct testimony the aid was conditioned on announcement of investigations. Today, it's "conditioned, submitioned. We don't care! It's not impeachable!"
