Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why not invoke executive privilege?? Trump tax return story

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

    And since the DOJ is not independent of the executive branch, while the legislative IS independent (as you agree), a congressional investigation would have different powers and different limitations. Therefore, a Congressional investigation is not a re-do of the special counsel investigation. QED
    Except the democrats in the congress said for 2 years they would wait until the Mueller report came out.

    The Mueller report came out, they didn't like what it said, so now they're attempting a re-do.

    IOW...a tantrum.


    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by guido61 View Post

      Yes. But for anyone to try and argue that Mueller didn't see any prosecutable obstruction because he didn't recommend prosecution or issue a sealed indictment is to either be lying or not understand what he actually said in the report. So can we at least agree that your statements in this regard were incorrect and that you now understand what is in the report?
      Now just ponder the bolded for a spell...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

        Now just ponder the bolded for a spell...
        Why? So you can confirm to me that you're either lying or don't understand what he actually said in the report?

        Since what he actually said in the report has been laid out to you and you seemed to agree with it earlier, why are you going back to your silly circular argument now?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

          Except the democrats in the congress said for 2 years they would wait until the Mueller report came out.

          The Mueller report came out, they didn't like what it said, so now they're attempting a re-do.

          IOW...a tantrum.

          They liked what it said just fine. That's why they are using what was said in the report as a basis for their investigations going forward.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

            I don't believe the report itself exonerates anything. (Yes I know I said it did on collusion). The interpretation of the report by the DOJ does exonerate Trump on both fronts and that's what the congressional pant-wetting tantrums are all about.

            On both subjects, Mueller cites instances that were investigated for collusion and obstruction. Mueller declares he can't find evidence of collusion and still provides the instances that were investigated in the report. Ditto with obstruction with the difference being he says he can't make a decision either way. If Mueller could positively declare there was obstruction, he would've submitted sealed indictments to be opened after Trump left office. He didn't do that.

            Now answer my question....

            Are you good with a republican congress exercising its constitutionally mandated "oversight" and investigating Biden and his family...just to see if they can find anything?


            bold ^
            Yes, for sure, anyone who is going to be president, with all the powers and responsibilities that that entails, should be vetted, up, down, left and center.

            George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
            Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

              Except the democrats in the congress said for 2 years they would wait until the Mueller report came out.

              The Mueller report came out, they didn't like what it said, so now they're attempting a re-do.

              IOW...a tantrum.

              Correction: they didn't like how the AG interpreted the report - the attempted whitewashing. You know, the AG who interviewed for the job by telling the boss that he'd get him off. The crooked AG who works for the crooked president. The crooked president with the crooked son. Etc.

              George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
              Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                Except the democrats in the congress said for 2 years they would wait until the Mueller report came out.

                [The Mueller report came out, they didn't like what it said, so now they're attempting a re-do.

                IOW...a tantrum.

                By your own words, you agreed that congress and Mueller answer to different people. Thus they have different powers and limitations. By your own words, you agree that Congress is a separate power from the DOJ, but you continually suggest that Congress can only re-do what Mueller did. That’s illogical. Democrats did wait for the Mueller report to come out; they waited for facts to be established (in a way that you can no longer call Trump Tower Moscow, meetings between campaign officials and Russians, etc., "fake news"); and, convenient for them, they waited until (via the 2018 election) they had subpoena power to carry out their own investigations.

                Your words about the opening of Volume II and your ignoring of Mueller’s stated reasons for not accusing the president aren’t logical. So here ends our argument. You’ve got a different interpretation of his words than me. How do we determine which one of us can read and comprehend Mueller’s meaning properly? Shucks... I wish I could challenge you to an LSAT competition. Since we can’t, I think we have to leave it here. You think the Mueller report is simply pron for Dems; I’ve read it and understand why he did not make an accusation or indictment in Volume II. Maybe one of us has TDS, but we can’t objectively determine who.

                I still don’t understand why you can’t simply say why you spell impeach with an n. I suspect you’re attempting to lampoon Democrats, and if it's a joke, I'd love to hear why. (I once explained on here why "ruh roh" is a joke.) But if you truly don’t understand your motivations, then of course we won’t be on the same playing field when we talk about other stuff.
                Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-23-2019, 04:09 PM.
                For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                My (old dead) band!:
                www.steelphantoms.com/
                PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                  By your own words, you agreed that congress and Mueller answer to different people. Thus they have different powers and limitations. By your own words, you agree that Congress is a separate power from the DOJ, but you continually suggest that Congress can only re-do what Mueller did. That’s illogical. Democrats did wait for the Mueller report to come out; they waited for facts to be established (in a way that you can no longer call Trump Tower Moscow, meetings between campaign officials and Russians, etc., "fake news"); and, convenient for them, they waited until (via the 2018 election) they had subpoena power to carry out their own investigations.

                  Your words about the opening of Volume II and your ignoring of Mueller’s stated reasons for not accusing the president aren’t logical. So here ends our argument. You’ve got a different interpretation of his words than me. How do we determine which one of us can read and comprehend Mueller’s meaning properly? Shucks... I wish I could challenge you to an LSAT competition. Since we can’t, I think we have to leave it here. You think the Mueller report is simply pron for Dems; I’ve read it and understand why he did not make an accusation or indictment in Volume II. Maybe one of us has TDS, but we can’t objectively determine who.

                  I still don’t understand why you can’t simply say why you spell impeach with an n. I suspect you’re attempting to lampoon Democrats, and if it's a joke, I'd love to hear why. (I once explained on here why "ruh roh" is a joke.) But if you truly don’t understand your motivations, then of course we won’t be on the same playing field when we talk about other stuff.

                  Shucks, we already have those, amateur non-lawyer competitions, on here all the time. It's like watching a demolition derby, where the only thing that gets demolished & destroyed is the law.
                  Location: The Divided States of America
                  ''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"--Edmund Burke
                  Man created science to create what man wants science to create.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by stratosaurus View Post


                    Shucks, we already have those, amateur non-lawyer competitions, on here all the time. It's like watching a demolition derby, where the only thing that gets demolished & destroyed is the law.
                    900+ real lawyers signed a petition saying there was enough evidence to impeach trump for obstruction.

                    https://airtable.com/shrZ3dJWgziXNqS...Gu?blocks=hide

                    Zip
                    665 - Neighbor of the Beast

                    Originally Posted by RobRoy: I believe that the only way Obama will remain in power is if he suspends elections. And at that point he is no longer president. He is dictator. But I don't believe he will even survive that long. It could be suicide, impeachment by BOTH parties, you name it.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

                      900+ real lawyers signed a petition saying there was enough evidence to impeach trump for obstruction.

                      https://airtable.com/shrZ3dJWgziXNqS...Gu?blocks=hide

                      Zip
                      That's 900 opinions that have zero weight or bearing on the issue.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

                        900+ real lawyers signed a petition saying there was enough evidence to impeach trump for obstruction.

                        https://airtable.com/shrZ3dJWgziXNqS...Gu?blocks=hide

                        Zip

                        Then, why aren't they doing it? Is it that 900+ lawyers are full of crap or is it that the senate/congress are incompetent? You can't even get the House to start the proceedings, much less the senate to try the impeachment. Maybe 900+ lawyers don't understand what is involved in having a "successful' impeachment////or how pointless it is to impeach, when you can't win the case.
                        fyi...I did not read the link.
                        Location: The Divided States of America
                        ''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"--Edmund Burke
                        Man created science to create what man wants science to create.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Here's an old joke that teaches a very important lesson.

                          get someone to ask you what's the Secret of Comedy.

                          then when they start to say the word secret, you talk over them and say the word timing.


                          the timing of an impeachment is also as critical as anything else. Somebody joked in the article I read recently that three things you shouldn't rush are sex, barbecue and impeachment.

                          the strategy by the Democrats looks pretty clever to me. First let's get the issues in the public eye.

                          ask for cooperation, then ask again.

                          then start issuing subpoenas and contempt citations.

                          get judges to back you up with rulings in the court.

                          keep looking at all the things that he's hiding.

                          this is the death by a Thousand Cuts strategy.

                          Don't rush into it. Keep Trump on the defense looking guilty.

                          build public support for the eventual Showdown.

                          __________________________________________________

                          Is This Thing On?

                          https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                            That's 900 opinions that have zero weight or bearing on the issue.
                            They will in the history books!
                            For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                            https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                            My (old dead) band!:
                            www.steelphantoms.com/
                            PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post
                              Here's an old joke that teaches a very important lesson.

                              get someone to ask you what's the Secret of Comedy.

                              then when they start to say the word secret, you talk over them and say the word timing.


                              the timing of an impeachment is also as critical as anything else. Somebody joked in the article I read recently that three things you shouldn't rush are sex, barbecue and impeachment.

                              the strategy by the Democrats looks pretty clever to me. First let's get the issues in the public eye.

                              ask for cooperation, then ask again.

                              then start issuing subpoenas and contempt citations.

                              get judges to back you up with rulings in the court.

                              keep looking at all the things that he's hiding.

                              this is the death by a Thousand Cuts strategy.

                              Don't rush into it. Keep Trump on the defense looking guilty.

                              build public support for the eventual Showdown.
                              ;Clever? It looks more like "retreat" and try desperately to figure out another plan of attack.Throw everything against the wall & hope that something might eventually stick. trump doesn't look guilty from what I see. He looks like a peacock strutting his feathers, while the dems appear to look like a dog with their tail tucked between their legs in desperation.
                              What I see is, a sorry incompetent president equally match against sorry incompetent democrats.
                              Location: The Divided States of America
                              ''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"--Edmund Burke
                              Man created science to create what man wants science to create.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                                They will in the history books!
                                Keep the faith!!!!!!!
                                Location: The Divided States of America
                                ''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"--Edmund Burke
                                Man created science to create what man wants science to create.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X