President or King ?

[Tommy Tainant]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

 

[Crepitus]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

 

[progressive hunter]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

you limey fucks have enough problems of your own,,,

so mind your own fucking business and when you need our help AGAIN we will be there,,,

Wow, xenophobic much?

just annoyed he thinks his opinion matters,,,maybe if he just said thank you and moved on it would be different,,,

 

[Auld Phart]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

 

[IM2]

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

He chose to base the aid conditional on their assisting him to investigate a political opponent to help him win an election. Therefore Trumps behavior fits what you use in your first example.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democommiecrats intend that Trump have such interference that he could not act al all.

Gads. I really hate democommiecrats.

 

[22lcidw]

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

He chose to base the aid conditional on their assisting him to investigate a political opponent to help him win an election. Therefore Trumps behavior fits what you use in your first example.

I guarantee you, there are African American people in positions of political/cultural leadership who believe they are Kings and Queens. The crumbs have come to them first.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump doesn't think he's King. The Trumpsters don't think he's King.

The problem here is that Trump lacks the intellectual capacity to grasp or appreciate the gravity of the office, and his Trumpsters are more than willing to remove all standards for him, as long as they get what they want.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

Hey Will. Its a reasonable question. Maybe some of these responses are more about me than the subject ?

 

[easyt65]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

Obviously you are being 'CONFINED' in a MENTAL INSTITUTION.

There is NO evidence of a crime committed, just like with 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia'

There is NO whistle blower.

There are NO witnesses because no one who has testified yet witnessed anything. It has been hearsay and personal opinion based on disagreements with the President's foreign policy.

On Days 1 & 2 'Witnesses' could not name a crime the President had perpetrated.

Speaker Pelosi initially claimed the President had committed extortion, a quid pro quo, then CHANGED her accusation to 'Bribery' based on responses by focus groups in hotly contested states / areas.

Morrison and Volker DESTROYED the coup by definitively declaring NO bribery, NO extortion, NO treason.

Schiff is presenting HEARSAY from people who were not on the phone call, who witnessed nothing, and are - like the MSM - ignoring the word of those who WERE on the phone call, to include the Ukraine PM who has stated what the Democrats are accusing the President of NEVER HAPPENED,

It has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt now that D-Schiff is LYING by claiming hos 'non-existent non-qualifying whistle blower' is afforded both anonymity & immunity.-- It is understandable for the average uneducated pro-liberal traitor, willingly-duped snowflake to NOT know the law...but Schiff is a member of Congress who PASSED the Whistle Blower Act of 1989. Asking us to believe he is too stupid to know US Federal Law that Congress passes - and he is both a lawyer and a Congressman - is too much of a stretch, even for Schiff.


.

 

[Auld Phart]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

Hey Will. Its a reasonable question. Maybe some of these responses are more about me than the subject ?

My 'comment' was aimed at Crep, not the thread.

On a side note, there has only been one King in the Oval Office to my knowledge.

And he was a King by birth.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

Hey Will. Its a reasonable question. Maybe some of these responses are more about me than the subject ?

My 'comment' was aimed at Crep, not the thread.

On a side note, there has only been one King in the Oval Office to my knowledge.

And he was a King by birth.

I get that but how do posts 7,6,4, and 2 conform to the forum rules ?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

Hey Will. Its a reasonable question. Maybe some of these responses are more about me than the subject ?

My 'comment' was aimed at Crep, not the thread.

On a side note, there has only been one King in the Oval Office to my knowledge.

And he was a King by birth.

Most people will not get that!

 

[Auld Phart]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......

Hey Will. Its a reasonable question. Maybe some of these responses are more about me than the subject ?

My 'comment' was aimed at Crep, not the thread.

On a side note, there has only been one King in the Oval Office to my knowledge.

And he was a King by birth.

I get that but how do posts 7,6,4, and 2 conform to the forum rules ?

good point

 

[Crepitus]

Why was this:

"<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......"

Removed as "no content"?

It's a direct commentary on the subject of the OP.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's not how this works guys.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why was this:

"<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......"

Removed as "no content"?

It's a direct commentary on the subject of the OP.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's not how this works guys.

Its still there.

 

[Crepitus]

Why was this:

"<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......"

Removed as "no content"?

It's a direct commentary on the subject of the OP.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's not how this works guys.

Its still there.

I got the "you post has been deleted for" message.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have been following the impeachment hearings with a lot of interest. It is shown live over here and my confinement gives me a lot of spare time.

My understanding of it all is that it boils down to the limits of Presidential power and whether Trump breached those powers in pursuit of personal objectives.

The left seem to think he has clearly done so but the right do not seem keen to grapple with that issue and are focussing on discrediting the witnesses.

My question relates to where the line is drawn. Is a President able to act like a King in pursuing any policy he sees fit ? Or is he bound by constitutional constraints that make him accountable?

As an example -

If a President offered aid to a country in return for favours to a business he had an interest in. We could all agree that it wd be an abuse of power.

But if a President asked a leader to deal with corruption in his own country as a condition of aid then that would be legitimate.

So where does Trumps behaviour fit between these two extremes?

Obviously you are being 'CONFINED' in a MENTAL INSTITUTION.

There is NO evidence of a crime committed, just like with 'Collusion Delusion 1.0: Russia'

There is NO whistle blower.

There are NO witnesses because no one who has testified yet witnessed anything. It has been hearsay and personal opinion based on disagreements with the President's foreign policy.

On Days 1 & 2 'Witnesses' could not name a crime the President had perpetrated.

Speaker Pelosi initially claimed the President had committed extortion, a quid pro quo, then CHANGED her accusation to 'Bribery' based on responses by focus groups in hotly contested states / areas.

Morrison and Volker DESTROYED the coup by definitively declaring NO bribery, NO extortion, NO treason.

Schiff is presenting HEARSAY from people who were not on the phone call, who witnessed nothing, and are - like the MSM - ignoring the word of those who WERE on the phone call, to include the Ukraine PM who has stated what the Democrats are accusing the President of NEVER HAPPENED,

It has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt now that D-Schiff is LYING by claiming hos 'non-existent non-qualifying whistle blower' is afforded both anonymity & immunity.-- It is understandable for the average uneducated pro-liberal traitor, willingly-duped snowflake to NOT know the law...but Schiff is a member of Congress who PASSED the Whistle Blower Act of 1989. Asking us to believe he is too stupid to know US Federal Law that Congress passes - and he is both a lawyer and a Congressman - is too much of a stretch, even for Schiff.


.

Try and think of it as a rhetorical question. There will be other Presidents and the issues will come back again.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why was this:

"<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......"

Removed as "no content"?

It's a direct commentary on the subject of the OP.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's not how this works guys.

Its still there.

I got the "you post has been deleted for" message.

Maybe meant for someone else?

 

[Crepitus]

Why was this:

"<Godfather voice > That's an awfully nice country you've got there, it would be a shame if something was to happen to it......"

Removed as "no content"?

It's a direct commentary on the subject of the OP.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's not how this works guys.

Its still there.

I got the "you post has been deleted for" message.

Maybe meant for someone else?

Maybe, idk.