Almost Too Stupid To Check: Dems Says Trump Using Court System Is Obstruction

[The Original Tree]

Can we keep impeachment going right up until November 2020?

His numbers keep getting better and the DemNazis keep being the butt of office jokes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

What is the point of having the ability to impeach a president if the president can prevent Congress from investigating him?

The judicial branch has no participation in impeachment, FYI.

So what you're saying is the Democrats can do whatever they want to impeach Trump even if it's illegal or unconstitutional?

 

[berg80]

Hopefully you've stopped hyperventilating long enough ...

When you cease attempting to pain false pictures and make false accusations about me and want to talk as a serious adult, let me know.

I am sorry you can not handle the fact that the judicial process and all of its options and avenues for Americans to pursue in their defense offends you. The reason we have a process that does not stop at lower-level partisan appointed judges is because so many judges seek to legislate and make partisan decisions from the bench, to perpetuate and protect agendas through their partisan decisions,. There is a reason the judicial system has avenues to pursue that lead all the way up to the USSC, snowflake. Pursuing those avenues does not constitute 'Obstruction of Justice' but constitutes the seeking of TRUE Justice, sometimes which can only be found / acquired by elevating cases to that level.

I understand you are frustrated that the President continues to pursue perfectly legal alternatives and options to deny the Democrats the ability to continue their never-ending fishing expedition, but doing so is NOT illegal, lil' snowflake.

I'm betting I'm not nearly as frustrated with Don's legal strategy of making laughable legal arguments in order to delay the inevitable, as Don is with the arguments his legal team is making that are getting laughed out of court along legal and constitutional grounds. If you are putting your hope on those decisions getting overturned by higher courts you are going to be sorely disappointed. At that point you're going to need a larger paper bag.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to the latest Liberal Trump-hating 'genius', an American who uses the Justice System's courts to defend themselves from unfair, Un-Constitutional, and / or illegal targeting and attack from others is committing the crime of 'Obstruction of Justice'.

Specifically, in this case, the President of the United States, who did NOT forfeit his Rights as an American citizen when he won the Presidency, is committing the crime of 'Obstruction' by using the court systems to halt the continued targeting of the President to engage in political 'fishing expeditions' in an attempt to find anything they can use to remove him from office.


'The President is attempting to use the US Legal System to stop us from engaging in yet another 'fishing trip'-driven political coup attempt. We think his legal attempt to stop us from undermining his Presidency and plotting and affecting his removal from office should be / is a crime.'


?!



Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."



Another Democrat lost to 'Terminal TDS'...







Dem Rep: Trump 'Trying to Use the Court System' Is 'Obstruction of Justice'

That's the Nazi way. Forget about laws, forget about the Republic. We are Democrats, and only we call the shots. You have no right to use our justice system to stop us. We don't stop for anybody or anything. We make all the rules and call all the shots, the Constitution be damned.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump knows there’s no legal basis for his complete refusal to cooperate with any government oversight. His position is laughable. It’s preventing the government from functioning as it’s intended.

He is abusing the system to unconstitutionally avoid the checks and balances.

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

Trump’s legal theories are ludicrous and have no merit. Isolating himself from legislative attacks, otherwise known as oversight removes the ability for the legislative branch to carry out a constitutional process of impeachment.

 

[hadit]

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

What is the point of having the ability to impeach a president if the president can prevent Congress from investigating him?

The judicial branch has no participation in impeachment, FYI.

Sure it does. It stands to tell the parties when they have overstepped the law. You don't like it that Trump can use the legal system, but that's what it's for.

 

[colfax_m]

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

What is the point of having the ability to impeach a president if the president can prevent Congress from investigating him?

The judicial branch has no participation in impeachment, FYI.

Sure it does. It stands to tell the parties when they have overstepped the law. You don't like it that Trump can use the legal system, but that's what it's for.

Trump knows they haven’t overstepped. He’s just buying time to avoid accountability.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Dems accuse you of cries without a crime, without evidence, without witnesses...

If you say nothing, believing you are innocent until proven guilty - which Democrats do not believe - then you are obviously guilty and are hiding something.

If you attempt to exercise your Constitutional and legal rights to defend yourself then you are Obstructing Justice.

Democrats have proven that under their Socialist Democrat Rule
- Conservatives/Republicans are GUILTY until PROVEN Innocent
- An actual crime is not needed to accuse Conservatives / Republicans of committing one
- An accusation is all that is needed to justify an investigation into every inch of Conservatives' / Republicans' lives
- Their investigations can ./ will last until they find ... or manufacture ... a crime
- Exercising one's Constitutional Rights in their defense is 'Obstruction' / not permitted'
- No evidence of a crime having been committed is needed - just disagreement with their beliefs / agendas
- No witnesses are needed
- Conservatives / Republicans can be investigated based on an anonymous claim
- Hearsay against Conservatives / Republicans is considered 'verified fact'
- Conservatives / Republicans not their legal counsel cannot attend closed-door Democrat inquisitions
- Conservatives / Republicans can not ask non-witnesses against them any questions not pre-approved by their accusers
- Conservatives / Republicans can not call their own witnesses, especially Democrats exposed as having committed crimes
- Political coups against Conservatives / Republicans can be conducted and last as long as they are needed to get the job done
- Impeachment can be started based on Hearsay, not evidence of possible 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Opposition to a Conservative / Republican President's Foreign Policy constitutes 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Defeating a hand-picked, protected Democrat / any Democrat is an election is considered 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'

Welcome to Barry's / Socialist Democrats 'Fundamentally Changed' America.......

You have just described an inquisition.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump’s legal arguments are not made in good faith. It’s merely an attempt to run out the clock.

Counts as obstruction if you ask me.

If he has the right to do it...
And if it's legal for him to do it...

Then what's your problem with him doing it?

PS - What does "good faith" have to do with any of this? The democrats are not acting in "good faith", they're out to destroy him. He doesn't need to act in "good faith" to legally defend himself.

To democommiecrats " he knows he's guilty. Any defense is made in bad faith.,

See how that works.

 

[Mac-7]

According to the latest Liberal Trump-hating 'genius', an American who uses the Justice System's courts to defend themselves from unfair, Un-Constitutional, and / or illegal targeting and attack from others is committing the crime of 'Obstruction of Justice'.

Specifically, in this case, the President of the United States, who did NOT forfeit his Rights as an American citizen when he won the Presidency, is committing the crime of 'Obstruction' by using the court systems to halt the continued targeting of the President to engage in political 'fishing expeditions' in an attempt to find anything they can use to remove him from office.


'The President is attempting to use the US Legal System to stop us from engaging in yet another 'fishing trip'-driven political coup attempt. We think his legal attempt to stop us from undermining his Presidency and plotting and affecting his removal from office should be / is a crime.'


?!



Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) argued Friday that President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."



Another Democrat lost to 'Terminal TDS'...







Dem Rep: Trump 'Trying to Use the Court System' Is 'Obstruction of Justice'

She”s. a first or second gen citizen

no doubt many f the voters n her district are new to America also

they are easily fooled by Make-it-up-as-you-go liberal civics

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Meanwhile the public wants to hold democrats accountable for the massive waste of time and money.

 

[hadit]

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

What is the point of having the ability to impeach a president if the president can prevent Congress from investigating him?

The judicial branch has no participation in impeachment, FYI.

Sure it does. It stands to tell the parties when they have overstepped the law. You don't like it that Trump can use the legal system, but that's what it's for.

Trump knows they haven’t overstepped. He’s just buying time to avoid accountability.

And you know that how? I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. I really think you're just upset that he's able to defend himself at all.

 

[colfax_m]

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

Then make the courts work faster. They are there to ensure that the law is followed, and attempting to remove a duly elected president should NOT be done rapidly. If the judges feel that he is using the courts frivolously, they can reject his filings out of hand. If they, however, choose to hear the arguments and render their rulings in due time, it is their prerogative to do so. We do not want to do something like this in the heat of the moment.

Let's put it this way. Just how easy would you want removing a president to be? If the democrats succeed in removing Trump without the full concurrence of the judicial branch, and manage to win the White House (I know, it has to happen some time), how easy to you want it to be for the Republicans to find some questionable activity and ram through an impeachment of their own? You would be setting up a scenario where the only way a president could be sure of a full term is to have a majority in the House.

Anyway, it's all a moot point. The democrats haven't made a very strong case to get rid of Trump, and the further they push it like this, the worse it will be for them.

What is the point of having the ability to impeach a president if the president can prevent Congress from investigating him?

The judicial branch has no participation in impeachment, FYI.

Sure it does. It stands to tell the parties when they have overstepped the law. You don't like it that Trump can use the legal system, but that's what it's for.

Trump knows they haven’t overstepped. He’s just buying time to avoid accountability.

And you know that how? I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. I really think you're just upset that he's able to defend himself at all.

Because I can look at his argument and see how absurd it is.

 

[bripat9643]

Dems accuse you of cries without a crime, without evidence, without witnesses...

If you say nothing, believing you are innocent until proven guilty - which Democrats do not believe - then you are obviously guilty and are hiding something.

If you attempt to exercise your Constitutional and legal rights to defend yourself then you are Obstructing Justice.

Democrats have proven that under their Socialist Democrat Rule
- Conservatives/Republicans are GUILTY until PROVEN Innocent
- An actual crime is not needed to accuse Conservatives / Republicans of committing one
- An accusation is all that is needed to justify an investigation into every inch of Conservatives' / Republicans' lives
- Their investigations can ./ will last until they find ... or manufacture ... a crime
- Exercising one's Constitutional Rights in their defense is 'Obstruction' / not permitted'
- No evidence of a crime having been committed is needed - just disagreement with their beliefs / agendas
- No witnesses are needed
- Conservatives / Republicans can be investigated based on an anonymous claim
- Hearsay against Conservatives / Republicans is considered 'verified fact'
- Conservatives / Republicans not their legal counsel cannot attend closed-door Democrat inquisitions
- Conservatives / Republicans can not ask non-witnesses against them any questions not pre-approved by their accusers
- Conservatives / Republicans can not call their own witnesses, especially Democrats exposed as having committed crimes
- Political coups against Conservatives / Republicans can be conducted and last as long as they are needed to get the job done
- Impeachment can be started based on Hearsay, not evidence of possible 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Opposition to a Conservative / Republican President's Foreign Policy constitutes 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'
- Defeating a hand-picked, protected Democrat / any Democrat is an election is considered 'High Crimes & Misdemeanors'

Welcome to Barry's / Socialist Democrats 'Fundamentally Changed' America.......

Joseph Stalin would be so proud.

We can never let these vermin gain power. Our country will quickly devolve into a police state if we do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if the courts find that he overstepped, he'll have to back down. That's what they're there for. Likewise, if they find he did not, the democrats and their usual suspects will just have to live with that, whining and complaining the whole time.

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

Trump’s legal theories are ludicrous and have no merit. Isolating himself from legislative attacks, otherwise known as oversight removes the ability for the legislative branch to carry out a constitutional process of impeachment.

The commies forbade the Republicans from bringing in their witnesses to testify. What we have here is an impeachment based on testimony of hand picked witnesses that more or less support their accusation. Do you think that's American?

But in spite of it being totally one sided, the Democrats are crying it isn't one sided enough. They need even more weight on their side of the scale.

In our system of justice, the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. Not in this case. The accuser is hidden not only from the accused, but the public as well.

 

[colfax_m]

Undoubtedly the courts will find he’s overstepped. It’ll take years to get to that point.

But by then it won’t matter. He will be long gone and have evaded all accountability for his actions. I don’t think the founders intended for the president to be completely unaccountable. Do you!

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

Trump’s legal theories are ludicrous and have no merit. Isolating himself from legislative attacks, otherwise known as oversight removes the ability for the legislative branch to carry out a constitutional process of impeachment.

The commies forbade the Republicans from bringing in their witnesses to testify. What we have here is an impeachment based on testimony of hand picked witnesses that more or less support their accusation. Do you think that's American?

But in spite of it being totally one sided, the Democrats are crying it isn't one sided enough. They need even more weight on their side of the scale.

In our system of justice, the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. Not in this case. The accuser is hidden not only from the accused, but the public as well.

Republicans should call some actual witnesses. After complaining that the whistleblower has no first hand information, for some reason they want him to testify? It’s a sham. Hunter Biden is the least relevant person to the impeachment effort. He would not be able to produce any relevant information.

Republicans aren’t making a serious effort here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course not. The accountability pieces are working as they were designed, to let both accuser and defender have their say. It's not just an avenue for democrats to attack, you know. At any rate, Trump will be gone by 2025. Just hold on until then.

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

Trump’s legal theories are ludicrous and have no merit. Isolating himself from legislative attacks, otherwise known as oversight removes the ability for the legislative branch to carry out a constitutional process of impeachment.

The commies forbade the Republicans from bringing in their witnesses to testify. What we have here is an impeachment based on testimony of hand picked witnesses that more or less support their accusation. Do you think that's American?

But in spite of it being totally one sided, the Democrats are crying it isn't one sided enough. They need even more weight on their side of the scale.

In our system of justice, the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. Not in this case. The accuser is hidden not only from the accused, but the public as well.

Republicans should call some actual witnesses. After complaining that the whistleblower has no first hand information, for some reason they want him to testify? It’s a sham. Hunter Biden is the least relevant person to the impeachment effort. He would not be able to produce any relevant information.

Republicans aren’t making a serious effort here.

No, there are a lot of things we need to know. First off, what was his or her political motive? Secondly, Where did they go once they got this information? Given the fact the complaint was not written by a lawyer, where did they take their complaint to? Since it was classified, or at the very least, confidential information, who did the rat pass that information to besides the lawyer? And I'm sure there are lots of things the Republicans want to ask them that I didn't think of. I want to see this rat testify that he never spoke once with Schiff Face about it.

If they want three people from the White House that Trump won't give them, why not offer Trump a trade? Oh, that wouldn't work, would it? That would make it fair, and the last thing Democrats are about is fair.

 

[colfax_m]

This is definitely not how it was “designed”. No one intended the president to obstruct any effort at congressional oversight. It was not designed to allow the president to stall for years to avoid accountability.

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

Trump’s legal theories are ludicrous and have no merit. Isolating himself from legislative attacks, otherwise known as oversight removes the ability for the legislative branch to carry out a constitutional process of impeachment.

The commies forbade the Republicans from bringing in their witnesses to testify. What we have here is an impeachment based on testimony of hand picked witnesses that more or less support their accusation. Do you think that's American?

But in spite of it being totally one sided, the Democrats are crying it isn't one sided enough. They need even more weight on their side of the scale.

In our system of justice, the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. Not in this case. The accuser is hidden not only from the accused, but the public as well.

Republicans should call some actual witnesses. After complaining that the whistleblower has no first hand information, for some reason they want him to testify? It’s a sham. Hunter Biden is the least relevant person to the impeachment effort. He would not be able to produce any relevant information.

Republicans aren’t making a serious effort here.

No, there are a lot of things we need to know. First off, what was his or her political motive? Secondly, Where did they go once they got this information? Given the fact the complaint was not written by a lawyer, where did they take their complaint to? Since it was classified, or at the very least, confidential information, who did the rat pass that information to besides the lawyer? And I'm sure there are lots of things the Republicans want to ask them that I didn't think of. I want to see this rat testify that he never spoke once with Schiff Face about it.

If they want three people from the White House that Trump won't give them, why not offer Trump a trade? Oh, that wouldn't work, would it? That would make it fair, and the last thing Democrats are about is fair.

Literally none of those questions have any bearing on whether or not Trump committee an impeachable act.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He's not stalling anything. He's using our judicial system for what it was specifically designed to do. The commies believe that the executive branch is beholden to jump on their commands. That's not what separation of powers means. The President has the right to isolate the executive from the legislative attacks, specifically when the legislative becomes tyrannical.

This is not about misdemeanors, high crimes, or Trump doing anything wrong. This is about making attempts to remove him so they stand a chance at winning the next election, because they know they can't beat him at the polls.

Trump’s legal theories are ludicrous and have no merit. Isolating himself from legislative attacks, otherwise known as oversight removes the ability for the legislative branch to carry out a constitutional process of impeachment.

The commies forbade the Republicans from bringing in their witnesses to testify. What we have here is an impeachment based on testimony of hand picked witnesses that more or less support their accusation. Do you think that's American?

But in spite of it being totally one sided, the Democrats are crying it isn't one sided enough. They need even more weight on their side of the scale.

In our system of justice, the accused has the right to face his or her accuser. Not in this case. The accuser is hidden not only from the accused, but the public as well.

Republicans should call some actual witnesses. After complaining that the whistleblower has no first hand information, for some reason they want him to testify? It’s a sham. Hunter Biden is the least relevant person to the impeachment effort. He would not be able to produce any relevant information.

Republicans aren’t making a serious effort here.

No, there are a lot of things we need to know. First off, what was his or her political motive? Secondly, Where did they go once they got this information? Given the fact the complaint was not written by a lawyer, where did they take their complaint to? Since it was classified, or at the very least, confidential information, who did the rat pass that information to besides the lawyer? And I'm sure there are lots of things the Republicans want to ask them that I didn't think of. I want to see this rat testify that he never spoke once with Schiff Face about it.

If they want three people from the White House that Trump won't give them, why not offer Trump a trade? Oh, that wouldn't work, would it? That would make it fair, and the last thing Democrats are about is fair.

Literally none of those questions have any bearing on whether or not Trump committee an impeachable act.

So they should not be asked? Trump didn't commit any impeachable act. The commies are looking for any reason to try and get rid of him. He's doing too good of a job, and it makes them look bad. How can they ever promote Socialism and Communism when capitalism is working out so well?

When you have people plotting against a US President, these people should be known. What other country would allow rats in their administration or near the leader working against them? Whoever it is, the leaker and the rat, should be thrown out of the White House and never to return again. From this point on, because of their actions, they destroyed the communications between all world leaders and the White House. Nobody would ever trust the White House privacy again.