Why didn't House Democrats follow normal protocol to call impeachment witnesses?

[jc456]

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

The fact that withholding the aid was illegal was just a side note and not at all the substance of his impeachment.. The intent of his corrupt Ukraine shakedown scheme was to inflict political damage on half the country.

Embrace your corruption.

he was? how? since when is getting dirt on an opponent against the law? Can you say Dossier? LOL.

Instead of fighting corruption in the Ukraine, Trumpybear was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to engage in the politically corrupt act of announcing an investigation into the Bidens without any evidence that anyone had broken any law, just a favor to the "Don"!

Where? Post that evidence.

 

[jc456]

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

So you’re calling trump’s lawyers liars? Haha haha

 

[Nostra]

This isn't about Trump doing anything other Presidents haven't done before him.

Of course it is, he got impeached for it. Not one President has held foreign aid hostage for a favor against a domestic political opponent.

Has a domestic political candidate and an offspring ever done what the Biden's did in the Ukraine? Even the Clinton's didn't try to set up Chelsea with that kind of a sweetheart deal and we all know how money hungry THEY are!

There you go again accusing the Bidens of a crime. If Joe contacted Burisma and demanded a job for his son that would be a crime.

Come on, Boo! We both know I haven't accused the Biden's of a crime...I'm simply pointing out that what Joe Biden has been doing with his idiot son Hunter for decades now is sleazy. Can't argue that...so you keep trying to make this about "crime"? You're floundering in this string...just saying!

What Kind of sweetheart deal are you claiming that Joe made for his son? Now you want to slander him more by claiming he's been arranging these type of sweetheart deals for his son for decades? I don't even think old Trumpybear has gone that far yet!

Outline for us exactly what Crackhead Hunter's qualifications are for a $83,000 per month job with an oil and gas company in Ukraine when he has ZERO EXPERIENCE in OIL, GAS, OR UKRAINE.

After you do that, explain why the founder of Burisma said he was hired for his last name..........

All while Daddy VP was put in charge of the Ukraine..............................


Hmmmm....................


I will await your detailed response.

 

[jc456]

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

You should learn law

 

[basquebromance]

Murkowski and Collins have both said they will vote to acquit Trump

bye bye, Dems!

 

[jc456]

Of course it is, he got impeached for it. Not one President has held foreign aid hostage for a favor against a domestic political opponent.

Has a domestic political candidate and an offspring ever done what the Biden's did in the Ukraine? Even the Clinton's didn't try to set up Chelsea with that kind of a sweetheart deal and we all know how money hungry THEY are!

There you go again accusing the Bidens of a crime. If Joe contacted Burisma and demanded a job for his son that would be a crime.

Come on, Boo! We both know I haven't accused the Biden's of a crime...I'm simply pointing out that what Joe Biden has been doing with his idiot son Hunter for decades now is sleazy. Can't argue that...so you keep trying to make this about "crime"? You're floundering in this string...just saying!

What Kind of sweetheart deal are you claiming that Joe made for his son? Now you want to slander him more by claiming he's been arranging these type of sweetheart deals for his son for decades? I don't even think old Trumpybear has gone that far yet!

Outline for us exactly what Crackhead Hunter's qualifications are for a $83,000 per month job with an oil and gas company in Ukraine when he has ZERO EXPERIENCE in OIL, GAS, OR UKRAINE.

After you do that, explain why the founder of Burisma said he was hired for his last name..........

All while Daddy VP was put in charge of the Ukraine..............................


Hmmmm....................


I will await your detailed response.

They posted yesterday to use his name! And with a straight face it’s above board! Hahaha hahaha

 

[Nostra]

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

The fact that withholding the aid was illegal was just a side note and not at all the substance of his impeachment.. The intent of his corrupt Ukraine shakedown scheme was to inflict political damage on half the country.

Embrace your corruption.

he was? how? since when is getting dirt on an opponent against the law? Can you say Dossier? LOL.

Instead of fighting corruption in the Ukraine, Trumpybear was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to engage in the politically corrupt act of announcing an investigation into the Bidens without any evidence that anyone had broken any law, just a favor to the "Don"!

Lies.

 

[Nostra]

Howell is a far-left hack appointed by Obama and she worked for Patrick Leahy for 10 years.

Part of that ruling has already been reversed, the rest is still on appeal.

You lose again.

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how ******* clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

 

[Nostra]

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how ******* clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

No, they weren't, Moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

How do I not know? Because I'm not emotionally invested in believing everything the Democrats do is perfect, so long as it's in service of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I repeat, Trump had every right to challenge their subpoenas, and the appropriate place to argue it out was in front of a judge, like every other challenged subpoena that occurs in this country. It is NOT in the media to pander to a bunch of legally-challenged halfwits like you.

 

[Nostra]

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

 

[Siete]

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.t dope

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

hey dope Trump got his fat ass impeached - no amount of your horseshit changes that.

DOPE

 

[dudmuck]

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules.

 

[Nostra]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.t dope

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

hey dope Trump got his fat ass impeached - no amount of your horseshit changes that.

DOPE

Don't care. He will be 100% exonerated tomorrow.

Your party is in chaos, and Trump has his highest approval ratings of his Presidency. So, congrats to you...........I guess.

 

[Nostra]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

The three House committees that began the investigation on September 9 indisputably had the constitutional authority to do so as part of the oversight power. And they had the express authorization to issue subpoenas under House rules.

Excuse me if I pay no credence to your opinion piece from some egghead professor.

 

[WillowTree]

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.t dope

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

Hey Dope, the invalid subpoenas were issued before the vote by the entire House, which is why they are invalid, dope.

hey dope Trump got his fat ass impeached - no amount of your horseshit changes that.

DOPE

He did. To the detriment of the dumbasseddemocrats

 

[jc456]

I guess if you don't know your point, nor do we.

It's clear, dope. It was about the investigation that happened prior to the vote.
You then mentioned 13 witnesses that came after the vote. IOW irrelevant.

correct within that investigation. what is it you think they did with those 13 testimonies?

What is your point, dope?

Are you saying that evidence gathered in an investigation outside of an official impeachment proceeding cannot be used as evidence in an impeachment?

nope, you said that they didn't get to bring in witnesses. sure they did. with the articles.

WTF are you talking about?!
I said no such thing, dope.

Then what’s your issue?

 

[jc456]

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how ******* clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

They were challenged as invalid since Nazi Pelousy didn't hold a vote by the entire House to initiate impeachment.

Why are you too stupid to comprehend that?

He has no idea

 

[jc456]

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.

How do I not know? Because I'm not emotionally invested in believing everything the Democrats do is perfect, so long as it's in service of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I repeat, Trump had every right to challenge their subpoenas, and the appropriate place to argue it out was in front of a judge, like every other challenged subpoena that occurs in this country. It is NOT in the media to pander to a bunch of legally-challenged halfwits like you.

Well he can’t argue that point since the demofks dropped the subpoena of one of the challenges. Game, set, match on that fkr

 

[Ame®icano]

hey dope Trump got his fat ass impeached - no amount of your horseshit changes that.

DOPE