Welcome to America

View attachment 79488

Everyone I respect wants Trump impeached.

View attachment 79488

Connect them for us.

View attachment 79488

Not sure what that has to do with anything I posted. I will say, when Representative Gowdy investigated Secretary Clinton she showed up. I may not have liked the way the hearings were handled but I will give her credit she sat there.

Have I been watching too many cop shows? I thought when you refused to comply with a subpoena, cops showed up at your doorstep, and arrested you. I really had the impression that the Democrats were serious this time, and they were prepared for the inevitable stonewalling. Is there a normal grace period of time to comply with a subpoena? I don't mind sounding obvious but releasing the full intact transcript of the perfect phone call would completely exonerate the president*, right?

Or better yet - If the sheriff shows up at my front door and hands me a subpoena or a warrant to appear in court, the expectation is I will appear right? or the other choice is to have a lawyer show up representing you on that day or earlier with a legal reason as to why I am not showing up ? If I am expected to show up so should ANY POLITICIAN!!! Pure BS...

Have I been watching too many cop shows? I thought when you refused to comply with a subpoena, cops showed up at your doorstep, and arrested you. I really had the impression that the Democrats were serious this time, and they were prepared for the inevitable stonewalling. Is there a normal grace period of time to comply with a subpoena? I don't mind sounding obvious but releasing the full intact transcript of the perfect phone call would completely exonerate the president*, right?

That and claiming the subpoenaed officials, who you’re ordering not to appear, testimony would exonerate you.
Anyone connecting the dots yet?

Re: Syria/Turkey

Here's what will happen:
Kurds will align with Syria; Russia will monitor them. Iran will be exited out of Syria and Lebanon. Syrian refugees who are now in Turkey will be able to return home. We, the US, our guys, will be able to come home. Not to mention the millions of dollars not spent in Syria by the US.

Now let's hear from Col. Douglas MacGregor, who has many years experience in that region break it down. Before you all have a mini freak out, it is on Fox with Tucker, but Tucker asks maybe two questions. MacGregor speaks for 90% of the clip.

Bullshit. Watch what happens and it ain't unicorns and leprechauns. 1000s of years of hate does not have a fairy tale outcome.

9 conspiracy theories impeachment will expose and debunk
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-scandal-have-celebrity-status?obOrigUrl=true

That and claiming the subpoenaed officials, who you’re ordering not to appear, testimony would exonerate you.
Anyone connecting the dots yet?

The only dots to connect is that untill there is a vote on the floor. That no one will be paying attention to any subpoenas. It's not legal to do it the way the Dems are going about it. So if they start following the rules so will everyone else. Pretty simple. Just Nancy not doing her job again.

The only dots to connect is that untill there is a vote on the floor. That no one will be paying attention to any subpoenas. It's not legal to do it the way the Dems are going about it. So if they start following the rules so will everyone else. Pretty simple. Just Nancy not doing her job again.

Well then, simply post your proof it’s not legal and that a vote is needed.

I wanted to post this edit that the GOP was warned some of their deeds would come back to haunt them. Why is the GOP refusing to follow the rules they wrote?

Back in 2015, the House Republican majority changed the rules in the House to make it easier for them to subpoena the Obama administration. Rather than involve members of the Democratic minority in the process at all, they simply authorized their own committee chairs to unilaterally issue subpoenas to anyone they wished.

Come January, that may well come back to haunt the dwindling number of Republicans left in the U.S. House of Representatives. The result: for the first time, Donald Trump and his administration may soon face some real oversight.

Unlike some legislative bodies, the House essentially works on simple majority rule. With 218 votes, the majority does not need a single vote from the minority to issue subpoenas for testimony and documents — or to change its own rules. This means that after two years with largely no scrutiny at all, the Trump administration could soon be forced to be transparent with the American public about its conflicts of interest, compliance with the law, and myriad examples of corruption.

The only dots to connect is that untill there is a vote on the floor. That no one will be paying attention to any subpoenas. It's not legal to do it the way the Dems are going about it. So if they start following the rules so will everyone else. Pretty simple. Just Nancy not doing her job again.

There is no rule in the house that you have to have a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry. And you can issue a subpoena pertaining to any investigation whether it is about impeachment or not. If you don’t answer to subpoena you are in contempt of Congress and guilty of obstruction of justice. Both are impeachable offenses and both are obviously what a guilty person would do.

There is a precedent in the house. Clinton and Johnson. Dems have denied POTUS the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. Dems have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
Why are Dems so scared to hold a vote? Could it be they are just playing politics?[/QUOTE]

And just like that the Turks already bombing the Kurds. So much for kumbaya.

Trump treats allies like he does his whores, love em and leave em.

There is a precedent in the house. Clinton and Johnson. Dems have denied POTUS the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. Dems have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
Why are Dems so scared to hold a vote? Could it be they are just playing politics?

[/QUOTE]
Where is proof of your claim a vote is required? ( Hint: you can't produce what does not exist.) The rules don't say you can't have a vote just you aren't required. Try again.
Also, this is not a legal or criminal procedure so stop confusing yourself.

Where exactly in my post did I claim a vote was required?

Where exactly in my post did I claim a vote was required?

Sorry, I had you confused with one of the other members of the Treason Trio.
Back to your post. Your concern for being able to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans does not apply.

There is a precedent in the house. Clinton and Johnson. Dems have denied POTUS the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. Dems have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
Why are Dems so scared to hold a vote? Could it be they are just playing politics?

[/QUOTE]
If the subpoenaed officials testify before Congress, the Republicans will have plenty of time to question them. That’s the way the system works. The more people that testify, the more the facts will come out. The Republican will have every opportunity to try to undermine them. Same thing with the documents that are subpoenaed : the Republicans get access to them the same as the Democrats. That’s the way the system works.

Here is something you whiny trumpers need to realize, remember the phrase you reap what you sow. House rules have changed. During the Nixon and Clinton eras, House committee chairmen did not have subpoena authority, and needed an inquiry-beginning vote to grant that power. Today, thanks to the GOP, the House majority has unilateral subpoena power, removing a big incentive for such a vote.

Speaker Pelosi may also be holding an impeachment-inquiry vote in reserve, in case she needs it to convince the courts to force the White House to turn over documents or testimony.

I took most of this from the CSM.

And just like that the Turks already bombing the Kurds. So much for kumbaya.

Trump treats allies like he does his whores, love em and leave em.

Does genocide and aiding and abetting the enemy (Isis prisoners held by Kurds) count as high crimes and misdemeanors? Asking for a friend (humanity).

If the subpoenaed officials testify before Congress, the Republicans will have plenty of time to question them. That’s the way the system works. The more people that testify, the more the facts will come out. The Republican will have every opportunity to try to undermine them. Same thing with the documents that are subpoenaed : the Republicans get access to them the same as the Democrats. That’s the way the system works.[/QUOTE]
Facts come out like the full Volker testimony?

If the subpoenaed officials testify before Congress, the Republicans will have plenty of time to question them. That’s the way the system works. The more people that testify, the more the facts will come out. The Republican will have every opportunity to try to undermine them. Same thing with the documents that are subpoenaed : the Republicans get access to them the same as the Democrats. That’s the way the system works.

Facts come out like the full Volker testimony?[/QUOTE]
The full intact transcript. Keep your focus, man! All these leeches aren’t that important.

Douglas Spencer, law professor, University of Connecticut
"The Constitution is not clear about a lot of things. When it comes to impeachment, however, the language is clear: The House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” The Constitution is also clear that “each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

The Constitution is clear that the House can follow whatever rules it wants. Congress is engaged in an investigation, not a trial. If the president is impeached (a.k.a. indicted) then he would have the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses as part of his trial in the Senate. It is wrong to conflate an impeachment with a trial.

Finally, is there a legitimate basis for the current inquiry? The Supreme Court has held that congressional oversight is not unlimited. In Watkins v. United States (1957) the Court held that Congressional inquiries “must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.” As a result, the Court in 1957 threw out a conviction against union organizer John Watkins who had been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions by members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the House of Representatives the sole power of rooting out Communism. On the other hand, the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It’s hard to see how Watkins would apply in this case."

This was an excerpt from a poll of 13 legal scholars (all law professors) who unanimously concluded that the House is conducting this investigation lawfully and correctly, according to the Constitution. They gave extending reasons for their answers. When the House calls for a vote to impeach, and when they do impeach the president*, then it goes to "trial" in the Senate. At that time, witnesses are called, and witnesses are cross-examined and evidence is presented. At that time, of course, the president* can take the stand and testify under oath that he did not say any of those things that approximately 10 people heard him say in the phone call. Hahahahahahaha… sometimes I am so funny!

Bullshit. Watch what happens and it ain't unicorns and leprechauns. 1000s of years of hate does not have a fairy tale outcome.

OK. I will watch what happens. Let's watch this play out and revisit this in a few months?

What matters to us Americans is that our troops are not in Syria, who has not threatened or attacked America. Nor do we have any kind of treaty with Syria authorizing us to occupy their sovereign land.

And just like that the Turks already bombing the Kurds. So much for kumbaya.

Trump treats allies like he does his whores, love em and leave em.

Who said it was going to be kumbaya? Who are you saying is our ally? Kurds? Please present any document/treaty showing where America is a Kurdish ally.

There is conflict world wide, "wars and rumors of wars". If said country has not attacked us or one of our allies with whom we have a treaty, we should not be involved.

Douglas Spencer, law professor, University of Connecticut
The Constitution is not clear about a lot of things. When it comes to impeachment, however, the language is clear: The House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” The Constitution is also clear that “each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

The Constitution is clear that the House can follow whatever rules it wants. Congress is engaged in an investigation, not a trial. If the president is impeached (a.k.a. indicted) then he would have the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses as part of his trial in the Senate. It is wrong to conflate an impeachment with a trial.

Finally, is there a legitimate basis for the current inquiry? The Supreme Court has held that congressional oversight is not unlimited. In Watkins v. United States (1957) the Court held that Congressional inquiries “must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.” As a result, the Court in 1957 threw out a conviction against union organizer John Watkins who had been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions by members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the House of Representatives the sole power of rooting out Communism. On the other hand, the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It’s hard to see how Watkins would apply in this case.

This was an excerpt from a poll of 13 legal scholars (all law professors) who unanimously concluded that the House is conducting this investigation lawfully and correctly, according to the Constitution. They gave extending reasons for their answers. When the House calls for a vote to impeach, and when they do impeach the president*, then it goes to "trial" in the Senate. At that time, witnesses are called, and witnesses are cross-examined and evidence is presented. At that time, of course, the president* can take the stand and testify under oath that he did not say any of those things that approximately 10 people heard him say in the phone call. Hahahahahahaha… sometimes I am so funny!

A poll? with 13 legal scholars? Sure would like to see that poll and who the scholars were. The very liberal professor was going good until he just had to inject his juvenile "we got Trump this time" comment at the end.

This is a "get on TV" faux "let's get Trump" escapade. Take a vote Nancy...