Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

So, because its orange man bad then its a problem. Gotcha.

Ah yes, "obstruction". Someone exercising their powers and rights is now considered obstruction by Trump haters now a days. How could I forget? Like it or not Trump has a Right to challenge subpoena's from Congress. It's part of that whole "separation of powers" thing that is built into our federal government.

Oh and also like it or not Trump doesn't have to prove himself innocent. Those accusing him have to prove that he is guilty. That is the way that our system is set up and it is how it has run since our system was created.

 

I'm asking you to clarify your statement.

 

[

“take her out” is clear.

 

So explain it. Stop beating around the bush and avoiding clarifying what you said. Explain it. Or are you afraid to?

 

Your right. The DOD and Pence make the certification on July 13, 2018, and again in May 23, 2019. The thing is that Zelensky did not assume office until May 20, 2019. From what I understand, President Trump did not feel that three days was long enough to evaluate how the new administration would operate. He was not sure if the new President was strong enough to resist the corrupt elements that were still operating within Ukraine. President Trump wanted to talk directly with Zelensky before releasing the aid. That Conversation was held in July 2019, and the aid was released before the 90 day freeze ran out. There is nothing nefarious about this situation. Certainly, nothing impeachable.

That statement has been true since the day that Ukraine declared their independence. When you consider that fact that a single tank costs more then $600 Million, $400 million in military aid is not going to do much to change that fact. The survivability of Ukraine lies in it's diplomatic ties, and the willingness of allies to come to their aid should Russia choose to invade them.

One question still remains unanswered by liberals and Democrats everywhere. If Military Aid was so necessary to Ukraine's survival, then why did the Obama Administration seek $1 billion for the Ukraine economy, and nothing for their military?

 

No, it's because he's the current President and he is the one being impeached. All the others are not the issue since they are not President and are not involved in the impeachment process. So your point about what former Presidents may or may not have done is irrelevant.

Trump hasn't formally challenged the subpoenas, nor has he exercised his powers and rights, he has obstructed the House investigation by refusing to comply with the subpoenas and ordered those who have been subpoena'd to refuse to comply.

Correct but he hasn't done so. Obstruction is not a formal challenge, it's obstruction, plain and simple.

Obstruction is not a part of any "separation of powers" doctrine nor is it a power granted to the Executive branch (Article II). In fact it's a violation of the Constitution (see 10th Amendment and Article II Section 1 Clause 8 ).

I have no disagreement with that. However, he has been formally charged with obstruction and not only obstructed in plain view but even publicly admitted to obstruction and bragged about it. So whether he is guilty of committing obstruction or not is not in question, it's a fact supported by dispositive evidence. The Senate can vote to acquit but that won't change the fact that he committed obstruction and admitted to it.

 

Senate Intel found no evidence of 2016 Ukrainian interference: report
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-no-evidence-of-top-down-ukraine-interference

Senate panel look into Ukraine interference comes up short
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/senate-panel-ukraine-election-interference-074796

 

Actually its very relevant as it shows that withholding of funds by a President is not something "unprecedented" and is in fact a common thing.

Which is all he needs to do to challenge them. He doesn't need to make some grand formal statement of "I'm exerting Executive Privilege". He simply has to refuse to abide by them.

By simply refusing to comply with them he is challenging them. Trump doesn't have to go to the courts to contest the subpoena's. The Dems have to go to court to give their subpoena's force. That is always how it has been every time that a President has refused to comply with a subpoena. Historical fact shows that.

Not sure why you brought up the 10th Amendment since that part of the BoR has to do with powers not delegated to the federal government goes to the States. Last I knew the President is the one that dictates foreign policy. As for Article II section 1 clause 8...that's about the presidents oath of office, again, not sure why you bring this up as it has nothing to do with impeachment.

And while you call it "obstruction", others call it asserting his powers as President...IE: Executive Privilege. Something that the courts have agreed the President does have.

Please show where Trump as admitted to obstruction. Give exact words with full context please.

 

Oh, I’m so afraid. I could be the next one “ taken out” by another internet tough guy.

 

War crimes is also a "common thing" since it's been committed by the last 3 Presidents and a case could be made that it's also been committed by the previous 3 as well. Does that mean it's ok for every President to commit war crimes because it's a "common thing"? In any case, whether it's unprecedented or not is still irrelevant, this President is being impeached for improperly withholding funds for his personal benefit. That's all that matters and it's the first article of impeachment for THIS President.

Failure to comply with a congressional subpoena is obstruction, not a "challenge". A challenge would be a formal act, not a blanket refusal, you are making crap up.

The courts have no authority in an impeachment process, that is a power exclusively granted by the Constitution to the House in Article I Section 2 Clause 5. It doesn't belong to Article III (the judiciary) and does not mention anything about involving the courts. As posted previously, if the House needed the courts to impeach, their power to impeach would be worthless. The same is true with the Executive. The President has no constitutional authority to interfere with or OBSTRUCT the House's impeachment powers.

Or The People, exactly. If you understood the Constitution and the 10th Amendment you would understand that the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government (the Executive in this case) from asserting powers not specifically granted by the Constitution.

This is NOT about foreign policy.

It has everything to do with impeachment and every single clause in the Constitution. What do you think the Oath of Office is all about anyway, just ceremonial hot air? A President and every government servant takes the Oath to preserve, protect and the defend the Constitution, not each other or themselves. That is their primary mandate, everything else is secondary as long as it doesn't violate that Oath.

Others like you. Others also call torture "enhanced interrogation". Obstruction is obstruction no matter how much you want to imagine it isn't.

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength." - George Orwell, "1984"

Yeah something the courts "interpreted" but doesn't exist in the Constitution. But that's yet another topic.

President Trump boasted Wednesday that his side in the impeachment trial has information that wasn’t shared with the House Democrats who pursued the investigation and brought the charges.

One of the impeachment managers presenting the case against the president observed that his remarks, at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, appeared to support one of the two charges he faces: obstruction of Congress by refusing to answer requests for documents or allow testimony by administration officials.

Trump, when asked by a reporter for his reaction to the impeachment trial that resumed Wednesday afternoon, praised the work of his legal team, adding that they had the advantage of possessing “all the material.”

“We’re doing very well,” said Trump. “I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job. Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material.”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-trial-all-the-material-obstruction-davos-185326298.html

So in your world "Executive Privilege" or asserted "powers" means you can hide evidence from the House but freely give it to whom you choose. Sorry it doesn't work both ways even if "Executive Privilege" is implied. Furthermore, if Trump actually had exculpatory evidence that would exonerate him, why wouldn't he readily hand it over? The answer is that all he has is incriminating evidence and none that would clear him.

The power to impeach is explicit in the Constitution, "Executive Privilege" is non-existent in the Constitution and so is some kind of phantom "challenge". Again see the 10th Amendment instead of inventing crap you believe supports your argument(s).

 

In other words you realize just how stupid your statement was and refuse to admit that you were wrong in stating it.

 

Difference being is that one is legal, while the other is not. It is quite legal for the President to with hold funds as part of their foreign policy. Congress does not make foreign policy. The President does, per the Constitution.

You're forgetting the separation of powers. Congress cannot willy nilly impose subpoena's whenever they feel like it upon the Executive Branch. There must be a valid legislative purpose and cause to issue a subpoena and only the Courts can decide if such reasons that are given are enough to over ride a Presidents Executive Privilege. Congress does not get to decide when EP applies or not. The courts do. If things were done the way that you believe it to be done then executive privilege would not have any standing in any court of law and would have been dismissed in the Nixon case. Yet it wasn't. It was affirmed to be real and that Congress cannot just over ride it. They also stated valid reasons that it could be over ridden. But the only ones that can actually decide the validity is the courts.

And while to you a "challenge" must be a "formal act", a blanket refusal for others is a challenge.

I never stated that the courts have any power in an impeachment process. They are however necessary to enforce any subpoena to override Executive Privilege. An impeachment process is not an all powerful get out of jail free card that allows Congress to do whatever it pleases.

What power do you think Trump is asserting that was not granted by the Constitution?

Withholding funds IS about foreign policy.

Prove that Trump has done anything while President to further himself.

So if I tell a cop to "go get a warrant because I'm not giving you squat" Would you consider that obstruction? Or would you consider it as me exercising my Rights? With your logic so far it would be cause for the cops to arrest me for obstruction.

Ah I see, You think because its not explicitly detailed in the Constitution then it doesn't exist? Then I guess you have no right to privacy and the cops can go into your home at any time they so please so long as you are secure and not in any danger. Right? Just because something isn't explicitly written in the Constitution doesn't mean that it isn't implied. As it stands your opinion on whether the President has EP or not is just that, your opinion, and it has no bearing on whether or not it exists and can or cannot be used. Because right now it is considered as real and can be exerted whenever the President feels the need to use it. And only the Courts can decide if Congress can over ride it.

I see nothing in there that admits to obstruction. Though I can see why it does to you since you don't believe that the President can assert executive privilege and any asserting of a persons Rights can be considered as obstruction.

Yes, the President can assert Executive Privilege any time that he wants. Whether or not Congress can over ride that EP is entirely up to the Courts. If the courts decide that EP does not apply then he has no choice and must hand it over. If he doesn't THEN that is obstruction.

As for your question on exoneration? Since when in the US does a person have to prove their innocence? Sorry but I don't hold with the idea of "if you're innocent then why not just tells us everything?". That is a sure way to get screwed over by people that are LOOKING to convict you of anything possible. But hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a lawyer and a cop that will say the same thing.

Like I said: "You think because its not explicitly detailed in the Constitution then it doesn't exist? Then I guess you have no right to privacy and the cops can go into your home at any time they so please so long as you are secure and not in any danger. Right?" Furthermore since marriage is not in the Constitution as a Right then I'm sure you have no problems with the individual States deciding whether to allow same sex marriages or not? And since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution then individual States can ban it or allow it completely? Also since the BoR's is strictly about restraining the federal government and not individual states then Alabama can ban Islam? Especially since the 14th mentions nothing about incorporating any of the Amendments to applying to the States?

Your thought process is extremely dangerous to freedom, you know that?

 

There are so many faulty concepts here that you're making a mishmash by conflating individual rights with powers and privileges. They are vastly different. The main premise that you don't understand is that government servants have no protected rights in their capacity as state actors. The Constitution was written to protect individual rights from government (and others), it wasn't written to protect the rights of government servants in their capacity as state actors.

There is no difference insofar as legality, they are both illegal. The President does not have the power to withhold funds allocated by Congress that he ratified with his signature and it isn't foreign policy to do so. Especially not when he is deliberately covering up the trail by hiding everything from Congress on a secure server.

I'm not forgetting anything and Congress (in this case the House) isn't "willy nilly impos(ing) subpoena's whenever they feel like it upon the Executive Branch." The House is exercising their constitutionally granted power to impeach by conducting a pre-impeachment investigation into the actions of the President. The President has no power to prevent the House from conducting such an investigation. If the President had such a power, the impeachment process would be meaningless as the President could always thwart such an investigation. Again, the power to impeach is EXPLICIT, not ASSumed (such as the invented concept of Executive Privilege).

(portions I've already explained skipped)

A host of them, including and especially OBSTRUCTION of a constitutionally granted process.

It's not my job to prove anything. But for one OBSTRUCTION is all about trying to cover Trump's giant rump. There is not another reason, he hasn't stated one, not even Executive Privilege, he hasn't formally challenged anything. The free whims of a President are not a power granted in Article II. Trump claimed his defense has everything while the House was denied the same evidence. That's not foreign policy nor is it "Executive Privilege" to cover his ass.

And here you're trying to apply individual rights protected by the Constitution to the President in his capacity as state actor. See the first paragraph, you are thoroughly confused.

It may exist, but it is not constitutionally compliant (I take it you still don't understand the purpose of the 10th Amendment). There was a reason for Article V. If it's not in the Constitution, the remedy is the AMENDMENT process. In this case you're trying to argue that the concept of Executive Privilege, which doesn't exist in the Constitution for good reason, overrides a specific constitutionally granted power.

See first paragraph for comprehension.

See first paragraph for comprehension.

Then you believe the President has the power of a monarch. This is the very reason the framers gave the House the SOLE power to Impeach. You don't even understand the essence of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was based on the philosophy of the Declaration. Why on earth would the framers want a President to have such unlimited power after they just revolted BECAUSE they had a monarch with such power? Obviously they wanted a mechanism by which a President's power can be checked. If the President then controls that mechanism or throws a monkey wrench into it with impunity, what kind of sense does that make to you?

See first paragraph for comprehension. I've watched the video and agree with it 100% and have advocated the same years before the video was made. You're mixing apples and oranges (see first paragraph).

You need to check the mirror, you're advocating that the President has the powers of a monarch. How dangerous to freedom do you think that is? Not to mention you're thoroughly confused about rights, powers and privileges. But I can't blame you, I've been studying the Constitution for the last couple of decades. If you don't understand these Constitution 101 concepts, you will buy into all sorts of misconceptions.

 

If Charles Manson insists that he is Napoleon, and everyone ignores him, that doesn't mean Charles Manson becomes Napoleon.

 

That DEMANDS that you IGNORE the WITHHOLDING of the $400 billion aid funds.

It your criminal IMPOTUS only cared about "past corruption" there would be NO reason to withhold the funding.

Your IMPERFECTLY UNREASONABLE "alternative explanation" REQUIRES both cherry picking and disingenuous ignoring of HARD FACTS.

You don't have any "alternative explanation" for the withholding of the funds or WHY your criminal IMPOTUS demanded that Giuliani MUST be involved?

The ONLY things that "completely falls apart" are these endless futile attempts to put lipstick on the Orange Pig in the Oval office.

 

$400 billion? Better check your facts.

 

Typo!

That should be $400 Million instead!

 

You were only off by 99900%.

 

So....Government "servants" are slaves to you? They have no Rights? Where in the world did you ever get that idea? Certainly not from the Constitution.

Actually, yes, the President does. As every single President that we have ever had has done so. It is the President that conducts foreign policy. Not Congress.

Can you show me where the House voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry?

You made the claim. Therefore the onus is on you to prove it. And claiming "obstruction" for using ones powers and Rights is certainly not going to cut it.

That you think it isn't "constitutionally compliant" has no affect on reality. Did you know that one of the Founders USED Executive Privilege? Bet you're shocked by that revelation. Look up George Washington + Jay Treaty + executive privilege. You will find that George Washington refused to hand over documents to Congress even though they subpoenaed them.

If I believed that the President has the power of a monarch then I would believe that the President could disband Congress. Obviously that cannot happen. Nor would I support such. That you read such into my statement shows that you are trying to read minds. You can't. Just because a President can assert EP any time they want does not mean that it cannot be challenged and over ruled. As I have stated repeatedly already, the courts can over rule an EP. Congress cannot. Do you think that Congress is all powerful? Parliamentary? Because the Founders were as much against that as they were against a Monarch. Which is why they built in checks and balances into our system of government that made them equal. Not one above the other.

That you think just because someone serves as a government official then they have no Rights is...disturbing. Btw...apples and oranges are both fruits. Therefore there are similarities....

 

The answer to that question is readily available if you know how to use Google.

 

I never mentioned the word slave, did I? Quit inventing crap because you have a reading comprehension issue.

Not in their capacity as state actors, I thought I already explained that to you.

It's not an "idea", it's SELF-EVIDENT except to people like you. From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

In other words, a government exists to SERVE The People, to SECURE (protect and defend) individual rights. There is NO other valid purpose for government to exist. Otherwise it is a rogue criminal self-serving entity much like any monarchy or dictatorship. These government servants are the paid employees of The People, not their masters. They are granted POWERS (via the Constitution, a contract between The People and their government), not rights. I'm sorry but you are truly lost on the basics.

The "foreign policy" nonsense has already been explained to you, several times. In your world a President can launch an invasion of Canada and claim he used his "foreign policy" powers (or "Executive Privilege", take your pick) to do so. It isn't an all purpose excuse to do as he pleases. And also in your world he can later be stopped by the courts well after the damage has been done.

Any member of the House can initiate an impeachment inquiry, it is a power granted by the Constitution. In this case it was Nancy Pelosi. Do you know how to use Google?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump

Here's one that failed to get past the House Judiciary Committee but was initiated nonetheless:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

Here we go again, please read for comprehension. The President has NO rights in his capacity as a state actor.

Your reality, not true reality. I'm well aware that all 3 branches of the US government have subverted the Constitution throughout history. That doesn't mean that subversion is ok because it was and is being done 24/7. We don't have a Constitutional Republic as guaranteed in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution and haven't had one since at least 1803 (Marbury v Madison).

If you believe the President can claim "Executive Privilege" at any time and even assume it without declaring it, then you believe the President can do anything and that would make him a monarch or a dictator.

Obviously it can in your world and you've already declared your support for it in your posts.

I read YOUR words, not your mind. Maybe you post crap you don't believe.

Again for the umpteenth time, no government servant has rights in his/her capacity as a state actor. Impeachment is used for the purpose of indicting a President that the House believes should be removed from office. It is NOT a typical criminal procedure even though the accusation is that he/she has committed a crime. The Senate's power is restricted to the trial and they have the final word on removal or acquittal. If the Senate acquits, the House still has the power to impeach again if they choose to do so.

 

None of your rights are absolute, especially while doing the work of the people as an elected or appointed public official.. When doing the work of the people, Trump gives up his privacy rights. He is obligated to show the evidence. If he declares executive privilege, evidence of the this declaration still has to be provided and adjudged appropriately .

 

I stand by my answer. Internet bullying and insults won’t change that. You’re only incriminating yourself by standing up for “ take her out ” as a reasonable response by the orange toad.

 

Responding without context makes your response nonsense. If the House presents the facts, and Trump's team doesn't address them... people won't "ignore them" (as in your example). We The People (to whom all this is directed) will believe that the facts presented (actual or not) are the facts. They become the real facts that influence their vote.

 

You're just making a bunch of assertions that have no basis in reality. You just wrote a paragraph of "Golem's Rules" which make sense only to Golem.