Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

The two examples are different.

One involves statutory crimes. The other involves differences of opinion.

 

"Opinion" Sorry but no, all constitutional collars, all legal analysts, all lawyers, and a ton of former GOP congress people have all said Trump violated the constitution and law.

It does not get to be an opinion when the only ones defending him are current members of his party that only have had 2 excuses 62M (65M voted for Hillary) voted for Trump and they should wait out the process aka never act because the supreme court will take to long to rule.

 

Not good enough.

Too bad that you couldn't wait for legitimate processes to be carried out. Your route was illegitimate. So sad.

Also...

I'd ask you to prove your claim that all scholars etc..., but I know that that's untrue. So, nevermind.

 

Remember when he said he would release his taxes? Also now the argument is that "well he's guilty but you didn't do the right process so we have to let him off"? Wow.

The founding fathers warned us of exactly someone like Trump.

Trump admitted on tv that he asked for the favor in return for the money by claiming it was legal.

Nice to know you're party cared more about it's own power than safe guarding democracy.

 

Bold: You do realize that one needs only give one example to prove you wrong on that right?

And what do you mean by "a ton" of former GOP congress people? One? Two? Hundred? How many is "a ton" to you?

 

I'll bet you're taking him out of context. Provide where he stated such. And don't give a 2 second sound byte. Give the full context.

 

He said he did Q P Q I am 100% sure he does not know what that is but he still said it.

 

Noticed that you didn't provide where he stated such. All you did is reiterate what you already said. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I'm asking you to back up your claim with full context.

 

Calling Trump supporters "an extreme right faction" is a blanket ad hominem attack.
And it only undermines the credibility of Trump's opposition because it is so obviously false. Trump has always been an anti-establishment liberal. All of the policies Democrats complain about were embraced by Democrats before Trump decided to run on them. Everyone knows this. Which is why Democrats and Independents voted Trump into the White House.

The impeachment inquiry and vote has failed because it failed to uncover a single violation of the COTUS or any other law. If you had watched the hearings you wouod know that.

"To all of the witnesses: if you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand."

 

Do you deny that some of his supporters have said agenda?

 

Yeah, you thinking Trump obstructed Congress because the loud mouthed Dems failed to have a judge compel him to comply with their "subpoena".

 

The federal judges actually told him to hand then over, but he kept whining cause you Know innocent people do that.

 

Which federal judge?
Quote the ruling.
What is "them" and what does "them" have to do with the "obstruction of congress" claim?
I patiently await your educated response

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...oena-trumps-financial-records/?outputType=amp

 

You do realize we are talking about the impeachment and "obstruction of congress" claim?

 

Yes and he didn't comply with congresses request for documents after the judges told him to.

 

Sorry to inform you, that is not part of the HOR's impeachment "obstruction of congress" claim.
Are you even paying attention?

 

I assume that this is the "agenda" that concerns you: "It's about Socially conservative socially orthodox christianity guns and a nation free of immigrants."

"Social conservatives" and "orthodox Christians" have been rejected by the DP for decades. Many on the Left support the right to bear arms, and I am not aware of any Trump supporters who support making America "free of immigrants". They do support The Wall and limits on immigration.

Very few ordinary Americans support open borders - especially not with Mexico - for obvious good reasons.

 

WTF? You state that I accuse you of plagiarism responding to a post where I specifically state I'm not accusing you of plagiarism. What does that mean?

Rebuttal of what? I've been asking you again and again to make your case! If you make a good case, then maybe you convince me. But, so far, you have just been making wild statements with no arguments to support them.

What the hell? Nowhere on that quote does it indicate that our founding fathers opposed cooperation among the branches of government. Nowhere on anything you have written!

Do you have an argument? Or are you just trying to waste both our time? If you have no argument to support your statement, just let us know so we know it's the latter. And if that's the case, hope you have at least learned that making wild claims is not going to get you far. You will be called out.

 

What argument??? I'm only asking a question. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.

Don't bother. It's obvious that you can't. And this is why your only resource is this Strawman.

I say again: hope you at least learn that if you come here making wild unsubstantiated claims that you can't defend, like you just did, you will be called out on it by those of us who are here seeking a serious debate.

 

It means you brought up plagiarism for no reason then tried to be cute about it with a silly "not that I'm accusing you of plagarism"

 

Just wait until the House Dem's are subpoenaed by the Senate Republicans...

 

Just so we are clear if the next Democrat president acts the same way Trump is acting you guys who supports Trump will be totally fine right?

 

You know what's really "cute"? Posters who think they need to make off-topic interventions because they believe that somebody else is not capable of handling their own debate.

There is a reason why I brought up plagiarism. Thank you for you input, but it was unnecessary and useless.

 

Congratulations.