Articles of Impeachment -- comment

How so?

 

Instead you impeached Clinton for lying about a BJ in the Oval. Which had absolutely nothing to do with his job as POTUS.

Yes, you are fools. On that, we agree.

 

I expect the congress to have the balls to convince a judge to compel him to comply.

 

Every judge who has ruled on this, currently or in the past, has said Presidents need to comply with Congressional subpoena's... don't know how you missed this news...

SNIP
Does Trump have a lawful basis for refusing to cooperate? The short answer is no. In President Nixon’s case, the Supreme Court accepted that a President’s conversations are protected by executive privilege but rejected the notion that such a privilege is absolute. Absent a particularized showing of “military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets,” the interest in confidentiality must yield in “a confrontation with other values.”
ENDSNIP

https://verdict.justia.com/2019/10/...ch-officials-must-comply-with-house-subpoenas

Reading check - What is the KEY word in the SNIP I posted above??

 

Judges interpret the law. Congress makes it.

 

Nah, a subpoena is not a Christmas Card you get to ignore of your don't like it. It has its own command that you comply lest face the consequences. You don't get to choose which subpoena you will comply with and one you will not comply with you. You comply, or YOU immediately take action to have it declared of no force.

 

Clinton was guilty of perjury. He lost his law license.

Trump is just "Orangeman bad".

 

This is the usual Form od Subpoena issued out od the Queensland Supreme Court.

Note the 'Take Notice' Section.

 

See how easy it was for you to state Clinton's impeachable crime there?

Okay, now do that for Trump's impeachable crime.

 

Obama ignored plenty of subpoenas.

He didn't take action to have the subpoenas declared of no force, he just ignored them, or he invoked executive privilege in an attempt to quash them.

 

And I care what Obama did? I don't you know. He is history, no longer POTUS.

 

Oh, I guess the rules change with every new President that's elected.

Good to know.

 

Nope.......not with me anyway. If what Obama did was wrong, Trump doing it does not make it right.

I hope that too is 'good to know.'

 

Yeah, it’s always OK for democrats.

 

Are the nine pages worth a read? I only got the Reader's Digest condensed version.

 

I am not a Democrat.

 

Didn’t say you were.

 

So why post that in response to MY post? To clear that up, I am not carrying any brief on behalf of anyone other than myself. If you want to talk about democrats, I am not your Huckleberry.

 

Democrats get away with transparently illegal activity like using a private server to avoid FOIA requests, sending classified info over it, etc...

 

Well, get your man Barr onto them. Why whinge to me about it?

 

Cite the statutes for the specific articles of impeachment, please and relate them to what Trump has done. If "Impoundment Control" was relevant it would have been included. Abuse of Power isn't a statute and not either a high crime nor a misdemeanor. Obstruction of Congress refers specifically to anti-trust laws. So what high crimes or misdemeanors are Trump being accuse of and state the statutes please.

 

You're the "Professor." Do it yourself. And, yes, "abuse of power" would be a "high crime and misdemeanor." I can recommend some good books for you, if you missed that in your education?

 

The thing is that when Moscow Mitch doesn't toss Russian agent trump out on his butt he will have set the stage for a Dem President to tell Congress to go ___ itself at a State of the Union address. So if that is what you want so be it. America won't last another 10 years if trump gets off.

 

If Trump had a law license he would have lost it years ago

At least two Trump lawyers lost theirs one landed in jail the rest have so many mafia connections that they will be more likely to wear cement shoes than jail time