This is why the facts, no matter how you twist them, will not exonerate Trump

And, of course, you omitted parts of the article, including the title, for a reason.

"DOJ quietly posts internal legal opinions about immunity from congressional testimony"

Yes... Barr's DOJ opinions. The same guy who issued an "opinion" he claimed came from Mueller, but was later proven a lie.

How many times must I tell you guys that, no matter how much "satisfaction" you obtain from such nonsense... it's not going to help Trump!

 

He didn't lie about the Muller report.

 

Yup, quite difficult for him but he will only preside, I know he is not politically inclined, he even gained Trump's ire when he once joined the liberals before. But, let's see how the circus goes.

 

Oh my, like all you can do is impeach?
Giggles

 

Where does it say a citizen must do whatever the congress wants?

 

Then you didn't read the report

 

Oh but I did. To be sure it is more than a little ambiguous. But it is clear there was no collusion and proving obstruction justice given the sheer volume if info turned over would be difficult if not impossible to prove.

 

You're delusional if you think history will remember Trump favorably. This is a low point of US history. We elected a retard as president.

 

No new wars, Unemployment 3.6 % ratted the cages of the elites lying/ main stream news

63 million Americans said FU to fundamentally changing America.

Trump brought the nation back to the middle

 

Where are the promised facts?

 

That’s what Democrats said about Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan. It’s what the Dems say about every Republican president.

You need to come up with new material.

 

Including Nixon?

Mind you sometimes it is a case of

Lols!

 

Keep dreaming! Once Trump defeats the communist left wing he will be remembered as a great patriot!
Get ready for it.

 

Reading the Constitution won't bite. I remember when the right used to pride themselves on being ... "originalists".... By which they meant several things, but basically that they read and understood the Constitution. Doesn't quite work when your "idol" is being impeached for trampling it, I guess.

 

I don't know what "citizen" you're referring to. But, absent a context, the above statement is laughable given that the Constitution does grant Congress the power to pass laws.

Looks like you and the Constitution are not the best of friends....

 

Peace and prosperity are just too much to handle for the left.

 

My point exactly.

 

Er...

WUT??!?

You're point is a double negative?

That as there are no facts against Trump, he can't be exonerated?

 

Millions more Americans said FU to trump than votes for him.

 

Oh.... you mean the facts against Trump?

The facts relevant to this thread are on the OP. They are so simple and straightforward that you might have missed them.

Here...

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
"The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

The word "sole" on the above is actually the only thing that you need. That word removes the President of the United States. Do you need it explained to you why?

It doesn't say that the President can chose, or the courts, or even the Senate... None of them have any power whatsoever on Impeachment. It says only The House!

So when the President, takes it upon himself to say who can "participate", that is an illegal use of his powers to Obstruct Congress. Mind you, he can rightfully declare certain specific types of information "privileged." It's called "Executive Privilege". But when he orders his staff to just... not appear.... without even knowing what they are going to be asked, he can't argue that. And, just to be clear, he isn't arguing that Only a handful on this forum are.

Now... this should be your epiphany moment. Now you clearly see how easy it is to prove that Trump has committed an impeachable offense that warrants removal from office. And there is no defense possible to this. It's as if the framers were thinking of Trump when they wrote this. But you will not acknowledge this simple fact. Because you have been bombarded on wingnut media with strawman, red herrings, and outright lies.... But it's clear and straightforward to anybody who places patriotism before partisan politics. And, though that may not be the case among Republican Senators, I'm fairly sure it will be the case among the American People.

 

Interesting.

That the President, the Senate, and the courts can't impeach anyone, the separation of powers doctrine is nullified.

Sorry, that argument doesn't get out of the batter's box.

 

Do you even read what you write? That is separation of powers! If, for example, the courts had a say on Impeachment, a power that the Constitution ascribes to the House and solely to the House, then where is the separation? Same as if the President starts saying who can testify and who can't. Not to mention the fact that he is usurping a power explicitly granted exclusively to the House for his own benefit. That's a twofer! Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. Which, BTW, are the two Articles for which he is being impeached.

Simple!

The House decided to keep it simple so even partisan Trump loyalists can understand..... But they do need to pay attention. And understand the most basic concepts about how the Constitution works.

 

Reread my post.

I didn't say what you're saying I said.

You're so far off that I don't know how to make it clearer.

I'll try this:

If law enforcement officers have the sole power to make arrests, does that automatically eliminate the rights of citizens?

 

I've followed proceedings as carefully as possible...

...and it seems almost certain that Trump attempted to extort President Zelensky...and that Trump has obstructed the right (DUTY) of the House to investigate him.

The only way to come away from the testimony in any other way is to REFUSE to see the truth.

 

Remember this: the 'retard' Republican candidate won against the Democrat candidate, which I haven't seen you refer to as a 'retard', therefore it would be assumed that the Democrat candidate wasn't a 'retard'.

That say a lot about the Democrat candidate, now doesn't it?

Besides, use of the word 'retard' says a whole lot more about you then you planned on.