The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[CAA Flagship]

This. We don't need this forum to become an echo chamber.

Chamber chamber chamber

[Ibanez]

It should be accessible and done early on. I'd rather have legal,safe abortions than the alternative. You saw how it almost killed Penny in Dirty Dancing.

When is the exact moment it becomes "late term" or unacceptable?

Hen, we've had this discussion. I'm not going to rehash it. If you want to know where I stand, search it.

[BDKJMU]

You don’t lean right on much.

UNI88 and Ganny : centrists FTW

AZ and I went through this routine a month ago and we pretty much agree on everything. I grew up conservative Catholic. I think of myself as a centrist. I'm definitely independent. I've voted for both parties, and for 3rd parties. I don't follow a certain political party or ideology. I definitely haven't joined the cult of personality. I honestly do not recall Democrats, en masse, blindly following or defending Obama the "Right" defends Trump. On both sides, it's all about winning, not governing. It's all about what's best for me and my reelection, not my district or state.

Regarding Impeachment - I don't think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump has done something impeachable with respects to Ukraine. He talks in hyperbole and his speeches/responses are often nonsensical. He builds himself up and it's apparent that he doesn't understand how to speak without screwing yourself. He's a shady, POS but I'm not convinced he's guilty of the 1st charge. On the 2nd charge, I do think he's guilty. His own words have proven he's obstructed Congress in their pursuit of oversight - warranted or not. The Democrats should've shut up people like Waters who have been clamoring for impeachment since Day 1. They should've sent subpoenas for Bolton, Rudy and Mick and waited for that to come through before going through this process. The Republicans should've had the integrity to let the process play out. It think it's obvious by their attacks on the witnesses and the process and offering no defense of Trumps actions that they're trying to deflect and confuse who ever is watching. And now you have Mitch and others saying that they'll be impartial jurors. Correct me please, but wouldn't that talk get a juror thrown out of any other court? Both sides are messed up this process. Both sides are hyper-partisan and hypocritical for calling out the other for it.

Off the top of my head,here's where I stand on some issues.

Taxes: We're taxed enough. Cut spending. Nobody will - in fact the debt has grown more in Trumps 1st term than in Obama's.

Abortion: It's a tough one but it should be done accessible and done ASAP. None of this late term stuff.

Education - Set national standards but leave it up the states to decide how to meet those standards. Get the government out of the student loan business.

Regulation - regulate companies just enough to keep consumers safe, and the water and air clean

Defense - REDUCE IT. We spend way too much on crap we don't need. Bases, weapons systems, vehicles, antiquated tech.

Gay Marriage - let them get married. the government shouldn't be in the business of love. But since they are and they provide a benefit to hetero couples, the same should apply to gays.

LGTBAEIOEORU*(#Y Rights - Gays, Trans, etc... should be treated equally in matters like getting a loan or hiring practices. But, do not expect me to magically know that you self identify as a unicorn and go by a pronoun. It's fucking ridiculous.

2A - Amend it or STFU. If we need stricter laws to ensure mentally ill/dangerous people can't access them then I think that's good. But...Amend it or STFU.

Religious Freedom - practice what you want, just leave me the hell alone.

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

As far as the rest:
Abortion legal or illegal, gay marriage, drugs legal/illegal, education, etc, leave it up to the states. If its not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (like 2A) then it should be left up to the states.

Agree on reducing defense in ways you mentioned. Shut down a large chunk overseas bases, some domestic (redeploy some of those personell to border), reform procurement process, end use it or lose it budgeting. Wouldn’t reduce the reserves, maybe increase. Overall = ginormous savings.

[AZGrizFan]

AZ and I went through this routine a month ago and we pretty much agree on everything. I grew up conservative Catholic. I think of myself as a centrist. I'm definitely independent. I've voted for both parties, and for 3rd parties. I don't follow a certain political party or ideology. I definitely haven't joined the cult of personality. I honestly do not recall Democrats, en masse, blindly following or defending Obama the "Right" defends Trump. On both sides, it's all about winning, not governing. It's all about what's best for me and my reelection, not my district or state.

Regarding Impeachment - I don't think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump has done something impeachable with respects to Ukraine. He talks in hyperbole and his speeches/responses are often nonsensical. He builds himself up and it's apparent that he doesn't understand how to speak without screwing yourself. He's a shady, POS but I'm not convinced he's guilty of the 1st charge. On the 2nd charge, I do think he's guilty. His own words have proven he's obstructed Congress in their pursuit of oversight - warranted or not. The Democrats should've shut up people like Waters who have been clamoring for impeachment since Day 1. They should've sent subpoenas for Bolton, Rudy and Mick and waited for that to come through before going through this process. The Republicans should've had the integrity to let the process play out. It think it's obvious by their attacks on the witnesses and the process and offering no defense of Trumps actions that they're trying to deflect and confuse who ever is watching. And now you have Mitch and others saying that they'll be impartial jurors. Correct me please, but wouldn't that talk get a juror thrown out of any other court? Both sides are messed up this process. Both sides are hyper-partisan and hypocritical for calling out the other for it.

Off the top of my head,here's where I stand on some issues.

Taxes: We're taxed enough. Cut spending. Nobody will - in fact the debt has grown more in Trumps 1st term than in Obama's.

Abortion: It's a tough one but it should be done accessible and done ASAP. None of this late term stuff.

Education - Set national standards but leave it up the states to decide how to meet those standards. Get the government out of the student loan business.

Regulation - regulate companies just enough to keep consumers safe, and the water and air clean

Defense - REDUCE IT. We spend way too much on crap we don't need. Bases, weapons systems, vehicles, antiquated tech.

Gay Marriage - let them get married. the government shouldn't be in the business of love. But since they are and they provide a benefit to hetero couples, the same should apply to gays.

LGTBAEIOEORU*(#Y Rights - Gays, Trans, etc... should be treated equally in matters like getting a loan or hiring practices. But, do not expect me to magically know that you self identify as a unicorn and go by a pronoun. It's fucking ridiculous.

2A - Amend it or STFU. If we need stricter laws to ensure mentally ill/dangerous people can't access them then I think that's good. But...Amend it or STFU.

Religious Freedom - practice what you want, just leave me the hell alone.

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

As far as the rest:
Abortion legal or illegal, gay marriage, drugs legal/illegal, education, etc, leave it up to the states. If its not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (like 2A) then it should be left up to the states.

Agree on reducing defense in ways you mentioned. Shut down a large chunk overseas bases, some domestic (redeploy some of those personell to border), reform procurement process, end use it or lose it budgeting. Wouldn’t reduce the reserves, maybe increase. Overall = ginormous savings.

While generally I agree with “states rights” stuff, there are some issues which transcend that level. I don’t want women to have to go to another state to have an abortion because their state doesn’t allow it. Nationally, that’s just not a good look. Define early/late term and move on.

Another one is concealed carry. There should be a NATIONAL concealed carry law, with 50-state reciprocity. This bullshit of being pulled over in another state and going to jail for what’s perfectly legal in your state is crap.

Thirdly, marijuana laws. They need to legalize it nationally. We’re headed that direction anyway, so get off their fucking asses and do it.

There’s a few more....

[kalm]

AZ and I went through this routine a month ago and we pretty much agree on everything. I grew up conservative Catholic. I think of myself as a centrist. I'm definitely independent. I've voted for both parties, and for 3rd parties. I don't follow a certain political party or ideology. I definitely haven't joined the cult of personality. I honestly do not recall Democrats, en masse, blindly following or defending Obama the "Right" defends Trump. On both sides, it's all about winning, not governing. It's all about what's best for me and my reelection, not my district or state.

Regarding Impeachment - I don't think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump has done something impeachable with respects to Ukraine. He talks in hyperbole and his speeches/responses are often nonsensical. He builds himself up and it's apparent that he doesn't understand how to speak without screwing yourself. He's a shady, POS but I'm not convinced he's guilty of the 1st charge. On the 2nd charge, I do think he's guilty. His own words have proven he's obstructed Congress in their pursuit of oversight - warranted or not. The Democrats should've shut up people like Waters who have been clamoring for impeachment since Day 1. They should've sent subpoenas for Bolton, Rudy and Mick and waited for that to come through before going through this process. The Republicans should've had the integrity to let the process play out. It think it's obvious by their attacks on the witnesses and the process and offering no defense of Trumps actions that they're trying to deflect and confuse who ever is watching. And now you have Mitch and others saying that they'll be impartial jurors. Correct me please, but wouldn't that talk get a juror thrown out of any other court? Both sides are messed up this process. Both sides are hyper-partisan and hypocritical for calling out the other for it.

Off the top of my head,here's where I stand on some issues.

Taxes: We're taxed enough. Cut spending. Nobody will - in fact the debt has grown more in Trumps 1st term than in Obama's.

Abortion: It's a tough one but it should be done accessible and done ASAP. None of this late term stuff.

Education - Set national standards but leave it up the states to decide how to meet those standards. Get the government out of the student loan business.

Regulation - regulate companies just enough to keep consumers safe, and the water and air clean

Defense - REDUCE IT. We spend way too much on crap we don't need. Bases, weapons systems, vehicles, antiquated tech.

Gay Marriage - let them get married. the government shouldn't be in the business of love. But since they are and they provide a benefit to hetero couples, the same should apply to gays.

LGTBAEIOEORU*(#Y Rights - Gays, Trans, etc... should be treated equally in matters like getting a loan or hiring practices. But, do not expect me to magically know that you self identify as a unicorn and go by a pronoun. It's fucking ridiculous.

2A - Amend it or STFU. If we need stricter laws to ensure mentally ill/dangerous people can't access them then I think that's good. But...Amend it or STFU.

Religious Freedom - practice what you want, just leave me the hell alone.

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

And this belief right here is a shining example of what's wrong with America.

[89Hen]

When is the exact moment it becomes "late term" or unacceptable?

Hen, we've had this discussion. I'm not going to rehash it. If you want to know where I stand, search it.

I'm just trying to help you continue your evolution my friend.

In 2009 you said:

I am pro-choice, but don't you think there should be trimester limits on abortions. I have no problem when it is still a collection of cells but after 6 weeks, the fetus has minor brain function and a pumping heart. Perhaps it should only be allowed up to 6 weeks. People see abortion as birth control and it isn't.

In 2013 you said:

You can either be aborted when you are a fetus. You can't breath, you can't blink. You aren't aware of anything.(I should mention that while I favor abortion, i'm not sure about late term abortion) OR you can be brought into the world, live in the ghetto or a trailer park or foster home. You can live a life that is full of struggle where from Day 1 you have zero chance. Fuck that, kill me.

When I asked you in 2014 for exact moment, you responded with:

There isn't an answer that would satisfy you so why bother?

and left the discussion.

Later in 2014 you started coming around with the impending birth of your daughter:

I identify more with liberals but even liberals are too much for me. In the past 9 months, my views on abortion for instance, has shifted dramatically.

Made more progress in the middle of 2018:

I am 100% on board with 22 days, I know it's early but my position has changed since 2014. That's why I have no issue with someone using Plan B. Once that heart beats, I see it as a living being (using the same logic that I stated above).

I take partial credit (most going to you becoming a father) for getting you down from either killing babies that would otherwise grow up in the ghetto or third trimester, down to 5 week and then all the way down to 22 days. Pretty soon you will be protesting outside of abortion clinics!

[Ibanez]

Hen, we've had this discussion. I'm not going to rehash it. If you want to know where I stand, search it.

I'm just trying to help you continue your evolution my friend.

In 2009 you said:

I am pro-choice, but don't you think there should be trimester limits on abortions. I have no problem when it is still a collection of cells but after 6 weeks, the fetus has minor brain function and a pumping heart. Perhaps it should only be allowed up to 6 weeks. People see abortion as birth control and it isn't.

In 2013 you said:

You can either be aborted when you are a fetus. You can't breath, you can't blink. You aren't aware of anything.(I should mention that while I favor abortion, i'm not sure about late term abortion) OR you can be brought into the world, live in the ghetto or a trailer park or foster home. You can live a life that is full of struggle where from Day 1 you have zero chance. Fuck that, kill me.

When I asked you in 2014 for exact moment, you responded with:

There isn't an answer that would satisfy you so why bother?

and left the discussion.

Later in 2014 you started coming around with the impending birth of your daughter:

I identify more with liberals but even liberals are too much for me. In the past 9 months, my views on abortion for instance, has shifted dramatically.

Made more progress in the middle of 2018:

I am 100% on board with 22 days, I know it's early but my position has changed since 2014. That's why I have no issue with someone using Plan B. Once that heart beats, I see it as a living being (using the same logic that I stated above).

I take partial credit (most going to you becoming a father) for getting you down from either killing babies that would otherwise grow up in the ghetto or third trimester, down to 5 week and then all the way down to 22 days. Pretty soon you will be protesting outside of abortion clinics!

It has nothing to do with you.

[89Hen]

It has nothing to do with you.

That's fine with me. I'm just happy to see you evolving.

[Ibanez]

It has nothing to do with you.

That's fine with me. I'm just happy to see you evolving.

Good to know.

[Ibanez]

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

And this belief right here is a shining example of what's wrong with America.

That isn't what obstruction of Congress means.

[UNI88]

Ibanez is a centrist. He criticizes Trump but he also disagrees quite frequently with Geoffrey. He hasn't been blindly criticizing Trump but saying we shouldn't be giving him a pass.

[CAA Flagship]

Ibanez is a centrist. He criticizes Trump but he also disagrees quite frequently with Geoffrey. He hasn't been blindly criticizing Trump but saying we shouldn't be giving him a pass.

[BDKJMU]

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

As far as the rest:
Abortion legal or illegal, gay marriage, drugs legal/illegal, education, etc, leave it up to the states. If its not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (like 2A) then it should be left up to the states.

Agree on reducing defense in ways you mentioned. Shut down a large chunk overseas bases, some domestic (redeploy some of those personell to border), reform procurement process, end use it or lose it budgeting. Wouldn’t reduce the reserves, maybe increase. Overall = ginormous savings.

While generally I agree with “states rights” stuff, there are some issues which transcend that level. I don’t want women to have to go to another state to have an abortion because their state doesn’t allow it. Nationally, that’s just not a good look. Define early/late term and move on.

Another one is concealed carry. There should be a NATIONAL concealed carry law, with 50-state reciprocity. This bullshit of being pulled over in another state and going to jail for what’s perfectly legal in your state is crap.

Thirdly, marijuana laws. They need to legalize it nationally. We’re headed that direction anyway, so get off their fucking asses and do it.

There’s a few more....

Unlike the majority of conks, my abortion view has 0 to do with religion/100% states’ rights. If some states totally outlawed it (which I wouldn’t like), and others allowed late term abortion on demand (something I also wouldn’t like), still think it should be left up to the states as its not addressed in the Constitution. Think most states (40+), if allowed to craft their own laws, would fall in between those extremes anyway.

Not opposed the fed removing the criminality of pot off the books federally, but don’t think the fed should force legality (or illegality) on the states. Not their purview. Wouldn’t lose any sleep over my state legalizing it, but leave it up to the states IMHOP.
Heck, if a state wanted to do something as dumb as make alcohol illegal, states rights.

Agreed on the 50 state reciprocity. 2A not a states’ rights issue. If the fed can force 50 state DL reciprocity, and 50 state marriage license reciprocity, why can’t they force 50 state CCW license reciprocity?

While we’re at it, ramp back the 80+ year abuse of the Commerce Clause, which has led to massive fed govt growth & power, & regulations..

[Skjellyfetti]

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

First, the Donks in the House don't have to PROVE anything to impeach. It's an indictment. The standard is probable cause, not proof.

"Obstruction of Congress" is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505#


Roger Stone, for example, was charged with that for obstructing a congressional investigation.

From in or around May 2017 through at least December 2017, within the District of
Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., corruptly influenced,
obstructed, impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper
exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry and investigation is being had by either
House, and any committee of either House and any joint committee of the Congress, to wit:
STONE testified falsely and misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017;
STONE failed to turn over and lied about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI’s requests
about documents; STONE submitted and caused to be submitted a letter to HPSCI falsely and
misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and STONE attempted to have Person 2
testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1505 and 2.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... uHbK7Unocn

[GannonFan]

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

First, the Donks in the House don't have to PROVE anything to impeach. It's an indictment. The standard is probable cause, not proof.

"Obstruction of Congress" is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505#


Roger Stone, for example, was charged with that for obstructing a congressional investigation.

From in or around May 2017 through at least December 2017, within the District of
Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant ROGER JASON STONE, JR., corruptly influenced,
obstructed, impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper
exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry and investigation is being had by either
House, and any committee of either House and any joint committee of the Congress, to wit:
STONE testified falsely and misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017;
STONE failed to turn over and lied about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI’s requests
about documents; STONE submitted and caused to be submitted a letter to HPSCI falsely and
misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and STONE attempted to have Person 2
testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1505 and 2.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... uHbK7Unocn

Just from a cursory look of your link, would that even apply to issues between the two branches of government? There's not always a clear delineation between what each of those branches can do related to each other and there's plenty of history, from the founding to now, of that relationship shifting back and forth with regards to what the other can do. The comparison to Stone is not a good one as he wasn't acting as the Executive branch when he interfered with the investigations.

[Skjellyfetti]

Nixon was also charged with "interfering or endeavouring to interfere with" Congressional investigations.
https://watergate.info/impeachment/arti ... mpeachment

So was Clinton. Some familiar names like Lyndsey Graham voted in favor of it.

"refus[ing] and fail[ing] to respond to certain written requests for admission."

Their rationale:

In doing such, the President ``assumed to
himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of
the sole power of impeachment invested by the Constitution in
the House of Representatives''--the Constitution provides that
``the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power
of Impeachment'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5--and thus
warrants impeachment.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional- ... eport/830/


Next.

[GannonFan]

Nixon was also charged with "interfering or endeavouring to interfere with" Congressional investigations.
https://watergate.info/impeachment/arti ... mpeachment

So was Clinton. Some familiar names like Lyndsey Graham voted in favor of it.

"refus[ing] and fail[ing] to respond to certain written requests for admission."

Their rationale:

In doing such, the President ``assumed to
himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of
the sole power of impeachment invested by the Constitution in
the House of Representatives''--the Constitution provides that
``the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power
of Impeachment'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5--and thus
warrants impeachment.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional- ... eport/830/


Next.

That's just Congress and the President, regardless of party, arguing back and forth. Heck, I would just assume that any and all impeachments going forward (we now will have 2 out of the last 4 Presidents impeached so I'm assuming we'll see more in our lifetime) will include at least one article of impeachment that involves interference with Congress. Even Andrew Johnson had one article of impeachment (of the 11) be one where they said he said bad things about Congress. But that's just an adder article. I doubt we'll see an impeachment that is solely based on interference with Congress.

[Skjellyfetti]

This isn't based solely on interference with a Congressional investigation. But, ok.


And, just so we're clear - you think it's within a president's right to interfere with a Congressional investigation? If that's the case... I doubt we ever have another President impeached.

[BDKJMU]

What CRIME(S) have the donks proven? Where is “obstruction of Congress” defined as a crime in the United States Code?
What is ‘obstruction of Congress’? Making Congress mad? A POTUS SHOULD obstruct a branch of Congress controlled by the other party. That is his job- to obstruct their agenda and try to advance that of his own party. If Trump is guilty of ‘obstructing Congress ie making democrats mad then good. I expect him to keep doing that.

First, the Donks in the House don't have to PROVE anything to impeach. It's an indictment. The standard is probable cause, not proof.

"Obstruction of Congress" is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505#

Ignoring donk House subpoenas under exec privilege, asserting exec privilege with his conversations with his advisers (allowed under Article II, separation of powers) and saying see you in court isn’t obstruction of Congress as laid out above. Exactly what a president is supposed to do if he thinks Congress is not entitled to such information – assert executive privilege and let the courts decide. But donks don’t want to let the courts decide, because deciding things in courts take months and months. So they get mad and lower the bar for impeachment.

Derahowitz:

The president, as head of the executive branch, is entitled to challenge in court legislative subpoenas that demand material that may be subject to claims of privilege. He is also entitled to insist that the legislature obtain a court order before the executive branch complies. That is how checks and balances work.

Even if the president were wrong in challenging these subpoenas, his being wrong would not come close to being an impeachable offense. What do the Democratic experts claim it is? Treason? Bribery? A high crime? A high misdemeanor? It is none of the above and is, therefore, not a basis for impeachment.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1524 ... s-balances

[BDKJMU]

Nixon was also charged with "interfering or endeavouring to interfere with" Congressional investigations.
https://watergate.info/impeachment/arti ... mpeachment

So was Clinton. Some familiar names like Lyndsey Graham voted in favor of it.



Their rationale:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional- ... eport/830/


Next.

That's just Congress and the President, regardless of party, arguing back and forth. Heck, I would just assume that any and all impeachments going forward (we now will have 2 out of the last 4 Presidents impeached so I'm assuming we'll see more in our lifetime) will include at least one article of impeachment that involves interference with Congress. Even Andrew Johnson had one article of impeachment (of the 11) be one where they said he said bad things about Congress. But that's just an adder article. I doubt we'll see an impeachment that is solely based on interference with Congress.

Yep. You could have charged most presidents where the House was controlled by the opposite party under the under the donks new lower bar for “Obstruction of Congress”

Heck, I recall Obama ignoring right and left conk House subpoenas and asserting exec privilege right and left. Its what POTUS’s of the opposite party of Congress do.

[Ibanez]

First, the Donks in the House don't have to PROVE anything to impeach. It's an indictment. The standard is probable cause, not proof.

"Obstruction of Congress" is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 1505


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505#

Ignoring donk House subpoenas under exec privilege, asserting exec privilege with his conversations with his advisers (allowed under Article II, separation of powers) and saying see you in court isn’t obstruction of Congress as laid out above. Exactly what a president is supposed to do if he thinks Congress is not entitled to such information – assert executive privilege and let the courts decide. But donks don’t want to let the courts decide, because deciding things in courts take months and months. So they get mad and lower the bar for impeachment.

Derahowitz:

The president, as head of the executive branch, is entitled to challenge in court legislative subpoenas that demand material that may be subject to claims of privilege. He is also entitled to insist that the legislature obtain a court order before the executive branch complies. That is how checks and balances work.

Even if the president were wrong in challenging these subpoenas, his being wrong would not come close to being an impeachable offense. What do the Democratic experts claim it is? Treason? Bribery? A high crime? A high misdemeanor? It is none of the above and is, therefore, not a basis for impeachment.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1524 ... s-balances

I think you're confusing 2 investigations. Trump asserted executive privilege in the Mueller Investigation. I don't see anywhere that he's asserted that privilege w/ regards to Ukraine.

[Ibanez]

Read part of Trumps screed last night, one thing that I have to agree with him on is that the Democrats have been screaming for impeachment since Day 1. Anyone would feel targeted after that.

[Ivytalk]

The Bulwark has a piece by Charlie Sykes to the effect that the Donks should pursue a strategy of “impeach and withhold” at this point: pass the articles of impeachment, but refuse to send them to the Senate until and unless McConnell and company agree to rules for an impartial trial. The hope is to put pressure on a few “vulnerable” GOP Senators to increase the possibility of conviction. My old Donk Con Law professor favors that option.

[kalm]

First, the Donks in the House don't have to PROVE anything to impeach. It's an indictment. The standard is probable cause, not proof.

"Obstruction of Congress" is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 1505


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505#

Ignoring donk House subpoenas under exec privilege, asserting exec privilege with his conversations with his advisers (allowed under Article II, separation of powers) and saying see you in court isn’t obstruction of Congress as laid out above. Exactly what a president is supposed to do if he thinks Congress is not entitled to such information – assert executive privilege and let the courts decide. But donks don’t want to let the courts decide, because deciding things in courts take months and months. So they get mad and lower the bar for impeachment.

Derahowitz:

The president, as head of the executive branch, is entitled to challenge in court legislative subpoenas that demand material that may be subject to claims of privilege. He is also entitled to insist that the legislature obtain a court order before the executive branch complies. That is how checks and balances work.

Even if the president were wrong in challenging these subpoenas, his being wrong would not come close to being an impeachable offense. What do the Democratic experts claim it is? Treason? Bribery? A high crime? A high misdemeanor? It is none of the above and is, therefore, not a basis for impeachment.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1524 ... s-balances

You mean let the courts rule on executive privilege in this case? That would seem reasonable.

[Ibanez]

The Bulwark has a piece by Charlie Sykes to the effect that the Donks should pursue a strategy of “impeach and withhold” at this point: pass the articles of impeachment, but refuse to send them to the Senate until and unless McConnell and company agree to rules for an impartial trial. The hope is to put pressure on a few “vulnerable” GOP Senators to increase the possibility of conviction. My old Donk Con Law professor favors that option.

That is interesting. I fear it would only create more problems. More division. I'm off to read this article....