But Trump isn’t impeaching Schiff. — NOS4A2
We’re speaking about messaging for the purposes of influencing an investigation into the president of the United States.
I’m not sure what crime “obstruction of Congress” is — NOS4A2
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—
accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. — NOS4A2
accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. — NOS4A2
I’m hoping you looked at the article, and read it to the end where the article finishes with this line;
“The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.” — Brett
tyrannophobia is blinding many to the real warnings of the election: A dysfunctional economy, not lurking tyranny, is what needs attention if recent electoral choices are to be explained — and voting patterns are to be changed in the future.
No, my only point was the Dems were waffling, more concerned with messaging and optics than justice. The fact they use focus groups to see which worked better is evidence of this. In other words, the accused Trump of crimes and then changed their minds upon realizing it wouldn’t work. It’s all a show; it’s all Democrat dinner-theater. — NOS4A2
I never drew from it the conclusion you pretend I did. I’m only saying that it isn’t true Biden is Trump’s opponent in 2020, so why keep saying it? — NOS4A2
I use the term “fantasy” because the idea he is using it for political benefit for the purpose of winning the 2020 election is imagined, made up, presumption without evidence, and contrary to the explicit reasoning of all parties involved.
I’ve been consistent on this argument to no avail. — NOS4A2
Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020. — NOS4A2
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—
He wasn't just protesting. He was refusing subpoenas or ordering others to refuse subpoenas. Even someone who's innocent can be guilty of obstructing justice, so not even that defense works. Congress issued subpoenas; they must be complied with. It's their job to determine innocence or guilt, not the accused. Otherwise Congressional oversight is moot. We've discussed this before.
Also, they weren't the ones making accusations. It started with the whistle-blower complaint which was deemed by the IG to be urgent and credible. It's Congress' job to investigate further, and to carry out their investigation they need to subpoena evidence and testimony. That testimony warranted further investigation.
You seem to be saying that they need proof that he's guilty before they can even start an investigation into whether or not he's guilty, which is nonsense.
That Trump would be interested in the dealings of Biden's son wouldn't be about the upcoming elections? Gimme a break, you are simply very silly now.
You concluded that Trump couldn't ask for the investigation for the 2020 election because the primary hadn't occured yet.
Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020.
Just going to point out that, over here in the real world, it's perfectly normal for charges to be downgraded during the course of an investigation. So is selecting the most promising charges to proceed.
But obviously impeachment proceedings are highly political. They're not, or only in a small part, about justice.
https://nyti.ms/38jnf0tWASHINGTON — President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr took aim at the F.B.I. on Tuesday, reiterating attacks on former bureau officials and contradicting the agency’s director, Christopher A. Wray, a day after an independent watchdog concluded that agents were justified in opening an investigation into Russia’s possible ties with the Trump campaign.
Guilty of what? The problem is there was no crime, no direct evidence of any intention of committing a crime. — NOS4A2
The IG also deemed the whistleblower to have an an indica of arguable political bias in favor of an opposing candidate. The alleged whistleblower is a CIA Obama holdover connected to Biden. He used a New York Times articles as the basis for one of his accusations, that trump was doing so for his own benefit and for political dirt. — NOS4A2
The US constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to investigate the executive branch. It has been stonewalling congress since time immortal because it has the power to do so. — NOS4A2
Congress could hold the branch in contempt of Congress, sue for the documents or hold the office in criminal contempt, but absent that they have nothing. — NOS4A2
If I'm earning £30,000 a year and I buy a £500,000 sports car in cash then the government is warranted to open an investigation to determine if I have an unreported income or if I'm stealing, even though there's no direct evidence of there being any crime.
If there's a whistle-blower complaint, deemed credible by the Inspector General, that the President is improperly (or illegally) withholding aid approved by Congress and asking the would-be recipient of that aid to investigate a political opponent then Congress is warranted to open an investigation to determine if the President is abusing his power.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in always accusing Democrats and Obama-appointees of being partisan and biased? You dismissing every accusation because they come from a Democrat or an Obama-appointee is the very partisanship and bias that you're accusing them of.
Congress can't just dismiss a complaint based on the political-affiliation of the complainant. They have to investigate to see if there is any substance behind the accusation. Otherwise I guess when it's a Democrat President we can ignore any Republican or Trump-appointee?
The Executive is bound by laws passed by Congress unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise. Does the Constitution explicitly protect the Executive from the demands of 18 U.S. Code § 1505?
The evidence shows:
* Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani has promoted a debunked conspiracy theory that blames Ukraine and not Russia for the cyber-attacks on the 2016 election.
* In spring of 2019, Giuliani began pressing Ukrainian officials to announce investigations into the conspiracy theory and unfounded charges of corruption against Trump's presidential rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
* Trump handed Ukraine-America affairs over to his private attorney telling top officials to "talk to Rudy."
*For months Trump held-up nearly $400 million in war-fighting aid to Ukraine because he wanted the country's new president to do him the "favor" of investigating the Biden family and the conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. (Trump denies any quid pro quo.)
* In refusing all requests for information, Trump committed obstruction of Congress as it sought to investigate him.
Taken together, and as three esteemed constitutional law scholars have testified, the facts present an irrefutable case that the President committed impeachable offenses and a pattern of abuses that support an urgent approach [i.e. articles of impeachment]. Having invited a foreign power to attack his election rival in 2016 -- publicly asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails (Trump claimed that he was only joking) -- he had done it again in anticipation of 2020. "The integrity of our elections is at stake," noted Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler as he explained the urgent necessity for holding Trump accountable.
The apparent concern in regard to "true safety" is not placing attention where it can do the most good, which in this case is claimed to be the dysfunctional economy. Nowhere in the article does it explain how mass hysteria or tyrannophobia plays into the hands of totalitarianism. You still haven't explained how one may lead to the other. The truth is that you can't explain it, — praxis
There are people, myself included, who see the Impeachment process being used as a tool to remove an elected President. — Brett
Do you believe president Trump committed no crimes? — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.