Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: I am not tyingthis specifically to this investigation..but it seems like any time the President wants to shut down an investigation into his conduct, he can, and just claim there was no misdeed/crime, so i am shutting the whole thing down. Am I misunderstanding that? So truly the President is above the law ? Again, this is not related to this investigation. yes, he constitutionally can. the implications of which are remedied by the legislature with impeachment and impeachment only. witch hunts aside, they have no other constitutional power against the Executive. Edited May 1, 2019 by Foxx
LB3 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: I am not tyingthis specifically to this investigation..but it seems like any time the President wants to shut down an investigation into his conduct, he can, and just claim there was no misdeed/crime, so i am shutting the whole thing down. Am I misunderstanding that? So truly the President is above the law ? Again, this is not related to this investigation. Only one man is above the law... 1 2
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 1 minute ago, njbuff said: Why would he be held in contempt? defying a subpoena (which is what the Dems will do next if he doesn't appear voluntarily tomorrow). 1
Hedge Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Thanks to all who provided the rolling summation. I wasn't able to tune in until the Senator Cruz segment started. And what a great part to catch live! 2 1
snafu Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 34 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'd never heard Cruz make a argument before. I don't particularly like him, but he must be a profoundly formidable presence in the courtroom. He'd make a good Supreme Court Justice. Right after the 2016 election, he had a town hall debate vs. Bernie Sanders (I think it was on CNN). It was no contest whatsoever. Not remotely close. Ted Cruz is no fool. People don't like him because he's slick and squirrely. 2
plenzmd1 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: yes, he constitutionally can. the implications of which are remedied by the legislature with impeachment and impeachment only. they have no other constitutional power against the Executive. but how could they bring impeachment proceedings if there is no investigation? This is just shocking to me.. I mean I no I am no lawyer..but I had no clue that was how it worked. BTW, when Graham hated Trump, i thought he was a skeezy guy even though he and I shared the same view if Trump. Now he is a Trump supporter, but for some reason, I have grown to really like him over the last years..and I am certainly far from a Trump supporter.
snafu Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 17 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: not saying that is right or wrong...but man that opens up a whole can of worms no? Does that indicate then that the president is above the law as he can just cancel any investigation? That is what Leahy meant..and I must admit I never knew that before. (A) Mueller was a DOJ appointment -- Executive Branch. (B) Mueller's investigation was not a criminal investigation. Technically, it was a counterintelligence matter, and those reports are part and parcel made for the President. This is obviously an odd case, and it would have been political suicide but the President could have bounced Mueller at any time. 3 1
bdutton Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: but how could they bring impeachment proceedings if there is no investigation? This is just shocking to me.. I mean I no I am no lawyer..but I had no clue that was how it worked. BTW, when Graham hated Trump, i thought he was a skeezy guy even though he and I shared the same view if Trump. Now he is a Trump supporter, but for some reason, I have grown to really like him over the last years..and I am certainly far from a Trump supporter. I don't think He's a Trump supporter per se... I think he's sick of the dirty dealing of the Democrats and is defending Trump from the criminal activities of the left. 1
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: but how could they bring impeachment proceedings if there is no investigation? This is just shocking to me.. I mean I no I am no lawyer..but I had no clue that was how it worked. BTW, when Graham hated Trump, i thought he was a skeezy guy even though he and I shared the same view if Trump. Now he is a Trump supporter, but for some reason, I have grown to really like him over the last years..and I am certainly far from a Trump supporter. just like they may do now. Trump was found to be not guilty of Russian Collusion. so what has the Donner Party shifted to, conduct unbecoming President. it doesn't matter that the AG found him to not have reached the level of criminal obstruction of justice. they are screaming that he is morally bankrupt and unfit to serve as President. in all honesty, i believe they could impeach him for just about anything if they had the support. impeachment however does not remove the President from office (Clinton was impeached). Edited May 1, 2019 by Foxx
bdutton Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Foxx said: in all honesty, i believe they could impeach him for just about anything if they had the support. impeachment however does not remove the President from office (Clinton was impeached). Clinton was impeached by the house but cleared in the Senate. Both houses have to pass impeachment for the President to be removed. 1
row_33 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 40 minutes ago, Hedge said: Thanks to all who provided the rolling summation. I wasn't able to tune in until the Senator Cruz segment started. And what a great part to catch live! i'll get all the truth i need on Tucker and Hannity tonight 1 1
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 34 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: I am not tyingthis specifically to this investigation..but it seems like any time the President wants to shut down an investigation into his conduct, he can, and just claim there was no misdeed/crime, so i am shutting the whole thing down. Am I misunderstanding that? So truly the President is above the law ? Again, this is not related to this investigation. It's a bit of a flaw in the "special investigator" rules, primarily because it falls under the auspices of the executive branch. It's mitigated by 1) the DOJ being a presumably-independent branch of the executive branch (although formally, it really isn't.) And 2) by Congress having separate powers to investigate and impeach. That Congress doesn't use those powers properly - or at all - is largely, but not exclusively, their failing. 1 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 I wasn't going to bother watching the afternoon's testimony, then I saw this (longer clip on CNN) and laughed out loud. I think I need to go find Part 2. 2 1
B-Man Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Quote Ben ShapiroVerified account @benshapiro 16m16 minutes ago I'm sure that Mueller -- the man whose face Democrats emblazoned on votive candles -- missed the one crucial piece of evidence Mueller somehow ignored in his synopsis of evidence, which was longer than most Dickens novels. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Sasse: wow. I doubt all of that is shown as a clip on the news. Was he smacking DiFi around on the sly vis-à-vis her Chinese spy driver? LOL "How sleazy this city is". 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1123685352693293056 1
row_33 Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 57 minutes ago, DC Tom said: It's a bit of a flaw in the "special investigator" rules, primarily because it falls under the auspices of the executive branch. It's mitigated by 1) the DOJ being a presumably-independent branch of the executive branch (although formally, it really isn't.) And 2) by Congress having separate powers to investigate and impeach. That Congress doesn't use those powers properly - or at all - is largely, but not exclusively, their failing. There is no point to using these powers without a crime already committed, such as direction of hush-money to cover up a botched burglary, or perjury before a grand jury. Some have argued both of these weren't up to the standards required for a case.
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 Hawley: "Spying on the Trump campaign and spying on Trump." Methinks the Dems are going to be sorry they had a hissy-fit over the word "spying". Blumenthal: "Will you recuse yourself from those investigations?" Barr: "No!" LOL (I had to fast forward through him, he's a complete idiot) Holy *****, Mazie Hirono is a stupid *****. Cory Booker: I just couldn't do it. 1
Foxx Posted May 1, 2019 Posted May 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ... was just coming to post the Grassley clip. love the mic drop! 1
Recommended Posts