# Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

I'm curious where people stand on this issue. I believe the deciding factor in the impeachment inquiry for many as to whether or not they would support removal of the president is based on whether sufficient evidence is present.

I pondered on the founders intention of impeachment proceedings, transparency in governing, and balance of power between the three branches of government. Congressional oversight of the executive branch has been a cornerstone in our checks and balances since the founding of our republic. When you answer this, don't hastily choose a decision based on just recent events but think about answering in the context of any administration, republican or democrat. I believe the correct answer would be one that best serves the interest of the american people. 

Upon reflection, my personal view is that if we provide congress with the power to remove a duly elected president, then we should also allow congress to obtain any document or witness testimony according to oversight of the executive branch during a formalized impeachment proceeding so that an informed decision can be made in full transparency with the american people. In light of the partisan environment we are currently facing, I feel anything less would lead to the potential of obstruction of congressional oversight that would thus not allow the people's representatives to ensure our government is working at all times in the interest of sustaining our republic. 

This is but a mere opinion, and I welcome the thoughts of others on this topic. Please refrain from attacking each other in this thread. I'd like anyone to feel free to honestly express what they think is in the best interest of our nation. I don't expect us to agree on this topic, but at least respect the positions of others.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

I'd take it one step further in light of abuses uncovered by this impeachment inquiry: mischaracterizing damaging information about any government official as "classified" should itself be a criminal and/or impeachable offense.  Absolutely nothing should be off-limits to congressmen and women with the highest level of security clearance during an impeachment inquiry.  Otherwise they cannot properly fulfill their oversight duties to the extent outlined in the constitution.  The moment we accept the argument that the president is akin to a king beyond the reach of the law is the same moment we can no longer rightly call ourselves a democracy or a republic.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'd take it one step further in light of abuses uncovered by this impeachment inquiry: mischaracterizing damaging information about any government official as "classified" should itself be a criminal and/or impeachable offense.  Absolutely nothing should be off-limits to congressmen and women with the highest level of security clearance during an impeachment inquiry.  Otherwise they cannot properly fulfill their oversight duties to the extent outlined in the constitution.  The moment we accept the argument that the president is akin to a king beyond the reach of the law is the same moment we can no longer rightly call ourselves a democracy or a republic.



Moving the goalpost so many times you have to start creating entirely new football fields. You can't even settle on a reason you're impeaching him, which is very dishonest, but convenient because all of the reasons your party keeping switching from have fallen flat on their face. Your hate is leaking. Don't you have anyone else you can attack? May I suggest attacking Mr. Roger's as your overlords on CNN posted a hate article today about him. Maybe stooping deeper into your desire to hurt others will help you deal with the fact Trump isn't going anywhere. I'm going to really enjoy you not admitting defeat when Trump beats these charges. You're never wrong and in your eyes Trump never even won the election and is still guilty of whatever you're claiming Mueller cleared him of (remember, the official verbage was Collusion, but seeings as you like to play Liberal word games he was possibly guilty of sneezing in the wind). You're so pitiful it's enjoyable because people like you make up the Liberal party and since that it shows me your party is so pathetic thus cementing the fact your attempts to control every aspect of my life are always going to fail. I can think for myself and don't require to be told how to live my life (especially in trade for lies promising free handouts or for a false sense of security).

#fucksocialism #TDSALERT #brownslaveryisstillslavery #walkaway #MAGA2020

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm curious where people stand on this issue. I believe the deciding factor in the impeachment inquiry for many as to whether or not they would support removal of the president is based on whether sufficient evidence is present.
> 
> I pondered on the founders intention of impeachment proceedings, transparency in governing, and balance of power between the three branches of government. Congressional oversight of the executive branch has been a cornerstone in our checks and balances since the founding of our republic. When you answer this, don't hastily choose a decision based on just recent events but think about answering in the context of any administration, republican or democrat. I believe the correct answer would be one that best serves the interest of the american people.
> 
> ...



Congress has some oversight over the executive branch, but it doesn't control it nor is granted unfettered access to it. That goes both ways all around the board. Trump doesn't lose his executive powers unless he's removed from office. Trump is not going to be denied his executive powers just because someone accused him of something. Trump can deny to give them anything he wants. That's until a Court orders him to hand it over. Just because they accuse him of something doesn't mean they get to take his branch over based on simple accusations (regardless if there is concrete evidence, but in this case all we have is "assumptions" he's guilty). Seeings as Congress is not a Court of law they can get fucked. You also have to take the situation into context. It's not remotely fair. You continue to go along and support this shit while purposely choosing to ignore it's been premeditated and planned all along. You're expecting people to simply ignore the entire context surrounding the issue or probably just expect them to not be aware of the backstory, which of course the latter being dishonest, but the Liberals can't win this honestly so they have to cheat. Fuck Congress. Trump shouldn't give them shit.

Look. Just because someone excuses you of something doesn't mean you have to give into their every demand or be treated like you're guilty. This isn't #metoo where you have you life ruined over some angry women with a score to settle based on the fact that 20 years go she forced you to have sex with her and you dumped her shorty after and she can't get over it and is now accusing you of what she actually did to you thus resulting in the public getting you fired from you job. It's funny how the public courts will simply blacklist you for someone claiming you did something wrong. Well, if that's the case @Xzi molested my dog and since I am saying this is my assumption I should be allowed access to his gbatemp account without having to provide any sort of proof he actually did cause my dog to walk around crooked for a week. Sorry bud, you're only guilty after the fact you've been proven guilty.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Moving the goalpost so many times you have to start creating entirely new football fields. You can't even settle on a reason you're impeaching him


strawman, motioning a argument that has not been made. In his case, has not mentioned trump at all in his post, Speaking in general.



cots said:


> which is very dishonest, but convenient because all of the reasons your party keeping switching from have fallen flat on their face.


hasty generalization. Comparing a collective to a single person.



cots said:


> Your hate is leaking. Don't you have anyone else you can attack?


strawman and also ad hominem. Strawman because he was not specifically attacking Trump. And was speaking in general. However you advanced a argument he never made, that he was attacking. Ad hominem because you claim his hate is leaking, which is a attack on him and does not counter the arugment.



cots said:


> May I suggest attacking Mr. Roger's as your overlords on CNN posted a hate article today about him. Maybe stooping deeper into your desire to hurt others will help you deal with the fact Trump isn't going anywhere. I'm going to really enjoy you not admitting defeat when Trump beats these charges. You're never wrong and in your eyes Trump never even won the election and is still guilty of whatever you're claiming Mueller cleared him of (remember, the official verbage was Collusion, but seeings as you like to play Liberal word games he was possibly guilty of sneezing in the wind). You're so pitiful it's enjoyable because people like you make up the Liberal party and since that it shows me your party is so pathetic thus cementing the fact your attempts to control every aspect of my life are always going to fail. I can think for myself and don't require to be told how to live my life (especially in trade for lies promising free handouts or for a false sense of security).
> 
> #fucksocialism #TDSALERT #brownslaveryisstillslavery #walkaway #MAGA2020


I can say many other things, but at this point it's clear that you are biased. Your attacking the individual, not the argument. You proceeded arguments that do not counter the original point. Your full of logical fallacies. So I must ask, who's hate is really leaking?
oh and before you potentially try to say "ad hominum" as a claim that I am attacking you. I can actually logically conclude this, while you cannot.
Due to you have attacking the person, not using logic and using logical fallacies, I can safely say you are more out to push your own agenda that listen to others, given that you ignore and or not properly refute the other side's argument. Therefore because  that you do those things, and because you bash on liberals or democrats often. I can conclude that you are hateful towards liberals, and therefore, leaking in hate.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Moving the goalpost so many times you have to start creating entirely new football fields. You can't even settle on a reason you're impeaching him, which is very dishonest, but convenient because all of the reasons your party keeping switching from have fallen flat on their face.


As usual your inane rants have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  If I wanted the opinion of the most spineless Trump sycophant on the forums I would've asked for it.  IDGAF if you want to continue taking everything an obese geriatric with NPD and Alzheimer's says at face value, just don't waste your time chiming in to conversations that are completely out of your depth and comfort zone.  Especially when it's obvious you have nothing of value to contribute.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> strawman, motioning a argument that has not been made. In his case, has not mentioned trump at all in his post, Speaking in general.
> 
> 
> hasty generalization. Comparing a collective to a single person.
> ...



I'm glad you're starting to be able to identify and pick out ways I go about presenting points that you don't agree are valid. However, I disagree with your assessments. I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country. This entire premeditated impeachment effort is a prime example of how treacherous they are. Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> As usual your inane rants have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  If I wanted the opinion of the most spineless Trump sycophant on the forums I would've asked for it.  IDGAF if you want to continue taking everything an obese geriatric with NPD and Alzheimer's says at face value, just don't waste your time chiming in to conversations that are completely out of your depth and comfort zone.  Especially when it's obvious you have nothing of value to contribute.



So now you're not only dumb, but also blind? I addressed the subject matter, but I guess it's convenient to overlook it and simply attack me. You see, I was able to address the subject matter while attacking you. I guess doing two things at once is too much for your little pee brain to handle. Or maybe, my point about the subject matter was valid so you had nothing to rebute? Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country.


Impeachment is a constitutional process.  Bribery is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable act.  You don't give two shits about what the constitution actually says, you just want to keep pretending it's on your side.  You're no different from members of the Westboro Baptist church pretending they represent Jesus' teachings.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm glad you're starting to be able to identify and pick out ways I go about presenting points that you don't agree are valid. However, I disagree with your assessments. I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country. This entire premeditated impeachment effort is a prime example of how treacherous they are. Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story.


Hasty generalization. Not all liberals desire to rip up the constitution and with my own bias can counter as untrue. It's more complex than that.
and along with that some republicans to many, not all. Are ignoring the bribery clause.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> I'm glad you're starting to be able to identify and pick out ways I go about presenting points that you don't agree are valid. However, I disagree with your assessments. I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country. This entire premeditated impeachment effort is a prime example of how treacherous they are. Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story..


as for forcing socialism and taking guns, again, hasty generalization. And as far as I know, the rules state that if bribery were to be done, or THE ATTEMPT at bribery, is an impeachable offense.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Hasty generalization. Not all liberals desire to rip up the constitution and with my own bias can counter as untrue. It's more complex than that.
> and along with that some republicans to many, not all. Are ignoring the bribery clause.



You're not going to suck me into the "Let me distract you with my right hand while I stab you in the back with my left hand" speel. Liberals can openly express their hatred and desire to destroy the country, but I'm evil for expressing my hatred for them doing so and my desire to stop them? It's clear where your priories lie. Hey, at least I'm honest and don't play word games. I don't need to hide my agenda.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> as for forcing socialism and taking guns, again, hasty generalization. And as far as I know, the rules state that if bribery were to be done, or THE ATTEMPT at bribery, is an impeachable offense.



That may be so, but the topic of this thread is if Trump should give up his executive powers simply based on the fact he's been accused of a crime. It's pretty simple. The President has executive powers until he is no longer the President. The Liberals aren't going to get to manipulate this one. It's clear and cut. So go ahead and play all of the games you want to try to convince people otherwise. Just like this 10th impeachment attempt it's not going to work.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> You're not going to suck me into the "Let me distract you with my right hand while I stab you in the back with my left hand" speel. Liberals can openly express their hatred and desire to destroy the country, but I'm evil for expressing my hatred for them doing so and my desire to stop them? It's clear where your priories lie. Hey, at least I'm honest and don't play word games. I don't need to hide my agenda.


Hasty generalization, you are treating liberals as a thing than rather a collective of many people that have varying desires/beliefs, with a few that are common.
I'm a liberal in social standards, I don't wish for the country to be destroyed. Hence, hasty generalization. If the left did something fucked, I'll look into it and change my position dependent on my own ideas and views.
It's the reason I don't affiliate or applied as a Democrat or Republican because I'm always changing.
both are at fault and have done shit things.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

as for my agenda, I'm sick and tired of bullshit. Left and Right, and this mindset this idea that you have to fully agree with a "party" is disgusting. So my agenda is to point out the logical fallacies so we can start reaching logical conclusions and have people no longer be treated or treat themselves as full allied to one party, but instead, something more complex than that. I'm done playing the emotional game, and I'm sick and tired of hearing arguments that lack substance due to fallacies.
I have no loyalty to the concept of "Democrats" or "Republicans"


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Hasty generalization, you are treating liberals as a thing than rather a collective of many people that have varying desires/beliefs, with a few that are common.
> I'm a liberal in social standards, I don't wish for the country to be destroyed. Hence, hasty generalization. If the left did something fucked, I'll look into it and change my position dependent on my own ideas and views.
> It's the reason I don't affiliate or applied as a democrat or republican Democrat or Republican because I'm always changing.
> both are at fault and have done shit things.
> ...



There's nothing wrong with generalizations. Look the up the definition of the word. It's neutral and is often used as a starting point. However, I call it like I see it. There might be a tree growing in the Amazon rain Forrest that produces rainbow colored berries that cure brain cancer, but until I run into any trees like I'm going to have to agree that the rest of the trees fruit don't cure cancer. I also guess you've missed the part where I don't belong to a party. I guess your generalized mindset that if someone shares some values that align with the Conservative party of "if someone is defending the President they a white racist old white supremacists". It's really funny how that if you ask questions or say something that goes against the Liberal agenda they automatically judge you based on their own generalizations and then black list you. Talk about bias racist generalizing, tsk ... tsk ... Sorry, but I don't belong to a party that would try to ruin my life or exclude me from their party for saying a few words or phrases or claiming that I voted differently then they did.

You're also avoiding the fact that I stated that while the President is the President he or she has executive powers. There's no tip toeing around that one. Do you deny this reality like the rest of the Liberals?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> There's nothing wrong with generalizations. Look the up the definition of the word. It's neutral and is often used as a starting point. However, I call it like I see it. There might be a tree growing in the Amazon rain Forrest that produces rainbow colored berries that cure brain cancer, but until I run into any trees like I'm going to have to agree that the rest of the trees fruit don't cure cancer. I also guess you've missed the part where I don't belong to a party. I guess your generalized mindset that if someone shares some values that align with the Conservative party of "if someone is defending the President they a white racist old white supremacists". It's really funny how that if you ask questions or say something that goes against the Liberal agenda they automatically judge you based on their own generalizations and then black list you. Talk about bias racist generalizing, tsk ... tsk ...
> 
> You're also avoiding the fact that I stated that while the President is the President he or she has executive powers. There's no tip toeing around that one.


There is something wrong with generalizations, and there is a way that it can be flawed. Hasty generalizations is a fallacy involving a complex thing, and turning it into something that is oversimplified.
For example it would be the equivalent of me saying that all all Germans buy ford trucks. In your argument, it was all Democrats want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution. This is the logical fallacy I just stated. Not all Germans buy trucks, because germans are people, and people are complex and unique, nor do all liberals/democrats want to be socialist because they are a people, and again, complex and unique.

as a sidenote, you also forward another straw man. I never said you were in a party. I stated my views as you asked my bias.
and as another sidenote, yes I can tiptoe that actually. I never argued for or against it. Nor did you refer to me.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

It's obvious cots lost all ability to view things objectively a long time ago.  Veterans are starving to death on the streets, diabetics are dying from rationing insulin that's as expensive as gold, farmers are committing suicide because they view themselves as failures for being unable to turn a profit, and in the face of all this, the Republicans' only solution is to offer more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.  

These aren't problems that suddenly popped up yesterday, they've been compounded by decades of inaction against crony capitalism, and I'm more than willing to state that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did little to help matters.  However, they weren't actively hostile toward the working class and lower class as Republican presidents have been in that same time frame.  Presidents are public servants, they're meant to be criticized and critiqued by the populace.  Not worshiped as kings.  All that does is enable corruption to flourish, as it has under the current administration.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Impeachment is a constitutional process.  Bribery is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable act.  You don't give two shits about what the constitution actually says, you just want to keep pretending it's on your side.  You're no different from members of the Westboro Baptist church pretending they represent Jesus' teachings.



Sure, but you have to prove the President is guilty first and until the President is removed from office they have executive powers. Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was premeditated and it's not the first attempt plus all of the evidence are simple assumptions you're going to lose. I do however understand you're a Liberal so you'll never admit defeat even after agreeing to the rules. Such a petty existence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> It's obvious cots lost all ability to view things objectively a long time ago.  Veterans are starving to death on the streets, diabetics are dying from rationing insulin that's as expensive as gold, farmers are committing suicide because they view themselves as failures for being unable to turn a profit, and in the face of all this, the Republicans' only solution is to offer more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.
> 
> These aren't problems that suddenly popped up yesterday, they've been compounded by decades of inaction against crony capitalism, and I'm more than willing to state that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did little to help matters.  However, they weren't actively hostile toward the working class and lower class as Republican presidents have been in that same time frame.  Presidents are public servants, they're meant to be criticized and critiqued by the populace.  Not worshiped as kings.  All that does is enable corruption to flourish, as it has under the current administration.



*Yawn* ... Yet deflection is okay when the Liberals do it. What does any of this have to do with the fact that the President has executive powers until they are no longer the President?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Sure, but you have to prove the President is guilty first and until the President is removed from office they have executive powers.


Executive privilege only extends so far, and the Trump administration continues to abuse claims of executive privilege in reference to people and conversations where it does not apply.  Such as individuals no longer working in the administration.  That's the issue at contention here.



cots said:


> Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was premeditated and it's not the first attempt plus all of the evidence are simple assumptions you're going to lose. I do however understand you're a Liberal so you'll never admit defeat even after agreeing to the rules. Such a petty existence.


What's "petty" is failing to understand that this isn't a football game.  It's not about winning or losing.  It's about idiots and sycophants allowing corruption to go completely unchecked because they don't understand anything about the legal and political proceedings involved.  Congratulations, you "win" compromised elections and the degradation of democracy.  Just don't cry about it when Democrats attempt to use that to their advantage just as Trump has.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> In your argument, it was all Democrats want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution.



Let me correct your quote.

"In your argument, it was all *Liberals* want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution."

Hey, I read the Liberals Communist Manifesto book. I'm not sure that publishing your end goal with detailed steps on how you're going about the issue and allowing the people you're trying to overthrow access to it was the best idea, but hey at least I know exactly what they're up to. The thing is, they don't deny it. So your point is mute. Liberals openly admit they want to implement socialism (get rid of the Constitution) and take our guns away. "But we only want to take your assault rifles away". One gun being handed over is too many. They're not getting hundreds of thousands that's for sure. And fuck, seeings as they can't even get the definition of an assault rifle correct I don't believe them. Just like this forum subject. They're trying to justify taking away Trump's executive powers because he's been accused of a crime. Sorry, but until he's not longer President he has executive powers. You can't overthrow the executive branch based on accusations that are rooted in assumptions. Actually, you can't overthrow the execute branch regardless. Trump has executive powers until he's no longer the President. End of issue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Executive privilege only extends so far, and the Trump administration continues to abuse claims of executive privilege in reference to people and conversations where it does not apply.  Such as individuals no longer working in the administration.  That's the issue at contention here.



Sorry, the issue is whether he should give up his powers. What he does with them is not the issue so you're simple manipulative tactics and Liberal word game mumbo jumbo isn't going to work this time. You're dancing around the fact that while he's President he has executive powers. He's not giving them up because he's been accused of something. End of story.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Sure, but you have to prove the President is guilty first and until the President is removed from office they have executive powers. Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was premeditated and it's not the first attempt plus all of the evidence are simple assumptions you're going to lose. I do however understand you're a Liberal so you'll never admit defeat even after agreeing to the rules. Such a petty existence.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


The evidence speaks for itself. Trump is guilty.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Liberals openly admit they want to implement socialism (get rid of the Constitution) and take our guns away.


You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.  The New Deal was implemented with no change to the constitution, and Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate among Democrats.  Historically, Republicans started pushing hardest for gun control when the black panthers started arming the African American community en masse.  But I doubt you care about historical context, as you're just parroting the things you hear on talk radio and Faux News.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.  The New Deal was implemented with no change to the constitution, and Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate among Democrats.  Historically, Republicans started pushing hardest for gun control when the black panthers started arming the African American community en masse.  But I doubt you care about historical context, as you're just parroting the things you hear on talk radio and Faux News.



Handing over one gun is too many. Pro-Gun isn't "You can keep certain guns, but we'll take the rest of them away from you". You're not fooling anyone. Anyway, you'll have to pry my AR out of my cold dead hands. Good luck. Anyway, I'm done with gibberish.

*The President has executive powers while they are President. End of issue.*


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Let me correct your quote.
> 
> "In your argument, it was all *Liberals* want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution."
> 
> Hey, I read the Liberals Communist Manifesto book. I'm not sure that publishing your end goal with detailed steps on how you're going about the issue and allowing the people you're trying to overthrow access to it was the best idea, but hey at least I know exactly what they're up to. The thing is, they don't deny it. So your point is mute. Liberals openly admit they want to implement socialism (get rid of the Constitution) and take our guns away. "But we only want to take your assault rifles away". Seeings as they can't even get the definition of an assault rifle correct I don't believe them. Just like this forum subject. They're trying to justify taking away Trump's executive powers because he's been accused of a crime. Sorry, but until he's not longer President he was executive powers. You can't overthrow the executive branch based on accusations that are rooted in assumptions. Actually, you can't overthrow the execute branch regardless. Trump has executive powers until he's no longer the President. End of issue.


hasty generalization again, given that you corrected my statement, to Liberals. then proceed to use the possessive noun of Liberal's, referring to the communist Manifesto, I can state it's another hasty generalization. The implication that all of them have read it, or have agreed upon it. a lot of the argument uses hasty generalization. Meanwhile you throw another straw man. Claiming that I had made a point in favor aka  "So your point is mute" line. Since I never argued in favor or against, nor have I presented a argument related, I can ignore the rest.
_yawn_
so how much more do I have to here?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> Handing over one gun is too many. Pro-Gun isn't "You can keep certain guns, but we'll take the rest of them away from you". You're not fooling anyone. Anyway, you'll have to pry my AR out of my cold dead hands. Good luck. Anyway, I'm done with gibberish.
> 
> *The President has executive powers while they are President. End of issue.*


False dilemma fallacy. Using either or argument. Either people defend their gun rights, or liberals will take all our guns. While ignoring that again, not all liberals want to remove all guns entirely. This fallacy works by giving a false dichotomy of choices, while ignoring all the other solutions.


----------



## tinkle (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> *The President has executive powers while they are President. They don't protect against impeachment, due to a process known as checks and balances. End of issue.*


FTFY cutie


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Sorry, the issue is whether he should give up his powers.


Executive *privilege *is the issue we're talking about here.  That's not the same as the whole of his presidential powers.  If you don't understand the difference, that's all the more reason you never should've involved yourself in this discussion.



cots said:


> One gun is too many. You'll have to pry mine out of my cold dead hands. Good luck.


It's obvious you didn't read a single word of what you replied to there.  Bernie Sanders, the biggest socialist boogeyman among Democrats, is *pro-gun* and *pro-second amendment*.  Meanwhile, Trump is the only president in history to actually suggest taking away guns without due process.  Like I said before, it's clear you've lost your ability to view or think objectively, every issue is black or white according to you, and every candidates' stances are determined entirely along party lines.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Executive *privilege *is the issue we're talking about here.  That's not the same as the whole of his presidential powers.  If you don't understand the difference, that's all the more reason you never should've involved yourself in this discussion.
> 
> It's obvious you didn't read a single word of what you replied to there.  Bernie Sanders, the biggest socialist boogeyman among Democrats, is *pro-gun* and *pro-second amendment*.  Meanwhile, Trump is the only president in history to actually suggest taking away guns without due process.  Like I said before, it's clear you've lost your ability to view or think objectively, every issue is black or white according to you, and every candidates' stances are determined entirely along party lines.



Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches. I would suggest if you want to buy a gun to join a gun club or a shooting range and purchase them from private citizens and pay with cash. There's no background check, no registration on some fucked up Government watch list and no money trail. You can also make your own guns if you learn how to to (by either buying the separate components or forging them yourself). This is all completely legal. There's no reason to buy one from a gun shop and contrary to the Liberal bullshit there's no reason you need permission to to do so.



tinkle said:


> FTFY cutie



You misquoted me, but you're probably the type of person that wouldn't allow your boyfriend to speak for himself. You are correct. The President can't use his executive powers to stop the impeachment, but he can use his legal rights to not comply with any of the Liberal Democrats requests nor is he required to cooperate in the process in any way shape or form. If he's called to testify then he's required to do so, other than that he doesn't have to legally comply with anything the Democrats that are trying to make him due. If a court orders him to turn over the documents that Congress is requesting then he will have to do that, but Congress is in no legal position to demand Trump hand over anything. In this case I support the law and I also support Trump's decisions. Especially considering this isn't the first impeachment attempt and the entire thing has been planned since before he took office. If after some psycho ex-girlfriend of mine got dumped and then she planned on destroying my life and used the courts to do so and lost previously do you think I'd just hand over whatever the dumb bitch wanted me to in her latest attempt? Also, seeings as Congress is also denying requests from the White House I think the "checks and balances" are working out just fine. Oh, wait, it's okay for Congress to not go along with the White House right? But it's not okay for the White House to not go along with Congress? Your approval of apparent double standards are pathetic.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches.


all I can do is shake my head at this point.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> all I can do is shake my head at this point.



I just amended the post. What do you think about what I added?



> Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches. I would suggest if you want to buy a gun to join a gun club or a shooting range and purchase them from private citizens and pay with cash. There's no background check, no registration on some fucked up Government watch list and no money trail. You can also make your own guns if you learn how to to (by either buying the separate components or forging them yourself). This is all completely legal. There's no reason to buy one from a gun shop and contrary to the Liberal bullshit there's no reason you need permission to to do so.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> I just amended the post. What do you think about what I added?


slippery slope fallacy


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> slippery slope fallacy



Well, if you ever need to obtain a gun to protect yourself, your property of your family you now know you don't need the Governments permission. It's a constitutional right. Unless, you're ever in that position and don't mind being hurt, robbed and/or your family raped and possibly murdered. In that case you chose not to protect yourself and your family and then I'd just feel sorry for you having to live with that. I do understand the Liberals need to control everyone else, but I'l let you in on a little secret. You can't control me. The Government is scared of me because of this fact and that's how it should be. The Government are my servants. I'm not their bitch. They're my bitch.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, if you ever need to obtain a gun to protect yourself, your property of your family you now know you don't need the Governments permission. It's a constitutional right. Unless, you're ever in that position and don't mind being hurt, robbed and/or your family murdered. In that case you chose not to protect yourself and your family and then I'd just feel sorry for you having to live with that.


Now your using a strawman. Never said my argument, other than shaking my head, which that was due to you using even more fallacies. rendering the argument above null.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Now your using a strawman. Never said my argument, other than shaking my head, which that was due to you using even more fallacies. rendering the argument above null.



Who mentioned anything about your argument. You're shaking your head and I'm telling you if you ever need to defend yourself that you don't need the Governments permission. I'm trying to help you. It's nice and all you're able to identify basic thought patterns used in debating. Though, simply stating you identify one doesn't invalidate my point. "That's a stereotype. End of discussion." Yeah, doesn't work like that. Oh, I'm not legally allowed to use straws in the Communist State of Mexifornia.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches. I would suggest if you want to buy a gun to join a gun club or a shooting range and purchase them from private citizens and pay with cash. There's no background check, no registration on some fucked up Government watch list and no money trail. You can also make your own guns if you learn how to to (by either buying the separate components or forging them yourself). This is all completely legal. There's no reason to buy one from a gun shop and contrary to the Liberal bullshit there's no reason you need permission to to do so.


This is a fairly extremist stance to take on gun issues, and it still doesn't address a single thing about the statement you were replying to.  The vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need some common sense reforms such as universal background checks.  Myself included, and I am a gun owner.  We can't be handing out firearms like candy to every person out there with a history of inciting violence and/or domestic abuse.  That's just insane.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is a fairly extremist stance to take on gun issues, and it still doesn't address a single thing about the statement you were replying to.  The vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need some common sense reforms such as universal background checks.  Myself included, and I am a gun owner.



I replied to @tinkle about the executive power issue as I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. You've lost that benefit. Then I replied to you about how current and future laws regarding taking away certain guns or restricting people from purchasing them is unconstitutional. I'm sorry you think it's extreme to try to protect our rights and that's it's completely acceptable to try to get rid of them. I find the situation and labeling used to be in the reverse order. Liberals don't have common sense and the only red flags that should be going off in peoples mind are when any Liberal tries to limit our rights.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> I replied to @tinkle about the executive power issue as I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. You've lost that benefit. Then I replied to you about how current and future laws regarding taking away certain guns or restricting people from purchasing them is unconstitutional. I'm sorry you think it's extreme to try to protect our rights and that's it's completely acceptable to try to get rid of them. I find the situation and labeling used to be in the reverse order.


You repeatedly associated socialism with taking away guns, when the hard-line socialist stance is that the proletariat should be armed to the teeth in order to fight back against the advances of fascism.  As usual, you're completely lacking in both historical context and common sense.

Background checks have never been and will never be ruled unconstitutional.  Perhaps you're viewing this from the lens of being someone that cannot pass a background check, and therefore you think of yourself as some sort of victim, but that's largely irrelevant.  Senseless gun violence is already enough of a problem in the US as-is without giving firearms to every individual who has proven themselves to have zero impulse control.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 24, 2019)

@cots doubt you have a law degree other than that read law books because some of your claims are dead wrong

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

and i rather not cherry pick but it's common sense you are a hypocrite cause assume the president was Democrat you would reverse whatever you just said

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

btw you'r definition of Liberalism is WAY OFF @cots

*Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

also

*Liberal socialism* is a socialist political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles.[1] *Liberal socialism does not have the goal of completely abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism,[2] but it instead supports a mixed economy that includes both private property and social ownership in capital goods.*[3][4] Although liberal socialism unequivocally favours a market-based economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1]


(note the bold cots) should i enlarge it too?


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> *Liberal socialism* is a socialist political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles.[1] *Liberal socialism does not have the goal of completely abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism,[2] but it instead supports a mixed economy that includes both private property and social ownership in capital goods.*[3][4] Although liberal socialism unequivocally favours a market-based economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1]



I understand the textbook definition of Liberalism and those who strived to stick the definition died decades ago. American Liberals used to be nice people, but I'm talking about the current American Liberal Democratic Party. They could learn a thing or two from the Liberal Democrats party in the EU. Modern day Liberals embrace hatred, sinning, lying, cheating, stealing and mostly everything else that is considered wrong. They'll openly admit there is no right vs wrong, but only what makes you feel good or feel bad. They put their feelings above fact, assumptions before reality and they are racist, sexist and show ageism, especially against old white males. They are intolerant against faith. They are obsessive and will try to ruin your life and force to you comply with the way they want to you live. Outlawing words or discriminating against you for who you vote for is common. They expect you to express your hatred for others just to be part of their group. They twist and use science to justify all of this, including killing babies. They want to legalize deadly addicting drugs and have no problem giving them to children. They refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. Everything is everyone else's fault. They want to freeload and expect everyone else to pay their way with no intention on lifting a finger to help society. They're agenda is to rip up the USA Constitution and replace our way of Government with socialism, abolish our right to free speech and our right to bare arms (well, fuck, no constitution = no rights anyway). They force their way of life and thinking on school children and try to scare them by claiming the world is about to end and that's it's our fault. The school children aren't given facts or taught how to think for themselves. They'll then give you a definition of Liberalism and tell you to "trust them", "that we care" or "we mean you no harm". This is only a short overview. They are much more sinister then I can ever explain. They embrace evil. They represent the worse in humanity. Sorry, I'm not falling for their shit. So like, the definition you brought up doesn't apply to them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



chrisrlink said:


> and i rather not cherry pick but it's common sense you are a hypocrite cause assume the president was Democrat you would reverse whatever you just said



Actually, Trump used to be a Democrat. Luckily for society he woke up. Unlike the hoards of Liberals that have to express their hatred for the President I also supported Obama. I'm sorry that I don't belong to a cult that has to express their hatred for the current President. I'll respect the President regardless of who they are as that is the patriotic thing to do. I didn't get all pissy when Obama won and conspired with my party to impeach him for any possible reason before he was even sworn into office, which is exactly what's going on right now. Yeah, fuck Liberals. Trump is going to beat them again at their own game, the sad thing is that they won't admit defeat and will probably try to oust him some other way. Trump however is more than I man that I would be in this situation. I would have had half of of them jailed long after their initial attempt. Seeings as this the not the first impeachment attempt and it's taking place by the same people who tried to ruin him with a public investigation for two years based on lies because they refused to accept he won the Presidential election I think he's being quite the professional by not having the fucking traitors hung to death on Fox News.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> Actually, Trump used to be a Democrat. Luckily for society he woke up. Unlike the hoards of Liberals that have to express their hatred for the President I also supported Obama.


So you supported a liberal president, and then you supported the guy who pushed the racist birther conspiracy theory against him?  I call bullshit.  You know exactly who and what the modern Republican party represents, which is why you're using every opportunity in an attempt to accuse the Democratic party of representing those things instead.  Sorry, but nobody's buying your smoke and mirrors act.  Nobody's gonna join your make-believe club where the president endorsed by David Duke is also somehow an open-minded champion of the masses.  After three years in office, the only people left in support of Trump are racists, fascists, and those that have no issue associating themselves with those two groups.  Any level-headed conservative has long since moved on.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 24, 2019)

@OP: a very fair and tough dilemma. The reason is so hard is IMHO because of the two party politics you guys have. As such, every action can be defended from criticism with 'the other part just wants to undermine us' rather than having a debate on whether the action was justified or not (when having three or more active parties, actions can be blocked if the parties that represent the majority of citizens criticize it, meaning that politics become more about reaching an agreement rather than the current 'I do whatever I want' style).

... But that's for a different topic. In the current situation, we've got to think about how it'll affect the polarized system. It's not the intention that the president can use (abuse) his powers, but it's not the intention that congress can abuse the impeachment process to neuter the president (I see republicans joyfully start an impeachment process for the heck of it, just so they can restrict a democratic president's ability to get anything done).

So I went with the "Exec. Privilege can only cover direct conversations with the president during a formalized inquiry." option. I know that a guy like Trump would abuse it to cover his as, but that's beside the issue. For all the bullshit @cots spews in this thread, he is right that you can't go change the current rules because we don't like Trump. And honestly : I doubt Republicans will be dumb enough to nominate such a motion for president again. For all the backing and defending they do, they are well aware that their influence is shrinking in politics (as far as local selections go, a blessing from Trump now seems like an extra reason to vote for the democratic candidate).


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> For all the bullshit cots spews in this thread, he is right that you can't go change the current rules because we don't like Trump.


It's not only about Trump.  The rules need to be changed for all presidents henceforth, Democrat and Republican alike.  As it sits now it's clear the system was woefully under-prepared for a bad faith actor winning the presidency and slowly chipping away at all the processes and institutions which prevent corruption from overtaking government entirely.



Taleweaver said:


> And honestly : I doubt Republicans will be dumb enough to nominate such a moron for president again.


That's not something I can accept on the basis of faith alone.  For the longest time people believed it couldn't possibly get worse than GWB.  Well, the Obama administration refused to prosecute him or Cheney, and eight years later it did get worse.  Every wealthy criminal POS is gonna be gunning for the presidency if we continue allowing the office to be viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's not something I can accept on the basis of faith alone.  For the longest time people believed it couldn't possibly get worse than GWB.  Well, the Obama administration refused to prosecute him or Cheney, and eight years later it did get worse.  Every wealthy criminal POS is gonna be gunning for the presidency if we continue allowing the office to be viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card.


I hate to be cynical, but Bush was worse on a global level. Trump is 'just' reducing USA to a banana Republic. As much as I can see how you don't like that, as a foreigner I prefer it over the USA invading innocent countries because they have oil.
(if it wasn't for that sellout war, there wouldn't be a power vacuum that got filled with IS, IS 's influence and - in the end - the bombings in Zaventem - pretty much my workplace - wouldn't have happened)

There's merit in your last sentence, but let's be honest : that risk' s always there. Limiting powers or increasing transparency are at best patches on the wound. The problem you're facing is why those guys can get a(Tactical) majority in the voting process. Change the rules to much and your hindering future honest presidents while future crooks will just avoid whatever rules are there.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I hate to be cynical, but Bush was worse on a global level. Trump is 'just' reducing USA to a banana Republic. As much as I can see how you don't like that, as a foreigner I prefer it over the USA invading innocent countries because they have oil.
> (if it wasn't for that sellout war, there wouldn't be a power vacuum that got filled with IS, IS 's influence and - in the end - the bombings in Zaventem - pretty much my workplace - wouldn't have happened)


That's fair, but at the same time, Trump's foreign policy failings have caused a lot of negative effects on the world in their own right.  The US has ceded it's leadership role on the world stage to countries like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.  There are genocides happening in both China and India.  In South America, there's been a coup in Bolivia, likely helped along by the CIA, while large portions of the Amazon rainforest are consumed by man-made fire.  In the Middle-East our Kurdish allies were betrayed and killed just so we could retreat to protect the oil, while hundreds of ISIS militants were freed.  I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point: any semi-moral president would have prevented these things or at the very least spoken out about them.  Bad shit happens on a worldwide scale when there is no morality within the US' leadership.



Taleweaver said:


> There's merit in your last sentence, but let's be honest : that risk' s always there. Limiting powers or increasing transparency are at best patches on the wound. The problem you're facing is why those guys can get a(Tactical) majority in the voting process. Change the rules to much and your hindering future honest presidents while future crooks will just avoid whatever rules are there.


A lot of the issue does simply boil down to problems with our electoral systems I suppose, so better to address those than put a band-aid over one of the symptoms.  Citizens United is bullshit, along with the billions of dollars involved in our elections.  As long as crony capitalist interests supersede our democracy and our right to fair elections, presidential candidates can only continue to get more corrupt.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So you supported a liberal president, and then you supported the guy who pushed the racist birther conspiracy theory against him?  I call bullshit.  You know exactly who and what the modern Republican party represents, which is why you're using every opportunity in an attempt to accuse the Democratic party of representing those things instead.  Sorry, but nobody's buying your smoke and mirrors act.  Nobody's gonna join your make-believe club where the president endorsed by David Duke is also somehow an open-minded champion of the masses.  After three years in office, the only people left in support of Trump are racists, fascists, and those that have no issue associating themselves with those two groups.  Any level-headed conservative has long since moved on.



Yet you voted for a nasty bitch that brought the birther scandal into the public eye many years before Trump ran for President. I respected Obama for being the President. I didn't agree with everything he did. He's also far less Liberal than the current batch of morons the DNC pushed up. You know their candidates whom none, including Biden are Trump's current political opponent.  Hard to dig up dirt on an opponent when you don't have one. So everyone that voted for Trmup is a racist. Typical Liberal intolerance that has nothing to do with race.


Xzi said:


> It's not only about Trump.  The rules need to be changed for all presidents henceforth, Democrat and Republican alike.  As it sits now it's clear the system was woefully under-prepared for a bad faith actor winning the presidency and slowly chipping away at all the processes and institutions which prevent corruption from overtaking government entirely.
> 
> 
> That's not something I can accept on the basis of faith alone.  For the longest time people believed it couldn't possibly get worse than GWB.  Well, the Obama administration refused to prosecute him or Cheney, and eight years later it did get worse.  Every wealthy criminal POS is gonna be gunning for the presidency if we continue allowing the office to be viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card.



Liar. It's got everything to do with Trump. You know the person you refuse to admit is President. The same person you planned to impeach regardless of any wrongdoing. Now you want to change the rules because your attempt is hopeless and failing. You do realize everything Liberals touch turns to shit? You're a lying cheater. Trump shouldn't be required to give up any powers based on being accused of a crime. Congress is also refusing Trump's requests. Seems like those checks and balances are working just fine. You can't control both branches bud. You can't control everything as you can't even control yourself. I understand that Liberals are control freaks, but luckily we don't have to do anything you demand of us let alone listen to you and other than some drug addicts, the mentally ill or kids you indoctrinated who haven't grown up yet no one takes you or your party seriously.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 24, 2019)

let me just quote the conversation, because it speaks for itself.
"Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches." --cots


monkeyman4412 said:


> all I can do is shake my head at this point.





cots said:


> I just amended the post. What do you think about what I added?





monkeyman4412 said:


> slippery slope fallacy





cots said:


> Well, if you ever need to obtain a gun to protect yourself, your property of your family you now know you don't need the Governments permission. It's a constitutional right. Unless, you're ever in that position and don't mind being hurt, robbed and/or your family raped and possibly murdered. In that case you chose not to protect yourself and your family and then I'd just feel sorry for you having to live with that. I do understand the Liberals need to control everyone else, but I'l let you in on a little secret. You can't control me. The Government is scared of me because of this fact and that's how it should be. The Government are my servants. I'm not their bitch. They're my bitch.


See right above is you pushing a strawman. How? Your arguing that I would be in favor of removing guns, "I do understand the Liberals need to control everyone else, but I'l let *you *in on a little secret"
The keyword is you. As you equated me as Liberal. Meanwhile I also forgot to mention you used a red haring fallacy as well. Going off a tangent that doesn't have anything to prove the conclusion.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Now your using a strawman. Never said my argument, other than shaking my head, which that was due to you using even more fallacies. rendering the argument above null.





cots said:


> Who mentioned anything about your argument. You're shaking your head and I'm telling you if you ever need to defend yourself that you don't need the Governments permission. I'm trying to help you. It's nice and all you're able to identify basic thought patterns used in debating. Though, simply stating you identify one doesn't invalidate my point. "That's a stereotype. End of discussion." Yeah, doesn't work like that. Oh, I'm not legally allowed to use straws in the Communist State of Mexifornia.


So... cots, the argument is "Liberals don't support gun rights" This is the argument you made up against me, a strawman. While I had taken no position, only stating that I was shaking my head.


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's fair, but at the same time, Trump's foreign policy failings have caused a lot of negative effects on the world in their own right.  The US has ceded it's leadership role on the world stage to countries like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.  There are genocides happening in both China and India.  In South America, there's been a coup in Bolivia, likely helped along by the CIA, while large portions of the Amazon rainforest are consumed by man-made fire.  In the Middle-East our Kurdish allies were betrayed and killed just so we could retreat to protect the oil, while hundreds of ISIS militants were freed.  I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point: any semi-moral president would have prevented these things or at the very least spoken out about them.  Bad shit happens on a worldwide scale when there is no morality within the US' leadership.



Yeah, it's all Trump's fault. It hadn't rained where I live for 2 months. I blamed Trump. Then it rained with hail, which I didn't like, so I blamed Trump. My cat didn't eat all of it's food last night so I blamed Trump. Seeings as you're going to simply attack him no matter what he does regardless of how good things are going because of his policies simply because you lost the election and can't face reality I think you should seek help for your TDS.


----------



## leon315 (Nov 24, 2019)

I wish to see the 1st ever Impeachment of my life lul!!!


----------



## cots (Nov 24, 2019)

leon315 said:


> I wish to see the 1st ever Impeachment of my life lul!!!



You'll probably get to see the House impeach him and then the Senate clear him. Seeings as the Senate has the last say in the matter Trump is most likely not going to be removed from office.


----------



## leon315 (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> You'll probably get to see the House impeach him and then the Senate clear him. Seeings as the Senate has the last say in the matter Trump is most likely not going to be removed from office.


then only way to remove him from the office is HOPING a liberal candidate could do better in 2020!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> You'll probably get to see the House impeach him and then the Senate clear him. Seeings as the Senate has the last say in the matter Trump is most likely not going to be removed from office.


You're probably right, but Trump is clearly guilty, so we will see.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 24, 2019)

cots said:


> regardless if there is concrete evidence, but in this case all we have is "assumptions" he's guilty)





cots said:


> Congress has some oversight over the executive branch, but it doesn't control it nor is granted unfettered access to it. That goes both ways all around the board. Trump doesn't lose his executive powers unless he's removed from office. Trump is not going to be denied his executive powers just because someone accused him of something. Trump can deny to give them anything he wants. That's until a Court orders him to hand it over. Just because they accuse him of something doesn't mean they get to take his branch over based on simple accusations (regardless if there is concrete evidence, but in this case all we have is "assumptions" he's guilty). Seeings as Congress is not a Court of law they can get fucked. You also have to take the situation into context. It's not remotely fair. You continue to go along and support this shit while purposely choosing to ignore it's been premeditated and planned all along. You're expecting people to simply ignore the entire context surrounding the issue or probably just expect them to not be aware of the backstory, which of course the latter being dishonest, but the Liberals can't win this honestly so they have to cheat. Fuck Congress. Trump shouldn't give them shit.
> 
> Look. Just because someone excuses you of something doesn't mean you have to give into their every demand or be treated like you're guilty. This isn't #metoo where you have you life ruined over some angry women with a score to settle based on the fact that 20 years go she forced you to have sex with her and you dumped her shorty after and she can't get over it and is now accusing you of what she actually did to you thus resulting in the public getting you fired from you job. It's funny how the public courts will simply blacklist you for someone claiming you did something wrong. Well, if that's the case @Xzi molested my dog and since I am saying this is my assumption I should be allowed access to his gbatemp account without having to provide any sort of proof he actually did cause my dog to walk around crooked for a week. Sorry bud, you're only guilty after the fact you've been proven guilty.



I'm not really working on assumptions. He solicited assistance from a foreign power twice (Ukraine and China) to investigate a political opponent. I'm principled and consistent in that I supported a bipartisan congressional investigation of Biden and spoke of congress having the proper authority to oversee the executive branch. This is from our constitution you so dearly claim to support and accuse the democratic party of not adhering to. When Trump blocks congressional oversight he is in fact not adhering to the constitution yet I see no outrage from you because you work in the premise that the ends of what you desire justify the means. That breeds lawlessness and will unravel our republic. Whether or not you can swallow your pride or hatred for those that hold different political beliefs will determine if you will be willing to at least go read our constitution and reassess your position. If you still hold true to your position would you at least provide logical reasoning from US law or our constitution that would support such a position?  

(Have you even read the US constitution in its' entirety within your lifetime? Fun Fact: most registered voters have not, not even speaking for most Americans.)

The whole trump is guilty/innocent is something that I think requires context - innocent until proven guilty derives from the legal principle of The Presumption of Innocence. 

"Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted."

This might upset you but this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. Something that enough people aren't appreciating to motivate me to once again restate that yet again. The appearance of impropriety alone is enough for a political impeachment. However, that is at the discretion of the jurors (congressional senators). The House serves as the prosecution which will determine the evidence in which to charge articles of impeachment. During this process they certainly are not subject to any restriction under 'presumption of innocence'.

"Furthermore, the accused is not obligated to affirmatively prove his innocence or to provide exculpatory evidence. However, to provide counter-evidence or exculpatory evidence is a right that the defense may exercise in order to rebut the charges, which in turn the accusing party bears the burden of disproving"[32]."

This quote is to explain why the Bidens' involvement will be allowed to be scrutinized in a senate hearing. If it is claimed to be part of Trump's defense upon his actions then they will be allowed to provide any 'proof' as counter-evidence. I chuckle when I see people think its plain that Biden committed bribery and should be jailed but argue that Trump hasn't attempted anything improper and scream about innocent until proven guilty. 

I also am amused by logic that states because democrats have insisted multiple impeachable offenses have occurred, but only until this year have committed to an impeachment inquiry that all other potential offenses are invalid or worse that this inquiry into soliciting assistance from a foreign power to investigate a political opponent doesn't matter. They have had hearings the past two weeks where alleged bribery and extortion through witness testimony was presented to the public. I have not seen ANY evidence that vindicates the President. I have seen enough to know that he can be charged for it by the house. The senate will then decide to convict or acquit.

I will conclude with this. I intend to keep a discussion that is based on logic. Let us stop with the vitrol, it provides nothing to a substantive discourse on this topic.

OFFTOPIC?: I am in complete agreement with Dr. Fiona hill in one aspect that republicans refuse to address due to cowardice or due to an effort to influence domestic politics. We have a president that still believes a Russian birthed narrative that Ukraine was solely behind election interference not the Russian government, that Ukraine gave the dnc server to crowdstrike. I find that a travesty, but no one speaks of it because doing so would show how little judgement is being exercised by the President regarding this matter. Just watch his latest fox -n- friends interview. It is appalling.

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

Donald Trump: (06:02)
It’s very interesting. They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee-

Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
Who has the server?

Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-

Steve Doocy: (06:31)
Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
*Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption?* *When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption. And I also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money? All the European nations, why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union, and they’re benefited a lot more by the Ukraine than we are.

TLDR: Our president is either a fool or a liar. You pick. July 25th call nor the first call on April 12th have the word corruption in it. His own words Trump is looking for 'corruption' of a political opponent and he's asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden on the south lawn in front of reporters. It is the only corruption he is looking for per his own words to Zelensky and is the reason he resisted giving the aid. He is his own worst enemy, trailing closely by only his own lawyer. Ah the best people.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 24, 2019)

Further explanation of my logic: I will note for clarity that he is discussing corruption in his interview of the DNC server and both the DNC server and Biden were his topics raised in the july 25th call. To dissociate the two would require to say that both weren't topics of corruption which would be equally damning as it would say the Biden investigation is for pure political purposes. If both are under the topics of corruption as Trump asserts then they are in fact the reason he held up the aid by his own admission.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You're probably right, but Trump is clearly guilty, so we will see.




Clearly guilty of rubbing your fur the wrong way. But nothing's been shown by even a preponderance, let alone any higher standard of proof. We got a parade of partisan insinuation, assumption, and feels. Democrats might vote to push it to the Senate, but then they lose control of the show, and that's probably the last thing they want.

All we can do is wait to see what happens. That is unless @Lacius is actually ...


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 25, 2019)

they better hold on those charges til trump is out (pretty sure some of the charges don't have statute of limitations) once a new president is in BAM hit trump with the charges so he rots in prison


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm not really working on assumptions. He solicited assistance from a foreign power twice (Ukraine and China) to investigate a political opponent. I'm principled and consistent in that I supported a bipartisan congressional investigation of Biden and spoke of congress having the proper authority to oversee the executive branch. This is from our constitution you so dearly claim to support and accuse the democratic party of not adhering to. When Trump blocks congressional oversight he is in fact not adhering to the constitution yet I see no outrage from you because you work in the premise that the ends of what you desire justify the means. That breeds lawlessness and will unravel our republic. Whether or not you can swallow your pride or hatred for those that hold different political beliefs will determine if you will be willing to at least go read our constitution and reassess your position. If you still hold true to your position would you at least provide logical reasoning from US law or our constitution that would support such a position?
> 
> (Have you even read the US constitution in its' entirety within your lifetime? Fun Fact: most registered voters have not, not even speaking for most Americans.)
> 
> ...



So you spent all that time writing to simply state if the Democrats think he's guilty of something that's enough to impeach him regardless if there's any evidence. Yeah, well, that's wrong. The basis for this thread and your poll is to justify taking away powers from the Executive Branch because another branch accused them of something. Seeings as their accusations are without merit you now would support them manipulating the system and changing the rules.

So, we're watching a football game. Your team you made a bet on is losing. Suddenly in the 3rd quarter your team's coach wants to change the rules of the game to make it so the team with the less touchdowns wins and you would support this so now you're on Twitter advocating we change the way NFL games are played. Dude, your team is losing because they suck. Get over it. If per say we did make a bet, you lost it and you refused to pay up, well, then you'd be in a world of hurt my friend.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Clearly guilty of rubbing your fur the wrong way. But nothing's been shown by even a preponderance, let alone any higher standard of proof. We got a parade of partisan insinuation, assumption, and feels. Democrats might vote to push it to the Senate, but then they lose control of the show, and that's probably the last thing they want.
> 
> All we can do is wait to see what happens. That is unless @Lacius is actually ...



Is that moron that tries to hide his hatred for the country behind a dry personality and improper logic replying to this thread? I did stop ignoring Xzi, but @Lacius is on a whole other level of stupid. I'm sure he agrees Trump is guilty before being proven guilty. If that's the fact it just goes to show he's not that smart and doesn't operate in reality. It really makes me ask myself what type of psychoactive substances are these tempers are using.

Edit:

It also seems the less Liberal bias main stream media news site NBC (they are pro-Liberal, but have some editors that work within the confines of reality) has posted about the non-Democrat voters and the Republicans that see through this shit show (and how this is very bad for the Libtards). https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...orced-error-sobering-consequences-ncna1089871 .


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> So you spent all that time writing to simply state if the Democrats think he's guilty of something that's enough to impeach him regardless if there's any evidence. Yeah, well, that's wrong. The basis for this thread and your poll is to justify taking away powers from the Executive Branch because another branch accused them of something. Seeings as their accusations are without merit you now would support them manipulating the system and changing the rules.
> 
> So, we're watching a football game. Your team you made a bet on is losing. Suddenly in the 3rd quarter your team's coach wants to change the rules of the game to make it so the team with the less touchdowns wins. Dude, your team is losing because they suck. Get over it.



I invite you to read the rest as you aren't correct in interpreting what I wrote. Go line by line if needed but the point is you are asserting an incorrect framing of what an impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial is and that what I attempted to do is inform you that it is a political trial not a criminal one. That makes a stark difference in how it can operate, the founders did not specify in great length how impeachment is to be conducted. The historical precedents of impeachment is the best we have available to us. 

It might be that you aren't old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment from start to finish but I did and it was thoroughly explained and presented during the inquiry phase before the articles of impeachment were served that congress has the power to oversee the executive branch. Were they wrong? Did republican congress overreach in your opinion? Why did the courts side with them? You must look at history properly if you are going to assert anything on how our government is structured. This isn't about football teams, the fact that you see it in that partisan manner is blinding you to ask questions and make informed decisions. I'd give you more credit that you are informed if you presented more fact with your statements.

Below is a brief history of Clinton invoking executive privilege and he lost in court. It is noteworthy that Nixon tried the same and it also was overturned in court. I'm not talking about taking away something the executive branch has held through history in impeachments, it appears it would be something that doesn't hold in impeachments. Care to discuss with historical evidence that would state otherwise?
---
The *Clinton* administration invoked *executive privilege* on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill *Clinton* became the first president since Nixon to assert *executive privilege* and lose in *court*, when a federal judge *ruled* that *Clinton* aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

Later, Clinton exercised a form of negotiated executive privilege when he agreed to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear. Declaring that "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.
---

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'll post a source that is easy to read on the matter. I would encourage all who are interested in earnest discussion to peruse this. Obama lost a case during 'fast and furious' as well just fyi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I invite you to read the rest as you aren't correct in interpreting what I wrote. Go line by line if needed but the point is you are asserting an incorrect framing of what an impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial is and that what I attempted to do is inform you that it is a political trial not a criminal one. That makes a stark difference in how it can operate, the founders did not specify in great length how impeachment is to be conducted. The historical precedents of impeachment is the best we have available to us.
> 
> It might be that you aren't old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment from start to finish but I did and it was thoroughly explained and presented during the inquiry phase before the articles of impeachment were served that congress has the power to oversee the executive branch. Were they wrong? Did republican congress overreach in your opinion? Why did the courts side with them? You must look at history properly if you are going to assert anything on how our government is structured. This isn't about football teams, the fact that you see it in that partisan manner is blinding you to ask questions and make informed decisions. I'd give you more credit that you are informed if you presented more fact with your statements.
> 
> ...



I don't care what happened with Clinton. You clearly stated that impeachment is a political process that requires no evidence to be presented. They only evidence the Democrats need is the assumption of guilt. You're saying this because you want to limit the powers of the executive branch (change the rules of the game) because your attempts are failing. I've already stated that Trump is within his rights not to do anything the Democrats in the House are demanding of him. If and when a court orders him to turn over any papers he would be legally required to do so. I realize you don't like the game that you tried to rig, have cheated in and are losing. Tough shit. You guys simply suck at whatever you try to do. The Executive Branch has it's Executive Powers thus providing the President with them regardless if Congress or the Senate don't like it. Seeings as you say it's okay for Congress to strip the Executive Branch of its powers just because they are accusing the President of something is not how it works. It wouldn't work that way if he was actually guilty (which, he isn't because he hasn't been proved to be so). The President has his powers until he's no longer President and he's not guilty of anything until he's proven to be guilty. I wonder would you support Trump stripping the House of it's powers based on an accusation based on assumptions he can't prove? There's checks and balances for a reason. Sorry, you can't rig the entire Government. We're not under socialism yet.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> Trump is within his rights



Show me the precedent that supports trump during an impeachment inquiry to exert executive privilege in preventing witnesses and documents from not coming forth. If you know of something that supports his case I'm asking for it.


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Show me the precedent that supports trump during an impeachment inquiry to exert executive privilege in preventing witnesses and documents from not coming forth. If you know of something that supports his case I'm asking for it.



He's not required to legally do anything the House demands of him. He's making his own precedent. Besides, there's no concrete law that requires one to even follow precedents. I support him because of the nature of the inquiry and the history behind it. If and when an actual court with legal authority orders Trump to comply with their request he's in his right to not give Congress anything. If he then refuses the court order I would disagree with him, but as of right now what I think he's doing is perfectly fine. Under no circumstances should one branch of the Government be able to strip the other branch of its powers. They choose to work together on whatever they choose to work together on. As far as I'm concerned the "checks and balances" and working just fine. Until the Liberals actually rip up the Constitution and replace our way of life with socialism we are still a Democratic Republic. So act like it.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> There's checks and balances for a reason.



This might help inform you and others

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/



cots said:


> He's not required to legally do anything the House demands of him. He's making his own precedent. I support him because of the nature of the inquiry and the history behind it.



So you admit he has no ground to stand on historically but you think it's different because? you don't like it? you don't feel its fair? feelings don't come into play when it comes to legal precedent which is what the courts will use first and foremost in making a consideration. How is this different?



cots said:


> Under no circumstances should one branch of the Government be able to strip the other branch of it's powers.



How does historical precedent stand on that? Is the executive branch losing its power or is it actually overstepping its boundaries and impeding on congressional oversight? Historical evidence implies when exerted in an impeachment inquiry it is overturned in the courts. If you can review Nixon and Clinton's impeachment and observe a difference in the exertion of executive privilege that is notable please share with us.



cots said:


> There's checks and balances for a reason. Sorry, you can't rig the entire Government. We're not under socialism yet.





cots said:


> As far as I'm concerned the "checks and balances" and working just fine. Until the Liberals actually rip up the Constitution and replace our way of life with socialism we are still a Democratic Republic. So act like it.



Sir, you keep spouting socialism in relation to this impeachment but I think you grossly misunderstand the term and I'm embarrassed for you. Please use a dictionary before using words you aren't familiar with. Its hard to pursue discourse when one isn't not sure the other participant doesn't know what he's talking about in relation to simple terminology.


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This might help inform you and others
> 
> https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/
> 
> ...



Legal precedents aren't the de facto method for going about legal proceedings. They are more of a rough draft. One can challenge such precedents thus creating their own. So they are more out an outline of how things should be done. What's precedent are we setting allowing a premeditated impeachment effort to take place following previous attempts rooted in the simple fact the Democrats don't like Trump? Seeings as the Liberals value ones feelings over facts or logic you can understand how my personal feelings go along with the facts, but I'm not a Liberal so I'm not putting my personal feelings before logic and fact. Trump doesn't have to do anything Congress is asking of him. Until a court orders him to turn over any documents he doesn't have to. Just a Congress doesn't have to take orders from Trump.

As per your socialism jab. Socialism would destroy our 3 branch system. You simply follow the one Government rule. We probably wouldn't even be allowed to legally be having this debate under socialistic rule as depending on what stance the Government took on the issue your or I would be jailed for not agreeing with whatever that may be. We'd have to agree and we'd also have to be not using certain words - you know the words being outlawed. I don't see the Liberal obsession with trying to hide or rewrite history. Those who don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it, but that's exactly what they want. They want to adopt an old ass backwards way of Government that has a guarantee failure rate of 110%. Hong Kong is fighting for Democracy while in the USA Liberals are fighting to destroy it.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> As per your socialism jab. Socialism would destroy our 3 branch system. You simply follow the one Government rule.


Is anyone here advocating dissolving the three branches? If anything on historical precedent you have an executive branch overstepping to emulate an authoritarian style of government by denying congressional oversight which was overruled by the courts.



cots said:


> Legal precedents aren't the de facto method for going about legal proceedings. They are more of a rough draft. One can challenge such precedents thus creating their own.



I agree a precedent can be challenged, it usually is most effective in civil cases. I'm skeptical that there is anything different from Trump when examining Clinton and Nixon's impeachments. I've yet to hear anything concrete.



cots said:


> premeditated impeachment effort



This isn't concrete. It could be argued this is further support for the need for impeachment... as Lindsey Graham said, of a political cleansing of the office. So this is a matter of perspective as democrats have lodged a long and running list of impeachable offenses. Just because a few bad actors have been given a megaphone in an internet age doesn't equate to an entire concerted effort of the congressional house to impeach the president. The house took but only one other vote in 2017 to commence an impeachment, we discussed this already in a previous thread but you continue to persist this misinformed narrative. History is not on your side of this argument. If there was a concerted effort there would have been a majority of democrats supporting impeachment back in 2017 rather than against it.

"On December 6, 2017, Rep. Al Green introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump. Green introduced the resolution as a privileged motion and it was voted on the same day. As expected the resolution did not move forward, losing by 364–58 with all Republicans and most Democrats voting in favor of tabling the resolution, i.e. to kill the resolution."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h658

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And in good faith to show I intended and in correct context applied authoritarian style of government since I pointed out your incorrect use of socialism:

"Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive."

This is one of the four major tenants of authoritarianism.


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> And in good faith to show I intended and in correct context applied authoritarian style of government since I pointed out your incorrect use of socialism:
> 
> "Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive."
> 
> This is one of the four major tenants of authoritarianism.



I would agree with this if Trump was trying to take over Congress or remove their powers. Seeings as Congress is trying to remove him from office and is doing a piss poor job at it so they want to limit his powers to possibly gain an upper hand your example doesn't jive. Your claim that this entire impeachment effort wasn't premeditated is also invalid. There's ample evidence many of the Democrats planned it, from the PAC's they started around when Trump took office, the previous failed attempts, the fact the Whisterblower's lawyer (the entire reason we're in this inquiry) openly admitted to planning a coup, the many high ranking politician or wealthy billionaires calling for his removal and the Liberals population call and support for the entire mess. The Liberal public called for impeachment from day one after they LOST the election. Sorry Libtards, you did lose. There's no question it was planned from the get go.

The Democrats still refuse to admit they lost the election and instead of working with Trump on issues they've been using the Liberal court system to fight him on almost everything he tries to do. The funny part is that he's overturned and won most of those cases they've brought against him (not in the lower courts original rulings, but in proceeding rulings, you know, the ones CNN won't report on) and he's actually living up to most of his campaign promises (which is rare for any President regardless of party affiliation). Trump was elected beyond all odds and contrary to what the Liberals would have you think he's doing great and things even with the Democrats constantly trying to shut him down on almost everything he tries to do. He's going to beat this impeachment effort and of course the Democrats still won't admit defeat, but it's okay because we all know they are sore losers who can't even win at the games they're cheating in.

I wonder come 2021 after he is still in office if we'll be discussing yet another impeachment effort brought up by the Democrats on this very same forum.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Clearly guilty of rubbing your fur the wrong way. But nothing's been shown by even a preponderance, let alone any higher standard of proof. We got a parade of partisan insinuation, assumption, and feels. Democrats might vote to push it to the Senate, but then they lose control of the show, and that's probably the last thing they want.
> 
> All we can do is wait to see what happens. That is unless @Lacius is actually ...
> 
> View attachment 187826


My personal feelings about Trump are irrelevant.

Trump held up Ukraine aide because he wanted to investigate a Biden conspiracy theory, harming the interests of the United States and advancing his own political agenda. Everything about this has been corroborated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> So you spent all that time writing to simply state if the Democrats think he's guilty of something that's enough to impeach him regardless if there's any evidence. Yeah, well, that's wrong. The basis for this thread and your poll is to justify taking away powers from the Executive Branch because another branch accused them of something. Seeings as their accusations are without merit you now would support them manipulating the system and changing the rules.
> 
> So, we're watching a football game. Your team you made a bet on is losing. Suddenly in the 3rd quarter your team's coach wants to change the rules of the game to make it so the team with the less touchdowns wins and you would support this so now you're on Twitter advocating we change the way NFL games are played. Dude, your team is losing because they suck. Get over it. If per say we did make a bet, you lost it and you refused to pay up, well, then you'd be in a world of hurt my friend.
> 
> ...


Trump's guilt has been demonstrated.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> he's actually living up to most of his campaign promises



https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/471735-trump-draws-ire-after-retreat-on-drug-prices-pledge

Funny you bring that up. I read he's reneged on a promise to fight to negotiate drug prices in effort to curb the inflation of cost of drugs. That was a campaign promise that I was actually looking forward to. I guess you can't win them all, maybe he will reconsider come closer to the election but I think pharma has pressured him through leveraging republican senators. He's in a bad spot for many different reasons, he's entire administration is now beholden to RNC interest groups, the same ones that people wanted an outsider. Like I said before, in another thread, once I noticed how he lost the governorship of KY and Louisiana to democrats even after campaigning for the republican candidate (He held rallies three times and even cut a personal televised ad for Louisiana). This shows the RNC that Trump needs them much more then they need Trump. I've long since strayed off-topic so I'm going to wrap up.

Ok, I've entertained you long enough. We obviously will agree to disagree. You haven't presented anything of substance other than some weak right-wing talking points to excuse the alleged impeachable behavior that is being discussed in the inquiry. You certainly have failed on many counts to prove his assertion of executive privilege holds grounds despite precedent but if you firmly believe that executive privilege overrules congressional oversight even in a formalized impeachment inquiry, then you are entitled to that belief. 

I stand by my arguments that historical precedent isn't on your side. And albeit unrelated a recent ruling of Trump's tax returns have raised all the way to the Supreme Court (each time against him in favor of congress). He's been losing in the courts in many areas. I anticipate he will fail just as Nixon and Clinton as the Courts held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth took precedence.

By the way, Executive privilege isn't granted directly by the constitution, but by the supreme court in ruling of separation of powers, which is also where congress gets its oversight of the executive branch. I'd thought it was worth sharing.

"However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]"


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> By the way, Executive privilege isn't granted directly by the constitution, but by the supreme court in ruling of separation of powers, which is also where congress gets its oversight of the executive branch. I'd thought it was worth sharing.
> 
> "However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]"



And like I said until a court that has the authority to order Trump to comply with Congress's demands he's in his right to deny their demands. If he tries to disobey the court then we'd have problems, but currently there's no problem. Congress has a problem and that's their latest impeachment attempt is going to backfire on them, but that's their problem not mine or Trump's. Unless you want to allow Trump to start being able to order Congress around I don't support allowing Congress to order him around. Maybe I should insert disclaimers into my texts that state that I'm probably never going to go along or support the Liberals on their latest impeachment attempt. I'll accept the outcome, but I'm not going to support this nonsense.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> And like I said until a court that has the authority to order Trump to comply with Congress's demands he's in his right to deny their demands. If he tries to disobey the court then we'd have problems, but currently there's no problem. Congress has a problem and that's their latest impeachment attempt is going to backfire on them, but that's their problem not mine or Trump's. Unless you want to allow Trump to start being able to order Congress around I don't support allowing Congress to order him around. Maybe I should insert disclaimers into my texts that state that I'm probably never going to go along or support the Liberals on their latest impeachment attempt. I'll accept the outcome, but I'm not going to support this nonsense.



You still misunderstand what separation of powers states and what checks and balances actually are in our government. Trump ordering congress is absolutely against a three branch government. Congress investigating the executive branch is not and is part of the separation of powers.

 Furthermore Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security and because of that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. This is one of the only instances I can think of that have gone in Executive branch's favor. I see no national security at risk.

I'll post a link for you to read as it's approachable for most. With that I yield in this discussion. Please become more informed on how our government works before continuing your assertions and false equivalencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separ...nited_States_Constitution#Checks_and_balances

Legislative

Writes and enacts laws
Enacts taxes, authorizes borrowing, and sets the budget
Has sole power to declare war
*May start investigations, especially against the President*
The Senate confirms presidential appointments of federal judges, executive department heads, ambassadors, and many other officers, subject to confirmation by the Senate
The Senate ratifies treaties
*The House of Representatives may impeach, and the Senate may remove, executive and judicial officers*
Creates federal courts except for the Supreme Court, and sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court
May override presidential vetoes

Executive

May veto laws
Vice president presides over the Senate
Wages war at the direction of Congress
Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders
Influences other branches of its agenda with the State of the Union address.
Appoints federal judges, executive department heads, ambassadors, and various other officers
Has power to grant pardons to convicted persons
Executes and enforces orders of the court through federal law enforcement.


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You still misunderstand what separation of powers states and what checks and balances actually are in our government. Trump ordering congress is absolutely against a three branch government. Congress investigating the executive branch is not and is part of the separation of powers.



I never said Congress can't try to impeach him. Heck, there's nothing in writing saying that planning on impeaching him from the start without a reason is illegal (it's just fucked up). However, just because someone accuses you of something doesn't mean you have to provide them with the things they request of you, especially if what they are requesting of you could be used against you (now or later). Seeings as the Democrats started their impeachment without a reason (we plan to impeach and will just find any reason) I wouldn't put it past them to then use whatever they might find in the requested documents to further go after Trump when whatever they find might not even be related to quid pro quo. Trump is under no legal obligation to provide them with anything they request of him. Congress has given him subpoenas in something you admit isn't an actual legal proceeding. Until a court with the actual power to do so orders him to go along with those subpoenas he doesn't have to give Congress jack shit. What he's doing is not only legal, but it's also ethical, moral and the right thing to do. Seeings if I had a group of people that planned to ruin me from the start because they challenged me and lost and couldn't get over it do you think I'd help them in any fashion in doing so? Fuck no I would not.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> However, just because someone accuses you of something doesn't mean you have to provide them with the things they request of you, especially if what they are requesting of you could be used against you (now or later).


This isn't some civil case where this is his personal business. This is an impeachment inquiry. This oversight is a function of the legislative branch. Go read what I wrote and the source I linked before stating how you feel our government is supposed to operate.

The president can plead the 5th. That is all. The executive branch is still subject to investigation by the legislative branch and that includes the president himself.



cots said:


> Trump is under no legal obligation to provide them with anything they request of him. Congress has given him subpoenas in something you admit isn't an actual legal proceeding.



If this truly was the case then he would be immune to obstruction of an impeachment inquiry. However that is fantasy and he is obligated. This is a legal proceeding and you mischaracterized my own statement. I said this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. BOTH are legal proceedings. You have a lot to learn...


----------



## omgcat (Nov 25, 2019)

Cots, for someone who really loves their constitution, you sure seem to be ignorant of whats in it. for example:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, *Treason, Bribery*, or other *high Crimes* and a *Misdemeanor*.

The impeachment hearings are based on the obstructions of justice laid out in the Mueller report, and are piling up as that line of questioning is being unwoven. ANY obstruction of justice is a *Misdemeanor* at the lightest and a felony at the harshest. Withholding aid to a country unless they investigate a political opponent even after the aid was appropriated, approved, and ready to send, is *Bribery* at the lightest and Extortion at the harshest. Witness intimidation is a *Misdemeanor* at the lightest and a felony at the harshest.

As an added bonus in relation to executive privilege:

The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “*likely contains important evidence*” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president *may not* prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary *to show that “important” evidence exists.
*
Also as an extra bonus:

Attorney-client privilege does not hold when a crime has been committed involving said attorney.


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

omgcat said:


> Cots, for someone who really loves their constitution, you sure seem to be ignorant of whats in it. for example:
> 
> Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
> 
> ...



_"Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, *Treason, Bribery*, or other *high Crimes* and a *Misdemeanor*."_

This the only part you got correct about the latter subject. The following text you posted after your verbatim quote of the Constitution are simple interpretations of Congresses power copied word for word from publications related to what people think it means this year, who might add interpreted it just for the very reason of impeaching Trump, which is clearly evident as you've included what's currently going on in it. Sorry bud, but the Democratic interpretation of something doesn't make it an actual law or even what the Constitution meant, especially in the Mueller investigation, who he cleared the President of collusion or this shit show that is basing impeachment on assumptions.



> The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president may not prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary to show that “important” evidence exists.



The President hasn't "granting absolute immunity to witnesses". He's simply telling them not to testify and refusing to obey subpoenas for information. He's not made any executive orders related to the matter trying to interfere with it nor has he granted anyone immunity using his constitutional powers. Your claims aren't based in reality. Nice stretch, but you lost. For someone who thinks they can tell me they know more than I do about the subject you're not winning any brownie points because you're clearly not paying attention.

Anyway, once after the fact that the courts probably will order Trump to hand over whatever Congress wants it'll be entertaining to see that they don't contain any damning evidence. Well, the Democrats might claim it does, considering they're already stated that second hand testimony is worth more than first hand testimony and that assumptions and hearsay are admissible evidence with comparable worth. You people are really something else. You have no fucking clue about how shit works or what you're even doing. First hand testimony and direct real evidence are the only things that are worth shit. The rest of what you've presented isn't worth the paper it's being printed on. "I assume" ... Fuck off. You know what, I assume that the President isn't guilty. So my assumption is valid? Case closed! Yeah, well, that's not how it works. I support Trump not bowing down to you fucking idiots latest attempt to oust him from office. You're going to lose no matter what you do. Just like you lost the 2016 election. I just had to include that fact because your "end game" is still not going to produce the results you want. I realize that no matter what the plan is to "attack the President". You may be able to fool some of the indoctrinated school children on this forum, but I see right through your bullshit.


----------



## cots (Nov 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> The president can plead the 5th. That is all. The executive branch is still subject to investigation by the legislative branch and that includes the president himself.
> 
> If this truly was the case then he would be immune to obstruction of an impeachment inquiry. However that is fantasy and he is obligated. This is a legal proceeding and you mischaracterized my own statement. I said this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. BOTH are legal proceedings. You have a lot to learn...



I'm sure if he takes the 5th you people will still find a reason to bitch and moan. No matter what he does or what he says you're going to attack him. Attacking him regardless of what he does is in your DNA. Admitting you voted for Trump around your type gets you discriminated against. Your planned impeachment based on your hatred and refusal to accept the election results is clearly evident. You're not fooling the majority of the public. This entire fiasco was planned from the start and you can't even get it right.

Political trials are turning out to be more full of shit than civil or criminal. Especially considering you said that a political trial can be won by the impression of guilt with no real evidence needing to be presented, which is actually turning out to be true. Fucking moronic politics. "We don't like him so we're going to impeach him and we don't need any evidence to do so". Fuck off. Seeings as the rules for civil and criminal trails don't apply to this legal proceeding I feel even more empowered to keep repeating myself that Trump is under no obligation to hand over anything Congress is demanding without an actual legal court order telling him to. The Democratic goal was to remove the President at all costs for whatever reason they could find and they are still failing at their latest attempt. You guys really need to fucking get a clue before you start shit you can't handle.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm sure if he takes the 5th you people will still find a reason to bitch and moan. No matter what he does or what he says you're going to attack him. Attacking him regardless of what he does is in your DNA. Admitting you voted for Trump around your type gets you discriminated against. Your planned impeachment based on your hatred and refusal to accept the election results is clearly evident. You're not fooling the majority of the public. This entire fiasco was planned from the start and you can't even get it right.
> 
> Political trials are turning out to be more full of shit than civil or criminal. Especially considering you said that a political trial can be won by the impression of guilt with no real evidence needing to be presented, which is actually turning out to be true. Fucking moronic politics. "We don't like him so we're going to impeach him and we don't need any evidence to do so". Fuck off. Seeings as the rules for civil and criminal trails don't apply to this legal proceeding I feel even more empowered to keep repeating myself that Trump is under no obligation to hand over anything Congress is demanding without an actual legal court order telling him to. The Democratic goal was to remove the President at all costs for whatever reason they could find and they are still failing at their latest attempt. You guys really need to fucking get a clue before you start shit you can't handle.


You bring nothing to support your claims on this process other than your feelings. Nothing has changed since you commenced your involvement in these discussions. I could equally point out a few bad actors in the republican party and try to paint every republican with the same brush but that would be illogical and idiotic to believe that represents reality.

I invite you back to the impeachment hearing thread to discuss actual evidence if you think there is nothing of substance. I've laid out Trump's own words that admits he withheld military aid. There is a reason you ignore information presented which shows Trump has at best pitiful poor judgement and at worst used the power of the executive branch for personal benefit. Continue attacking the process because at this point, I feel that's all that is left for the Trump administration defense if they can't/won't produce witnesses from senior officials or documents that say otherwise.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 25, 2019)

except your argument fell apart in literal real time...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...wh-counsel-mcgahn-must-testify-under-subpoena

A judge has ruled that "The Justice Department’s claim to “unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity,” Jackson wrote, “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.” ".

Edit: adding more links as this develops.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

A federal judge on Monday ordered Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the Trump WH's top lawyer, a ruling that will add pressure on other Trump officials tied to the impeachment probe. Decision here: http://ow.ly/g7TL50xkrnj

I'm not sure if he is going to seek an appeal or not. If all he was wanting to do is cover his ass and not obstruct then I wouldn't see the need to pursue an appeal.

In part of that decision, rational was given in the quote below:
“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their  proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires," Judge says

Other news of FOIA working to give public transparency on this issue:
Judge orders release of documents of communications between the Pentagon’s comptroller, DOD and White House OMB over the delay in stalled Ukraine aid. Must turn over 106 pages to Center for Public Integrity by Dec. 12. Another 100 by Dec. 20 in FOIA suit https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv3265-17 …

In addition to the above, on Friday:
https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

"On Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.

American Oversight is reviewing the production to assess whether the State Department has fully complied with the court’s order."

----
TLDR: This is strong evidence that Trump's administration is abusing executive privilege and is blocking a formalized congressional impeachment inquiry. If normal citizens through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) can have the courts force the Executive branch to produce documents then congress is certainly entitled to them via an impeachment inquiry.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

whoops I meant for this to go in another thread. It's not necessarily offtopic here but not what was intended.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

This is rather bulky, for a full read it would be best to refer to my link of the Don McGahn decision

---Page 4-5
*DOJ’s arguments to the contrary are rooted in “the Executive’s interest in ‘autonomy[,]’” and, therefore, “rest[] upon a discredited notion of executive power and privilege.” Id. at 103. Indeed, when DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ Case 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ Document 46 Filed 11/25/19 Page 6 of 120 5 promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards.* In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation’s founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 120 (1976). Thus, when presented with a case or controversy, it is the Judiciary’s duty under the Constitution to interpret the law and to declare government overreaches unlawful. *Similarly, the House of Representatives has the constitutionally vested responsibility to conduct investigations of suspected abuses of power within the government, and to act to curb those improprieties, if required.* Accordingly, DOJ’s conceptual claim to unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity on separation-of-powers grounds—essentially, that the Constitution’s scheme countenances unassailable Executive branch authority—is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.
--- Page 7
*And in reaching this conclusion, “[t]he Court holds only that [McGahn] (and other senior presidential advisors) do not have absolute immunity from compelled congressional process in the context of this particular subpoena dispute.”* Id. at 105–06. Accordingly, just as with Harriet Miers before him, Donald McGahn “must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.”
---

I think this is a big blow to Trump's order of refusing aids to appear to testify before congress. If this is not appealed then others may follow suite but I expect Trump who has not been forthcoming with witnesses or documents will have no desire to stop obstruction and continue to hang this decision among any others in court as long as possible through appeals.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

omgcat said:


> except your argument fell apart in literal real time...
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html
> 
> ...



My argument didn't fall apart you fucking tool. I said that unless a court orders the White House to comply they don't have to comply. Seeings as a court has ordered the White House to comply this is exactly what I said could happen. Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity. He's simply suggested that they don't testify and it's up to them as individuals to make that choice. Sonland choose to ignore Trump. You're still falling for typical main stream media bullshit. No immunity was granted from the President, which is what I was talking about. So what, someone said in the Justice Department that this guy was immune. What the fuck does that have to do with Trump granting him immunity? Hint, not a god damned thing. Stretching shit is a Democratic tactic, but I'm working in the realms of reality. So shit didn't fall apart. If anything what I said would have to happen just happened. So I was right twice in a row.

Now the question is whether this court has the power to make the Executive Branch comply. As far as I know there's only 1 court that can do that. Would be interesting if this guy still refuses to testify and The White House defends him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think this is a big blow to Trump's order of refusing aids to appear to testify before congress. If this is not appealed then others may follow suite but I expect Trump who has not been forthcoming with witnesses or documents will have no desire to stop obstruction and continue to hang this decision among any others in court as long as possible through appeals.



What you think is irrelevant based on the fact that the majority of the people support Trump not caving into the Democrats latest scheme. He's under no obligation to give the Democrats shit. Like I predicted it took a court order to force him to comply. Now seeings as that has happened I assume anything that is turned over to be abused and used out of context. Furthermore, I expect imaginary lines to be made between all sorts of other "impressions of guilt" found in this stuff to be used against Trump now or in the future. You people still aren't fooling anyone. You've stated your agenda years ago - You hate Trump and remove him from office at all costs regardless of any wrongdoing.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> My argument didn't fall apart you fucking tool. I said that unless a court orders the White House to comply they don't have to comply. Seeings as a court has ordered the White House to comply this is exactly what I said could happen. Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity. He's simply suggested that they don't testify and it's up to them as individuals to make that choice. Sonland choose to ignore Trump. You're still falling for typical main stream media bullshit. No immunity was granted from the President, which is what I was talking about. So what, someone said in the Justice Department that this guy was immune. What the fuck does that have to do with Trump granting him immunity? Hint, not a god damned thing. Stretching shit is a Democratic tactic, but I'm working in the realms of reality. So shit didn't fall apart. If anything what I said would have to happen just happened. So I was right twice in a row.
> 
> Now the question is whether this court has the power to make the Executive Branch comply. As far as I know there's only 1 court that can do that. Would be interesting if this guy still refuses to testify and The White House defends him.
> 
> ...



Seems to me that your "realms of reality" are not holding up to constitutionality and court precedence. If you are willing to throw out the rule of law, what else is there? The entire reason Mcghan had to go to court was the supposed idea of executive privilege and immunity to congressional subpoenas. He thought that he had immunity from testifying because trump told him not too and his ass would be protected by executive privilege. The judge threw that out because it has no legal basis. Also calling someone "a fucking tool" is pretty childish. I would like you to come up with a reasonable argument as to why it would be OK for the executive branch to be able to shrug off congressional oversight, write it down on a piece of paper, tack it to your wall, and then look at it the next time a democratic president decides to flagrantly try to stifle congressional oversight.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

omgcat said:


> Seems to me that your "realms of reality" are not holding up to constitutionality and court precedence. If you are willing to throw out the rule of law, what else is there? The entire reason Mcghan had to go to court was the supposed idea of executive privilege and immunity to congressional subpoenas. He thought that he had immunity from testifying because trump told him not too and his ass would be protected by executive privilege. The judge threw that out because it has no legal basis. Also calling someone "a fucking tool" is pretty childish. I would like you to come up with a reasonable argument as to why it would be OK for the executive branch to be able to shrug off congressional oversight, write it down on a piece of paper, tack it to your wall, and then look at it the next time a democratic president decides to flagrantly try to stifle congressional oversight.



If the Republicans lose the 2020 election and start impeachment plans for the Democratic President before he or she is elected and then use public resources for two years to go after the President based on lies and then found out to be wrong and after the fact try to use that for one of their many impeachment attempts do you think I would go along with their latest attempt? Do you think I would then support the Republicans latest attempt when the testimony produces witnesses that either claim they have no evidence of any illegal activity with a single one of them stating "I assume he's guilty because that's why I think, but I don't have any actual evidence". Answer - Fuck no. If the Republicans tried to pull this kind of shit I would not support them, but seeings as the Democrats are getting away with it who is making a precedent that could be used to justify doing this again in the future to another President that wins based solely on the fact that the losing side wouldn't admit defeat in a contest they agreed to?

To this day Trump has not used his executive privilege to grant immunity to anyone that was refusing to testify. The people refusing were doing so on their own free will. Now that a court has ordered one of them to testify we'll see how things go. Technically, there's only 1 court in the entire country with the legal authority to tell The White House what to do. If the White House decides to back this witness if the witness still refuses to testify The Supreme Court is the only court that can solve the issue. I'd support him refusing, based on the situation (the situation I highlighted in the first paragraph). If and when he does testify it's not like the Democrats are going to use whatever he says fairly. Seeings as they twisted and misused what Sonland said and value "assumptions" over proof whatever this guy says won't be used fairly. I do understand though, the mission is to remove Trump from office at all costs regardless of guilt, which has been the plan before he even became President.

You are a tool if you support this nonsense, because either you're ignorant (in which case there's hope for you) or you're part of the party that openly admits to trying to remove Trump from office for any reason regardless of guilt.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 26, 2019)

can someone get the fire alarm? because someone is burning shit in here, and it reeks of bullshit.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity.


Just to be clear we understand what immunity was being exerted: we aren't talking about him extending pardons. We are talking about him exerting executive privilege to prevent people from even appearing before congress to testify. You are oblivious to what Trump's administration is even doing yet you come at those with complaints of this overreach of executive authority with dismissive attitude or vitriol? Really?

Please go read the judge's decision linked above. Digest the information of what the DOJ actually presented as their case, and what the judge ruled. I even pulled out some relevant parts to add to our discussion. I do so much lifting to push this discussion along with something grounded in reality and historical evidence. Let's try to use more than feelings to discuss this. If you have a historical case that refutes this feel free to provide an argument based on that.



cots said:


> Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity. He's simply suggested that they don't testify and it's up to them as individuals to make that choice.


The Judge that ruled on this case and the DOJ that is planning to appeal contradict this statement you are making. 

Furthermore, this letter linked below which was given to the Speaker of the House contradicts you. The President is not suggesting. Its an order via Office of Legal Counsel at Trump's direction.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...te-House-Letter-to-Speaker-Pelosi-Et-Al-10-08

Page 4 last paragraph which extends to page 5

"The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long-established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for following such instructions."

The fact that you can't even show enough curiosity to question what is the Administration doing that has people riled up makes you part of the problem. If you were at least informed when touting your position I would be able to respect it, even if I disagree, and retain hope that we can hold discourse. Unfortunately, I cannot condone blatant ignorance as a valid position.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Just to be clear we understand what immunity was being exerted: we aren't talking about him extending pardons. We are talking about him exerting executive privilege to prevent people from even appearing before congress to testify. You are oblivious to what Trump's administration is even doing yet you come at those with complaints of this overreach of executive authority with dismissive attitude or vitriol? Really?
> 
> Please go read the judge's decision linked above. Digest the information of what the DOJ actually presented as their case, and what the judge ruled. I even pulled out some relevant parts to add to our discussion. I do so much lifting to push this discussion along with something grounded in reality and historical evidence. Let's try to use more than feelings to discuss this. If you have a historical case that refutes this feel free to provide an argument based on that.
> 
> ...



No immunity was being exerted. The DOJ said it would hold anyone who didn't want to testify immune to doing so. This never happened. Instead, like I predicted, the Courts ordered that the testimony be made. Trump supported the DOJ, but neither the DOJ nor Trump granted anyone immunity. There's also nothing making these subpoenad witnesses obey the order. Sonland chose to ignore the order and so can anyone else. Fuck your historical nonsense. What is going on how isn't based on anything historical. We all know what this is about. Premeditated impeachment motivated by the inability to face the 2016 election results. Remove Trump at all costs no matter his guilt. Yeah, well, now the people Congress are legally required to testify, but don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. Furthermore, the DOJ is appealing the decision. It's like you want me to get all wrapped up in this minor situation and totally ignore what's happening and why it's happening. You're not going to be able to distract me from the issue at and by trying to nitpick about minor decisions, especially when you're treating them like some major win.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> No immunity was being exerted. The DOJ said it would hold anyone who didn't want to testify immune to doing so. This never happened. Instead, like I predicted, the Courts ordered that the testimony be made. Trump supported the DOJ, but neither the DOJ nor Trump granted anyone immunity. There's also nothing making these subpoenad witnesses obey the order. Sonland chose to ignore the order and so can anyone else. Fuck your historical nonsense. What is going on how isn't based on anything historical.



The way you frame this is part of your problem in understanding our checks and balances. Perhaps this is just a communication error but you are asserting there is a lack of any legal ground for them to appear until the court rules a decision. The Subpoena that was served by congress to Don McGahn was indeed valid and he should have complied. 

The court merely reinforced its validity with its ruling and was forced to do so because the Office of Legal Counsel, at Trump's direction, asserted the following claim in defiance of complying with that lawful subpoena: 

"that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch."

This isn't splitting hairs on presentation of events. You aren't recognizing Separation of Powers that gives Congress the Power to perform congressional oversight. If Don McGahn showed up and answered the questions presented to him with one repetitive phrase: "This is covered under executive privilege" where it accurately applies. Then I would not have a problem with executive privilege being applied. But it cannot prevent someone from being summoned before congress. Historical precedent listed by even that judge is evidence of that. You provide nothing, not one iota of legal standing on any case to say otherwise. You refuse to even discuss the ruling beyond your own emotional response. 



cots said:


> No immunity was being exerted. The DOJ said it would hold anyone who didn't want to testify immune to doing so.



You keep spreading a lie despite myself and others presenting information that the White house and DOJ contradicting you. Immunity to a congressional subpoena was asserted by the DOJ in that case. A judge ruled today that isn't legal and the Congressional Subpoena is valid. If I'm wrong about the immunity, Prove it.

Finally, read the quote from the Whitehouse Letter I am now quoting for the 2nd time. It did not state "anyone who didn't want to testify" but in fact it stated "have been instructed". If I'm wrong, prove it. 

By the way Just so you know, because you really don't strike me as a detailed oriented individual, Gordon Sondland was blocked from testifying by the White house the first time. He then was served a subpoena and defied the White House legal counsel's instruction to not cooperate as did every witness that was deposed during the impeachment inquiry, the reason they complied with the subpoena is because it is lawful and Trump's order is not. They complied because they can't be penalized by the White House for complying with a lawful subpoena. Again, if I'm wrong, prove it.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> The way you frame this is part of your problem in understanding our checks and balances. Perhaps this is just a communication error but you are asserting there is a lack of any legal ground for them to appear until the court rules a decision. The Subpoena that was served by congress to Don McGahn was indeed valid and he should have complied.
> 
> The court merely reinforced its validity with its ruling and was forced to do so because the Office of Legal Counsel, at Trump's direction, asserted the following claim in defiance of complying with that lawful subpoena:
> 
> ...



The witnesses were promised immunity from testifying they were not given immunity as the end result was that the promise was ruled not legal by the current court. At any point in time, just like Sonland, they could have chosen to ignore or defy Trump's orders. Nothing was legally stopping Sonland or any of the others from testifying. They weren't having their lives threatened. They did so on their own volition. So now if and when the witnesses show up they can simply refuse to answer any questions. Trump and the DOJ promising immunity was not illegal, but following through with it would have been (which, is the recent court ruling, which may be overruled). Since immunity was never actually granted the issue is behind us. So the question is now will the subpoenaed witnesses show up and testify or refuse wait until a higher court rules that they have to (per the appeal)? Seeings as they can simply refuse to answer any questions they don't want to during their testimony this is no a "big win" for the Democrats. Taken into context regarding the fact the Democrats are out to impeach Trump regardless of guilt Trump was doing to right thing from not cooperating with them. Just because some psycho ex-bitch who vowed to ruin your life 3 years ago because you dumped her brings you to court again and again doesn't mean you have to cave into her demands in her latest attempt, especially if the courts are colluding with her on the entire pre-planned fiasco.

Why would anyone in their right mind cooperate with a group of people that openly admit to wanting to remove you from office at all costs regardless of guilt? So, you have nothing to hide. Good. That's not reason to cave into their every demand. Just because you're not guilty of something doesn't mean you should just hand over whatever the people accusing you of a crime want you to give them. I think the way the White House handled this is just fine. I support them giving the Democrats hell to every extent legally permitted. If it takes a court to decide what is legal or not then so be it. The White House should not just cave into everything demanded of them by Congress, especially considering the plan was to remove Trump for office at all costs with or without any wrongdoing. This entire "quid pro quo" is just a convenient excuse to go through with their plans. When you look at what's going on and ignore the back story or take it out of context then it would seem that the Democrats are doing the "right thing" or "winning" and they expect the average citizen to fall for this, but considering they think their own party are made up of idiots you can see where their motivations lie and how this is going to end up.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> The witnesses were promised immunity from testifying they were not given immunity as the end result was that the promise was ruled not legal by the current court. At any point in time, just like Sonland, they could have chosen to ignore or defy Trump's orders. Nothing was legally stopping Sonland or any of the others from testifying. They weren't having their lives threatened. They did so on their own volition. So now if and when the witnesses show up they can simply refuse to answer any questions. Trump and the DOJ promising immunity was not illegal, but following through with it would have been (which, is the recent court ruling, which may be overruled). Since immunity was never actually granted the issue is behind us. So the question is now will the subpoenaed witnesses show up and testify or wait until a higher court rules that they have to? Seeings as they can simply refuse to answer any questions they don't want to during their testimony this is no a "big win" for the Democrats. Taken into context regarding the fact the Democrats are out to impeach Trump regardless of guilt Trump was doing to right thing from not cooperating with them. Just because some psycho ex-bitch who vowed to ruin your life 3 years ago because you dumped her brings you to court again and again doesn't mean you have to cave into her demands in her latest attempt, especially if the courts are colluding with her on the entire pre-planned fiasco.
> 
> Why would anyone in their right mind cooperate with a group of people that openly admit to wanting to remove you from office at all costs regardless of guilt? So, you have nothing to hide. Good. That's not reason to cave into their every demand. Just because you're not guilty of something doesn't mean you should just hand over whatever the people accusing you of a crime want you to give them. I think the way the White House handled this is just fine. I support them giving the Democrats hell to every extent legally permitted. If it takes a court to decide what is legal or not then so be it. The White House should not just cave into everything demanded of them by Congress, especially considering the plan was to remove Trump for office at all costs with or without any wrongdoing. This entire "quid pro quo" is just a convenient excuse to go through with their plans. When you look at what's going on and ignore the back story or take it out of context then it would seem that the Democrats are doing the "right thing" or "winning" and they expect the average citizen to fall for this, but considering they think their own party are made up of idiots you can see where their motivations lie and how this is going to end up.


I'm sorry try again. Prove it. Not give your feelings.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm sorry try again. Prove it. Not give your feelings.



I did just prove it. I gave you my observations based on assumptions and the stated how I personally felt about some of the issues.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

Provide a document, some source that validates your claim. You bring nothing. You expect people to just take your word or interpretation as truth? You have a judge that says otherwise. You have refused to address my specific points that were raised with any proof.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Provide a document, some source that validates your claim. You bring nothing. You expect people to just take your word or interpretation as truth? You have a judge that says otherwise. You have refused to address my specific points that were raised with any proof.



Seems you should be using that line of reply to the entire impeachment process. Its just fine when your party basis it's entire impeachment case using the same logic I did regarding this issue. So remind me, why should I take the Democrats premeditated impeachment effort seriously when it's just their words based on their interpreted truths, which are rooted solely on assumptions and motivated by how they feel about Trump?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Seems you should be using that line of reply to the entire impeachment process. It's just fine when your party basis it's entire impeachment case using the same logic I did regarding this issue. So remind me, why should I take the Democrats premeditated impeachment effort seriously when it's just their words based on their interpreted truths, which are rooted solely on assumptions?


I'm sorry, This does not address the question. You provide proof or something that substantiates your claim. Finish this discussion, then we can move on to another topic. I'm not going to have someone bicker and lie then change the topic when called out on their misinformation.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm sorry, This does not address the question. You provide proof or something that substantiates your claim. Finish this discussion, then we can move on to another topic. I'm not going to have someone bicker and lie then change the topic when called out on their misinformation.



I applied the same logic that the Democrats are using for their impeachment effort on the issues you brought up (in my last detailed reply) - to prove a point. I stand by my observations that are based on assumptions and motivated by how I feel about the subject. If this is good enough for you to support impeaching the President then it's good enough for me to make a point with.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> I applied the same logic that the Democrats are using for their impeachment effort on the issues you brought up - to prove a point. I stand by my observations that are based on assumptions and motivated by how I feel about the subject. If this is good enough for you to support impeaching the President then it's good enough for me to make a point with.


You provide an observation, an incorrect one that is contradicted by two sources I provided and list nothing to substantiate your own claim. If you want to discuss evidence that supports or refutes an impeachment we can do that in another thread. This thread is about executive privilege and impeachment inquiry. The ruling for McGahn to testify is relevant to this thread. Your feelings on impeachment not being fair isn't.

I actually somewhat agree with you, attempting to change the conversation does prove a point: that you don't have anything to support your position and can't or won't find something that will. It may have not been the point you wanted to prove or that you state above but that is now your personal problem.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You provide an observation, an incorrect one that is contradicted by two sources I provided and list nothing to substantiate your own claim. If you want to discuss evidence that supports or refutes an impeachment we can do that in another thread. This thread is about executive privilege and impeachment inquiry. The ruling for McGahn to testify is relevant to this thread. Your feelings on impeachment not being fair isn't.
> 
> I actually somewhat agree with you, attempting to change the conversation does prove a point: that you don't have anything to support your position and can't or won't find something that will. It may have not been the point you wanted to prove or that you state above but that is now your personal problem.



No, I just wanted to apply the logic the Democrats are using in this entire mess to my last drawn out reply and see how you'd react to it. Clearly, their logic is flawed. The only thing you verified is your bias. If that somehow invalidates the rest of my comments in your eyes then applied to the Democrats it should invalidate the entire impeachment effort. 

Anyway, so now a court with no actual authority over the White House ruled that the White House members who are personally refusing to testify must do so and will not be granted immunity (which, none of them had been granted immunity, only promised to be). The DOJ is appealing (which is legal and they're doing so because the current court has no final say in the matter), meaning the witnesses may or may not testify. If they do testify they don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. If they don't testify we'll have to wait until a higher court rules that they must testify (with the results being the same, they can refuse to answer any questions). So until a court that has authority over the White House rules that the witnesses must testify or the White House caves into a lower courts demands there's no definitive decision about the matter one way or the other. That's my interpretation of the facts. Linking to the actual rulings or matters of how I came to my conclusion would be futile because you'd simply try to discredit everything I link to (plus, you linked to many of them already). I'm paying attention to what's going on and unlike the Liberals I'm not claiming Trump is guilty or not guilty (that's yet to be decided on).

I'm also not going to ignore the situation or why this is all happening. That would be playing into the Democrats hand. The Democrats have planned this all along and according to them they're trying to remove Trump from office regardless if he's guilty or not.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> No, I just wanted to apply the logic the Democrats are using in this entire mess to my last drawn out reply and see how you'd react to it. Clearly, their logic is flawed. The only thing you verified is your bias. If that somehow invalidates the rest of my comments in your eyes then applied to the Democrats it should invalidate the entire impeachment effort.
> 
> Anyway, so now a court with no actual authority over the White House ruled that the White House members who are personally refusing to testify must do so and will not be granted immunity (which, none of them had been granted immunity, only promised to be). The DOJ is appealing (which is legal and they're doing so because the current court has no final say in the matter), meaning the witnesses may or may not testify. If they do testify they don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. If they don't testify we'll have to wait until a higher court rules that they must testify (with the results being the same, they can refuse to answer any questions). So until a court that has authority over the White House rules that the witnesses must testify or the White House caves into a lower courts demands there's no definitive decision about the matter one way or the other. That's my interpretation of the facts. Linking to the actual rulings or matters of how I came to my conclusion would be futile because you'd simply try to discredit everything I link to (plus, you linked to many of them already). I'm paying attention to what's going on and unlike the Liberals I'm not claiming Trump is guilty or not guilty (that's yet to be decided on).
> 
> I'm also not going to ignore the situation or why this is all happening. That would be playing into the Democrats hand. The Democrats have planned this all along and according to them they're trying to remove Trump from office regardless if he's guilty or not.


You are projecting bias on to me. Sorry that's not how bias works. Try again.

You do state something true, but then state something false and misleading.

the current court has no final say in the matter - this is true.



cots said:


> (which, none of them had been granted immunity, only promised to be)



"The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long-established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that *employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch* cannot be punished for following such instructions."

See that based on privileges or immunities part. That matters. Sorry you keep failing to read and digest this quote. I understand this is the 3rd time now but repetition is the key to learning. If you think I'm wrong. Go find the court case and read it, pull a quote of what the DOJ asserted that contradicts this white house letter and you'll actually have an argument based on a fact and not feeling and/or incorrect interpretation of words.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This isn't a granted or promised of immunity. The white house straight up said '*they are immune* to congressional subponeas' and the court said 'nope'. This is paraphrased for those who struggle with reading comprehension of the actual case ruling.

Maybe that is more understandable? I mean this isn't a hard concept to grasp, especially if you'd stop being lazy and actually read the court ruling.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You are projecting bias on to me. Sorry that's not how bias works. Try again.
> 
> You do state something true, but then state something false and misleading.
> 
> ...



They were promised immunity and may or may not get it. If they testify because a court orders them to then they ended up not getting immunity. If the only court in the land that has the final say rules that they don't have to testify then they will end up getting immunity. If they chose to testify themselves they give up any such promised immunity.

Your bias is apparent because I used the same logic that the Democrats are using to justify their latest impeachment attempt, yet when I use it it's a valid reason to discredit everything I have to say. When they use it it's perfectly fine. Logic being that observations based on assumptions rooted and motivated by feelings justify such actions over actual facts and proper logic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> The white house straight up said '*they are immune* to congressional subponeas' and the court said 'nope'.



Well, the lower court invalidated the White Houses promise. Whether or not they're going to testify based on the promised immunity is yet to be seen. If the DOJ and White House would have agreed to this lower courts ruling the issue would be over. However, they are appealing. It's okay though, if they choose to testify, which has been their choice all along, they can simply decline to answer any questions : )


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> They were promised immunity and may or may not get it.



If I get you specifically what was said in court ruling, an actual legal source then what, you'll pretend you are still right and still provide nothing? Not even a quote, is this because you are lazy or because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong because your poor pitiful pride would be tarnished? If you just read at least the first page instead of basking in your ignorance, well this issue could be avoided but you prove time and time again that you think you know the facts but don't seek them out. You rely on how you feel rather than actually support your claim with anything of substance.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

First page of the introduction:

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

*"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."*

"And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds." 

This is what the DOJ was asserting. This is why this is a 'big deal'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@cots 

So you see nothing wrong with any of the three assertions?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

For reference purposes only, also from the same legal ruling:
---
In response, DOJ renews its (previously unsuccessful) threshold objections to the standing and right of the Judiciary Committee to seek to enforce its subpoenas to senior-level presidential aides in federal court, and it also robustly denies that federal courts have the authority to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over subpoena enforcement claims brought by House committees with respect to such Executive branch officials. (See Def.’s Mot. at 32–33, 43, 53); see also Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 65–94. 

DOJ further insists that the Judiciary Committee’s claim that McGahn is legally obligated to testify fails on its merits, primarily because DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel
(“OLC”) has long maintained that present and former senior-level aides to the President, such as McGahn, are absolutely immune from being compelled to testify before Congress if the President orders them not to do so. (See Def.’s Mot. at 60–74.) 
---


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If I get you specifically what was said in court ruling, an actual legal source then what, you'll pretend you are still right and still provide nothing? Not even a quote, is this because you are lazy or because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong because your poor pitiful pride would be tarnished? If you just read at least the first page instead of basking in your ignorance, well this issue could be avoided but you prove time and time again that you think you know the facts but don't seek them out. You rely on how you feel rather than actually support your claim with anything of substance.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000
> 
> ...



Considering the circumstances and motivation behind the DOJ's decision making then *no I do not consider anything wrong with Trump demanding anyone in the White House not testify*. Especially considering the people don't have to follow his demands and all. Now that this lower court has ordered them to comply with any subpoenas I would also support them (any witnesses) that chose to refuse to follow the courts orders until a final decision is made in any appeals. Furthermore, I would also support them if they chose to go along with the subpoenas. 

Sonland impressed me that he chose to testify regardless of Trump's demands and with all the hype surrounding him I was sort of let down that all he had to present was his personal assumptions. After the fact it did irritate me for a few minutes that his testimony was taken out of context and misrepresented to attack Pence and some other White House officials, but after the initial "well that's not what happened or what he said" stuff went through my mind I just told myself that these are the same scum that planned on impeaching Trump for any reason they could find regardless of actual guilt. 

So no. I don't think what Trump demanded was wrong of him to do regardless of what any court says. I stand my initial support for not caving into the Democrats demands and holding out as long as possible to intentionally interfere with this shit show.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Considering the circumstances and motivation behind the DOJ's decision making then *no I do not consider anything wrong with Trump demanding anyone in the White House not testify*. Especially considering the people don't have to follow his demands and all. Now that this lower court has ordered them to comply with any subpoenas I would also support them (any witnesses) that chose to refuse to follow the courts orders until a final decision is made in any appeals. Furthermore, I would also support them if they chose to go along with the subpoenas.
> 
> Sonland impressed me that he chose to testify regardless of Trump's demands and with all the hype surrounding him I was sort of let down that all he had to present was his personal assumptions. After the fact it did irritate me for a few minutes that his testimony was taken out of context and misrepresented to attack Pence and some other White House officials, but after the initial "well that's not what happened or what he said" stuff went through my mind I just told myself that these are the same scum that planned on impeaching Trump for any reason they could find regardless of actual guilt.
> 
> So no. I don't think what Trump demanded was wrong of him to do regardless of what any court says. I stand my initial support for not caving into the Democrats demands and holding out as long as possible to intentionally interfere with this shit show.


Ok so you now admit and you are completely convinced, finally, that he demands people not to testify. but you still haven't addressed immunity. Please do so. I've made all those pretty quotes for you to read and respond to.

Bonus* So because the white house doesn't retaliate (which would be illegal) its okay for the President of the United States to demand someone not to testify? Whew, well maybe we really should just move to a monarchy as long as he's being a nice guy? 
We don't have an example of someone coming before congress to testify after this order was made without a subpoena. So speculation is all that is left here which I think we've got enough hard facts to discuss without wandering in the weeds on that topic.

The fact of the matter is that circumstances and motivations aren't reasons to state the assertions given above. I specifically want you to take each one and explain how circumstance and motivation of the DOJ would validate the assertion.

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

*"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."*

"And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds."

To be fair... I'm asking you to do something that I cannot and I've tried all evening while reading through this court ruling. I can't think of a valid reason for making such assertions. They are unconstitutional in my eyes. If you don't agree and can explain it then take each one, one at a time and explain how the DOJ has a leg to stand on based on our Law or Constitution.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ok so you now admit and you are completely convinced, finally, that he demands people not to testify. but you still haven't addressed immunity. Please do so. I've made all those pretty quotes for you to read and respond to.
> 
> Bonus* So because the white house doesn't retaliate (which would be illegal) its okay for the President of the United States to demand someone not to testify? Whew, well maybe we really should just move to a monarchy as long as he's being a nice guy?
> We don't have an example of someone coming before congress to testify after this order was made without a subpoena. So speculation is all that is left here which I think we've got enough hard facts to discuss without wandering in the weeds on that topic.
> ...



Trump can demand anything he wants. He demanded his staff not testify and promised them immunity. Seeings as they have an option to ignore his demands my stance on this issue hasn't changed since my first reply I made about it. Since he promised them immunity, which looks like it'll never be granted your entire dance around the subject using word games has not produced me to change my mind about it. Thus, seeings as no immunity has been granted he hasn't abused his executive powers. Additionally, a higher court may overrule the current ruling and it might turn out immunity will be granted and it's totally legal (though, I doubt this outcome). Just like even though he threatened to without aid from Ukraine (which, was a normal way of doing business - as aid always comes with conditions) the aid was eventually delivered.

Edit: So I went back to see the language I was using that you previously claimed was invalid and now trying to claim I agree was invalid.

The President hasn't "granting absolute immunity to witnesses".

That's still correct.

You can try to dance around the subject using schematical folly, but even with my short memory you're not going to confuse the subject.

I'm not in the DOJ nor do I make laws so I can't saw how a future court may rule on the matter. I just understand what motivated them to back Trump (which is the entire reasoning behind the Democrats latest impeachment attempt). The DOJ has a legal right to appeal so I support them standing by their original decision in the matter. Circumstances and motivations are plenty enough to justify the DOJ decision making. They're trying to help defend the President against the Democrats latest premeditated impeachment attack. So you cite precedent, but what precedent has been set in the past to defend from such an attack? Not a single impeachment attempt in the past was planned before the President took office in an attempt to appease voters who refused to accept the results of an election. No impeachment attempt in the past was run on a basis of "well, if he's not guilty it doesn't matter". You can cite previous precedents until you turn blue in the face, but nothing in the past compares to the shit the Democrats are trying to pull.

What you're seeing are precedents being made by a sitting President that's being attacked multiple times from all sides simply because they don't like him. Abusing the impeachment process is setting up a precedent that it's okay to do it. So you want me to cite laws to back up my position as if that would justify defending the President from these attacks? No matter what I cite or present you'll just attack it because you've already made up your mind that you want Trump impeached regardless of guilt. You'll just have to wait and see how the higher courts rule on this issue and any laws the lawyers use to justify the rulings. In the meantime I support Trump's defense as he's only guilty after being proven of the fact and that'll only happen if he's removed from office. If he's guilty he'll go if not he'll stay. I'll accept either outcome. Will you?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Thus, seeings as no immunity has been granted he hasn't abused his executive powers. Additionally, a higher court may overrule the current ruling and it might turn out immunity will be granted and it's totally legal.



There is no immunity to begin with if you look at US Law or the Constitution. The DOJ gave no further reasoning to support this to my understanding. But nevertheless the DOJ did allege an *absolute testimonial immunity* (not something that is granted or presented but *something that is innate at the time of becoming an executive branch employee and even after you leave*) which is why they (DOJ) maintained that a president can demand that his aides *(both current and former)* ignore a subpoena that Congress issues. 

Look I'm asking something that has purpose because if you do what I'm requesting, (which you so obviously avoided), you would see the issue I'm raising. You won't address the three assertions but keep talking about your feelings of unfairness. This will get us nowhere. Just give it a try.

Lets try this again:

'The fact of the matter is that I'm stating circumstances and motivations aren't reasons to state the assertions given below. I specifically want you to take each one and explain how circumstance and motivation of the DOJ would validate the assertion.'

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

*"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."*

"And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds."

If you say you can't then that's fine too. Furthermore, I could not find any US law or anything in the constitution to validate these assertions. If you can I'm all ears.

Already I presume you disagree with the 3rd assertion and think it is unconstitutional because you believe a higher court can decide a 'subpoena-related stalemate'. Is that correct?


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> There is no immunity to begin with if you look at US Law or the Constitution. The DOJ gave no further reasoning to support this to my understanding. But nevertheless the DOJ did allege an *absolute testimonial immunity* (not something that is granted or presented but *something that is innate at the time of becoming an executive branch employee and even after you leave*) which is why they (DOJ) maintained that a president can demand that his aides *(both current and former)* ignore a subpoena that Congress issues.
> 
> Look I'm asking something that has purpose because if you do what I'm requesting, (which you so obviously avoided), you would see the issue I'm raising. You won't address the three assertions but keep talking about your feelings of unfairness. This will get us nowhere. Just give it a try.
> 
> ...



I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me. If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine. There's tens of thousands of laws on the books and many don't have anything to do with the Constitution and many of them openly defy it (thinking restricting Gun rights). Maybe you should pick up the phone, call and ask them what laws they used when making their decision? I do however understand what's motivating both sides and I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters. 

Go Trump! Give em' hell!


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me. If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine. There's tens of thousands of laws on the books and many don't have anything to do with the Constitution and many of them openly defy it (thinking restricting Gun rights). Maybe you should pick up the phone, call and ask them what laws they used when making their decision? I do however understand what's motivating both sides and I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters.
> 
> Go Trump! Give em' hell!


So you are saying i want to be uninformed and Cheer for my 'team'?

If their basis includes things not even cemented in law? And you think historical precedent is irrelevant?

But you are a supporter of the constitution? 

Already I presume you disagree with the 3rd assertion and think it is unconstitutional because you believe a higher court can decide a 'subpoena-related stalemate'. Is that still correct or are you now against what you said because you need to 'own the libs'?


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So you are saying i want to be uninformed and Cheer for my 'team'?
> 
> If their basis includes things not even cemented in law? And you think historical precedent is irrelevant?
> 
> ...



This impeachment fiasco is not motivated or cemented in law. To the contrary it is based on the inability and out right refusal to accept the results of a lawful election. Some of the historical precedent should possibly be considered, but like I said there's no precedent on how to handle a premeditated impeachment that can openly be won in the House of Congress regardless of any wrong doing.

I do support the Constitution, but not the Democrats interpretation of it or their apparent abuse of the impeachment process. Seeings as there's ten of thousands of laws on the books; many of which address issues that aren't covered in the Constitution and many that outright defy it I see no reason to think it's unconstitutional for the DOJ to fight such apparent abuse (using whatever laws or reasoning they're justifying it with).

The federal courts in this instance did in fact order the White House staff to testify, but the DOJ is standing by #1, #2 and #3 by appealing thus I'll agree with their statements and rules and until a court with the power to rule them unconstitutional does so I will not say it is either way or the other. Up until then I don't think it's unconstitutional based on the fact they came up with the rules due to the fact the Democrats are abusing the Constitution by trying to impeach Trump for any reason they can regardless of guilt.

I also don't need to 'own Liberals. They're the ones who need their brown slaves. As per @Xzi comments on the rats fighting on a sinking ship; at least the Conservatives have fight in them and wouldn't cower and beg for mercy while kneeling covered in their own feces. Almost every thing that comes out of the Liberals mouths on this forum is enough to satisfy my desire to constantly laugh at them and their outrage. They PWN themselves almost every time they try to do something as most of what they say and do is fueled by the hatred and intolerance they have for others. The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading. Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> This impeachment fiasco is not motivated or cemented in law. To the contrary it is based on the inability and out right refusal to accept the results of a lawful election. Some of the historical precedent should possibly be considered, but like I said there's no precedent on how to handle a premeditated impeachment that can openly be won in the House of Congress regardless of any wrong doing.
> 
> I do support the Constitution, but not the Democrats interpretation of it or their apparent abuse of the impeachment process. Seeings as there's ten of thousands of laws on the books; many of which address issues that aren't covered in the Constitution and many that outright defy it I see no reason to think it's unconstitutional for the DOJ to fight such apparent abuse (using whatever laws or reasoning they're justifying it with).
> 
> ...


What is illogical is that #3 says the judicial can't intervene or make a ruling on this matter yet you keep insisting you support a court of a higher power making a ruling if this is appealed. You can't even admit that because either you refuse to take the time to digest the facts presented or you actually don't have an opinion and will say that you support the court decision

"And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds."



cots said:


> *No matter what I cite or present you'll just attack it because you've already made up your mind* that you want Trump impeached regardless of guilt.



'Holy Projection Batman!' Also to point this out again, you have yet to cite a single quote from a source in this entire discussion and have proven that you don't even read quotes that are presented and address them, much less actually preview their source. 

If you'd like to prove me wrong you can start here. Can you even explain the basis of what is being presented 'on separation of powers grounds' in the #3 assertion? I find it funny, in the quotes below, you have demonstrated 'faith' not 'logical reasoning', because at this point you aren't working in actual understanding of what is being stated, in the DOJ's assertions that stopped a congressional subpoena in court?

Because at this point I believe the DOJ is merely participating in strategic lawsuits to delay proper oversight and nothing further. This is clearly made evident in assertion #3 but you've since been too uninterested to even understand what our government is participating in to obstruct congressional oversight only because you support the end goal. That much you have abundantly stated over the past few hours of back and forth discussion. 



cots said:


> I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me.* If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine*.





cots said:


> I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters.



With that you aren't someone who is interested in obtaining an informed opinion on anything that appears to conflict with how you 'feel' about a situation. You believe you know everything you need to know and desire to learn nothing else. With that I'm going to point out your own words to conclude my response.

"The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading" - .

"They PWN themselves almost every time they try to do something as most of what they say and do is fueled by the hatred and intolerance they have for others."

Both of these statements seem to apply to you more than they apply to other members present on these threads that try to actually discuss the facts revolving around a significant moment in our nation. You've knotted yourself into a pretzel by supporting assertion #3 as it is a direct conflict. You also refuse to address assertion #2 as it shows very plainly that you were incorrect about immunity being 'granted' (which means it must be given on condition) when the DOJ was asserting an alleged *already present absolute testimonial immunity* of all employees of the executive branch.

*"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."*

*Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which only applies if specified conditions are met."*

You are arguing that it is granted, applying with specified conditions - that would be a qualified immunity. But instead the DOJ is arguing an absolute immunity. Don't argue terminology if you don't know what you are talking about. It just highlights your ignorance.



cots said:


> Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.



Small goals for a small minded person. How pitiful.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> What is illogical is that #3 says the judicial can't intervene or make a ruling on this matter yet you keep insisting you support a court of a higher power making a ruling if this is appealed. You can't even admit that because either you refuse to take the time to digest the facts presented or you actually don't have an opinion and will say that you support the court decision
> 
> "And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
> cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
> between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds."



I see you woke up, but not in the hip way. I support the DOJ using its legal power to assist the White House not giving into Congress demands by following through with their claims that a federal court can't force White House witnesses to testify. This much I've made clear. Yes, I am also insisting that the Supreme Court, the only court with the final say has the final say. Up until they order that #1 #2 or #3 are unconstitutional I will go along with whatever the DOJ chooses to do regarding the issue (which, they are currently appealing the lower federal courts ruling). Up until the Court of Courts says what the DOJ is doing is unconstitutional then I'm not going to treat it as such.



> 'Holy Projection Batman!' Also to point this out again, you have yet to cite a single quote from a source in this entire discussion and have proven that you don't even read quotes that are presented and address them, much less actually preview their source.



I read them and frankly I don't care what the Democrats have to say. With the intentions of this impeachment being evident and their failure to interpret and relay basic facts in the testimony (I did watch the boring ass Sonland testimony to see exactly how they were handling business) I feel justified in my position to just ignore any bullshit they're using for bait. I know what they want right now - they want the witnesses to testify and they want the documents they're requesting. So I support Trump not giving handing them over. And why is it that everyone on the Internet wants you to provide a source to back up what you're saying, but then when you provide a source and they don't agree with it all they do is spend time ripping it apart. What's the even the point? Well, sorry, not interested. Not everything in life can be explained or justified by linking to a website (especially websites that anyone with an account can edit or alter the information, including groups of people with common interests, focus groups, organizations and/or Governments).



> If you'd like to prove me wrong you can start here. Can you even explain the basis of what is being presented 'on separation of powers grounds' in the #3 assertion? I find it funny, in the quotes below, you have demonstrated 'faith' not 'logical reasoning', because at this point you aren't working in actual understanding of what is being stated, in the DOJ's assertions that stopped a congressional subpoena in court?
> 
> Because at this point I believe the DOJ is merely participating in strategic lawsuits to delay proper oversight and nothing further. This is clearly made evident in assertion #3 but you've since been too uninterested to even understand what our government is participating in to obstruct congressional oversight only because you support the end goal. That much you have abundantly stated over the past few hours of back and forth discussion.



Your goal is to remove Trump from office regardless of guilt and my goal is to give him a fair shot at defending himself from this onslaught. Clearly, we'd both have different viewpoints per our own motivations. I believe your assessment that the DOJ is merely participating in strategic lawsuits to delay what Congress wants is exactly what they are doing and it's what they should be doing. Seeings as its their legal right to do so. Now per say if Trump were to try to use his executive powers to outright stop the impeachment or try to overthrow and take control of the House I'd have issues with that, but simply not wanting to hand over witnesses and documents, per the circumstances I keep repeating and repeating is fine by me. So if you want to call it "obstructing congressional oversight" then whatever. Good for them. Keep at it boys.



> With that you aren't someone who is interested in obtaining an informed opinion on anything that appears to conflict with how you 'feel' about a situation. You believe you know everything you need to know and desire to learn nothing else. With that I'm going to point out your own words to conclude my response.
> 
> "The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading" - .
> 
> ...



No pretzel. It's not that hard to understand my position. #3 may or may not be ruled unconstitutional and until which time the highest court in the land does make that ruling I'm fine with the DOJ appealing to get it to them. Trump used what the DOJ came up with to demand (possibly what actually happened was he talked to them and asked nicely) that the White House staff not testify. No immunity was granted, it was only implied. The staff can go testify to their hearts content without any penalty for disobeying Trump. I support them not testifying and waiting for the appeal to go through (if that's what they chose to do). If at which time the Supreme Court orders that they do have immunity then I guess they ended up having it and if they don't I guess they ended up not having it and will have to testify.

*



			"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."
		
Click to expand...

*


> *Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which only applies if specified conditions are met."*
> 
> You are arguing that it is granted, applying with specified conditions - that would be a qualified immunity. But instead the DOJ is arguing an absolute immunity. Don't argue terminology if you don't know what you are talking about. It just highlights your ignorance.



I think you're forgetting to include the definition of "alleged" in your little dictionary exercise. Anyway, I'm not biting.

One thing you did make me realize by posting the DOJ stuff is that's what Trump is using to justify offering the White House Staff that choose not to testify immunity from prosecution is that the blame could be shifted onto the DOJ for making the rules. Trump could simply blame his actions on being told by the DOJ that what he's doing is okay.



> Small goals for a small minded person. How pitiful.



I do realize why you included the "own Liberals" comment in your last reply - to distract from any points I'm making, but you'll only be distracting the Liberals who are reading this so that's fine by me. I really don't care what they think about me or what they even have to say. The day I start needing the approval of a Liberal is the day I'm probably diagnosed with Alzheimers and terminal brain cancer at the same time and simply forget who I am (as I wouldn't willingly be choosing to give a shit - I'd just be confused).

You said you're here many times to seek entertainment based on discussion revolving around the impeachment of the President. Since your initial appearance it's clear that you support the impeachment and just want to be entertained by the Liberals attempt, which I might remind you is failing and bound to fail. Though, I do question your motivations for "simple entertainment" seeings as how hard you're trying to justify a simple matter like Trump not caving into a couple of Congresses demands.

I don't have any goals. I just sit back and participate on a bunch of forums that are populated by Liberals and am entertained by their responses. Once this impeachment effort backfires in their faces and Trump is still in office it'll just be another thing they get all triggered about. So I guess once you're done posting here, because the impeachment issue will be over, I'll still be here laughing at the Liberals replies. I've sort of outgrown playing video games for hours on end or binge watching TV. This shit right here is much more entertaining.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> I think you're forgetting to include the definition of "alleged" in your little dictionary exercise. Anyway, I'm not biting.
> 
> One thing you did make me realize by posting the DOJ stuff is that's what Trump is using to justify offering the White House Staff that choose not to testify immunity from prosecution is that the blame could be shifted onto the DOJ for making the rules. Trump could simply blame his actions on being told by the DOJ that what he's doing is okay.



Alleged is what the court ruling cited. There was no alleged in the actual statement of the DOJ's claim. You would know that if you weren't too lazy to read.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> Though, I do question your motivations for "simple entertainment" seeings as how hard you're trying to justify a simple matter like Trump not caving into a couple of Congresses demands.



I want to understand the law of it because I seek to understand how our government is designed to operate and how it actually is operating. This is part of being an informed citizen in legal rulings that can impact how our government operates in the future. While it is entertaining to discuss this specific part is something that I have vested interest to become more knowledgeable in.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> #3 may or may not be ruled unconstitutional and until which time the highest court in the land does make that ruling I'm fine with the DOJ appealing to get it to them.



If #3 was constitutional and wasn't challenged then our judicial review process would be broken as they would not even have heard the case to make a ruling. You have thought about this at all but are spouting partisan feelings of unfairness.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> So if you want to call it "obstructing congressional oversight" then whatever. Good for them. Keep at it boys.



Per Nixon and Clinton it will give warrant to dem's argument for drafting an article of impeachment on obstruction.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> I read them and frankly I don't care what the Democrats have to say. With the intentions of this impeachment being evident and their failure to interpret and relay basic facts in the testimony (I did watch the boring ass Sonland testimony to see exactly how they were handling business) I feel justified in my position to just ignore any bullshit they're using for bait. I know what they want right now - they want the witnesses to testify and they want the documents they're requesting. So I support Trump not giving handing them over. And why is it that everyone on the Internet wants you to provide a source to back up what you're saying, but then when you provide a source and they don't agree with it all they do is spend time ripping it apart. What's the even the point? Well, sorry, not interested. Not everything in life can be explained or justified by linking to a website (especially websites that anyone with an account can edit or alter the information, including groups of people with common interests, focus groups, organizations and/or Governments).



If you haven't once engaged when I've provided ample evidence to support my position how can anyone take you seriously? That your opinion should be viewed as an informed one? The problem is you haven't engaged in a discourse. All you have done is repeat how you feel and yet you attack others on these threads for what you perceive as similar actions. I repetitively point this out to show your hypocrisy.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

> I want to understand the law of it because I seek to understand how our government is designed to operate and how it actually is operating. This is part of being an informed citizen in legal rulings that can impact how our government operates in the future. While it is entertaining to discuss this specific part is something that I have vested interest to become more knowledgeable in.



Well, since you're being blinded by your support for ousting Trump regardless of guilt you're missing half of the picture. While I could care less about the nuances at least I'm open to the fact that regardless that the impeachment process is being abused that Trump is innocent until proven guilty. If you wanted a clear picture on how the Government is operating you'd have to at least take a neutral stance and not care on way or the other if Trump is removed from office. That way you could see that a premeditated impeachment effort was the wrong thing for the Democrats to do or are you only interested in learning "How to remove a President you didn't vote for from office because you can't deal with the fact you lost the election"? If that's your focus then I'm sorry to inform you you're going to learn "What happens to morons that try to remove a President they didn't vote for from office because they can't deal with the fact they lost the election". When the Democrats lose will you then go back to take on the Republican viewpoint and perspective to see what they did right and how they won or will you simply keep denying the fact that you lost?



> If #3 was constitutional and wasn't challenged then our judicial review process would be broken as they would not even have heard the case to make a ruling. You have thought about this at all but are spouting partisan feelings of unfairness.



I'm not a Conservative so there's no partisanship involved. Have you been paying attention to the center leaning moderate democrats or the actual independent party lately? They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly. There's a reason why they call the Liberal minority a minority.



> Per Nixon and Clinton it will give warrant to dem's argument for drafting an article of impeachment on obstruction.



Yes, I noticed that after the fact that both of them did the same thing Trump is doing and lost the battle that they just tacked on an extra impeachment reason. So depending on how this plays out in court that may or may not happen. Though, I wouldn't support the claim based on the circumstances involved. If this was a proper impeachment attempt like with Nixon and Clinton I could see supporting it, but since it's a premeditated impeachment that was started without a reason (you know, to simply impeach Trump for any reason the Democrats could find) I think what Trump is doing is simply self defense. I'm pretty sure that the Senate would understand the circumstances and probably agree.

You also double posted - you might want to delete your entire first reply. Edit: That was quick. Did you flag a moderator or do you have permission to delete posts?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Trump is innocent until proven guilty.


I agree to that as Trump, or any american, should not receive any criminal sentencing without due process.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> If you wanted a clear picture on how the Government is operating you'd have to at least take a neutral stance and not care on way or the other if Trump is removed from office.


It appears you project your belief of bias unto anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm impartial to whether or not Trump is impeached and I will accept the result either way. I



cots said:


> That way you could see that a premeditated impeachment effort was the wrong thing for the Democrats to do or are you only interested in learning "How to remove a President you didn't vote for from office because you can't deal with the fact  (you lost the election"? If that's your focus then I'm sorry to inform you you're going to learn "What happens to morons that try to remove a President they didn't vote for from office because they can't deal with the fact they lost the election". When the Democrats lose will you then go back to take on the Republican viewpoint and perspective to see what they did right and how they won or will you simply keep denying the fact that you lost?



For there to be a premeditated impeachment effort that I would recognize it would require the majority of the democrats to be on board from the beginning. Otherwise, I treat it akin to the Obama birther conspiracy theory republicans propagated against Obama. I've presented the math of the 2017 impeachment vote with you multiple times, I garnered sources and drew my distinction on what could be measured - AKA house votes on impeachment. The history of Trump's impeachment process conflicts with your misinformed narrative. The most significant thing I recall was a few bad actors who were reprimanded immediately and appropriately (ie those two FBI agents). Is this congressional oversight any different then the process of what occurred while republicans have pushed countless investigations on Hillary Clinton throughout the years in anticipation of her running for office? I think government transparency to the public transcends bad actors on either side of the political spectrum. I trust the american people to make the right decision when given the information to make an informed decision, this is the basis of my position.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not a Conservative so there's no partisanship involved. Have you been paying attention to the center leaning moderate democrats or the actual independent party lately? They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly. There's a reason why they call the Liberal minority a minority.



Lack of a particular party affiliation does not exclude one from being partisan. 

Google defines Partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

As far as polling, care to cite your polling that you reference? I have my own assumptions that people realized it won't be a simple process and for the appropriate information to come forth for congress to make an informed decision on impeachment there will require court action.

"They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly." 

Was this derived directly from the poll or was this you pushing your narrative in the form of a fact and not an opinion of your interpretation of the polling? Maybe this is why you don't like citing things because then you have something that anchors your assertions? Who knows? I still presume your issue is rooted in laziness and a strong belief that you know what you already need to know.


----------



## cots (Nov 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Lack of a particular party affiliation does not exclude one from being partisan.
> 
> Google defines Partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.
> 
> ...



I'm not interested in playing poll games with you. Seeings as the comment sections on Fox and ABC are full of people discussing the results based on the News articles both sites have been posting related to them they shouldn't be that hard to find.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> For there to be a premeditated impeachment effort that I would recognize it would require the majority of the democrats to be on board from the beginning. Otherwise, I treat it akin to the Obama birther conspiracy theory republicans propagated against Obama. I've presented the math of the 2017 impeachment vote with you multiple times, I garnered sources and drew my distinction on what could be measured - AKA house votes on impeachment. The history of Trump's impeachment process conflicts with your misinformed narrative. The most significant thing I recall was a few bad actors who were reprimanded immediately and appropriately (ie those two FBI agents). Is this congressional oversight any different then the process of what occurred while republicans have pushed countless investigations on Hillary Clinton throughout the years in anticipation of her running for office? I think government transparency to the public transcends bad actors on either side of the political spectrum. I trust the american people to make the right decision when given the information to make an informed decision, this is the basis of my position.



I guess you've been living under a rock. It's been part of their platform. I could link you back to the Wikipedia page which covers the headlights of their planned attempts, but you already have the URL. Not that Wikipedia is any sort of valid source, but it's popular with the kids. Though, if you've just been watching and listening to the actual general public excluding their leaders you'd realize how I'm right about this issue. Then couple in the fact their leaders support it. Sure, there's a few high key players, but these players are major influencers that run shit. Look, I'm also not interested in your trying to discredit common knowledge. Have fun, but I'm not going to play along. The Liberal Democrats planned on impeaching Donald Trump regardless of reason before he was elected and this is like God talking to you. What I say has been etched in stone by lightening.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 27, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not interested in playing poll games with you. Seeings as the comment sections on Fox and ABC are full of people discussing the results based on the News articles both sites have been posting related to them they shouldn't be that hard to find.



I personally wouldn't give much credence to polling until the moment if/when this impeachment inquiry turns into a trial. If you don't want to provide polls and discuss them, well its weird to bring them up in the first place.

Comment sections have been proven to be overrun by bot programs on both sides. That's not to invalidate opinions that people share, but its not evidence that would be an accurate reflection of the nation's temperature on a topic.

Sorry I reread your post, look I'm not going to pursue comment sections to find posts that link to polls that may or may not be the same ones you are referencing in your prior posts. Especially if you don't wish to discuss it to begin with. And with that I conclude, enjoy your thanksgiving holidays, in a few weeks we'll probably have more information to discuss but for now my hobby is going to be shelved to enjoy my family time.


----------

