US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Somebody who defends the shamelessness and brutality of Trump should not dare to speak about shame as if he knew what the term means.

Oh please. You're starting to sound like you actually believe that crap. What you gonna do when this fails as well? Haul out your Burmese Final Solution theory?

[Giesemaschine]

The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong tonight.

[Canonicus]

Brand new Trump (Putin) campaign promo tee.

[mapuc]

Have another question this time it's regarding American laws

Today on Danish and Swedish news I could read following

"US Secretary of State has asked U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland to stay away from a congressional hearing"

Isn't that some kind of obstruction of the law ?

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Isn't that some kind of obstruction of the law ?
Markus

https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-d...ys-11570538414

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Democrats consider the move by the Trump administration to bar Mr. Sondland from testifying and producing related documents “additional, strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional functions of Congress.”

Once again Trump acts to illustrate that in his understandin the laws do not apply to him and he is above them, so is his regime. Its the selfunderstanding of dicators at display here.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Have another question this time it's regarding American laws

Today on Danish and Swedish news I could read following

"US Secretary of State has asked U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland to stay away from a congressional hearing"

Isn't that some kind of obstruction of the law ?

Markus

Not unless he (witness) is under subpoena.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-d...ys-11570538414


Once again Trump acts to illustrate that in his understandin the laws do not apply to him and he is above them, so is his regime. Its the selfunderstanding of dicators at display here.

You DO believe it!

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Not unless he (witness) is under subpoena.

Can you tell a little more about this subpoena

I read a little about on wiki and found this

1. subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.

2. subpoena duces tecum orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.

As I understand it he or they are obstructing the constitutional functions of Congress.

Or is there something I have missed totally ?

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

As I understand it he or they are obstructing the constitutional functions of Congress.

Or is there something I have missed totally ?

Markus

As I understand it what is missing is the actual subpoena order. So far Shiffs demands have been delivered as a Request to Appear.


This is all tied up in the non impeachment impeachment process the Democrats have adopted. You can't have an actual impeachment without a vote and with a vote the Republicans get subpoena power too which is something the Democrats desperately do not want so we get a lot of bluster and accusations that will not stand legally. Skybirds 4th Reich alarmism notwithstanding.

[mapuc]

Thank you for lightning the light bulb above my head.

Sondlandor or more exactly the US Secretary of States, haven't obstruct the constitutional functions of Congress, ´cause he/they haven't received any subpoena yet.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by mapuc

As I understand it he or they are obstructing the constitutional functions of Congress.

The answer is yes, no or maybe. Welcome to the Washington Bubble!

If it was an actual "impeachment inquiry", probably yes.

However, the GOP is arguing you need a vote of Congress to authorize an "impeachment inquiry", the Dems say you don't.

Maybe the Dems are right, maybe they are wrong, the only thing we know for sure is that the issue will go all the way up to the Supreme Court to decide which pretty much kills the Dems chance to impeach quickly.

Of course, the Dems could side step all this drama just by holding a vote to authorize the "impeachment inquiry", but it is not clear they actually have the votes or the will to go forward.

in other words, it is all just politics.

[Skybird]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49981806

Meine Fresse. Vergeßt Amerika.

[u crank]

And the letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the three chairmen of the Democratic committees.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4293...een&from_embed

[August]

Originally Posted by u crank

And the letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the three chairmen of the Democratic committees.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4293...een&from_embed

Cliff notes:


"Take your political witch hunts and stick em where the sun don't shine. I ain't playing your game. -- xox The Donald"

Right or wrong it's nice to see the open push back compared to the Obama admins evidence destruction and obfuscation strategy employed in their many scandals. It's clear that these attacks are never going to stop while he is in office so he might as well fight back.

[Buddahaid]

I really can't see any difference August. It amounts to the same thing and how are we to know evidence hasn't been destroyed in this case? Wishful thinking? Republicans aren't duplicitous?