***Official Political Discussion Thread***

The Mustache's lawyer responds to the WH's attempt to block the book from publication, and by extension his testimony.
 
In a new statement, the DoD Inspector General raises concerns about a "disturbing trend" of retaliation against whistleblowers. More importantly, he notes that higher ranking DoD officials refuse to take action against such retaliation and then stonewall attempts by the Office of Inspector General to get an explanation.

7f4c0343b2af33ff260dcb55e6bdd5f4.png


7d8ebe6dbc5c8d1bc923df9e42409b89.png
 
I've got QUID
I've got PRO QUOS, in different area codes (area, area codes, codes)
Quid, PRO, Quos, in different area codes (area, area codes, codes)
Now you thought I was just 7-7-0
And 4-0-4, I'm worldwide Libs, act like y'all don't know
It's the abominable Pro Quo man
Globe-trot international post man
Neighbor-Quid man
7-1-8s, 2-0-2's
I send small cities and states I-O-U's
9-0-1, matter fact 3-0-5
I'll jump off the G4, we can meet outside
So control your Chris Quomoes and keep your drawers on
'Til I close the door and I'm jumping your QUOS
3-1-2, 3-1-3, 2-1-5, 8-0-3
Read your horoscope and eat some QUO d'oeuvres
Ten on pump one these Quids is self serve
7-5-7, 4-1-0, my cell phone says overload
Holy ****. When is Kanye covering this for Donald's reelection inauguration party?
 
Removal flows from impeachment.

The Senators are the judges. They DO make the decision on what is ultimately a removable offense as they can acquit the president of the charges lodged against him in the house and determine that he did not commit anything that warrants removal from Office.

Since the senators are the judges they can decide to agree with the President’s lawyers and determine that what is alleged is not an impeachable offense as a matter of law. And thus, it does not warrant removal.

Having witnesses would concede that the alleged activities are impeachable, if proven. And then it gets to a back-n-forth factual argument. But summarily deciding on the law is an option since they are ultimately the judges.

The idea of calling witnesses when everyone agrees he won’t be removed is nonsensical.

Try this hypo:

The judge in your case has decided that you are innocent because what’s alleged is not a crime. Your lawyer makes an argument that even if what the DA charged you with is true, it does not meet the elements of the crime. The judge agrees (majority of the senate). Your attorney makes a motion of summary judgment on the law. Does the judge:

a. Hear witnesses to determine the facts; or
b. Make a determination assuming that all of the allegations are true?

The former, I submit, is a waste of time. Because it ends in the same place. Unless they make different charges—as long as the majority agree that the charged behavior doesn’t warrant removal, witnesses won’t matter.

So the corruption is acknowledged but since it’s their guy, they don’t want to remove him. Abuse of power is clearly outlined in the constitution as official misconduct and the commission of an unlawful act. Holding the aid money was an illegal act for his own purposes.

Also, the facts matter. I know not to you and your fellow orangutan supporters but they do matter and as the polls have shown the majority of people want to hear witnesses. We want to know what our highest “servant” was doing using our money as leverage for his own purposes.
 
Do you every choke on all that bull**** you continuously spew.
He doesn't. That particular argument sounds like a direct translation of what a supporter of a dictator would say.
As Schiff said, the state is Trump and Trump is the state; therefore, anything Trump does for himself, he does for the state, which means that he does it for the interest of the public. That's the summary of the defense argument. It is stupid, but they will run with it until the wheels fall off.
 
Hunter Biden was getting paid paid on the board of Burisma. Will be interesting to see how this plays during the Democratic primary.
 
Hunter Biden was getting paid paid on the board of Burisma. Will be interesting to see how this plays during the Democratic primary.

anyone willing to bet if this guy has had anything critical to say about any of trump’s kids or his son in law?
 
Back
Top Bottom