Judge orders State Department to release Ukraine records in 30 days

[Integrityrespec]

You know, when you consider how much Republicans want the House to hurry up with impeachment, the Trump Administration and House Republicans sure are doing everything in their power to slow it the hell down.

Anyway, fighting the impeachment inquiry may amuse Republicans in the short term, but I don't think they're grasping that they're only making it worse for themselves. I also don't think they grasp how futile it is. Professional officials can see just fine that the wheels on the bus are coming off, and they're all coming forward in spite of the White House's orders to not testify.

What's the old saying, "What goes around comes around".. Democrats paying back republicans for Clinton who did lie to a federal court, a violation of law. Who did carry on a sexual relationship with "that woman" in the White House. I'd say if this continues to move forward it is merely a matter to time before it happens again, and again as this is now becoming the way to move against an election when one side or the other doesn't like the outcome and fears it cannot win in the electoral process.
The nation is going to continue to be torn apart by these practices.

 

[trouble13]

That was exactly my (overarching) argument. If the FOIA request stands as Constitutional, then it would seem to follow Trump's refusing to honor Congressional subpoenas would entail Obstruction.

But unlike yourself, I think the FOIA request has a pretty good chance of being found enforceable.

Its not obstruction until all the appeals are exhausted. Even then if he loses this argument i would expect them to take it to court with a new objection like it will compromise an open investigation and cant be released until the investigstion is complete.

As long as they continue to keep it tied up in courts its not obstruction. Its unsettled legal questions for now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

I think he will destroy it all before he releases it. He knows if it gets out he is done, if he destroys the evidence he can still try to convince his base he is innocent. We’ve already seen they really really want to stick their heads in the dirt.

But he can't destroy it hinself. He will need to order or assign others to do it, including from within the DOJ, State, and even with Barr himself. This is going to get really dicey for anyone acting on Trump's behalf, illegally. Trump's people here realize they will be only one election away from possible indictment for any illegal actions. I'm not sure Trump will so easily find a Nixonian Borke, here.

 

[Cardinal]

What's the old saying, "What goes around comes around".. Democrats paying back republicans for Clinton-

 

[Chomsky]

Its not obstruction until all the appeals are exhausted. Even then if he loses this argument i would expect them to take it to court with a new objection like it will compromise an open investigation and cant be released until the investigstion is complete.

As long as they continue to keep it tied up in courts its not obstruction. Its unsettled legal questions for now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

To the bolded: In legal terms, I might agree.

However in terms of impeachment, there is no requirement for giving the President rights of appeal. Nixon's articles included Obstruction of Congress and Contempt of Congress, even though only one case went to SCOTUS - and Nixon subsequently gave Congress what they demanded (tapes)!

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Congress is CO-equal to the Executive Branch.


No it won't. It may start a dialog as to the proper positions and standing of the Legislative and Executive branches.
Sorry, no. As I said it may serve to define the proper roles of those two branches.

No, it would mean that the executive branch has no accountability - to anyone.

If the president can ignore congressional subpoenas and order others to do so, and if the president can ignore court orders, and the president can declare national emergencies to access money Congress has denied him, just what is the role of the legislative and judicial branches of government? Where do you see any constraints on the executive branch?

Are you suggesting that SOMETIMES the president can do what he wants and other times he cannot? What does that look like to you?

 

[trouble13]

To the bolded: In legal terms, I might agree.

However in terms of impeachment, there is no requirement for giving the President rights of appeal. Nixon's articles included Obstruction of Congress and Contempt of Congress, even though only one case went to SCOTUS - and Nixon subsequently gave Congress what they demanded (tapes)!

Sure they can claim whatever they want in their impeachment articles but yes in legal terms it does not mean they will be able to prove the claim to be true.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

Sure they can claim whatever they want in their impeachment articles but yes in legal terms it does not mean they will be able to prove the claim to be true.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

But we're not in the legal realm.

 

[Bullseye]

No, it would mean that the executive branch has no accountability - to anyone.

If the president can ignore congressional subpoenas and order others to do so, and if the president can ignore court orders, and the president can declare national emergencies to access money Congress has denied him, just what is the role of the legislative and judicial branches of government? Where do you see any constraints on the executive branch?

Are you suggesting that SOMETIMES the president can do what he wants and other times he cannot? What does that look like to you?

As I said the President anc Congress are CO-EQUAL branches as government, which means neither has carte blanche authority to pry into the business of the other. Congress's oversight authority has long been understood as being able to monitor execution of the laws it passes and to demand an accounting of the funds it has appropriated. There is no oversight authority to pry into a President's personal business or financial dealings prior to his election. Nor is there authority to access internal White House operations or functionality. Of course, EVIDENCE of an actual crime alters that situation. As mentioned about Presidents Clinton and Nixon both had evidence of wrong doing, e.g. Clinton's perjury and obstruction charges and Nixon's entanglement with Watergate burglary.

With Trump they have nothing. His alleged "quid pro quo" is tenuous at best. It hinges entirely on the shaking ground that he was trying to get a foreign government to assist in a US Election. What's totally ignored by the loonies of the left is that Biden has admitted to a blatant, illegal quid pro quo. So, do we forego investigating possible criminal activity on anyone who may run against the President one day?

 

[Bullseye]

You can't answer the question? Besides lying about a blowjob what else did the Repubs really have on him? Do you think that such a thing rises to level of being a threat to the state or individual liberty as Hamilton described? You have heard of Hamilton and the Federalist Papers, right?

They had perjury and obstruction of justice on him. The blow job wasn't part of any charges.

 

[Atomic Kid]

They had perjury and obstruction of justice on him. The blow job wasn't part of any charges.

Perjury and obstruction of justice about what? A blow job. That's what. Is that something that rises to the level of being threat to the state or individual liberty?

 

[Bullseye]

Perjury and obstruction of justice about what? A blow job. That's what. Is that something that rises to the level of being threat to the state or individual liberty?

Ok, you're clear fixated on blow jobs. I see no reason to continue this discussion.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Ok, you're clear fixated on blow jobs. I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Well, Mr Starr sure as hell was. First started out being about a real estate deal which then morphed into being a blowjob and a stained dress. How pathetic was that? Let us know when you think of an answer. Not that any of us are going to have that much time on our hands.

 

[Atomic Kid]

As I said the President anc Congress are CO-EQUAL branches as government, which means neither has carte blanche authority to pry into the business of the other. Congress's oversight authority has long been understood as being able to monitor execution of the laws it passes and to demand an accounting of the funds it has appropriated. There is no oversight authority to pry into a President's personal business or financial dealings prior to his election. Nor is there authority to access internal White House operations or functionality. Of course, EVIDENCE of an actual crime alters that situation. As mentioned about Presidents Clinton and Nixon both had evidence of wrong doing, e.g. Clinton's perjury and obstruction charges and Nixon's entanglement with Watergate burglary.

With Trump they have nothing. His alleged "quid pro quo" is tenuous at best. It hinges entirely on the shaking ground that he was trying to get a foreign government to assist in a US Election. What's totally ignored by the loonies of the left is that Biden has admitted to a blatant, illegal quid pro quo. So, do we forego investigating possible criminal activity on anyone who may run against the President one day?

That is patently incorrect!

 

[Oborosen]

I know, I know. You believe the president is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. I get that. Nevertheless, Congress has the authority of oversight. Therefore they get to look at whatever it is they want to look at. Even though you believe their motives are evil, they still get to see and hear as they see fit.

And don't think that your argument is original. Nixon had his acolytes as well. Even after Congress heard the tape where Nixon was discussing how much money would be needed to silence the burglars, there were those who still said the pursuit of impeachment was politically motivated.

So instead of ditching the hyperbole, you decided to try and poison the well.

This is what I get for trying to have an intellectual discussion on this kind of thread.

 

[Oborosen]

Maybe if you never read the constitution. Is that your case?

I have, which is why secret hearings held by one political party. That in the past, has expressed such extreme animosity toward the other. That they've openly declared that they're looking for ways to outright arrest political opponents. Along with repeatedly attempting to fabricate material to do so.

So yes, this secretive business that they're has me worried that they may be doing things that are going against the constitution itself.

 

[Oborosen]

Everything is "possible" in la-la make-believe Fox News Republican fantasy land, right?

No, but that was a nice attempt at being wholly asinine.

 

[Oborosen]

Hey anything is possible, right? Especially in the right wing conspiracy theory world.

If you want to hide behind your own inadequacies. Sure, I think you're able to at least hold that opinion yourself.

Though it doesn't help you when actual reality comes knocking. So my suggestion is that you learn to think for yourself, at least a little.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

As I said the President anc Congress are CO-EQUAL branches as government, which means neither has carte blanche authority to pry into the business of the other. Congress's oversight authority has long been understood as being able to monitor execution of the laws it passes and to demand an accounting of the funds it has appropriated. There is no oversight authority to pry into a President's personal business or financial dealings prior to his election. Nor is there authority to access internal White House operations or functionality. Of course, EVIDENCE of an actual crime alters that situation. As mentioned about Presidents Clinton and Nixon both had evidence of wrong doing, e.g. Clinton's perjury and obstruction charges and Nixon's entanglement with Watergate burglary.

With Trump they have nothing. His alleged "quid pro quo" is tenuous at best. It hinges entirely on the shaking ground that he was trying to get a foreign government to assist in a US Election. What's totally ignored by the loonies of the left is that Biden has admitted to a blatant, illegal quid pro quo. So, do we forego investigating possible criminal activity on anyone who may run against the President one day?

You better go back and read the Watergate timeline. It wasn't until after the courts ruled that Nixon had to release the Oval Office tapes that there was publicly known direct involvement in the cover-up. No one ever even suggested that Nixon was behind the burglary. The fundamental basis of the investigation was, as one senator put it "What did the president know, and when did he know it." As it turned out, Nixon knew absolutely nothing about the break-in beforehand. What got him was his direct involvement in the cover-up. If the courts had ruled as you want them to do today, Nixon would not have been the target of impeachment.

Congress did not make the aid to the Ukraine contingent on digging up dirt on Biden. Trump did that all on his own. And when he did that, alarms went off all over his administration. They were immediately scrambling to keep what happened from getting out. That's how the whistleblower got his/her info.

 

[bongsaway]

You know, when you consider how much Republicans want the House to hurry up with impeachment, the Trump Administration and House Republicans sure are doing everything in their power to slow it the hell down.

Anyway, fighting the impeachment inquiry may amuse Republicans in the short term, but I don't think they're grasping that they're only making it worse for themselves. I also don't think they grasp how futile it is. Professional officials can see just fine that the wheels on the bus are coming off, and they're all coming forward in spite of the White House's orders to not testify.

I so enjoy that part of the republican 'strategy'. Complain they are not included and want to participate while doing everything in their power to delay or shut down the investigation. The GOP has become a mix of the keystone cops and the gang who couldn't shoot straight.

 

[trouble13]

But we're not in the legal realm.

By all means, if the Democrats want to impeach him for doing nothing illegal but just not being as cooperative as they'd like, they should go for it. Im sure a majority of voters will agree that when the Democrats make demands the potus should capitulate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

As I said the President anc Congress are CO-EQUAL branches as government, which means neither has carte blanche authority to pry into the business of the other. Congress's oversight authority has long been understood as being able to monitor execution of the laws it passes and to demand an accounting of the funds it has appropriated. There is no oversight authority to pry into a President's personal business or financial dealings prior to his election. Nor is there authority to access internal White House operations or functionality. Of course, EVIDENCE of an actual crime alters that situation. As mentioned about Presidents Clinton and Nixon both had evidence of wrong doing, e.g. Clinton's perjury and obstruction charges and Nixon's entanglement with Watergate burglary.

With Trump they have nothing. His alleged "quid pro quo" is tenuous at best. It hinges entirely on the shaking ground that he was trying to get a foreign government to assist in a US Election. What's totally ignored by the loonies of the left is that Biden has admitted to a blatant, illegal quid pro quo. So, do we forego investigating possible criminal activity on anyone who may run against the President one day?

Two points
1. Congress would have the oversite authority that they are currently pretending that they do if they voted and had an official impeachment inquiry. As it stands now they most likely do not but it is something that a court is going to have yo answer.
2. You taise a point about Biden that I raised when they first started trying to claim that Trump was abusing his authority to harm his political rival. Biden is not the Democrats nominee so he isnt running sgainst Trump. Not that it would matter but it does show fallacy of their argument. Furthermore to that point, Biden is currently running against the other Democrats and by the logic they are using Trump is assisting their campaigns not his.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Perjury and obstruction of justice about what? A blow job. That's what. Is that something that rises to the level of being threat to the state or individual liberty?

He wasnt impeached for the blow job but since you asked yes he could of been impeached for having a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate. You all have been chanting the mantra that you dont need a crime to impeach someone until Clintons name comes up and then you magically contract selective amnesia

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

By all means, if the Democrats want to impeach him for doing nothing illegal but just not being as cooperative as they'd like, they should go for it. Im sure a majority of voters will agree that when the Democrats make demands the potus should capitulate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'm simply explaining the Constitutional process. However to your point, the polls are showing around half the country is pro-impeachment, with the pro-impeachment numbers are on an uptrend. So, we shall see. But the recent polls seem to dispute your claim of a majority of the country being against the Dem's actions.

 

[Marine Electric]

Source: Judge orders State Department to release Ukraine records in 30 days

Well! Things impeachment just ratcheted-up a notch!

Some of us theorized if a point could be hit where Trump would thumb his nose at the judiciary. It looks like now, he'll get his chance. I suspect Trump will indeed refuse to cooperate, and I believe it will feed greatly into the impeachment argument in Pelosi's favor.

Let's not forget Obstruction of Congress was an article of impeachment filed against both Nixon & Bill Clinton. It seems the judge's ruling today would add evidence to the obstruction pile, even if this specific case was not brought by Congress itself. The judge is ruling there is no legal exemption to releasing the documents - the very documents the House impeachment inquiry committee also wants - the very documents Trump refuses to give Congress.

We're seeing a widening of Trump's upside down approval-disapproval numbers, along with seeing rising numbers in support of the impeachment inquiry & impeachment itself - particularly with Indies. If Trump refuses to release the texts, emails, and documents of the Ukraine & Giuliani, I only see these numbers continuing south for Trump. If he were to obstruct after a SCOTUS ruling goes against him, I do not see his presidency surviving

The most self-important, entitled prick in the history of our country was elected PUSA by naive morons to "drain the swamp."

Pure comedy.

You.can't.make.this.****.up!!

:lamo