Trump obstruction of Congress continues.

[Mountain Man]

As public opinion has ratcheted up in supporting impeachment over the past couple weeks, that's a less and less problematic vote for Democrats and a more and more problematic vote for Republicans.

In other news, "House Democrats in red states who have come out in support of impeachment are having a rough time defending their decision back home."

[Cow Poke]

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...t-ukraine.html

A) Kudos for actually providing a cite for a change
2) Too bad it's only an opinion piece (as opposed to an actual news story) by jonathan-chait, who seems to write exclusively "I hate Trump" hit pieces.

[Sam]

And Clinton would have obstructed them at every turn (like destroying e-mails and hard drives) and you would have cheered! None of this is about principle Sam and you know it - it is about hating and getting Trump at any cost.

I would expect Clinton to comply with the law, reserving executive privilege to its traditional role, and to comply with subpoenas relating to impeachment, regardless.

In any event, your talking point ("Democrats have just wanted to impeach Trump from the beginning!") is invalid; it doesn't implicate Democrats any more than Republicans and doesn't matter, anyway. The rule of law supersedes partisan winning or losing.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Yes; Sonderland has no diplomatic experience but did donate $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.

Paid ambassadorships are common and a bi-partisan example of corruption. Elizabeth Warren, though, has pledged to end the practice.

Has she promised not to appoint persons simply because they are from her own tribe?

[seer]

I would expect Clinton to comply with the law, reserving executive privilege to its traditional role, and to comply with subpoenas relating to impeachment, regardless.

In any event, your talking point ("Democrats have just wanted to impeach Trump from the beginning!") is invalid; it doesn't implicate Democrats any more than Republicans and doesn't matter, anyway. The rule of law supersedes partisan winning or losing.

-Sam

Nonsense Sam - what law are you taking about? What law did Trump break - be specific please...

[Sam]

Nonsense Sam - what law are you taking about? What law did Trump break - be specific please...

You're getting glitched out on the talking points. I said "comply with the law" and "rule of law", neither of which implies that I'm talking about Trump's potential criminal violations (outside of noncompliance with subpoenas).

--Sam

[seer]

You're getting glitched out on the talking points. I said "comply with the law" and "rule of law", neither of which implies that I'm talking about Trump's potential criminal violations (outside of noncompliance with subpoenas).

--Sam

You were talking about the rule of law - so which law did he break? Or admit this is a partisan fishing expedition...

[Sam]

You were talking about the rule of law - so which law did he break? Or admit this is a partisan fishing expedition...

SAM: "The President should comply with the rule of law in regards to Congressional subpoenas."

SEER: "Oh? What law did he break?"

SAM: "That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about compliance with subpoenas during an impeachment inquiry."

SEER: "So what law did he break?!"


That's a glitch, alright.

--Sam

[Roy]

Yes; Sonderland has no diplomatic experience but did donate $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.

Paid ambassadorships are common and a bi-partisan example of corruption.

Thank you. I never knew that. I wonder if he's recouping his outlay?

[seer]

SAM: "The President should comply with the rule of law in regards to Congressional subpoenas."

SEER: "Oh? What law did he break?"

SAM: "That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about compliance with subpoenas during an impeachment inquiry."

SEER: "So what law did he break?!"


That's a glitch, alright.

--Sam

So you still have not answered the question. You have an impeachment process not based on any known violation of law. Yep Trump should comply to this partisan fishing expedition - not!

[Sam]

Thank you. I never knew that. I wonder if he's recouping his outlay?

I'm sure he will in the future. Ambassador to the EU should net him a lot of contacts for his hotel business. But I'd say this is the kind of petty grifting that would be unusual to focus on: we should definitely end the practice but Sondland's got a lot more trouble with a potential conspiracy charge of defrauding the United States through this Ukrainian quid pro quo.

--Sam

[JimL]

So you still have not answered the question. You have an impeachment process not based on any known violation of law. Yep Trump should comply to this partisan fishing expedition - not!

It's called contempt of Congress, seer. It is the obligation of Congress to investigate the possible abuses of office of the Executive, and non compliance to the issuance of a subpoena is itself a crime, and that is called obstruction of justice.

[Mountain Man]

...(outside of noncompliance with subpoenas).

Again, they're not subpoenas. They are "letters of demand" which carry no legal weight or penalty for non-compliance. This is because the appropriate chamber (in this case, the House of Representatives) has not granted any authority to any committee to issue subpoenas in this matter.

It helps to actually stay informed about this stuff.

[seer]

It's called contempt of Congress, seer. It is the obligation of Congress to investigate the possible abuses of office of the Executive, and non compliance to the issuance of a subpoena is itself a crime, and that is called obstruction of justice.

So when Obama and Clinton did the same thing (obstruct Congress) using Executive privilege did you get your panties in a wad then? No Jim, I suspect you were cheering them on. So please stop feigning outrage.

[JimL]

So when Obama and Clinton did the same thing (obstruct Congress) using Executive privilege did you get your panties in a wad then? No Jim, I suspect you were cheering them on. So please stop feigning outrage.

Oh, the whataboutism argument again. If Obama was wrong in that case, which you haven't shown here to be the case, then Trump is in the wrong in this case. Correct? Trump's argument for blocking testimony was that it is a Kangaroo court, not executive privilege!