List of Trump's crimes?

[Mountain Man]

Sounds like Morrison may be all in, in the cover-up. VP Pence's aide, who was also privy to the call, in her testimony, disagreed with Morrison, that there was nothing improper on the call.

You're acting like the rest of us haven't read the transcript for ourselves.

The more relevant take away from Morrison is that Vindman can't be trusted.

[Mountain Man]

Also...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-tim-morrison/

[rogue06]

Also...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-tim-morrison/

When you have folks like Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)arguing that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"^[1] it's getting to where they're starting to believe that hearsay - even two, three and four times removed - is legitimate and no need to mention it.




That, or they're deliberately omitting it so as to lead others to a false conclusion.








1 And Quigley put a whole lot of emphasis on "much."

[firstfloor]

When you have folks like Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)arguing that "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"^[1] it's getting to where they're starting to believe that hearsay - even two, three and four times removed - is legitimate and no need to mention it.

[Mountain Man]

"Obstruction of Congress" is not a crime. It's called "separation of powers" and "executive privilege". The president does not serve at the pleasure of Congress. If Congress wanted their subpoenas to have teeth then all they had to do was vote to make the investigation official, which they adamantly refused to do.

This whole idea that Trump, if he's innocent, should be willing to submit his people to interrogation by Congress is absurd. Let's put it this way: If the police come to you and say, "You're not under arrest or anything, but would you mind coming down to the station to answer a few questions? You know, just to clear your name," you say no!

[rogue06]

If Trump exercising his constitutional right of Executive Privilege is illegal then why oh why did Schiff withdraw his subpoena to Charles Kupperman immediately after the latter filed a suit asking a federal judge to decide whether a Congressional subpoena trumps Presidential Executive Privilege?

If what Trump is doing is, as you claim, "criminal" then Schiff should have welcomed the suit since it would lead to the courts joining force with Congress in opposition to Trump.

But, that's not what Schiff did. Even after issuing veiled threats to Kupperman that he better testify or at the very least he'll be cited for contempt as well as telling the media how instrumental Kupperman's testimony is, Schiff folded like a cheap lawn chair.

[firstfloor]

If Trump exercising his constitutional right of Executive Privilege is illegal then why oh why did Schiff withdraw his subpoena to Charles Kupperman immediately after the latter filed a suit asking a federal judge to decide whether a Congressional subpoena trumps Presidential Executive Privilege?

If what Trump is doing is, as you claim, "criminal" then Schiff should have welcomed the suit since it would lead to the courts joining force with Congress in opposition to Trump.

But, that's not what Schiff did. Even after issuing veiled threats to Kupperman that he better testify or at the very least he'll be cited for contempt as well as telling the media how instrumental Kupperman's testimony is, Schiff folded like a cheap lawn chair.

Nothing about this episode is covered by executive privilege because Trump has already published transcripts of calls and has commented on other details.

Sean Illing says that the new type of obstruction, unforeseen by the founders and pioneered by the Republican Party, is the collusion between the President and his Party in Congress to prevent the President from being held to account. It is profoundly damaging to the Constitution. If it is allowed to succeed, the antics of Trump and Nixon before him, will, in future, be commonplace.

[Mountain Man]

Nothing about this episode is covered by executive privilege because Trump has already published transcripts of calls and has commented on other details.

Sean Illing says that the new type of obstruction, unforeseen by the founders and pioneered by the Republican Party, is the collusion between the President and his Party in Congress to prevent the President from being held to account. It is profoundly damaging to the Constitution. If it is allowed to succeed, the antics of Trump and Nixon before him, will, in future, be commonplace.

The Republicans refuse to cooperate with the Democrat party's witch hunt! How dare they!

[Teallaura]

If Trump exercising his constitutional right of Executive Privilege is illegal then why oh why did Schiff withdraw his subpoena to Charles Kupperman immediately after the latter filed a suit asking a federal judge to decide whether a Congressional subpoena trumps Presidential Executive Privilege?

If what Trump is doing is, as you claim, "criminal" then Schiff should have welcomed the suit since it would lead to the courts joining force with Congress in opposition to Trump.

But, that's not what Schiff did. Even after issuing veiled threats to Kupperman that he better testify or at the very least he'll be cited for contempt as well as telling the media how instrumental Kupperman's testimony is, Schiff folded like a cheap lawn chair.

I'm pretty sure you're belittling cheap lawn chairs.

[Teallaura]

Nothing about this episode is covered by executive privilege because Trump has already published transcripts of calls and has commented on other details.

Sean Illing says that the new type of obstruction, unforeseen by the founders and pioneered by the Republican Party, is the collusion between the President and his Party in Congress to prevent the President from being held to account. It is profoundly damaging to the Constitution. If it is allowed to succeed, the antics of Trump and Nixon before him, will, in future, be commonplace.

Dude, no one violated an appeal to the Fifth - there's no problem with the Executive cooperating in some areas and not in others. The release of transcript doesn't obligate the Exec to cooperate further. And that one has already been tested in the High Court during the Nixon inquiry. Exec privilege isn't forfeited by cooperation or public release.

[Mountain Man]

This whole idea that Trump, if he's innocent, should be willing to submit his people to interrogation by Congress is absurd. Let's put it this way: If the police come to you and say, "You're not under arrest or anything, but would you mind coming down to the station to answer a few questions? You know, just to clear your name," you say no!

On a related note, I read a very interesting article recently about how most people, including lawyers, don't know how to plead the fifth. The usual wording is, "My legal counsel has advised me to not answer the question on the grounds that the answer could incriminate me," which totally sounds like "I can't tell the truth without admitting my guilt," and that's precisely how it will sound to a jury.

The author suggested, instead, the following:


https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...126031&EXT=pdf

[rogue06]

Nothing about this episode is covered by executive privilege because Trump has already published transcripts of calls and has commented on other details.

Sean Illing says that the new type of obstruction, unforeseen by the founders and pioneered by the Republican Party, is the collusion between the President and his Party in Congress to prevent the President from being held to account. It is profoundly damaging to the Constitution. If it is allowed to succeed, the antics of Trump and Nixon before him, will, in future, be commonplace.

You don't void Executive Privilege unless you claim it in every instance

[Cow Poke]

I'm pretty sure you're belittling cheap lawn chairs.

Others take lawn chairs to new heights.

lawn chair.jpeg

[Cow Poke]

It a amazes me that the loony left is usually so rabidly anti-gun, except when their hatred causes them to say things (like murdering POTUS) that, in another era, would have raised the attention of the Secret Service.

I'm tending to think this is not a case of hypocrisy, but one of insanity.

I would kindly suggest dropping any such discussion of fatal attraction to POTUS on this board, ff, because we don't need the liability.

[firstfloor]

On a related note, I read a very interesting article recently about how most people, including lawyers, don't know how to plead the fifth. The usual wording is, "My legal counsel has advised me to not answer the question on the grounds that the answer could incriminate me," which totally sounds like "I can't tell the truth without admitting my guilt," and that's precisely how it will sound to a jury.

The author suggested, instead, the following:

[box]