 
     |
| The Trump Impeachment Proceedings (Page 25/49) |
|
MadMark
|
DEC 28, 10:06 AM
|
|
And adding to the hypocrisy is Joe Biden. He now says that he would not comply with a subpoena if the Senate did subpoena him.
https://www.foxnews.com/pol...ps-impeachment-trial
And you just have to give it to him for being a delusional old fart when you listen to what he says.
"No one’s taken as much heat and as many lies thrown at them as I have," Biden said during a campaign stop in Ottumwa on Dec. 20,
Yeah, Joe. No one has taken as much heat! What a hoot. Hope you enjoy your time in prison when Durham gets around to taking you to court with your corrupt son and John Kerry's son, and Pelosi's son and some others. You haven't seen the worst of it yet. But, Karma will catch up to you and the rest of the corrupt people from the Obama administration.
|
|
|
cliffw
|
DEC 28, 03:01 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MadMark:
And adding to the hypocrisy is Joe Biden. He now says that he would not comply with a subpoena if the Senate did subpoena him.
|
|
"No show Joe" now says he will obey any lawful order.
What does it take to obey to a subpoena ?
Court.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 28, 05:08 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
"No show Joe" now says he will obey any lawful order.
What does it take to obey to a subpoena ?
Court. |
|
Gropin' Joe loves to spew a lot of bravado.....right up until his political handlers remind him that he's supposedly running for president and that defying a Congressional subpoena while doing so is a VERY bad choice.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 28, 05:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
I wonder if the Senate must pretend the articles do not exist (since they have not been formally presented), or if they could just go ahead and draft a resolution refuting or condemning them.
^
seems to be a useful symbol as of late |
|
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
(NO, it's not that Nixon)
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the SCOTUS basically found that the United States Senate can pretty much do whatever they want with regard to an impeachment trial.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-28-2019).]
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
DEC 29, 03:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Boondawg
|
DEC 29, 09:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 30, 04:49 PM
|
|
If aid to Ukraine did not flow
It must have been a Quid Pro Quo
 Click to show[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-30-2019).]
|
|
|
|
randye
|
DEC 30, 07:51 PM
|
|
QUID PRO FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME
Lyin' Liz Warren could pull U.S. military aid from Israel if it does not stop building settlements in the West Bank.
The Democratic 2020 primary candidate, who has taken a lead in recent polls, told The Hill "everything is on the table" should she become the next president and Israel continues building settlements in the West Bank.
https://www.newsweek.com/el...-settlements-1466680
https://freebeacon.com/poli...sraeli-security-aid/
......
Meanwhile Leftist protestors chant "Nobody is above the law!" while they hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 30, 08:55 PM
|
|
If either of them became POTUS, they could work within their proper Article One boundaries to have U.S. aid to Israel curtailed, or made conditional upon Quids (or Quo's) for the Israel government to undertake, with respect to the West Bank (etc.)
But if Congress were to approve an aid package for Israel as a budget item, in a bill that does not make it conditional upon any "strings" that Israel has to do This or That, as a condition for getting the package, and then President Warren (Sanders... whoever) were to attempt to leverage their Article One authorities beyond their proper limits, as a way to block the aid package... then it seems to me that would be another "Ukraine-gate" kind of situation. Even more so, if testimony were to emerge to make it clear that the objective (or among the objectives) of President Warren (etc.) were a transparent and highly partisan or political kind of a favor from Israel, designed to be used in a very direct way during their Presidential reelection campaign.
There is a relatively recent federal legislation that was passed (Nixon era, I think) that is being quoted in this context, about the President having to respect what Congress approves in terms of budgetary outlays.
(Have to boil this down quite a ways to turn it into another highway road sign.)[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-30-2019).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
DEC 30, 09:00 PM
|
|
Uh, wouldn't the House have to pass a budget for that to work?
Good luck with that....
|
|
|
