"Indisputable"? Plenty to dispute.

MikeDamone

An impeachment without asserting a crime is simply a struggle for power.

1. The first "charge" is Abuse of Power.

By itself this phrase doesn't specify an illegal or improper act! It's a description of an act which has no meaning without specifying the act! And because the D-Party cannot hope to show that a specific act fits the description, they are pretending that a subjective description, alone, no specific act required - constitutes a "charge."

2. The second charge is "Obstruction of Congress" rather than Obstruction of Justice.

The latter would be a crime. The former is a completely made-up thing...

Now that the word "priviledge" has been maligned in the minds of the Leftist-indoctinated as an ill-got gain of oppressing others, the Dems are pretty sure they can cause a perfectly legitimate exercise of Executive privilege on the part of the president to seem "corrupt."

So the Dems in Congress are behaving as a superior rather than a co-equal branch in denying that the Executive Branch has a right to challenge a subpoena under Executive privilege. (Congress' proper recourse when their demands of the Executive are challenged is to the courts. The judiciary saves as 'referee' in resolving disputes between these two branches.)

Congressional Dems declined to exercise their legal recourse because "they are in a hurry." The Executive challenge becomes a "crime" if Congressional Democrats are in a hurry?

These charges are legit only in the eyes of indoctrinated fools who've failed to learn even gradeschool-level facts about the structure and function of the American government.

Sledog

Of only we impeached Obunghole over all his executive privilege concerning actual criminal activity.

MikeDamone

Sledog said:

Of only we impeached Obunghole over all his executive privilege concerning actual criminal activity.

With 11 months to the election, it's clearly a Hail Mary by then dems. They know that can beat trump in the election.

But it's impeachable now? Political agenda is blatant and desperate


https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-times-the-obama-administration-fought-subpoenas-or-blocked-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/

Sledog

MikeDamone said:

Sledog said:

Of only we impeached Obunghole over all his executive privilege concerning actual criminal activity.

With 11 months to the election, it's clearly a Hail Mary by then dems. They know that can beat trump in the election.

But it's impeachable now? Political agenda is blatant and desperate


https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-times-the-obama-administration-fought-subpoenas-or-blocked-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/

Shhhhh.... it's ok for the communist party.

HHusky

MikeDamone said:

An impeachment without asserting a crime is simply a struggle for power.

1. The first "charge" is Abuse of Power.

By itself this phrase doesn't specify an illegal or improper act! It's a description of an act which has no meaning without specifying the act! And because the D-Party cannot hope to show that a specific act fits the description, they are pretending that a subjective description, alone, no specific act required - constitutes a "charge."

2. The second charge is "Obstruction of Congress" rather than Obstruction of Justice.

The latter would be a crime. The former is a completely made-up thing...

Now that the word "priviledge" has been maligned in the minds of the Leftist-indoctinated as an ill-got gain of oppressing others, the Dems are pretty sure they can cause a perfectly legitimate exercise of Executive privilege on the part of the president to seem "corrupt."

So the Dems in Congress are behaving as a superior rather than a co-equal branch in denying that the Executive Branch has a right to challenge a subpoena under Executive privilege. (Congress' proper recourse when their demands of the Executive are challenged is to the courts. The judiciary saves as 'referee' in resolving disputes between these two branches.)

Congressional Dems declined to exercise their legal recourse because "they are in a hurry." The Executive challenge becomes a "crime" if Congressional Democrats are in a hurry?

These charges are legit only in the eyes of indoctrinated fools who've failed to learn even gradeschool-level facts about the structure and function of the American government.

Of course "indisputable" referred to the facts, not your belaboring the characterization of the facts. I appreciate your concession.

MikeDamone

HHusky said:

MikeDamone said:

An impeachment without asserting a crime is simply a struggle for power.

1. The first "charge" is Abuse of Power.

By itself this phrase doesn't specify an illegal or improper act! It's a description of an act which has no meaning without specifying the act! And because the D-Party cannot hope to show that a specific act fits the description, they are pretending that a subjective description, alone, no specific act required - constitutes a "charge."

2. The second charge is "Obstruction of Congress" rather than Obstruction of Justice.

The latter would be a crime. The former is a completely made-up thing...

Now that the word "priviledge" has been maligned in the minds of the Leftist-indoctinated as an ill-got gain of oppressing others, the Dems are pretty sure they can cause a perfectly legitimate exercise of Executive privilege on the part of the president to seem "corrupt."

So the Dems in Congress are behaving as a superior rather than a co-equal branch in denying that the Executive Branch has a right to challenge a subpoena under Executive privilege. (Congress' proper recourse when their demands of the Executive are challenged is to the courts. The judiciary saves as 'referee' in resolving disputes between these two branches.)

Congressional Dems declined to exercise their legal recourse because "they are in a hurry." The Executive challenge becomes a "crime" if Congressional Democrats are in a hurry?

These charges are legit only in the eyes of indoctrinated fools who've failed to learn even gradeschool-level facts about the structure and function of the American government.

Of course "indisputable" referred to the facts, not your belaboring the characterization of the facts. I appreciate your concession.

Or yours...