More bad news for Trump

[t&y]

I’m suggesting the House is basically playing the role of grand jury and Trump is obstructing the work of the grand jury and prosecutor. I’m also suggesting that people who act guilty usually are.

Well that is cool and all, but is there request for testimony legally binding in any way like a court ordered subpoena? If not, then fuck them and the horse they rode in on. At this point, I see no reason Trump should cooperate with anything they do. It's called Tit for Tat and the Libturds have been obstructing Trump from day one. Do you think the Libturds are obstructing and refusing to cooperate with Trump because they are guilty of something?

If there are no legal binds to their requests, then that's just too bad. If you think that is a show of guilt then you have no idea how our real criminal justice system works. People have a right to chose not to cooperate. That even extends to pleading the 5th. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Well that is cool and all, but is there request for testimony legally binding in any way like a court ordered subpoena? If not, then fuck them and the horse they rode in on. At this point, I see no reason Trump should cooperate with anything they do. It's called Tit for Tat and the Libturds have been obstructing Trump from day one. Do you think the Libturds are obstructing and refusing to cooperate with Trump because they are guilty of something?

If there are no legal binds to their requests, then that's just too bad. If you think that is a show of guilt then you have no idea how our real criminal justice system works. People have a right to chose not to cooperate. That even extends to pleading the 5th. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.

The Executive Branch is subject to the oversight of the Legislative Branch. You can look it up in your pocket Constitution. And now for good
Measure Congress has subpoenaed the same testimony. Do you agree that the
Ambassador now has a legal right
to appear?

 

[Grandpa mac]

Well that is cool and all, but is there request for testimony legally binding in any way like a court ordered subpoena? If not, then fuck them and the horse they rode in on. At this point, I see no reason Trump should cooperate with anything they do. It's called Tit for Tat and the Libturds have been obstructing Trump from day one. Do you think the Libturds are obstructing and refusing to cooperate with Trump because they are guilty of something?

If there are no legal binds to their requests, then that's just too bad. If you think that is a show of guilt then you have no idea how our real criminal justice system works. People have a right to chose not to cooperate. That even extends to pleading the 5th. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.

People can be compelled to testify. Happens all the time in grand jury and criminal proceedings. You can plead the 5th if it is incriminating of yourself, but not to Protect another. And if a
Prosecutor wants your testimony against the
Big Boss he can offer you immunity which takes the 5th off the table.

But you knew All of that.

 

[Carlson-jet]

G-

The Executive Branch is subject to the oversight of the Legislative Branch. You can look it up in your pocket Constitution. And now for good
Measure Congress has subpoenaed the same testimony. Do you agree that the
Ambassador now has a legal right
to appear?

Could you please make corrections on this to not look like the content is from a senile old man?

 

[t&y]

The Executive Branch is subject to the oversight of the Legislative Branch. You can look it up in your pocket Constitution. And now for good
Measure Congress has subpoenaed the same testimony. Do you agree that the
Ambassador now has a legal right
to appear?

Legal right, or legal obligation? Sure you can subpoena anything you want. Doesn't mean a person literally has to talk. It is obvious in your mind that Trump has this guy locked in closet somewhere against his will. I'd put money down that the guy doesn't want to cooperate with a bunch of Libturds and that's it.

 

[t&y]

People can be compelled to testify. Happens all the time in grand jury and criminal proceedings. You can plead the 5th if it is incriminating of yourself, but not to Protect another. And if a
Prosecutor wants your testimony against the
Big Boss he can offer you immunity which takes the 5th off the table.

But you knew All of that.

Same still applies. Offer immunity for what? You seem to be following right along with the usual guilty until proven innocent theme your party is so good at. Can't wait for this one to fall flat on it's face again like the rest of your dreams about Trump.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Legal right, or legal obligation? Sure you can subpoena anything you want. Doesn't mean a person literally has to talk. It is obvious in your mind that Trump has this guy locked in closet somewhere against his will. I'd put money down that the guy doesn't want to cooperate with a bunch of Libturds and that's it.

You think Eric Holder wanted to testify before Congress? No, he was compelled to testify. Congress has Constitutional authority to compel testimony or throw you in jail for contempt of Congress.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Same still applies. Offer immunity for what? You seem to be following right along with the usual guilty until proven innocent theme your party is so good at. Can't wait for this one to fall flat on it's face again like the rest of your dreams about Trump.

You mentioned the 5th. The 5th only applies if you have concern that your testimony will send you to jail. Hence, immunity.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Legal right, or legal obligation? Sure you can subpoena anything you want. Doesn't mean a person literally has to talk. It is obvious in your mind that Trump has this guy locked in closet somewhere against his will. I'd put money down that the guy doesn't want to cooperate with a bunch of Libturds and that's it.

And yes, I meant legal obligation to testify.
Thank you.

 

[t&y]

You think Eric Holder wanted to testify before Congress? No, he was compelled to testify. Congress has Constitutional authority to compel testimony or throw you in jail for contempt of Congress.

You mentioned the 5th. The 5th only applies if you have concern that your testimony will send you to jail. Hence, immunity.

And yes, I meant legal obligation to testify.
Thank you.

You do realize you can take a breath between posts. You don't have to fragment each sentence. Holder was "forced" and he chose to speak. He could have pulled the Clinton "I don't recall" and he would have been hailed the most fit to run for president. NOBODY can force you to speak unless you want to. You either get it, or you don't. And that still does not have anything to do with Trump or who testifies.

Issue the legally binding requests and run with it. Otherwise, your party can fuck off... again...

 

[saucedaddy]

G-

Could you please make corrections on this to not look like the content is from a senile old man?

You have got to be kidding CJ

 

[Carlson-jet]

View attachment 805408
You have got to be kidding CJ

You're right, he's not old, just senile.

 

[Grandpa mac]

You do realize you can take a breath between posts. You don't have to fragment each sentence. Holder was "forced" and he chose to speak. He could have pulled the Clinton "I don't recall" and he would have been hailed the most fit to run for president. NOBODY can force you to speak unless you want to. You either get it, or you don't. And that still does not have anything to do with Trump or who testifies.

Issue the legally binding requests and run with it. Otherwise, your party can fuck off... again...

Well, the House has done just that. The White House has the subpoenas.

 

[Grandpa mac]

You do realize you can take a breath between posts. You don't have to fragment each sentence. Holder was "forced" and he chose to speak. He could have pulled the Clinton "I don't recall" and he would have been hailed the most fit to run for president. NOBODY can force you to speak unless you want to. You either get it, or you don't. And that still does not have anything to do with Trump or who testifies.

Issue the legally binding requests and run with it. Otherwise, your party can fuck off... again...

And you’re confusing your Presidential history. It was Reagan who relied on the “I don’t recall” defense during Iran Contra. Clinton used the innovative “That depends on what the meaning of IS is.”

Guess you have a point when it comes to Hillary though.

The “I don’t recall” ain’t great though when the “prosecution” has a bunch of incriminating emails and text messages and just works through them saying “Can you read us text #1? Is that sent by you from your account? Can you read us memorandum #3? Is that your signature at the bottom?” Perhaps this white collar shit leaves more of a paper trail than the street scum you work with.

 

[RVR SWPR]

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 8, 2019
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Adam B. Schiff
Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel
Chairman
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled — contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent — as an “impeachment inquiry.” As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is "concerned that if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected.”1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

 

[RVR SWPR]

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff,and Cummings
Page 2
For his part, President Trump took theunprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with PresidentZelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff’sdecision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.

In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact with Chairman Schiff’s office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff“clearly made a statement that was false."2 In any event, the American people understand thatChairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a counterfeit version of the call to theAmerican people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral “investigator.”

For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.

I. Your “Inquiry” Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights and the Separation of Powers.

Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry.”3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the

2 Glenn Kessler, Schiff’s False Claim His Committee Had Not Spoken to the Whistleblower, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 2019).

3 Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019).
Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 3
history of the Nation,4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.5

The Committees’ inquiry also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker Pelosi’s commitment to “treat the President with fairness,”6 the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that “[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process,”