LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:00 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens's obvious conflict of interest.

Sorry mate, your team doesn't believe in conflicts of interest, remember?

How many pages did you and guys like tech make fun of the very IDEA of a conflict of interest?

Suddenly you care because a Democrat is involved? Nope. You made this bed, sorry. You don't get to pretend that you care now.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm Others in his admin & Congress prevailed upon him to release the aid within the time allowed. The aid was released. Meanwhile, an investigation of the Biden conflict of interest has been sidetracked.

So Nixon is off the hook because he TRIED to break in to Dem HQ, and failed, is that it? "It doesn't count if it didn't work".

Neat understanding of how our law works, I'll give you that much.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm It's hardly an abuse of the powers of the Deep State to investigate the Biden's obvious conflict(s) of interest.
What are you afraid of ?

You've made your POV perfectly clear. You keep pretending like you're too stupid to distinguish between the FBI doing their job, and a President ORDERING the FBI to investigate a political rival.

Just remember this position of yours when a Dem POTUS goes after political rivals using the power of the office. You have told us again and again that it's fine, because you are unable to think about what this kind of corruption would look like from a liberal President. And we will have a actual lib POTUS as these millenials age, and start to actually vote.

Works for me. And for the 1,000th time, I don't like Biden or his plainly legal corruption.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm How's Schiff's investigation into Lev Parnas going ?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... nce-101832

Parnas had a cool million parked in his bank account from Putin, and you're here to tell us there's nothing to see here, let's make sure this Parnas guy works closely with our President. And yet you're feigning concern over Hunter getting a no-show job on daddy's coattails? Sell it somewhere else?

With each passing day, your partisanship gets worse. Every single time---regardless of the topic---if it involves D's and R's, the R's are doing nothing wrong, and anyone who you think stands in their way are guilty as hell.

You don't even try and hide it anymore. Dems bad, R's good.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:01 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:56 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:07 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:53 am
seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:53 am Trying to distill the President's and Senate GOP's argument to its essence:

“How can we possibly vote to remove the President without seeing all the evidence we’re voting not to see?”
Well put.
It's hilarious watching posters WHO LOST THEIR MINDS for 4 years plus over just the IDEA that a "Deep State" is abusing their power.....suddenly lose about a hundred IQ points when a President with a little R by his name ADMITS to abusing his power.

Are they mad at Trump for this? Well, of course not. Abuse of power just isn't a big deal. BTW fellas, how's that investigation into FISA and Deep State abuses going?

"That's different", right guys?
As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens's obvious conflict of interest. Others in his admin & Congress prevailed upon him to release the aid within the time allowed. The aid was released. Meanwhile, an investigation of the Biden conflict of interest has been sidetracked.
It's hardly an abuse of the powers of the Deep State to investigate the Biden's obvious conflict(s) of interest.
What are you afraid of ?

How's Schiff's investigation into Lev Parnas going ?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... nce-101832
The author of that article, MELANIE ZANONA, better make sure she has security. The left treats actual journalists like an enemy.
Her last name starts with a Z. She's one of Schiff's suspects.

(your post is gonna trigger some folks here...if they understand it)

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:02 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:07 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:53 am
seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:53 am Trying to distill the President's and Senate GOP's argument to its essence:

“How can we possibly vote to remove the President without seeing all the evidence we’re voting not to see?”
Well put.
It's hilarious watching posters WHO LOST THEIR MINDS for 4 years plus over just the IDEA that a "Deep State" is abusing their power.....suddenly lose about a hundred IQ points when a President with a little R by his name ADMITS to abusing his power.

Are they mad at Trump for this? Well, of course not. Abuse of power just isn't a big deal. BTW fellas, how's that investigation into FISA and Deep State abuses going?

"That's different", right guys?
As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens's obvious conflict of interest. Others in his admin & Congress ultimately prevailed upon him to release the aid within the time allowed. The aid was released. Meanwhile, an investigation of the Biden conflict of interest has been sidetracked.
It's hardly an abuse of the powers of the Deep State to investigate the Biden's obvious conflict(s) of interest.
What are you afraid of ?

How's Schiff's investigation into Lev Parnas going ?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... nce-101832

some "rock star" that Schiff

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -documents

And when the White House did not turn over documents, the House did ... nothing.

"Did the House take any steps to remedy that?" asked Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin on the Senate floor Tuesday. "Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they try to resolve that problem? No. Because as we know, all they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on."

Now, Democrats say they really, really want documents. After all, they claim, Bill Clinton turned over those 90,000 documents for his impeachment trial. How could Trump do less? It sounds persuasive — until one finds out what really happened way back in 1998.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:07 pm**

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:02 pm "Did the House take any steps to remedy that?" asked Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin on the Senate floor Tuesday. "Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they try to resolve that problem? No. Because as we know, all they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on."

So now it's the Dems fault that Trump withheld these documents and witnesses, is that it?

Neat.

More tools for the Dems to use when the take the WH back, I guess. Remember to complain when they use these tools you think are so great....

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:11 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:02 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:00 am
ToastDunk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:23 pm Shifty-Schiff is a f****** rock star.

Trump’s legal team is going to have to take him out.

Let me be clear, the Republicans are going to acquit Trump. Full stop. But they’re going to look silly doing it. Might/should haunt each and every one of them going forward.
"Adam Schiff is a smart guy. He did not idly dream up a “make up dirt” parody. He framed it because he knows that’s the kind of misconduct you would need to prove to warrant impeachment and removal of a president. In fact, Schiff could never prove that, but he figured parody is good enough for 2020 campaign purposes — and that’s what this exercise is all about."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/ ... e-offense/
Mark this down, tech. You, FoxNation, Old salt, Pete, et. al. have convinced yourselves that when we finally get a lib President, that this President couldn't possibly be corrupt enough to do what Trump did.

You think there's no way that someone with a little D by their name would use the power of office to go after his/her Republican rival, and then cover up and hide witnesses and documents that betray the plot.

Just like you think Obama wouldn't drone and murder thousands of people with zeal, because you think Dems are weak.

Whoops. Good luck with this choice of yours going forward. Remember that you all not only thought it's ok for a President to do this....you argued that it was HIS JOB to investigate "possible corruption" by his political rivals.

Fine by me.

Those supporting Trump don't see what those not supporting Trump see....they don't believe that Trump is corrupt.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:12 pm**

BTW, all these Republican voters' "defenses" for Trump's behavior explains the entire Trump era in one single thought.

"Because" the Dems are bad, everything Trump does MUST obviously be good.

It explains every single thing they're waving through, and why they don't care about anything Trump does.

You can only warn them so many times.

Oh well. Hey, I have an idea! Let's pass another massive spending bill, right fellas!

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:15 pm**

foreverlax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:11 pm Those supporting Trump don't see what those not supporting Trump see....they don't believe that Trump is corrupt.

That's not it. What they think is "the Dems are corrupt, "therefore", Trump must not be corrupt". Or "because the Dems are corrupt, that makes it ok for Trump to be corrupt".

Notice both Old Salt and Pete B are bringing up Hillary or things like Fusion GPS? They think that because the Dems did something, it's ok for Trump to do anything and everything. They think one excuses the other, and don't understand how silly this "reasoning" is.

Oh well.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:21 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:07 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:53 am
seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:53 am Trying to distill the President's and Senate GOP's argument to its essence:

“How can we possibly vote to remove the President without seeing all the evidence we’re voting not to see?”
Well put.
It's hilarious watching posters WHO LOST THEIR MINDS for 4 years plus over just the IDEA that a "Deep State" is abusing their power.....suddenly lose about a hundred IQ points when a President with a little R by his name ADMITS to abusing his power.

Are they mad at Trump for this? Well, of course not. Abuse of power just isn't a big deal. BTW fellas, how's that investigation into FISA and Deep State abuses going?

"That's different", right guys?
As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens's obvious conflict of interest.
Considering all the facts, the way they chose turned out to be illegal. Which Biden as you accusing of having conflicts?.

Others in his admin & Congress ultimately prevailed upon him to release the aid within the time allowed. The aid was released. Meanwhile, an investigation of the Biden conflict of interest has been sidetracked.
It was released, after he was caught...which Biden needs to be investigate?

It's hardly an abuse of the powers of the Deep State to investigate the Biden's obvious conflict(s) of interest.
What are these obvious conflicts by Biden?

What are you afraid of ?
Trump getting away with abusing the office of POTUS

How's Schiff's investigation into Lev Parnas going ? Rhetorical question?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... nce-101832

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:24 pm**

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:21 pm
dislaxxic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:16 am Republicans have been painting themselves into a corner for years now...between duplicitous political deceit, dirty tricks and flat out LYING. I mean, a party that is willing to FLAT OUT STEAL a SCOTUS seat will stoop to any level to retain power.

These chickens are going to come home to roost at some point, sooner rather than later, IMO.

It's gratifying to know that NO CONSERVATIVE will EVER AGAIN have grounds to complain about a Dem's morality or truthfulness...having countenanced this disaster for the past three years...

..

Hillary says no one likes Bernie. Tulsi is suing Hillary for $50,000,000. Epstein and Weinstein have fun into major snafus. Hillary Bernie, Tulsi, Epstein, Weinstein....what do they are share in common? None are president, none are getting impeached.

And JFK took a 19 year old interns virginity on her fourth day at work. There you go again, Peter.

What a moral party.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:33 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Biden's obvious conflict of interest.

To suggest Trump was seeking a legal way to delay the aid is an extreme advocate’s spin. Even if true, he failed. The GAO has ruled that Trump violated the law. Yeah, the GAO is the Deep State. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But the second part — announcing the Biden investigation — is the more seriously culpable conduct. In short, Trump was trying to rig the 2020 election in his favor. If that isn’t impeachable conduct, then nothing is.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:45 pm**

And when the White House did not turn over documents, the House did ... nothing.

Let me show you what complete BS that is.

FYI, there are three cases currently pending at SCOTUS over getting documents or testimony out of Trumpers (including his tax returns).

Two more cases (involving former WH counsel Don McGahn and the Mueller grand jury material) are currently pending in the DC Circuit appeals court. When those get decided, Trump will no doubt appeal to SCOTUS. FYI, Trump is on a Washington Generals-esque losing streak in these cases. But it still takes a lot of time to lose like 20 court decisions in a row.

The McGahn case was argued a couple weeks ago. Here's some of the questions which came from the conservative GOP appointed judge on that case (who happened to work for the GOP Senate during the Clinton impeachment):

“Has there ever been,” the judge asked, “an instance of such broad-scale defiance of a congressional request for information in the history of the Republic? “Has that ever happened before?”

The administration’s lawyer, Hashim M. Mooppan, gave an answer that underscored the significance of the case. “Not to my knowledge,” he said.

Heck, even Nixon didn't pull this carp. John Dean, after, was Nixon's WH counsel....

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:48 pm**

To suggest Trump was seeking a legal way to delay the aid is an extreme advocate’s spin. Even if true, he failed. The GAO has ruled that Trump violated the law.

And part of the aid was never released.

Because of Trump's illegal hold, Congress had to pass new legislation to authorize for a second time the previously authorized funding that was held.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:51 pm**

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:33 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Biden's obvious conflict of interest.
To suggest Trump was seeking a legal way to delay the aid is an extreme advocate’s spin. Even if true, he failed. The GAO has ruled that Trump violated the law. Yeah, the GAO is the Deep State. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But the second part — announcing the Biden investigation — is the more seriously culpable conduct. In short, Trump was trying to rig the 2020 election in his favor. If that isn’t impeachable conduct, then nothing is.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:15 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:11 pm Those supporting Trump don't see what those not supporting Trump see....they don't believe that Trump is corrupt.
That's not it. What they think is "the Dems are corrupt, "therefore", Trump must not be corrupt". Or "because the Dems are corrupt, that makes it ok for Trump to be corrupt".

Notice both Old Salt and Pete B are bringing up Hillary or things like Fusion GPS? They think that because the Dems did something, it's ok for Trump to do anything and everything. They think one excuses the other, and don't understand how silly this "reasoning" is.

Oh well.

It's politics as usual. Oh well.
It's only impeachable when a (D) ox is bring gored.

Trump delayed lethal military aid for a few weeks, which was still released well before the deadline.
86% was obligated by 30 Sept, the remainder carried forward in the next CR -- not uncommon.
https://republicans-intelligence.house. ... points.pdf
Given the inherent time delay in the acquisition pipeline, there was no delay of critical weapons or supplies to Ukrainian troops.
The GAO can fuss about a delay, but that does not make it a crime. It's just Congressional bean counters opinion.

Trump's IC & NSC did not leak classified material to damage & undermine his political opponents.
Trump's FBI did not spy on his political opponents.
...at least not that we know of. If they did, I'll condemn them too.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:55 pm**

tech37 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:02 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:07 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:53 am
seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:53 am Trying to distill the President's and Senate GOP's argument to its essence:

“How can we possibly vote to remove the President without seeing all the evidence we’re voting not to see?”
Well put.
It's hilarious watching posters WHO LOST THEIR MINDS for 4 years plus over just the IDEA that a "Deep State" is abusing their power.....suddenly lose about a hundred IQ points when a President with a little R by his name ADMITS to abusing his power.

Are they mad at Trump for this? Well, of course not. Abuse of power just isn't a big deal. BTW fellas, how's that investigation into FISA and Deep State abuses going?

"That's different", right guys?
As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens's obvious conflict of interest. Others in his admin & Congress ultimately prevailed upon him to release the aid within the time allowed. The aid was released. Meanwhile, an investigation of the Biden conflict of interest has been sidetracked.
It's hardly an abuse of the powers of the Deep State to investigate the Biden's obvious conflict(s) of interest.
What are you afraid of ?

How's Schiff's investigation into Lev Parnas going ?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/2 ... nce-101832
some "rock star" that Schiff

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -documents

And when the White House did not turn over documents, the House did ... nothing.

"Did the House take any steps to remedy that?" asked Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin on the Senate floor Tuesday. "Did they try to dispute that? Did they go to court? Did they try to resolve that problem? No. Because as we know, all they wanted to do was issue a subpoena and move on."

Now, Democrats say they really, really want documents. After all, they claim, Bill Clinton turned over those 90,000 documents for his impeachment trial. How could Trump do less? It sounds persuasive — until one finds out what really happened way back in 1998.

The House democrats did do something. They announced to the White House and the republicans prior to the start of the investigation that they (the House democrats) were not going to play wack-a-mole. They told the WH in no uncertain terms, they would assume any non-response to the subpoenas would be considered obstruction of congress and would cause the House to assume any testimony or document not provided would be understood to prejudice the case against the WH and president. Happens all the time in other cases, nothing out of the ordinary here. Try that beans as a private citizen and see what happens.

It is also not true that the House has not taken the WH to court over ignored subpoenas. A dozen different Mueller investigation House subpoenas are currently crawling through the courts now and Trump is losing them all as the courts decide slowly. He will lose more before the November elections.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:01 pm**

I wonder if the D.C. Circuit is holding its decision in the McGahn case until the impeachment trial is over. The trial court’s opinion was issued on November 25. The appeal was expedited; oral argument was held on January 3. I would think the appellate court certainly could’ve ruled by now if they were disposed to do so.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:05 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:51 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:33 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Biden's obvious conflict of interest.
To suggest Trump was seeking a legal way to delay the aid is an extreme advocate’s spin. Even if true, he failed. The GAO has ruled that Trump violated the law. Yeah, the GAO is the Deep State. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But the second part — announcing the Biden investigation — is the more seriously culpable conduct. In short, Trump was trying to rig the 2020 election in his favor. If that isn’t impeachable conduct, then nothing is.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:15 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:11 pm Those supporting Trump don't see what those not supporting Trump see....they don't believe that Trump is corrupt.
That's not it. What they think is "the Dems are corrupt, "therefore", Trump must not be corrupt". Or "because the Dems are corrupt, that makes it ok for Trump to be corrupt".

Notice both Old Salt and Pete B are bringing up Hillary or things like Fusion GPS? They think that because the Dems did something, it's ok for Trump to do anything and everything. They think one excuses the other, and don't understand how silly this "reasoning" is.

Oh well.
It's politics as usual. Oh well.
It's only impeachable when a (D) ox is bring gored.

Trump delayed lethal military aid for a few weeks, which was still released well before the deadline.
86% was obligated by 30 Sept, the remainder carried forward in the next CR.
https://republicans-intelligence.house. ... points.pdf
Given the inherent time delay in the acquisition pipeline, there was no delay of critical weapons or supplies to Ukrainian troops.
The GAO can fuss about a delay, but that does not make it a crime. It's just Congressional bean counters opinion.

Trump's IC & NSC did not leak classified material to damage & undermine his political opponents.
Trump's FBI did not spy on his political opponents.
...at least not that we know of. If they did, I'll condemn them too.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/tr ... e-the-law/

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:06 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:51 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:33 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:44 pm As seacoaster just demonstrated in the preceding post, the President was also seeking a legal way to delay the release of the aid, likely until he could convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Biden's obvious conflict of interest.
To suggest Trump was seeking a legal way to delay the aid is an extreme advocate’s spin. Even if true, he failed. The GAO has ruled that Trump violated the law. Yeah, the GAO is the Deep State. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But the second part — announcing the Biden investigation — is the more seriously culpable conduct. In short, Trump was trying to rig the 2020 election in his favor. If that isn’t impeachable conduct, then nothing is.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:15 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:11 pm Those supporting Trump don't see what those not supporting Trump see....they don't believe that Trump is corrupt.
That's not it. What they think is "the Dems are corrupt, "therefore", Trump must not be corrupt". Or "because the Dems are corrupt, that makes it ok for Trump to be corrupt".

Notice both Old Salt and Pete B are bringing up Hillary or things like Fusion GPS? They think that because the Dems did something, it's ok for Trump to do anything and everything. They think one excuses the other, and don't understand how silly this "reasoning" is.

Oh well.
It's politics as usual. Oh well.
It's only impeachable when a (D) ox is bring gored.

Trump delayed lethal military aid for a few weeks, which was still released well before the deadline.
86% was obligated by 30 Sept, the remainder carried forward in the next CR.

Given the inherent time delay in the acquisition pipeline, there was no delay of critical weapons or supplies to Ukrainian troops.
That sounds like a fact....any link to support that assertion?

The GAO can fuss about a delay, but that does not make it a crime. It's just Congressional bean counters opinion.
The GAO, aka bean counters, is an independent, non-partisan agency. Wanna bet lawyers rendered the opinion, not a CPA?

Trump's IC & NSC did not leak classified material to damage & undermine his political opponents.
Trump's FBI did not spy on his political opponents.
...at least not that we know of. If they did, I'll condemn them too.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:06 pm**

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:48 pm
To suggest Trump was seeking a legal way to delay the aid is an extreme advocate’s spin. Even if true, he failed. The GAO has ruled that Trump violated the law.
And part of the aid was never released.

Because of Trump's illegal hold, Congress had to pass new legislation to authorize for a second time the previously authorized funding that was held.

But who is counting

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:12 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:51 pm It's politics as usual. Oh well.
It's only impeachable when a (D) ox is bring gored.

You think that a McConnell run Senate wouldn't impeach Obama if Obama told the world that he personally ordered the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia? And that you and FoxNation wouldn't be demanding impeachment if that happened.

Told ya, fellas. They think it's ok for Trump to do this because they think the Dems did it. Welcome to the TrumpEra.

Anything goes, "because" the Dems are bad.

Posted: **Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:12 pm**

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:01 pm I wonder if the D.C. Circuit is holding its decision in the McGahn case until the impeachment trial is over. The trial court’s opinion was issued on November 25. The appeal was expedited; oral argument was held on January 3. I would think the appellate court certainly could’ve ruled by now if they were disposed to do so.

If Trump does win a 2nd term, unlikely in my opinion, and the republicans give him a pass on this impeachment, which is highly likely, the House should then just file subpoenas for all the witnesses they would like in this impeachment trial and re-impeach when the subpoenas are ruled on by the courts. I would file the subpoenas within a month of the republicans letting Trump off. There is no downside that I see, but I am not a lawyer. Political downside doesn't exist. Nothing moves the needle.

Don't know the answer to your McGahn question.

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Trump's Russian Collusion

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk