Toggle sidebar

Need More Proof.....

T

TarHeelEer

Freshman
Dec 15, 2002
89,338
59
48
moe said:
So you think that vetoing legislation is the same as ignoring subpoenas and requests for documents, etc. during an impeachment or other type of congressional inquiry? :joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to get obstruction of Congress defined. That's pretty broad.

He didn't just ignore subpoenas. They are in the judicial branch now, you know, to settle disputes between legislative and executive. That's a normal process.

So if a normal process is now suddenly obstruction of Congress, how is vetoing a bill from legislative any different?
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
TarHeelEer said:
I'm just trying to get obstruction of Congress defined. That's pretty broad.

He didn't just ignore subpoenas. They are in the judicial branch now, you know, to settle disputes between legislative and executive. That's a normal process.

So if a normal process is now suddenly obstruction of Congress, how is vetoing a bill from legislative any different?
Click to expand...


What part of "he directed cabinet members to not testify" is tripping you up?
 
T

TarHeelEer

Freshman
Dec 15, 2002
89,338
59
48
*crickets* as expected.

I expect every president from the opposite party from the House to be impeached for vetoing a bill now. They have watered down impeachment to mean nothing.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,950
1,667
113
No longer trying to hide their bias, "reporters" from the Washington Post tweeted out a pic of them celebrating last night
"Merry Impeachmas" was the caption with food, beer, and smiles .
 
S

Shirley Knott

Redshirt
May 26, 2017
12,831
0
0
moe said:
Trump was doing this for his personal political gain and Joe did that to get rid of an ineffective prosecutor and did not do it for any political or personal gain. Apparently other countries wanted that prosecutor gone as well, the one Joe got rid of.
Click to expand...
Why would you withhold aid if the prosecutor was so ineffective??
 
W

WVU80ate_rivals

Redshirt
Jun 10, 2003
4,243
0
0
moe said:
lol oh cry me a river. It's not a terrible idea. Why send the articles to the Senate for a sham "trial" where he can be "acquitted"? Senate Repubs have already made it clear that they have zero intention of taking their role seriously.
Click to expand...
Well slow moe, it was a sham House
 
W

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,091
693
0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom