I guess what I’m trying to ask (badly I might add)
I get that Trump won’t release documents or respond to a subpoena,
however - are there any documents from “supporting agencies” that could do an end run around his refusal or don’t fall under the control of the executive?
They signed it with their fingers crossed
“Whatever the government can commit, you must acquit!”
Well, as I’ve pointed out before, Induhvidual 1 claimed during the campaign that the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional, so color me unsurprised.
That’s a good question. IOW are there documents NOT under the control of the WH that could be subpoenaed? Probably. But then can’t trump just forbid those places to turn them over the way he has forbidden different people and agencies to cooperate with any investigations? I guess the question is, are there relevant and helpful documents that are beyond the reach of the president’s tiny fat fingers?
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz are whores.
"Alan Dershowitz, who helped negotiate a secretive deal for the billionaire pedophile to avoid federal prosecution, has appeared on Fox News more than 70 times since news of that 2008 deal broke. Not once was he asked about Epstein or the plea deal a judge recently declared unconstitutional.
But Dershowitz isn’t the only member of Epstein’s legal team who has repeatedly gotten a pass from Fox News: famed prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who also helped negotiate the illegal Epstein deal, is a paid Fox News contributor who makes regular appearances across the network."
Where in that article does he claim that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional? He states that he takes the minority viewpoint that birthright citizenship in not part of that amendment. Nowhere does he make the absurd claim that the title of the article says he does.
ETA: birthright citizenship for those here illegally
What does any of this even mean? So they worked as criminal defense attorneys. I am a criminal defense attorney. I guess if you are a really bad criminal, then nobody should represent you or if you represent a really bad criminal you must be a really bad guy.
That viewpoint is directly contrary to the explicit language of the 14th. It specifically says that anyone born in the US is a citizen.
It has nothing to do with them “being criminal defense attorneys” and everything to do with FoxNews ignoring something they would absolutely lose their shit over had someone associated with the Clintons done it.
Also, Dershowitz and Starr are involved with the Trump defense and have been perfectly happy to claim as legitimate behaviors that they claimed were impeachment-worthy when Clinton was in office.
So yes, they’re whores and hypocrites, and FoxNews are just fine with that.
I’m very irritated that I’ve got today off due to having some donated furniture picked up, but there’s no Trump impeachment proceedings being televised.
Not quite.
The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language has led some legal scholars to dispute the birthright citizenship idea for children of those born here when their mother was here illegally.
Now, I’m not trying to hijack the thread, and let’s assume that that position is absolutely incorrect. By subscribing to the belief, it does not suggest, mean, or otherwise come close to the ridiculous assertion that the person is saying that the Fourteen Amendment is Unconstitutional as that headline and the prior poster declared.
If I believe that flag burning is not protected by the First Amendment, you cannot say that I think the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
Again, you may disagree with them, but they are saying that a crime is necessary for impeachment and even if Trump did everything they said he did, there is no crime. Clinton committed a crime.
Maybe that makes them wrong, but it doesn’t make them whores.
“No crime”. Well, the GAO says withholding aid from Ukraine was a crime. as have various other legal opinions. And of course Trump and Barr withholding subpoenaed evidence and directing subpoenaed witnesses not to testify are also crimes.
I am aware the GOP claim there is no crime, but then the GOP say a lot of things that are orthogonal to the truth.
Yup, Republicans sure do believe there has to be a crime to think about impeaching a president.
It is a very pretty fig leaf, I’ll give you that, but it is just a fig leaf to give people like you something to save face for when you vote for a criminal president.
Oh, also Trump committed, at a minimum, bribery, which last I checked was a crime.
That’s an utterly ridiculous basis for a dispute. We can see on a daily basis that illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the US. They get subjected to US jurisdiction probably hundreds of times per day, around the US.
Yes there is, and their prior statements support this. They are hypocrites for having made so many statements before that conduct like Trump’s is criminal, but now suddenly it’s not.
But you agree that making a stupid argument about an amendment does not mean that you are arguing that the amendment is “unconstitutional”?
This is always one my favorite Trumpist arguments as it gives me a good laugh. Trump is so stupid we shouldn’t take the things he says seriously.
You must have meant to quote someone else, because that’s not what I said at all. Not even close.
No, definitely meant to quote you.
Out of curiosity, do you think Trump has done anything wrong during his presidency? If so, what?