Welcome to America

[justhavinfun]

Or better yet - If the sheriff shows up at my front door and hands me a subpoena or a warrant to appear in court, the expectation is I will appear right? or the other choice is to have a lawyer show up representing you on that day or earlier with a legal reason as to why I am not showing up ? If I am expected to show up so should ANY POLITICIAN!!! Pure BS...

 

[PoppaJ]

Have I been watching too many cop shows? I thought when you refused to comply with a subpoena, cops showed up at your doorstep, and arrested you. I really had the impression that the Democrats were serious this time, and they were prepared for the inevitable stonewalling. Is there a normal grace period of time to comply with a subpoena? I don't mind sounding obvious but releasing the full intact transcript of the perfect phone call would completely exonerate the president*, right?

That and claiming the subpoenaed officials, who you’re ordering not to appear, testimony would exonerate you.
Anyone connecting the dots yet?

 

[carson]

Re: Syria/Turkey

Here's what will happen:
Kurds will align with Syria; Russia will monitor them. Iran will be exited out of Syria and Lebanon. Syrian refugees who are now in Turkey will be able to return home. We, the US, our guys, will be able to come home. Not to mention the millions of dollars not spent in Syria by the US.

Now let's hear from Col. Douglas MacGregor, who has many years experience in that region break it down. Before you all have a mini freak out, it is on Fox with Tucker, but Tucker asks maybe two questions. MacGregor speaks for 90% of the clip.

Bullshit. Watch what happens and it ain't unicorns and leprechauns. 1000s of years of hate does not have a fairy tale outcome.

 

[PoppaJ]

9 conspiracy theories impeachment will expose and debunk
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-scandal-have-celebrity-status?obOrigUrl=true

 

[Dennyk]

That and claiming the subpoenaed officials, who you’re ordering not to appear, testimony would exonerate you.
Anyone connecting the dots yet?

The only dots to connect is that untill there is a vote on the floor. That no one will be paying attention to any subpoenas. It's not legal to do it the way the Dems are going about it. So if they start following the rules so will everyone else. Pretty simple. Just Nancy not doing her job again.

 

[PoppaJ]

The only dots to connect is that untill there is a vote on the floor. That no one will be paying attention to any subpoenas. It's not legal to do it the way the Dems are going about it. So if they start following the rules so will everyone else. Pretty simple. Just Nancy not doing her job again.

Well then, simply post your proof it’s not legal and that a vote is needed.

I wanted to post this edit that the GOP was warned some of their deeds would come back to haunt them. Why is the GOP refusing to follow the rules they wrote?

Back in 2015, the House Republican majority changed the rules in the House to make it easier for them to subpoena the Obama administration. Rather than involve members of the Democratic minority in the process at all, they simply authorized their own committee chairs to unilaterally issue subpoenas to anyone they wished.

Come January, that may well come back to haunt the dwindling number of Republicans left in the U.S. House of Representatives. The result: for the first time, Donald Trump and his administration may soon face some real oversight.

Unlike some legislative bodies, the House essentially works on simple majority rule. With 218 votes, the majority does not need a single vote from the minority to issue subpoenas for testimony and documents — or to change its own rules. This means that after two years with largely no scrutiny at all, the Trump administration could soon be forced to be transparent with the American public about its conflicts of interest, compliance with the law, and myriad examples of corruption.

 

[Lake View Too]

The only dots to connect is that untill there is a vote on the floor. That no one will be paying attention to any subpoenas. It's not legal to do it the way the Dems are going about it. So if they start following the rules so will everyone else. Pretty simple. Just Nancy not doing her job again.

There is no rule in the house that you have to have a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry. And you can issue a subpoena pertaining to any investigation whether it is about impeachment or not. If you don’t answer to subpoena you are in contempt of Congress and guilty of obstruction of justice. Both are impeachable offenses and both are obviously what a guilty person would do.

 

[FdxUsmc]

There is a precedent in the house. Clinton and Johnson. Dems have denied POTUS 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. Dems 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.
Why are Dems so scared to hold a vote? Could it be they are just playing politics?[/QUOTE]

 

[carson]

And just like that the Turks already bombing the Kurds. So much for kumbaya.

Trump treats allies like he does his whores, love em and leave em.

 

[PoppaJ]

There is a precedent in the house. Clinton and Johnson. Dems have denied POTUS 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. Dems 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.
Why are Dems so scared to hold a vote? Could it be they are just playing politics?

[/QUOTE]
Where is proof of your claim a vote is required? ( Hint: you can't produce what does not exist.) The rules don't say you can't have a vote just you aren't required. Try again.
Also, this is not a legal or criminal procedure so stop confusing yourself.