Nah you said we can't have anything but the most purest of souls!
How dare he have 2 scoops of the icecream whole only offering 1 to his guests! Off with his head!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump loses the ability to block subpoena
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Nah you said we can't have anything but the most purest of souls!
How dare he have 2 scoops of the icecream whole only offering 1 to his guests! Off with his head!
Well they have up to 7 days to comply. Rest assured they will comply, but it will be at the very last second legally.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not all of them. The CIA explains it as well.
esmith
Veteran Member
That is a problem with a lot of you. You do not seem to have any idea how a security clearance works.
Just because one has a security clearance does mandate that one can look at all documents that are within your security clearance level.
You must have, and I repeat, must have "The Need To Know".
I think this judge’s ruling addressed the “need to know” issue.
“History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation,"
...
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"
In other words Congress has a clear and valid “need to know”.
esmith
Veteran Member
Not necessarily.
see: Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information
"Need-to-know" means a determination made by an authorized holder of classified information that a prospective recipient requires access to specific classified information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function..
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The reality should be clear by now, namely that Trump thinks he's above the law and that the "rule of law" is just an obstacle to him. He has autocratic tendencies, which is why he loves and praises "strong leaders" like Putin, Kim, and even praised Saddam Hussein. Even Nixon and the Clintons did ignore the subpoenas as Trump is doing.
He is now the number one threat to this country, imo, and it's utterly appalling how many Americans really don't seem to care how he acts that's contrary to democratic values. To me, they are just as corrupt as he is.
He is now the number one threat to this country, imo, and it's utterly appalling how many Americans really don't seem to care how he acts that's contrary to democratic values. To me, they are just as corrupt as he is.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are wrong in this regard. When it comes to the investigation of the President the Congress does have the "right to know" And this is largely a red herring since the redacted material was said not to be due to security reasons in the first place. The original claim by Trumpettes was that the material was only to be shown before a Grand Jury. That failed because for investigations of the President the House of Representatives is the "Grand Jury". A Grand Jury decides whether a case should go to trial or not and that is what impeachment is. It is a process that starts the trial of the removal of the President and it begins in the Congress.
So was the material redacted because it was for a Grand Jury or due to security? That redacted for security is still probably covered by the "need to know" for Congress since that is their job, though it could be limited to a smaller portion of Congress. But this just looks like another failed argument that tries to keep this investigation moving on properly.
I think I will go with this specific Judge’s specific ruling on this specific issue in this specific case over your vague citation. But thank you.
Hyperbole for effect, or just 'cause you're in the mood?
It's not much of an exaggeration.
If you want to sit here and preach about how leaders need to have the proper character etc. Yes, I will call you out for being a faux puritan.
As usual, you have misunderstood me -- just enough to paint me black.It's not much of an exaggeration.
If you want to sit here and preach about how leaders need to have the proper character etc. Yes, I will call you out for being a faux puritan.
I did not say that leaders need to have anything at all. I said what I expect out of those who I am willing to call a leader, and thus to follow. I echoed that in my statement about the sorts of people I would invite into my home. I did not say I require people to be anything at, I just made clear what I would consider behaviour that I care to have around me.
No, you call attitudes and positions that don't agree with yours "BS." I have a philosophical perspective that differs from yours, and therefore you deem it to be faulty, and me to be both a simpleton and disingenuous.I understand you just fine, I just call out BS when I see it.
You really do not see it as a possibility that perspectives not your own can have any merit, and you have therefore felt no compunction whatever about labelling me a simpleton (for a sincere desire to trust first, in the absence of any reason not to), and "puritan" for desiring that political leaders who presume to speak for meat least behave with a modicum of decent manners.
Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, I speak honestly and from my heart. And since your apparently disparage that sort of thing, I'd appreciate you ignoring me, as I shall henceforth ignore you. You are not, in the end, looking much like the sort of person I'd invite into my personal space.
No, I just don't think you genuinely hold people to the expectations you say you do. Which is what I am calling out as BS.
I could be wrong though, it's just my opinion.
Riders
Well-Known Member
Some Republicans are shouting as some of you maybe who cares what are you gonna do , your just making a fool out of yourselves because nothing wioll come of it.
I heard last there are about 4 or 5 things that can come from it.Number one the over sight committee has a job to do this part of it so they are doing their job and the President should comply to it.
Number 2. All presidents have turned over their taxes because we have the right to see their taxes and if they are moral in their finances.
3. It could affect Trump negatively in 2020 if he has cheated on his taxes
4. If they have good proof he has cheated on his taxes or finances, some Democrats are trying to call for impeachment now but this could give the paper work and document proof necessary for Pelosi and Republicans to vote for impeachment start the process.
5. It could be the start of maybe starting new laws and bills in the future as well.
6. The courts could ticket Trump so he has to pay some fines for tax cheating.
I heard last there are about 4 or 5 things that can come from it.Number one the over sight committee has a job to do this part of it so they are doing their job and the President should comply to it.
Number 2. All presidents have turned over their taxes because we have the right to see their taxes and if they are moral in their finances.
3. It could affect Trump negatively in 2020 if he has cheated on his taxes
4. If they have good proof he has cheated on his taxes or finances, some Democrats are trying to call for impeachment now but this could give the paper work and document proof necessary for Pelosi and Republicans to vote for impeachment start the process.
5. It could be the start of maybe starting new laws and bills in the future as well.
6. The courts could ticket Trump so he has to pay some fines for tax cheating.
And the Mueller report should have been the end of it. It cleared Trump of conspiracy and obstruction but Congress refuses to accept that judgment.
No, its voluntary. You have no right to see it. If so please sight the law that states this is a right or that the President has to submit his taxes.
Not with this economy!
Rich people cheating on their taxes is not anything new. I bet 100% of Congress paid less in taxes than they should have. If Trump releases his then we should see all of Congress tax returns as well. That would shut up the nonsense about the right to examine tax info extremely quickly.
Even if he did cheat, it will not change anyone's opinion with this strong prosperous economy.
Kinda of a catch 22 there huh? Need the tax info to impeach, but can't get the tax info without a good reason to impeach. Guess the Dems are just s.o.l.
Doubtful, the dems will just use the same laws to protect themselves further down the line, nothing will change.
Considering Congress asked A.G.Barr to obstruct justice (a felony) in order to view Trumps tax returns, then threatened Barr with contempt for not obstructing justice. I think this will go down as unfavorable/reprehensible for the Dems in the judgement. I wouldn't hold my breath, itll be 4-5 years and more than likely the Dems will lose or be forced to still only have the less redacted documents,.which are already available to them.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry but that simply is false.
In regards to "conspiracy", even though there was no criminal actions detected that directly involved Trump, nevertheless many in his staff were working with the Russians and yet denied it. Why would they do that if there was nothing they did wrong?
Also, remember that Trump asked the Russians at a campaign rally to release any hacked e-mails by Hillary, and then he praised Wikileaks for the e-mails illegally hacked by the Russians.
As far as "obstruction" is concerned, Mueller in his report said that there was definite evidence for such but that he would leave it up to Congress to decide what to do or not do next. Clearly there was and still is "obstruction" as we are still seeing that with Trump's refusal to honor subpoenas and to try and "stonewall" every attempt by the House to do what is legal under the Constitution in regards to "oversight".
To sum this up, so many of Trump's actions betray the fact that he is continuing to try and stop numerous investigations, which begs the question as to why would he do that if he's innocent? If I'm innocent, I want all this information to come out to clearly show that I'm innocent. But Trump clearly ain't doing that.
Bad manners won't be among the charges in the articles of impeachment.
I think that we can pretty much conclude that anybody that still supports Trump doesn't care about character, or as you suggest, cares about money more.
You seem to consider those that do care about character puritans. I just consider them decent people.
The House Democrats have no duty to accept the judgments of Barr or Mueller. They are not only free to investigate, they duty-bound, oversight being a major function of Congress, and not provided by the formerly all Republican Congress. It appears that Mueller didn't investigate all of Trump's alleged crimes, especially the financial crimes, and Barr is trying to cover-up that which Mueller did expose..
And no, Trump is not cleared of either obstruction or conspiracy. He commits obstruction of justice several times a week trying to prevent the legitimate investigation of him
Once again, there are still people in America who care about character. I wouldn't hire somebody that cheats at golf. Nor would they be my friend. I sure don't want such a person being president. Trump's lack of character is a continual problem for the United States, and has lowered the esteem of the rest of the world for America and the American people. It's lowered by opinion of America and the American people.
Everybody with a sense of what is decent and proper knows that Trump has to go by any means. Although impeachment is not a coup, I wouldn't object to one.
I am constantly hearing and reading comments like the one from Trump recently complaining that Congress was harassing him instead of doing their jobs, and I think to myself, why does he think we care if he is being harassed? Or that the Democrats are being partisan. Again, I seem them as acting appropriately whatever you want to call it, but wouldn't mind if all of this was what is being falsely claimed - just partisan harassment aimed at a coup.
Perhaps, had it been thorough and been released to more than just Barr, but it apparently wasn't either of those things. The Mueller report seems to have accomplished nothing, and since much of it is being withheld from the Democrats, what choice do they have but repeat the entire investigation process themselves from scratch, but this time investigating all of the crimes.
The House Democrats will decide for themselves when they are satisfied that they have all of the facts available. I'd like to know more about election tampering, and see something done to secure the elections before 2020. The Republicans had two years to look into that, and failed in their oversight duties. One has to wonder why. But until that's fixed, America's elections can be controlled from the Kremlin.
Yes, they do. They want to know what happened. It appears that Trump supporters don't. Look away. Nothing to see here.
And you don't think that that applies to Congress investigating possible crimes in the White House? Congress has a need to know if the American president is a criminal whose crimes might include selling out the United States for personal gain. Is that enough need-to-know?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So there we have it .... Rich people cheat on their taxes all the time! So who cares if crimes were committed! Everybody does it! Nobody really cares about the law anyway! Pathetic.
Let me ask you, what happens when a regular Joe Shmoe cheats on his taxes? Does everyone just proclaim that it's okay because people cheat on their taxes all the time? No worries? Hardly.