-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
It's official, Trump has been Acquitted
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
nonobaddog
Grandmaster
There you go, Thank you. I just knew something was missing but I couldn't put my finger on it.
White noise:
<span style="color:#800080;">[video=youtube;i85ob2DackI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85ob2DackI[/video]
Black noise (language warning so I won't imbed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51t1OsPSdBc
<span style="color:#800080;">[video=youtube;i85ob2DackI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85ob2DackI[/video]
Black noise (language warning so I won't imbed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51t1OsPSdBc
Well he is about to be the first president to nominate an openly gay person for a cabinet position. Let's wait and how the MSM covers it.
I'm sure they'll give him all the praise and admiration they would heap on a Democrat president for this historic first.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/brea...o-name-top-ambassador-to-head-of-intelligence
Well, that’s how I would define TDS. No one is all bad all the time. If someone can’t admit that Trump can and does do good things, I would say that’s definitely TDS. But there’s such a thing as not being capable of admitting that Trump can and does do bad things. Letting part of the swamp out fits into that category, especially when it’s a State issue. The state of Illinois put that mother****er in jail. 18 years sounds pretty reasonable. Trump should have stayed out of it.
nonobaddog
Grandmaster
You seem to be hung up on this "blind loyalty" and "not being capable of admitting that Trump can and does do bad things" when most of the Trump supporters have already said they disagree with Trump's move to commute that sentence. Or are you ignoring that?
ETA - actually most of that discussion is in another thread but you have posted in that thread so I guess you have seen it.
Actually it was the Feds that put Blago in jail. Trump has no authority to commute or pardon state crimes.
I don't care if the orange man was green, I'm still humping his leg.
That quote will be archived for future use.......
Dropping at 5PM on a Friday, the DC Court of Appeals utterly eviscerates the entire premise for the "Obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment, by overturning the District court ruling requiring Don McGahn to testify, and telling the lower court to dismiss the House Judiciary Committee's suit outright:
"We lack jurisdiction to hear and therefore dismiss the Committee’s lawsuit because it does not present an Article III case or controversy. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct that the complaint be dismissed."
Link to opinion.
Some parts of interest to me:
"We conclude that separation-of-powers principles and historical practice compel us to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the Committee’s suit to enforce a congressional subpoena against the Executive Branch."
(In other words: this is a straightforward matter of separation of powers.)
"In United States v. Nixon, for instance, the Supreme Court resolved President Nixon’s claims of executive privilege against a subpoena issued by a district court. That case was clearly within a federal court’s power to adjudicate; it involved a subpoena issued under the court’s own authority in the “regular course of a federal criminal prosecution.” Indeed, the Supreme Court reiterated that “the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch [is] to do justice in criminal prosecutions.” (“The distinction Nixon drew between criminal and civil proceedings is not just a matter of formalism.”). Unlike Nixon, this case involves an effort to enforce a congressional subpoena lacking the same impact on the rights of private actors."
(In other words: the House Judiciary Committee-issued "subpoenas" carried no legal weight or authority.)
"But what about this case? What about the President’s blatant refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into his alleged wrongdoing? To the dissent, that this obstruction should go unredressed seems unimaginable.
Nevertheless, the inevitable consequence of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is that Congress will obtain only the concessions it can wrest from the Executive Branch with the ample but imperfect tools at its disposal. Sometimes, those tools will yield fewer concessions than Congress might wish, but the remedy for that perceived wrong is in politics or at the ballot box. If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual “overseer” of our elected officials. That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case."
(In other words: separation of powers is a feature, not a bug. And the actions of activist judges lead to unintended consequences.)
I skimmed, but did not find any discussion of, the fundamental flaw in the House Judiciary's case: that the House never voted to delegate to/authorize the House Judiciary committee to execute the House's constitutional "sole power of impeachment" enumerated authority. (The House voted to "affirm" the Speaker's investigation, which is, constitutionally, not the same thing.) Thus, the House Judiciary never issued any subpoena under said constitutional authority, which is why said subpoenas never carried any legal enforcement weight.
"We lack jurisdiction to hear and therefore dismiss the Committee’s lawsuit because it does not present an Article III case or controversy. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct that the complaint be dismissed."
Link to opinion.
Some parts of interest to me:
"We conclude that separation-of-powers principles and historical practice compel us to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the Committee’s suit to enforce a congressional subpoena against the Executive Branch."
(In other words: this is a straightforward matter of separation of powers.)
"In United States v. Nixon, for instance, the Supreme Court resolved President Nixon’s claims of executive privilege against a subpoena issued by a district court. That case was clearly within a federal court’s power to adjudicate; it involved a subpoena issued under the court’s own authority in the “regular course of a federal criminal prosecution.” Indeed, the Supreme Court reiterated that “the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch [is] to do justice in criminal prosecutions.” (“The distinction Nixon drew between criminal and civil proceedings is not just a matter of formalism.”). Unlike Nixon, this case involves an effort to enforce a congressional subpoena lacking the same impact on the rights of private actors."
(In other words: the House Judiciary Committee-issued "subpoenas" carried no legal weight or authority.)
"But what about this case? What about the President’s blatant refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into his alleged wrongdoing? To the dissent, that this obstruction should go unredressed seems unimaginable.
Nevertheless, the inevitable consequence of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is that Congress will obtain only the concessions it can wrest from the Executive Branch with the ample but imperfect tools at its disposal. Sometimes, those tools will yield fewer concessions than Congress might wish, but the remedy for that perceived wrong is in politics or at the ballot box. If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual “overseer
(In other words: separation of powers is a feature, not a bug. And the actions of activist judges lead to unintended consequences.)
I skimmed, but did not find any discussion of, the fundamental flaw in the House Judiciary's case: that the House never voted to delegate to/authorize the House Judiciary committee to execute the House's constitutional "sole power of impeachment" enumerated authority. (The House voted to "affirm" the Speaker's investigation, which is, constitutionally, not the same thing.) Thus, the House Judiciary never issued any subpoena under said constitutional authority, which is why said subpoenas never carried any legal enforcement weight.
I think it just means the Democrats had no valid charges to bring against the President.
This is nothing new.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere -
mom45Momerator
Members online
- joe138
- coltaceguy
- lane2010
- frenchiectfd2203
- edwea
- Jndturner317
- Gingerbeardman
- tommy-t
- JR50
- erasure
- jcj54
- femurphy77
- Frosty
- usmcdjb
- ECS686
- KellyinAvon
- mmpsteve
- gpasp101
- Mgderf
- jsharmon7
- mom45
- 92FSTech
- led4thehed2
- Dale Dan Tony
- Mounty09
- COOPADUP
- Magyars
- chuckp
- Dyloch
- SEIndSAM
- mcapo
- hhi7410
- jspy5
- Knight Rider
- MDpolo
- vwarren
- jsn_mooney
- cmann250
- sp3worker
- tinmansinoz
- Glocktard
- Kaardomos
- Butch627
- WhitleyStu
- thatjimboguy
- BrentTheBoat
- Slow Hand
- master*photog
- jwamplerusa
- FireBirdDS
