Jump to content

Republican Oversight Committee rejects Hunter Biden's request to give his testimony in public


VakAttack

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

These are, of course, not facts but your feelings on the matter.  But if you want to go down that route, former president Trump should have been impeached dozens and dozens of times for ACTUALLY violating/ignoring the Hatch Act and, more importantly, the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution.

Talk about acting on your own feelings. You're a lawyer you need to deal with the facts.  Believe me, if the Democrats could have impeached Trump dozens of times they would have. The vitriol hatred for Trump is beyond belief. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Talk about acting on your own feelings. You're a lawyer you need to deal with the facts.  Believe me, if the Democrats could have impeached Trump dozens of times they would have. The vitriol hatred for Trump is beyond belief. 

LOL.  Your reading comprehension skills are weak.  I'm not saying he SHOULD have been impeached for those reasons, I'm simply using your logic of impeaching a president for not enforcing or following the laws of the land in a way you like.  It's undeniable that Trump did violate the Emoluments Clauses and the Hatch Act.  His were particularly brazen, but most administrations violated the act at least once or twice when they're in office.  The Emoluments Clause was the far more pernicious and pathetic violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

LOL.  Your reading comprehension skills are weak.  I'm not saying he SHOULD have been impeached for those reasons, I'm simply using your logic of impeaching a president for not enforcing or following the laws of the land in a way you like.  It's undeniable that Trump did violate the Emoluments Clauses and the Hatch Act.  His were particularly brazen, but most administrations violated the act at least once or twice when they're in office.  The Emoluments Clause was the far more pernicious and pathetic violations.

These are the claims of the most malignant cases of TDS.  They are not only deniable, they’re easily refuted, and have been long abandoned in polite company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line - Biden is about to be impeached for an indeterminate high crime or misdemeanor.  

Some time ago, Lauren Boebert plagiarized MTG's articles of impeachment.  Blood has been spilled on the House floor as Boebert was called a little bitch for that transgression.  Thus, to avoid desecrating the House in vain we should go with whatever that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

These are the claims of the most malignant cases of TDS.  They are not only deniable, they’re easily refuted, and have been long abandoned in polite company. 

Ahhh, the Man with No Substance strikes again, saying nothing while accusing others of having nothing.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20925403/emoluments-clause-trump-g7-resort-impeachment-businesses

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-ducks-opportunity-trump-emoluments-cases#:~:text=Trump violated both Emoluments Clauses,presented ongoing conflicts of interest.

 

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/profiting-off-the-presidency-trumps-violations-of-the-emoluments-clauses/

 

Also notable that there were three suits brought against Trump for these violations, none of which Trump's legal team defended on the merits.  They sought a dismissal of one brought by Congress because they argued Congress didn't have standing to bring the suit.  The other two they lost one at the lower level, but when it made it's way to SCOTUS, the acting chief solicitor for the Trump administration argued that SCOTUS should just sit on the case until after the election, and then rule it moot, since he was out of office...which they did, again conveniently avoiding the merits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the D's were so sure they had Trump dead to rights.   But they didn't.   It was a show and they knew it.   They figured an impeachment would weaken him.   It didn't.   And then they tried to impeach after the 2020 election which is ridiculous. 

The R's seem to be playing something similar.   However, if they can show JB benefited from his own name via HB, then they might have some kind of corruption that could be legally prosecuted after he leaves office.   But nothing will come of this impeachment effort in the short term.   And I don't think anything will happen in the long term to JB.    And perhaps to HB.   We will see. 

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Ahhh, the Man with No Substance strikes again, saying nothing while accusing others of having nothing.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20925403/emoluments-clause-trump-g7-resort-impeachment-businesses

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-ducks-opportunity-trump-emoluments-cases#:~:text=Trump violated both Emoluments Clauses,presented ongoing conflicts of interest.

 

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/profiting-off-the-presidency-trumps-violations-of-the-emoluments-clauses/

 

Also notable that there were three suits brought against Trump for these violations, none of which Trump's legal team defended on the merits.  They sought a dismissal of one brought by Congress because they argued Congress didn't have standing to bring the suit.  The other two they lost one at the lower level, but when it made it's way to SCOTUS, the acting chief solicitor for the Trump administration argued that SCOTUS should just sit on the case until after the election, and then rule it moot, since he was out of office...which they did, again conveniently avoiding the merits.

Same old same old.  First claim he’s guilty, then go looking for a definition that agrees with you.  Not many are falling for it anymore.  Most people understand that if you elect a businessman, he has businesses, and don’t expect him to sell them off while he’s in office.  I remember one of the complaints was that military travelers were staying at his place when laying over at a nearby airport.  It turned out that while true, they had better accommodations and lower costs than other options.  The lawfare that is constantly leveled by the Marxists against Trump is going to have a dim future. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Same old same old.  First claim he’s guilty, then go looking for a definition that agrees with you.  Not many are falling for it anymore.  Most people understand that if you elect a businessman, he has businesses, and don’t expect him to sell them off while he’s in office.  I remember one of the complaints was that military travelers were staying at his place when laying over at a nearby airport.  It turned out that while true, they had better accommodations and lower costs than other options.  The lawfare that is constantly leveled by the Marxists against Trump is going to have a dim future. 

Ah, the rare no sizzle, no steak take!   Neither hat nor cattle for our man here.  Just endless conclusory statements that he just says are true, which is his proof of their truth.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, mspart said:

And the D's were so sure they had Trump dead to rights.   But they didn't.   It was a show and they knew it.   They figured an impeachment would weaken him.   It didn't.   And then they tried to impeach after the 2020 election which is ridiculous. 

The R's seem to be playing something similar.   However, if they can show JB benefited from his own name via HB, then they might have some kind of corruption that could be legally prosecuted after he leaves office.   But nothing will come of this impeachment effort in the short term.   And I don't think anything will happen in the long term to JB.    And perhaps to HB.   We will see. 

mspart

If any of the Biden LLCs were actually doing business instead of bribery would he be claiming “emoluments?”  

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...