House set to begin formal impeachment hearings

[Jhhnn]

I think he was being sarcastic?

He's reciting the Trumpster creed.

 

[brycejones]

I think he was being sarcastic?

Uh, take a look at Zivic's posting history. I don't believe his latest post is sarcasm.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Uh, take a look at Zivic's posting history. I don't believe his latest post is sarcasm.

oh well, it read like sarcasm, lol. who would state those things with a straight face?

 

[brycejones]

oh well, it read like sarcasm, lol. who would state those things with a straight face?

Someone in the vein of quilver, taj, boomerang, brandonbull, pcgeek11, starbuck, etc.

 

[ElFenix]

I think he was being sarcastic?

nope.

 

[trenchfoot]

I think he was being sarcastic?

To make any sense of it at all, the poster's remarks either had to be sarcasm or ridiculously clumsy thoughtless bot response from one of those Russian financed sites engaged in helping Trump getting reelected.

oh well, it read like sarcasm, lol. who would state those things with a straight face?

Sounds like it was translated from Russian to English whereby the syntax of the comment(s) end up giving the peruser a notion that something screwy is going on with it.

 

[TheVrolok]

This ruling further shows that the impeachment was a scam.

Spin it however you want, but at the end of the day it confirms that there was no obstruction...

Also looks like Ukraine is investigating Biden....

... what?

2 + 2 = carrot?

 

[SMOGZINN]

In all regards, todays ruling, if it stands also removed the ability for the house to use the stg at arms to enforce their inherent contempt powers against the white house because that
authority was granted by the courts in 1821. If they don't have the authority today, how did they have it back then to make such a ruling?

That is not exactly true. That power was not granted to Congress by the court, the court found that Congress always had that power. Even if we remove that courts opinion Congress still has that power, all the court did was recognize it.

Todays ruling just made the President and his administration untouchable since the GOP Senate won't do anything about it.

Actually it did the same thing for Congress. Think about it. If the court has decided it can't get involved with such decisions, who could stop them if House Democrats they just started throwing people in jail for any reason they see fit? This is why each branch of government is supposed to check and balance the others.

 

[NWRMidnight]

That is not exactly true. That power was not granted to Congress by the court, the court found that Congress always had that power. Even if we remove that courts opinion Congress still has that power, all the court did was recognize it.



Actually it did the same thing for Congress. Think about it. If the court has decided it can't get involved with such decisions, who could stop them if House Democrats they just started throwing people in jail for any reason they see fit? This is why each branch of government is supposed to check and balance the others.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states that they have such power, or rather that states the sgt of arms has the authority to arrest anyone outside of congress grounds. It was decided by the courts in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821). what it comes down to is the court at that time had the authority to make such ruling. Now they say they don't have the authority to get involved with disputes between congress and the white house. So, if that is the case, how can the ruling from 1821 stand if it is against the White House/administration? so my statement stands. Either they do, or they don't. They can't ha e it both ways.

If previous ruling where being followed by this administration, the case would have never been in the courts because it has been ruled that congress has the authority to issue subpoenas and must be followed.

If making either the White House or Congress untouchable, doesn't that completely remove all checks and balances? Taking away any authority to do so as neither side would have to follow any form of law, legal or constitutional? We already see it from the White House. Where would we be if the House, the Senate join the white house in ignoring such laws if they truly are untouchable??

Don't get me wrong, I believe what you to say is theoretically true, but we are talking about the current administration and political climate. I wouldn't put it past any of them to attempt it. Specially if the house starts attesting people.