Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block Bolton testimony in Senate

[Into the Night]

Do you mean Trump? I did not say he did (or did not) block anything. But you can't compare anybody illegally blocking a procedure with a veto. I said nothing about Trump in my posts regarding that topic.

Trump didn't illegally block any procedure in the House.

 

[Flash]

Trump didn't illegally block any procedure in the House.

Never said he did (although the House impeached him for it).

 

[Into the Night]

It is illegal to block or impede a congressional investigation.

No, it isn't, and Trump did neither.

Anyone who commits that act can be charged with contempt.

I have contempt for the Democrats of the House. There...I said it. It's all hanging out there pink and naked.

In the unlikely event the Senate votes to convict then Trump will be convicted contempt of Congress.

The House is not Congress.

 

[Into the Night]

Never said he did (although the House impeached him for it).

Yes you did, liar. Do you really think you're going to get away with THAT whopper of a lie?

 

[Flash]

Yes you did, liar. Do you really think you're going to get away with THAT whopper of a lie?

Show me the post where I said Trump blocked an investigation.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

I don't think I said anything about Pelosi. I was speaking of the party officials and supporters as a whole.

If you were talking about Democrats in general that includes Pelosi.

If there was very strong evidence which could have been used in an impeachment those should have been included in the articles.

That is up to the House to decide.

Although Nancy might have resisted it, you can't deny many Democratic officials and JPP posters (representing the views of many Trump haters) have been calling for impeachment for three years.

It is disingenuous to extrapolate that into Democrats as a whole because the faction pushing for impeachment from the beginning was actually a minority of Democrats.

It is a big stretch to claim she had a constitutional duty to bring impeachment proceedings (what constitutional provision?).

The sole power of impeachment rests with the House. That means it is up to the House to oversee the President and ensure that he is not abusing his power. It thus becomes a duty of House members sworn by oath to show allegiance to the Constitution. If not them, then nobody else has the power to do it. Therefore, they must.

Claiming a constitutional duty is just an attempt to disguise a partisan political decision as something patriotic. Nothing wrong with partisan political decisions--we elect our officials on a partisan basis and expect them to make partisan decisions (we just don't like to admit it). That is akin to Trump claiming he had an obligation to care about corruption in the Ukraine.

No, it is not partisan to fulfill Constitutional duty.

I think most readers assume by Democrats we are talking about most (in this case an overwhelming majority). I think you know I don't mean 100% just as you (probably) don't mean 100% when referring to Republicans. When 229 Democrats voted for impeachment and 2 voted against (a third voted against one article) it is an accurate generalization to say Democratic House members supported impeachment. That is a stereotype, but stereotypes can be accurate.

Those votes didn't exist until this evidence came out.

They do not have a sworn duty to impeach. If you say the duty is to uphold the Constitution, both sides make this same claim. It is not proof of non-partisanship when 2 of 229 vote to impeach. It was especially partisan for those two who voted against because they are in swing districts that voted for Trump--so they are seeking to save their seats.

That is an opinion, not fact.

I am not so critical of their actions except it is a waste of time since they know the impeachment cannot result in conviction.

That is also an opinion, not fact.

It is entirely partisan because it attempts to keep negative stories about Trump in the news with an upcoming election. That is a completely normal activity for political parties, they just shouldn't pretend it is because of a constitutional duty. On one day Nancy said it is a solemn occasion and the next she said she was walking with a "spring in her step."

Americans find using political power distasteful so we have to pretend it is something more high-minded.

No, it is never partisan to fulfill the intent of the Constitution. No man is above the law. There must be law enforcement. The executive branch is not above oversight. That duty falls upon the House. The evidence presented was so serious that the House would be neglecting their duty not to take it up.