cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: The truth


@Canuck_2 wrote:

Yes i understand but why has your dear leader kept so many witnesses and documents hidden by refusing to turn over and allow those people to testify?

Those who did testify all point to bad things being done by your dear leader and his cronies so until there is evidence to counter them that is the story that will stand in history and thinking peoples minds no matter if his supporters continue to hide more evidence and rig the system so he gets off.

A quote from this article.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-americas-foregone-conclusion...

“Completely partisan,” the minority leader accurately described the impending marathon. (Gilbert and Sullivan beat Schumer to this tack by a 130 years in HMS Pinafore: “I always voted at my party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all,” they gibed of a loyal MP. Nothing has changed.)


You're not as stupid as you sound here.  

Why would anyone turn anything over to an unconstitutional search and breach of privacy?

If the house believed him guilty and deserving of an investigation, investigate him by means of the law and as designed by the constitution.   

Since they did not, there is no reason to provide anything for an unconstitutional search.  

 

Pelosi and Schiff are trying to put off their own trials and hoping for a get out of jail free card in the process by illegally trying to search the President hoping for dirt to be used. 

You seem so bothered by American politics.... you should fly to England to gravel gravel in front of the queen directly, maybe that will give you some solace?   Oh, no worries, they are sending her son over to live among you.  Lolol

 

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: The truth

Trump kept nothing hidden. He demanded the court rule if he has to turn over certain documents. The same as every other US citizens. Why did the house vote on articles of impeachment for which they had no proof? Why do they demand from the senate that which they did not do?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: The truth

Why would anyone turn anything over to an unconstitutional search and breach of privacy?

 

And a subpoena is what if not a legal requirement to appear and/or hand over documents?

Now if you do not respond to a subpoena what are the consequences?  Could you be charged with obstruction of justice?

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: The truth

That would be for the courts to decide. Nancy should have waited for their ruling.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: The truth


@Canuck_2 wrote:

Why would anyone turn anything over to an unconstitutional search and breach of privacy?

 

And a subpoena is what if not a legal requirement to appear and/or hand over documents?

Now if you do not respond to a subpoena what are the consequences?  Could you be charged with obstruction of justice?


 

Lol... a legally issued subpoena has consequences, absolutely correct.  So logically, why are you asking if they could be charged with obstruction, instead of them already being charged with obstruction?

Does your "subpoena" not have that very important and necessary aspect to be an actual legal subpoena?

 

Nancy knows, lawfare knows...  do you still not get it?

😂😂😂

Highlighted
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: The truth