Legislative Branch v. Executive Branch.

[The Dunedein]

Kupperman. The House of Representatives served him with a subpoena to testify in the impeachment inquiry. The White House sent him a letter instructing him to not testify, advising him that he would be protected by constitutional immunity. Kupperman's lawyer filed a declaratory judgment action asking a federal judge to tell him what to do (to "declare" his rights and obligations), as he is caught between conflicting orders from the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.

If the court accepts this request, the ruling will be very interesting in laying out the relative powers of two branches of our federal government in this context. Now that several of these unusual, but obviously important, issues are winding their way through the court system, we should begin to get some clarity on them. I hope the court accepts this request, we need guidance from someone who matters.

 

[Gunny46]

Kupperman. The House of Representatives served him with a subpoena to testify in the impeachment inquiry. The White House sent him a letter instructing him to not testify, advising him that he would be protected by constitutional immunity. Kupperman's lawyer filed a declaratory judgment action asking a federal judge to tell him what to do (to "declare" his rights and obligations), as he is caught between conflicting orders from the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.

If the court accepts this request, the ruling will be very interesting in laying out the relative powers of two branches of our federal government in this context. Now that several of these unusual, but obviously important, issues are winding their way through the court system, we should begin to get some clarity on them. I hope the court accepts this request, we need guidance from someone who matters.

The Senate is not convicting Trump in this silly attempt to deflect from the upcoming Horowitz IG report that will show why Durham has opened a criminal investigation. All the gas lighting in the world is not going to stop the truth from being exposed.

 

[MountaineerWV]

The Senate is not convicting Trump in this silly attempt to deflect from the upcoming Horowitz IG report that will show why Durham has opened a criminal investigation. All the gas lighting in the world is not going to stop the truth from being exposed.

I agree, they won't convict. However, why are you so confident that Trump is clean? Or is it just "well so-and-so president did this-or-that and wasn't impeached"?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Kupperman. The House of Representatives served him with a subpoena to testify in the impeachment inquiry. The White House sent him a letter instructing him to not testify, advising him that he would be protected by constitutional immunity. Kupperman's lawyer filed a declaratory judgment action asking a federal judge to tell him what to do (to "declare" his rights and obligations), as he is caught between conflicting orders from the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.

If the court accepts this request, the ruling will be very interesting in laying out the relative powers of two branches of our federal government in this context. Now that several of these unusual, but obviously important, issues are winding their way through the court system, we should begin to get some clarity on them. I hope the court accepts this request, we need guidance from someone who matters.

I think there is already plenty of legal precedence to answer this question, dating back to Nixon - he must answer the subpoena.

 

[Brushy Bill]

If he wasn't clean then they wouldn't have to keep making up **** to sling at him.

 

[Gunny46]

I agree, they won't convict. However, why are you so confident that Trump is clean? Or is it just "well so-and-so president did this-or-that and wasn't impeached"?

Come back after the IG report drops and learn why Durham is conducting a criminal investigation. You guys will be nice and " woke" by then.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

If he wasn't clean then they wouldn't have to keep making up **** to sling at him.

Come back after the IG report drops and learn why Durham is conducting a criminal investigation. You guys will be nice and " woke" by then.

And the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary.

 

[Gunny46]

And the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary.

Never got an answer on if you think Brennan pleads the 5th or not?

 

[Gunny46]

And the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary.

What's your opinion on McCabe? He dropped his civil FOIA suit against the DOJ. Is he now singing like a little ***** or does he now needs to divert legal fees to his potential criminal case? Nov 1 should tell us more.

 

[Gunny46]

And the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary.

Never got an answer on if you think Brennan pleads the 5th or not?

What's your opinion on McCabe? He dropped his civil suit against the DOJ. Is he now singing like a little ***** or does he now needs to divert legal fees to his potential criminal case?

 

[MountaineerWV]

Come back after the IG report drops and learn why Durham is conducting a criminal investigation. You guys will be nice and " woke" by then.

So, is your answer that Trump is perfectly "clean" in his actions as president? What do you think about the fact that he refuses to allow his staff to bring a notepad to meetings or to take down ANY notes from his meetings? Odd.....or......protecting himself from what he says behind closed doors?

 

[Gunny46]

So, is your answer that Trump is perfectly "clean" in his actions as president? What do you think about the fact that he refuses to allow his staff to bring a notepad to meetings or to take down ANY notes from his meetings? Odd.....or......protecting himself from what he says behind closed doors?

What part of there is criminal investigation being conducted by John Durham of the idiots that brought you the Russia hoax don't you understand.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Russia hoax.

HAHAHAHAHA!

f’ucking moron.

 

[Gunny46]

HAHAHAHAHA!

f’ucking moron.

Does Brennan plead the 5th or not dipshit?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Does Brennan plead the 5th or not dipshit?

Is he ignoring subpoenas?

 

[Brushy Bill]

He's ignoring pieces of paper that are calling themselves subpoenas.

 

[Gunny46]

Is he ignoring subpoenas?

Does the 5th or not ?

 

[roadtrasheer]

Does the 5th or not ?

I dont think he will, i think by the time they get to him his name will be on enough signed documents that he tries for a plea bargain or testifies to try & cover his own a$$ & prove that the other rats lied on him & tried to blame him for it all......i could be wrong been wrong before ....i normally dont make predictions....

 

[Gunny46]

I dont think he will, i think by the time they get to him his name will be on enough signed documents that he tries for a plea bargain or testifies to try & cover his own a$$ & prove that the other rats lied on him & tried to blame him for it all......i could be wrong been wrong before ....i normally dont make predictions....

All great points however I'm waiting on the simpleton to answer. :wink:

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

The Senate is not convicting Trump in this silly attempt to deflect from the upcoming Horowitz IG report that will show why Durham has opened a criminal investigation. All the gas lighting in the world is not going to stop the truth from being exposed.

Stay on point.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

HAHAHAHAHA!

f’ucking moron.

Definitely lower IQ than Brushy

 

[Gunny46]

Stay on point.

Definitely lower IQ than Brushy

I'm staying on point you moron. Some of the same people involved in the Russia hoax are involved in the Ukraine hoax. You understand the predicate for that investigation is now under criminal investigation don't you. It was all in the news yesterday. Would you support a criminal investigation in the corruption that has been going on Ukraine for years by DOJ investigators ?

 

[roadtrasheer]

All great points however I'm waiting on the simpleton to answer. :wink:

Yeah i know you are ...better off beating on the cows to come home ..lol

 

[Soaring Eagle 74]

The Senate is not convicting Trump in this silly attempt to deflect from the upcoming Horowitz IG report that will show why Durham has opened a criminal investigation. All the gas lighting in the world is not going to stop the truth from being exposed.

What’s hilarious is that you’re doing all the gaslighting.

 

[MountaineerWV]

What part of there is criminal investigation being conducted by John Durham of the idiots that brought you the Russia hoax don't you understand.

You never answered my question...........

 

[dave]

Is he ignoring subpoenas?

He ignored the law.

 

[Gunny46]

You never answered my question...........

John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation of the predicate of Mueller's investigation. I can't wait to see the meltdown when his purview is expanded from April 2017 to Nov 2019. His purview is pretty big now ! I bet Mueller has purview envy.

 

[Gunny46]

What’s hilarious is that you’re doing all the gaslighting.

True or False? John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation.

 

[atlkvb]

Kupperman. The House of Representatives served him with a subpoena to testify in the impeachment inquiry. The White House sent him a letter instructing him to not testify, advising him that he would be protected by constitutional immunity. Kupperman's lawyer filed a declaratory judgment action asking a federal judge to tell him what to do (to "declare" his rights and obligations), as he is caught between conflicting orders from the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.

If the court accepts this request, the ruling will be very interesting in laying out the relative powers of two branches of our federal government in this context. Now that several of these unusual, but obviously important, issues are winding their way through the court system, we should begin to get some clarity on them. I hope the court accepts this request, we need guidance from someone who matters.

Hey Dunedein, is it your opinion the courts will view the subpoena from Schiff's intel committee compulsory since the "inquiry" behind it is not an officially sanctioned function of a fully approved formal House investigation?

What compels anyone form the Executive branch to participate in the current process if they are not even allowed to call rebuttal witnesses or view previous possibly exculpatory testimony?

 

[WVU80ate_rivals]

So, is your answer that Trump is perfectly "clean" in his actions as president? What do you think about the fact that he refuses to allow his staff to bring a notepad to meetings or to take down ANY notes from his meetings? Odd.....or......protecting himself from what he says behind closed doors?

Honestly, if true, do you blame him? When the media, press, Democrats, and staff (“A Warning” book) are out to get you and frame you, why would you? If he said “I saw the sun in the East”. People would ask why is Donald Jr in the East? Did Trump just admit Don Jr was in Russia?” Seriously, you liberals just need to GTF lost!! We’re sick of your ****! We spoke in 2016. Were gonna speak again in 2020!

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Hey Dunedein, is it your opinion the courts will view the subpoena from Schiff's intel committee compulsory since the "inquiry" behind it is not an officially sanctioned function of a fully approved formal House investigation?

Yes, subpoenas must be responded to. Why do you think witnesses have been giving depositions? LOL!

Officially sanctioned function? LOL! Three committees have began an impeachment inquiry.

What compels anyone form the Executive branch to participate in the current process if they are not even allowed to call rebuttal witnesses or view previous possibly exculpatory testimony?

Executive branch employees can be served with subpoenas or be deposed. They are not allowed to ignore them. Stop listening to dumbass Donnie who doesn’t know his *** from a hole in the ground. Rebuttal witnesses can be called during the trial in the Senate. Dunedein already explained that to you, dumbass.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

So, is your answer that Trump is perfectly "clean" in his actions as president? What do you think about the fact that he refuses to allow his staff to bring a notepad to meetings or to take down ANY notes from his meetings? Odd.....or......protecting himself from what he says behind closed doors?

I’ll answer why I think he’s clean.

the press has had the full unredacted FISA app for 2 years and they haven’t shown it. That is also the basis for why there is a criminal investigation.

 

[atlkvb]

Yes, subpoenas must be responded to. Why do you think witnesses have been giving depositions? LOL!

Officially sanctioned function? LOL! Three committees have began an impeachment inquiry.




Executive branch employees can be served with subpoenas or be deposed. They are not allowed to ignore them. Stop listening to dumbass Donnie who doesn’t know his *** from a hole in the ground. Rebuttal witnesses can be called during the trial in the Senate. Dunedein already explained that to you, dumbass.

You are arguing a formal vote doesn't have to be taken among House members to open an inquiry into a formal impeachment correct? (Simple yes or no?)

 

[atlkvb]

Yes, subpoenas must be responded

Just track with me here country so we can make sure what we're arguing here OK?

So just to clarify, it is your opinion the Speaker of the House only needs to declare an impeachment inquiry to make it official? (Yes or No?)

 

[atlkvb]

Are members of the minority party bound by simple declarations from the Speaker of the House? Is the Executive branch Constitutionally bound to respond to an impeachment inquiry simply declared by the Speaker? (Yes or No?)

 

[atlkvb]

@countryroads89 has a formal impeachment inquiry ever before been introduced to the House simply by declaration of the Speaker? (Yes or No?)

I'll wait for you to answer any of these previous questions with a simple "Yes" or "No" before proceeding to the follow up questions.

See I'm stupid...so I have to keep it simple so I don't confuse you. My KISS to you country. (Keep it simple stupid)

OK...so Yes or No on any question I've asked you in posts #33, #34, #35 or this one.

Can you answer a simple "Yes" or "No" question?

 

[MountaineerWV]

John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation of the predicate of Mueller's investigation. I can't wait to see the meltdown when his purview is expanded from April 2017 to Nov 2019. His purview is pretty big now ! I bet Mueller has purview envy.

You still never answered the question.....which tells me you are a man that doesn't like to outright lie.....so you can't bring yourself to say that Trump is crooked.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Honestly, if true, do you blame him? When the media, press, Democrats, and staff (“A Warning” book) are out to get you and frame you, why would you? If he said “I saw the sun in the East”. People would ask why is Donald Jr in the East? Did Trump just admit Don Jr was in Russia?” Seriously, you liberals just need to GTF lost!! We’re sick of your ****! We spoke in 2016. Were gonna speak again in 2020!

Actually, you could argue that "we" didn't speak in 2016......by saying "we" you are talking about the voters.....AND.....the popular vote did NOT go to Trump......and then in 2018 midterm election results.........

Nice try.

 

[Gunny46]

You still never answered the question.....which tells me you are a man that doesn't like to outright lie.....so you can't bring yourself to say that Trump is crooked.

The people that have told you he's crooked are now under criminal investigation by John Durhan. Get it ?

 

[atlkvb]

@countryroads89 ...I'm being straight up honest with you, I am very uncomfortable holding this bet with you because you consistently dodge even the most rudimentary questions. How do I know you will honor this bet?

You just cannot be trusted. I've asked you 4 simple "yes" or "no" questions trying to establish if this current impeachment "inquiry" carries Constitutional authority by mere declaration of the Speaker of the House and thus compels subpoenaed witnesses from the Executive to testify before House committees without Republicans or the President being able to call their own witnesses in rebuttals during this "inquiry" or view previous testimony.

I can't imagine why you won't answer me with a simple "yes" or "no" so I can know how to respond to you with follow up questions to determine if this "inquiry" is a legitimate Constitutionally binding process?

So let me ask you this and see if I can get an simple answer?

"Yes" or "No" if the House does not impeach Trump, will you leave this forum for a year as you promised? Simple "yes" or "no"?

Finally, since we're talking about the Constitution and a process here, can the House impeach Trump without taking a formal vote? ("yes" or "no"?)

If you don't answer me, I'm just not going to post you anymore until this whole thing is settled because you are frustrating the Hell out of me with your rank dishonesty and deceit. I don't think you have any intentions of leaving this forum if Trump is not impeached, you certainly aren't showing any good faith now as we try to determine if this entire process is legitimate or not?

I simply do not trust you...not talking about it anymore if you don't answer these simple questions with a simple "yes" or "no".