[crutonius]

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

[Boots]

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

[crutonius]

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

Yeah, refreshing is the right word.  I had the impeachment hearings on in the background while I was working.  I don't know if you managed to catch them or not.  The defense the republicans put up made no sense.  It was a lot of yelling and table pounding.  Some catch phrases involving a clock and a calendar.  A lot of complaining about process.  Not a whole lot of substance from that side of the aisle.

That channel you linked to had more substance than what the republicans have put out so far.  So yeah, refreshing.  This video for example,
attempts to make a few interesting arguments.  Like arguing that Trump doesn't have to submit to oversight if he suspects that it's just a witch hunt and therefore obstruction of congress isn't an impeachable offense.  It is an argument that makes no sense since congress has broad powers of oversight to check the executive's broad authority in most matters.  But still it's better going on about clocks and calendars.

As far as the impeachable offenses they're actually well defined.  https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

[Boots]

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

Yeah, refreshing is the right word.  I had the impeachment hearings on in the background while I was working.  I don't know if you managed to catch them or not.  The defense the republicans put up made no sense.  It was a lot of yelling and table pounding.  Some catch phrases involving a clock and a calendar.  A lot of complaining about process.  Not a whole lot of substance from that side of the aisle.

That channel you linked to had more substance than what the republicans have put out so far.  So yeah, refreshing.  This video for example,
attempts to make a few interesting arguments.  Like arguing that Trump doesn't have to submit to oversight if he suspects that it's just a witch hunt and therefore obstruction of congress isn't an impeachable offense.  It is an argument that makes no sense since congress has broad powers of oversight to check the executive's broad authority in most matters.  But still it's better going on about clocks and calendars.

As far as the impeachable offenses they're actually well defined.  https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

[crutonius]

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally. 

[Boots]

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.

From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not criminal and certainly not impeachable.

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing, although your source was last edited yesterday. Other than that, my facts are not wrong.

[crutonius]

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.

From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Obstruction of Congress is not a thing, and unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not illegal and certainly not impeachable.

My facts are not wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no law that says that these must be settle by the courts before they could be declared obstruction. 

Trump's defense for defying those subpoenas is that he has the power to declare absolute immunity from investigations. That's not a thing.  Judges are aware that's not a thing.  But since he's the president they have to seriously consider it every time he tries it.  Our judicial system is painfully slow.  Trump is aware of this.  These lawsuits aren't meant to win.  They're meant to extend it out longer than a session of congress. 

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?

[Boots]

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.

From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Obstruction of Congress is not a thing, and unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not illegal and certainly not impeachable.

My facts are not wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no law that says that these must be settle by the courts before they could be declared obstruction. 

Trump's defense for defying those subpoenas is that he has the power to declare absolute immunity from investigations. That's not a thing.  Judges are aware that's not a thing.  But since he's the president they have to seriously consider it every time he tries it.  Our judicial system is painfully slow.  Trump is aware of this.  These lawsuits aren't meant to win.  They're meant to extend it out longer than a session of congress. 

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?

Obstruction of Congress can be declared but nevertheless, no crime has been committed.

I have no idea what should happen in your convoluted God-Emperor scenario but I suspect the legal process should be followed.

Either way, refusing to testify until subpoenaed is most definitely a thing. And unless and until legal subpoenas have been served and defied, no crime has been committed.The slowness of the courts, and the fact that some suspect Trump of using this slowness to his advantage does not justify throwing out due process. Especially in something as important as impeachment.

The fact that you think it does is amazing to me. I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

[totallackey]

Trump did not demand that a government prosecutor be fired. Trump alerted Ukraine to that possible criminal activity.

O.o
Wait wait wait.  Trump told The Ukrainian government that Biden threatened them 4 years ago?!  Either Trump has been in politics way longer than I thought or the Ukrainians are really slow to get a message.

Also: he didn't ask for a persecutor to be fired, he asked for an investigation to be announced.  One that had already been done years ago.

It was Biden who demanded that a government prosecutor be fired, with explicit threats.

He absolutely did.  To root out corruption.  Which is ironic since Trump claims to be doing the same thing but has issues with Biden doing it.  And also only when Biden became a serious contender to the election...

This is quite rich!

Biden, "...a serious contender to the election (presidency)."

What is the going rate for comedy sketch writers nowadays?

Trump didn't threaten anyone in that call. Ukraine's president said he didn't feel pressured. Biden appears to be making a direct threat, however.

Listen, I hear your struggling.  I know you need that bank loan I've been holding up.  Speaking of that, I need a favor.....

Its cute how you think only explicit threats are threats.
Its also cute how you think a man who desperately needs Trump to like him, would turn on him.  That's like asking Republicans up for reelection to go against Trump publically.
Also also: Biden threatened to hold up money.  Trump actually did.  For months.

What evidence do you have Trump held up the money because he wanted dirt on Joe Biden?

Is it akin to the "evidence" of RUSSIAN COLLUSION!?!? (of which there was ZERO!)

"As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid. But my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine because they're not doing it," Trump said Tuesday as he arrived at the United Nations ahead of his speech to the General Assembly.

Your evidence is this: "I believe he is not telling the truth!"

LMMFAO!!!

Oh, and the lazy schtick you and the other peeps want to pass off as republican support of Trump?


Please stop, as Trump only ran and was elected as a Republican...this truly hasn't meant a hill of beans for a long, long time in the US...Republican and Democrat is only a fictitious wall, erected by criminals.

It is interesting that you think the situation is okay because you call a prosecutor corrupt. I am sure that you think that the prosecutor investigating the company that Biden's son worked for at the time of his dismissal was purely a coincidence, I am sure.

"The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014."
-USA Today

Also apparently, Bush's old CIA Counter Terrorism Chief joined that company in 2017.  Coincidence?  Yeah, probably.

But let me break down the arguments.

Biden and the international community used leverage to help clean out corruption in Ukraine.  Trump calls this criminal because there was a link to Biden's son.  The Ukrainian government found no wrong doings with Biden's son being hired.

Trump says he withheld Aide and used it as leverage because he ignored his own defense analysis and wanted to ensure Ukraine was not corrupt.  But apparently found it ok to send the aide after a whistleblower report was sent to Congress.

Have I got that right?

No.

[totallackey]

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing...

Why?

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

He has a false equivalency, which he tries to pass off as evidence.

Par for the freaking course...and freaking hilarious.

One only need look up the word, "contempt," in a thesaurus...one will not find the word "obstruct," listed as a synonym.

Please stop it, breadcrumb...you want to go in and edit a Wikipedia to submit as evidence...

There is a charge called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, but that does NOT APPLY HERE, as the US House of Representatives has no authority under the US Constitution to administer JUSTICE!

The bogus 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress was entitled that way simply because of polling data gathered by the Democrats from their idiotic base.

[totallackey]

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?

Geez, this sounds more like what Biden is doing, doesn't it?

"You can't ask for a foreign country to investigate possible corruption (even though you are the President) that might implicate me or my family! Ima God-Emperor candidate for chrissakes and thereby IMMUNE to any investigation!"

LMMFAO!

[Lord Dave]

I believe the reason those subpoenas were dismissed was because enough evidence was already collected so the house decided not to continue with it. The federal judge threw out the case.

That being said, just because something is dropped doesn't mean you still didn't hinder it.

Example: my wife goes missing and the police are called.  Believing foul play, they ask to search my home.  I refuse and block them.  They arrest me for obstruction of justice and search the house.

The next day, my wife comes back from a "get away" camping trip she told no one about. 

No crime was committed with regard to the wife but you still obstructed justice.  Doesn't matter if you are innocent or not.

Same applies to obstruction of congress.  It doesn't matter if the issue is dropped, you still obstructed.

[totallackey]

I believe the reason those subpoenas were dismissed was because enough evidence was already collected so the house decided not to continue with it. The federal judge threw out the case.

That being said, just because something is dropped doesn't mean you still didn't hinder it.

Example: my wife goes missing and the police are called.  Believing foul play, they ask to search my home.  I refuse and block them.  They arrest me for obstruction of justice and search the house.

The next day, my wife comes back from a "get away" camping trip she told no one about. 

No crime was committed with regard to the wife but you still obstructed justice.  Doesn't matter if you are innocent or not.

Same applies to obstruction of congress.  It doesn't matter if the issue is dropped, you still obstructed.

There is no such thing as "obstruction of congress."

There never has been and there never will be.

Congress exists in the US and has since before the actual founding of the country.

It still exists and it still meets in the US.

Trump has never "obstructed," Congress.

[juner]

I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

They aren't. Warned.

[juner]

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

Keep nonsense like this in AR and CN. You have been on the edge of a permanent ban for quite a while, but warnings expire as you stop posting for a bit. So, have a 30 day timeout to decide if you want to keep posting here.

[Rushy]

Key points to take away from the impeachment:

• There was bipartisan support against impeachment, but no bipartisan support for it. There were three Democrat representatives that voted against impeachment and not a single Republican for it. One of the Democrat representatives apparently switched his party to Republican in the process. This reeks of the DNC trying to strong-arm representatives into voting for impeachment. At least one representative voting against the impeachment didn't feel safe in the Democrat party anymore.
• The impeachment articles have yet to be sent to the Senate. This is quite odd when you're trying to make the argument that Trump is doing irreparable harm to the country. Pelosi seems more interested in doing damage to Trump's campaign rather than having some genuine interest in saving America from Hitler's reincarnation.

[Lord Dave]

Key points to take away from the impeachment:

• There was bipartisan support against impeachment, but no bipartisan support for it. There were three Democrat representatives that voted against impeachment and not a single Republican for it. One of the Democrat representatives apparently switched his party to Republican in the process. This reeks of the DNC trying to strong-arm representatives into voting for impeachment. At least one representative voting against the impeachment didn't feel safe in the Democrat party anymore.

He did an interview on the subject.  They did.  Just like Republicans strong armed for no vote.  I think its shit and crappy and they should be fired.  But since the Republicans(most of em) have literally said they aren't gonna be impartial, they're fuckers too.  So wipe em out, I say.

• The impeachment articles have yet to be sent to the Senate. This is quite odd when you're trying to make the argument that Trump is doing irreparable harm to the country. Pelosi seems more interested in doing damage to Trump's campaign rather than having some genuine interest in saving America from Hitler's reincarnation.

Same shit happened with Clinton.  They bitched about if new witnesses can be called and shit.  Both Chuck and McConnel are arguing the opposite of their 1998 position.  So yeah, fuckers.

[crutonius]

Key points to take away from the impeachment:

• There was bipartisan support against impeachment, but no bipartisan support for it. There were three Democrat representatives that voted against impeachment and not a single Republican for it. One of the Democrat representatives apparently switched his party to Republican in the process. This reeks of the DNC trying to strong-arm representatives into voting for impeachment. At least one representative voting against the impeachment didn't feel safe in the Democrat party anymore.
• The impeachment articles have yet to be sent to the Senate. This is quite odd when you're trying to make the argument that Trump is doing irreparable harm to the country. Pelosi seems more interested in doing damage to Trump's campaign rather than having some genuine interest in saving America from Hitler's reincarnation.

Point 1 is mostly true.  Not completely though.  Justin Amash who was a republican until the party forced him out voted for both articles.

I don't doubt that the democrats exerted pressure.  I'm quite certain the republicans exerted at least as much pressure.  Both sides are obviously partisan.  The question is which side happens to be aligned with the truth.

Point 2, the thing is they just passed it.  Then everyone went on Christmas vacation.  It's hard to be outraged about a delay over a period of time when congress is empty.  Pelosi is probably timing it to be as damaging as possible.  I'm guessing Feb 4, the state of the union address.  It's kind of shitty but at the moment is looks like this is part of negotiating with the Senate.

[Boots]

I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

They aren't. Warned.

Warning taken. Unsure how you are so sure they aren't true though.

[Boots]

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing...

Why?

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

He has a false equivalency, which he tries to pass off as evidence.

Par for the freaking course...and freaking hilarious.

One only need look up the word, "contempt," in a thesaurus...one will not find the word "obstruct," listed as a synonym.

Please stop it, breadcrumb...you want to go in and edit a Wikipedia to submit as evidence...

There is a charge called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, but that does NOT APPLY HERE, as the US House of Representatives has no authority under the US Constitution to administer JUSTICE!

The bogus 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress was entitled that way simply because of polling data gathered by the Democrats from their idiotic base.

I think you may have misunderstood my statement.