Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer
Sondland is the one that admitted his conclusions where based on a presumption and not any direct evidence he knew of....The whole damn thing is based on "presumptions" LOL
That's for sure. I'm sure Rod would be perfectly happy being convicted of Armed Robbery and the only evidence against him was that the police and prosecutors "presumed" that he was the one wearing the ski mask.
I imagine Rod would support that kind of Cowboy justice when his sorry ass is on the line.
These lefties are such frauds. They just make up the laws as they go along.
How can there be "Obstruction of Congress" for challenging a subpoena in Court, when the Constitution does not even Give the House of Reps or the Senate the Constitutional ability or power to present subpoenas to people.
They just decided to give themselves that power. I guess now, you haven't even the civil right to go to court?
There is no amendment to the Constitution that allows them to subpoena people and it certainly isn't an Impeachable offense. If it is, where does it say as much in the Constitution?
In fact, the Idea of giving the Congress the power to subpoena individuals was considered during the Constitutional Convention, brought up by Charles Pinckney and was voted on by the members. It was specifically VOTED DOWN by the members of the Constitutional Convention.
Let Rod put on his thinking cap and explain that.
What are the odds that he will address that conundrum? My guess is not likely.