Nunes nails it, as usual.

Nunes, why were you calling Les Parnas? The guy who is under indictment for illegal campaign contributions?
Jan 15, 2020
Nunes was asked about phone records that show he spoke to Parnas, noting he previously said he couldn’t “recall” having a phone conversation with the Giuliani henchman. Claiming that the information was “brand new” at the time and he just didn’t “recognize the name Parnas,” the pro-Trump congressman added that he was able to recall “where he was at the time” and now “remembered that call, which was very odd and random.”

Because the White House HAS to provide documentation they were supposed to have on their communication with a foreign government and they have failed to do so. That's obstruction of justice.

They don't have to, UNTIL it's a formal impeachment proceeding.

Are you really that effing ignorant?

If you were to fail to comply with discovery before a lawsuit or a trial, the judge would sanction you and "but I didn't have to until it's a formal trial" would be overruled.

What makes you think the same rules don't apply to the President?

While I'm no legal expert, you are clearly a legal dimwit. So again, I have to point out to you, what should be clear to anyone with any grasp of the obvious; this is not a trial. A kangaroo court, maybe. But not a trial.

But let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that what you said was correct. Would it also apply to a Secretary of State? If so, what about Hillary Clinton?

Here's a link to an article that discusses the issue in a reasonably objective manner, imo.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

After what's shown in the meme, the story goes on to say:

"However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

"The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

"Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.

"Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."

So, my question for you, a citizen obviously concerned with law and order, is when did ignorance of the law, or even PRETENDING that you did something illegal by accident, become an acceptable excuse for beating the rap?

Be CONSISTENT now!!! (if you can...)

More coming right up...

Lol
Emails again?

Yeah, emails again. Even if a crime is not freshly minted, it's still a crime.

I doubt the statute of limitations has expired yet, for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena, or mishandling classified email.

Besides, the question was related to documentation... since you seem unaware that emails are documentation.

Hillary needs to go to prison for it but Trump is above the law because he's president.. that's cool.

Here's an article from forbes.com, that talks about the timeline of the HRC email crime (1 of 3):

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45hlfmd/a-timeline-of-hillary-cl/#68c90d8474ce

Here's an article from forbes.com, that talks about the timeline of the HRC email crime (2 of 3):

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45hlfmd/a-timeline-of-hillary-cl/#68c90d8474ce

Here's an article from forbes.com, that talks about the timeline of the HRC email crime (3 of 3):

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45hlfmd/a-timeline-of-hillary-cl/#68c90d8474ce

Article 1 section 3 of the constitution.

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The house has no legal authority to try the president. Your point is irrelevant. Before the government can even investigate they actually have to have probable cause. Hearsay isn’t evidence of a crime.

The Senate can't try an impeachment until the house gives them an impeachment to try.

And the probable cause was the whistleblower complaint which was found to be credible and serious. Keep up, will you?

They didn’t go to a judge to get permission to investigate Trump, Which violates the 4th amendment. Look i’m not a fan or supporter. I don’t like either party and I’m sick and tired of the BS. Bring actual evidence if you have any, but do it legally or shut up and go away.

"Credible and serious" was the exact phrase used by the Inspector General. Nothing to do with "the liberals" or TDS. Trump HAS to comply with the IG. If you cared about the legality of this instead of just dismissing things that inconvenience your world view, you'd know that.

Thank you for proving my point. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. It’s what can be proven. So far the hearings have only proven their isn’t any evidence. Hearsay and opinion isn’t evidence. Without evidence there isn’t probable cause. Without probable cause it’s an illegal investigation per the 4th amendment and treason

The probable cause was "Trump isn't doing his job right. Can you investigate, please?"

That's a fart in a stiff wind.