Syrian Hmong

[*bfine32*]

(10-10-2019, 12:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The one that immediately pops out to me personally is the Trump administration's refusal to respond to sub poenas and requests for documentation calling the impeachment unconstitutional.

He's calling something unconstitutional when it is literally defined in the Constitution, Article I, section 2, that the House has the sole power of Impeachment.

He may disagree with the reasoning to begin the process, but calling it unconstitutional is blatantly incorrect and you could interpret his insistence to lie about the contents of the Constitution as "trashing the Constitution." 

(10-10-2019, 12:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump's defiance of legal, Congressional supoenas comes to mind here, which is vigorously supported by Jim Jordan, Lindsay Graham, and the party of lockstep.


Pretty sure your question was answered. The majority of people who have so far posted are not in favor of abandoning the Kurds. That means they are not in favor of pulling out of the ME altogether.  Or were you asking about support for "occupying" the whole ME or something?

"Military occupation" is another issue.  Occupation is what Israel has done to the West Bank. The Syrian campaign is not an occupation, nor is our presence in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, or Syria.

This "occupation" was a coalition of some 80 countries--now all confused and adrift, as so many of our allies were after Trump pulled out of the Iran deal.  

What I've read doesn't make it as cut and dry as you guys assert. From what I understand Congress has not voted on impeachment and therefore POTUS is not bound to testify. I'm sure we all would love for him to open and transparent but is he trashing the Constitution for refusing to do so at this time?