███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[Aglaopheme]

President Trump is tougher on Russia in 18 months than Obama in eight years
By Jen Kerns, opinion contributor — 07/16/18 01:30 PM EDT


"The sanctions were significant — among the toughest sanctions ever placed on individuals in a foreign country, with the exception of perhaps Iran and North Korea. Yet like many of Trump’s successes, it received minimal mainstream media coverage."

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...er-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight

You think Jen Kern’s opinion is going to carry any weight?

 

[adrina]

You think Jen Kern’s opinion is going to carry any weight?

With him and the other RWCJs? Of course. She tells them what they want to hear.

 

[Rightguide]

You think Jen Kern’s opinion is going to carry any weight?

Do you know her? Is there a reason why you want to attack her credibility other than simple butt hurt because she contradicts your favored narrative? Regardless, it's the facts that carry the weight and her article is factual until you can refute it with superior truth.

 

[Aglaopheme]

David Correia, the fourth defendant in the campaign finance case involving business associates of Rudy Giuliani, was arrested Wednesday morning at a New York City airport, officials said.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1184490472745553920?s=21

 

[icanhelp1]

With him and the other RWCJs? Of course. She tells them what they want to hear.

So does that make you a LWCJ?

 

[coati]

I'm glad Pelosi is hanging tough on the inquiry vote issue. Trump gets a taste of his own medicine.

Still plenty of information flowing into the inquiry, despite Trump's stonewalling.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1184490472745553920?s=21

So legally, what do you think that means?

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm glad Pelosi is hanging tough on the inquiry vote issue. Trump gets a taste of his own medicine.

Still plenty of information flowing into the inquiry, despite Trump's stonewalling.

Trump's been tasting the medicine since 2016. Horowitz already suggested criminal referral for Comey, second half on the way!

 

[Aglaopheme]

I’m old enough to remember Trump having to be run through the wringer to impose sanctions on Russia more than once.

The chairman of a House Oversight subcommittee is seeking answers after it took the Trump administration nearly nine months to impose legally mandated sanctions on Russia for its use of chemical weapons.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/10/po...x.html?r=https**A**F**Fwww.google.com**F&rm=1

The Trump administration, under fire from lawmakers for not punishing Moscow over election meddling, said Monday it will not implement Russia-related sanctions mandated by Congress last year because the threat itself is acting as a "deterrent."
The decision was made public after nightfall on deadline day for implementing sanctions against those who do business with Russian defense and intelligence firms, as required under a 2017 law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f459ca-052a-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm glad Pelosi is hanging tough on the inquiry vote issue. Trump gets a taste of his own medicine.

Still plenty of information flowing into the inquiry, despite Trump's stonewalling.

Nancy's hanging stupid, she doesn't have the votes and after Friday's release of the Horowitz findings on FISA I believe turnabout is fair play. Stand By! Second shoe!

 

[adrina]

So does that make you a LWCJ?

IKYABWAI



JFC

 

[coati]

Nancy's hanging stupid, she doesn't have the votes and after Friday's release of the Horowitz findings on FISA I believe turnabout is fair play. Stand By! Second shoe!

I patiently await your other shoe, with bated breath.

Maybe the Deplorables in the Senate will make a huge splash with this other shoe?

 

[bigsly]

I'm glad Pelosi is hanging tough on the inquiry vote issue. Trump gets a taste of his own medicine.

Still plenty of information flowing into the inquiry, despite Trump's stonewalling.

Socialist/progressive/Democrat partisan illogic at it's very best:

The Speaker rules there will be no vote on "the inquiry", yet "the inquiry" goes on, regardless.

Really difficult to understand how more and more Americans are seeing this as mostly a partisan show trial. And truly difficult to see any objective court decisions ruling against legitimate objection to that partisan show trial ("stonewalling") when it's not, by literal no vote definition, a House "inquiry", but simply a partisan undertaking which has no practical, legal effect.

It's really simple: if the House doesn't vote for or against, "the inquiry" doesn't constitutionally exist.

 

[jaF0]

Donny resign yet?

 

[jp55665566]

Socialist/progressive/Democrat partisan illogic at it's very best:

The Speaker rules there will be no vote on "the inquiry", yet "the inquiry" goes on, regardless.

Really difficult to understand how more and more Americans are seeing this as mostly a partisan show trial. And truly difficult to see any objective court decisions ruling against legitimate objection to that partisan show trial ("stonewalling") when it's not, by literal no vote definition, a House "inquiry", but simply a partisan undertaking which has no practical, legal effect.

It's really simple: if the House doesn't vote for or against, "the inquiry" doesn't constitutionally exist.

It's laughable. They call it an "inquiry" haha. It's nothing more than another smear campaign on President Trump. IF Democrats are foolish enough to vote for an Impeachment of President Trump, THEN there will be an "inquiry", but Pelosi will never call for that vote, because then the door will be open for Republicans to call witnesses and cross-examine so-called "whistle-blowers".

 

[coati]

Socialist/progressive/Democrat partisan illogic at it's very best:

The Speaker rules there will be no vote on "the inquiry", yet "the inquiry" goes on, regardless.

Really difficult to understand how more and more Americans are seeing this as mostly a partisan show trial. And truly difficult to see any objective court decisions ruling against legitimate objection to that partisan show trial ("stonewalling") when it's not, by literal no vote definition, a House "inquiry", but simply a partisan undertaking which has no practical, legal effect.

It's really simple: if the House doesn't vote for or against, "the inquiry" doesn't constitutionally exist.

That's a very nice little theory. We'll see how it holds up.

The vote that really counts in the House, according the Constitution, are the votes on actual Articles of Impeachment, if and when they are issued by the Speaker of the House.

Pelosi is just playing hardball on the process rules, much in the same way that Mitch does in the Senate. You do get that, don't you?

In the Senate, I still believe the Republicans would, in the words of Tammy Wynette, stand by their man, no matter what. That would be their statement on acceptable behavior for a President.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's a very nice little theory. We'll see how it holds up.

The vote that really counts in the House, according the Constitution, are the votes on actual Articles of Impeachment, if and when they are issued by the Speaker of the House.

Pelosi is just playing hardball on the process rules, much in the same way that Mitch does in the Senate. You do get that, don't you?

In the Senate, I still believe the Republicans would, in the words of Tammy Wynette, stand by their man, no matter what. That would be their statement on acceptable behavior for a President.

And therein lies the rub...we're coming up on an election year, and an impeachment trial is simply passing judgment on Trump's actions and behavior (which constitute "treason" in my opinion, but let's not digress).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a real problem here. He will do anything legal (and, quite frankly, extra-legal) to avoid a rollcall vote on impeachment. There are weak Republicans running for re-election in states where the demographics are changing to favor the Democratic party, and their votes would be likely held against them.

 

[icanhelp1]

Socialist/progressive/Democrat partisan illogic at it's very best:

The Speaker rules there will be no vote on "the inquiry", yet "the inquiry" goes on, regardless.

Really difficult to understand how more and more Americans are seeing this as mostly a partisan show trial. And truly difficult to see any objective court decisions ruling against legitimate objection to that partisan show trial ("stonewalling") when it's not, by literal no vote definition, a House "inquiry", but simply a partisan undertaking which has no practical, legal effect.

It's really simple: if the House doesn't vote for or against, "the inquiry" doesn't constitutionally exist.

The house represents all the people. This attempt to impeach by committee is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Adam Schiff is not representative of the american people, he represents one committee.

There is precedent from past impeachment proceedings and although there isn't a written formal set of guidelines to follow, representing all the people is foremost and a right.

This current procedure is all about denying one party the ability to carry out due diligence. When cross examination is eliminated from any legal proceeding, then we have devolved into a kangaroo court setting where " guilty till proven innocent " becomes the new precedent and a new and lower standard is created which could project into the future.

Fairness and transparency is a right for the american people. The right to vote for what leadership represents us is the same right to fairness and transparency that leadership must provide. A majority party may have more representation over another party but not to vote is the very situation our founding fathers established a constitutional republic, defending against any majority group ruling over the minority by the elimination of rights and representation by majority rule.

An inquiry is a process to find the truth and not a reason to grant ultimate authority to a committee, behind closed doors to conjure up a platform for the sole purpose of incriminating a subject by denying the subject the right of due process and inclusion in the process.

Not liking someone is not an impeachable offense. Impeachment may be a political process but it must have some legal basis ( crimes and misdemeanors ).

 

[coati]

The house represents all the people. This attempt to impeach by committee is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Adam Schiff is not representative of the american people, he represents one committee.

There is precedent from past impeachment proceedings and although there isn't a written formal set of guidelines to follow, representing all the people is foremost and a right.

This current procedure is all about denying one party the ability to carry out due diligence. When cross examination is eliminated from any legal proceeding, then we have devolved into a kangaroo court setting where " guilty till proven innocent " becomes the new precedent and a new and lower standard is created which could project into the future.

Fairness and transparency is a right for the american people. The right to vote for what leadership represents us is the same right to fairness and transparency that leadership must provide. A majority party may have more representation over another party but not to vote is the very situation our founding fathers established a constitutional republic, defending against any majority group ruling over the minority by the elimination of rights and representation by majority rule.

An inquiry is a process to find the truth and not a reason to grant ultimate authority to a committee, behind closed doors to conjure up a platform for the sole purpose of incriminating a subject by denying the subject the right of due process and inclusion in the process.

Not liking someone is not an impeachable offense. Impeachment may be a political process but it must have some legal basis ( crimes and misdemeanors ).

Well, to quote your party leader, "So unfair, so unfair."

Meanwhile, as long as information keeps flowing in, Pelosi will call the tune on House rules regarding the inquiry. I can offer you some Kleenex.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well, to quote your party leader, "So unfair, so unfair."

Meanwhile, as long as information keeps flowing in, Pelosi will call the tune on House rules regarding the inquiry. I can offer you some Kleenex.

The problem is, no one knows the content of the testimonies. To have a vote without the facts is prejudicial to the majority and lacks fairness. It also interferes with the individual judgement of each voter. It will also harden opinions in the senate and the electorate should it get that far. When you play with fire you burn!

 

[RobDownSouth]

The house represents all the people. This attempt to impeach by committee is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Adam Schiff is not representative of the american people, he represents one committee.

There is precedent from past impeachment proceedings and although there isn't a written formal set of guidelines to follow, representing all the people is foremost and a right.

This current procedure is all about denying one party the ability to carry out due diligence. When cross examination is eliminated from any legal proceeding, then we have devolved into a kangaroo court setting where " guilty till proven innocent " becomes the new precedent and a new and lower standard is created which could project into the future.

Fairness and transparency is a right for the american people. The right to vote for what leadership represents us is the same right to fairness and transparency that leadership must provide. A majority party may have more representation over another party but not to vote is the very situation our founding fathers established a constitutional republic, defending against any majority group ruling over the minority by the elimination of rights and representation by majority rule.

An inquiry is a process to find the truth and not a reason to grant ultimate authority to a committee, behind closed doors to conjure up a platform for the sole purpose of incriminating a subject by denying the subject the right of due process and inclusion in the process.

Not liking someone is not an impeachable offense. Impeachment may be a political process but it must have some legal basis ( crimes and misdemeanors ).

Another Que-class word salad.^^^^^

Let me try and lessen your ignorance somewhat.
Think of the House Inquiry as a Grand Jury. They are simply examining evidence. There is NO "cross examination" in a Grand Jury investigation, there is only evidence gathering.

If a Grand Jury returns a "true bill", then and ONLY then does the proceeding move to a court of law. If the House votes to affirm Articles of Impeachment THEN and ONLY THEN can there be "cross examination" and such IN THE SENATE. Here's the kicker: The Senate decides what procedures they want to use, and are NOT subject to Judicial oversight. Blame the founding fathers, that's what they chose to do.

 

[coati]

The problem is, no one knows the content of the testimonies. To have a vote without the facts is prejudicial to the majority and lacks fairness. It also interferes with the individual judgement of each voter. It will also harden opinions in the senate and the electorate should it get that far. When you play with fire you burn!

Hmmm. I'm far less concerned with the fire you cite than I am with conflagration Trump is causing in our nation.

So, no, I am not quaking in my boots about your warning, but thanks for your concern.

 

[icanhelp1]

Another Que-class word salad.^^^^^

Let me try and lessen your ignorance somewhat.
Think of the House Inquiry as a Grand Jury. They are simply examining evidence. There is NO "cross examination" in a Grand Jury investigation, there is only evidence gathering.

If a Grand Jury returns a "true bill", then and ONLY then does the proceeding move to a court of law. If the House votes to affirm Articles of Impeachment THEN and ONLY THEN can there be "cross examination" and such IN THE SENATE. Here's the kicker: The Senate decides what procedures they want to use, and are NOT subject to Judicial oversight. Blame the founding fathers, that's what they chose to do.

The last time I looked the house is one body and derives its authority from the body itself, not Nancy, not Adam. This impeachment inquiry is nothing like grand jury. A Grand Jury is a legal proceeding to investigate the evidence a crime and is granted that authority by rule 6(e). To use your analogy, the whole house would be the grand jury and would derive its investigative authority and right to subpoena by a majority vote from the total body. One committee does not have authority over the body unless the body as a whole grant's it. The vote has not happened and Adam and Nancy do not have subpoena powers.

 

[jaF0]

Another Que-class word salad.^^^^^

Let me try and lessen your ignorance somewhat.
Think of the House Inquiry as a Grand Jury. They are simply examining evidence. There is NO "cross examination" in a Grand Jury investigation, there is only evidence gathering.

If a Grand Jury returns a "true bill", then and ONLY then does the proceeding move to a court of law. If the House votes to affirm Articles of Impeachment THEN and ONLY THEN can there be "cross examination" and such IN THE SENATE. Here's the kicker: The Senate decides what procedures they want to use, and are NOT subject to Judicial oversight. Blame the founding fathers, that's what they chose to do.

Ain't nunna' the BBs coherent 'nuff to grasp such simplicities.

 

[icanhelp1]

Ain't nunna' the BBs coherent 'nuff to grasp such simplicities.

NOW THAT'S JUST SILLY!