House Impeachment Hearings

[doowdniw]

Because they were dumb enough to be maneuvered into doing something wrong themselves by Trump. My, that must be embarrassing.

Pleading the 5th is not a good look while testifying during an impeachment hearing.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sure it is. This isn't a Court of law. Congress is not limited to violations of statutes. They may also impeach a president for actions that are lawful, yet still constitute abuses of power. For example, Trump’s efforts to push witnesses to defy subpoenas is also impeachable.

History backs this up. If you pull up the articles of impeachment that were approved in the Johnson and Clinton impeachments and drafted but not yet approved for Nixon, many of them are very broadly worded and do not refer to specific criminal statutes. It's not even clear in Johnson's case that any real crime was committed, but he came within a vote of conviction anyway.

If the evidence ultimately shows that Trump did withhold aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival, and if the evidence ultimately shows that he did so for personal political reasons rather than out of a legitimate concern for the national interest, I don't know how one can deny that's an impeachable abuse of power, regardless of whether a specific criminal statute is violated (although I think one could make various criminal claims under specific statutes for that conduct, such as criminal extortion or bribery).

 

[Rightguide]

History backs this up. If you pull up the articles of impeachment that were approved in the Johnson and Clinton impeachments and drafted but not yet approved for Nixon, many of them are very broadly worded and do not refer to specific criminal statutes. It's not even clear in Johnson's case that any real crime was committed, but he came within a vote of conviction anyway.

If the evidence ultimately shows that Trump did withhold aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival, and if the evidence ultimately shows that he did so for personal political reasons rather than out of a legitimate concern for the national interest, I don't know how one can deny that's an impeachable abuse of power, regardless of whether a specific criminal statute is violated (although I think one could make various criminal claims under specific statutes for that conduct, such as criminal extortion or bribery).

In the Clinton case the Starr Report identified 11 federal felonies committed by Clinton.

 

[icanhelp1]

And why the people actually testifying under oath are liars?

And if he did nothing wrong, why are they stonewalling the investigation by directing people to not answer the subpoenas and testify?

Because it doesn't matter, the Dems will just jump to something else. For example

1. Trump didn't fire Mueller> next
2. Trump allowed Mueller access to everyone in his admin> next
2. Trump released the Mueller report to the public> next
4. Trump released both transcripts of both phone calls

Collusion**Obstruction of justice, congress, Extortion, Bribery and now witness tampering. What else can Schithead come up with. Maybe blame Trump for the triple 7 plane crashes or maybe for the Astros stealing signals in the World Series.

 

[jaF0]

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 454
User Name Posts
Rightguide 41
Conager 28
beezzz 25
Adre 20
KeithD 20
HisArpy 20
RobDownSouth 19

 

[SimonDoom]

In the Clinton case the Starr Report identified 11 federal felonies committed by Clinton.

That's true, but the articles themselves were more broadly worded, such as the article concerning "abuse of power."

 

[icanhelp1]

In the Clinton case the Starr Report identified 11 federal felonies committed by Clinton.

Are you trying to tell me it wasn't for getting a blowjob??? OH WOE IS ME! And I bet Starr reported to congress and not the DOJ!

 

[cowslinger64]

Because it doesn't matter, the Dems will just jump to something else. For example

1. Trump didn't fire Mueller> next
2. Trump allowed Mueller access to everyone in his admin> next
2. Trump released the Mueller report to the public> next
4. Trump released both transcripts of both phone calls

Collusion**Obstruction of justice, congress, Extortion, Bribery and now witness tampering. What else can Schithead come up with. Maybe blame Trump for the triple 7 plane crashes or maybe for the Astros stealing signals in the World Series.

Trump would have fired mueller.... that's what he wanted.

He DID NOT allow access to everyone in his admin for Mueller.

He released a portion of the report, with the parts that needed to be seen were redacted. That is not over.

He did NOT release a transcript but an essay based on it.. just like barrs essay on the Mueller report.


You're a liar.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Trump would have fired mueller.... that's what he wanted.

He DID NOT allow access to everyone in his admin for Mueller.

He released a portion of the report, with the parts that needed to be seen were redacted. That is not over.

He did NOT release a transcript but an essay based on it.. just like barrs essay on the Mueller report.


You're a liar.

Oh look, commie slinger is in full on denial of reality and isn't going to back up his bullshit or accusation with anything but namecalling.

Because he's a janitor....from fuckin' Detroit, who continues to vote against his self interest despite living in a city destroyed by the idiocy he supports.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's true, but the articles themselves were more broadly worded, such as the article concerning "abuse of power."

I believe what that means is that { identifiable statutes were violated } and presented to the house.

 

[SimonDoom]

I believe what that means is that { identifiable statutes were violated } and presented to the house.

You might be right. Most legal commentators I've read appear to believe that the impeachment clause is not limited to specific statutory violations. It's unclear because the language is unclear. Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure in Office act, which wasn't a criminal statute, so there's historical precedent for not relying on statutes. In Nixon's case, too, I don't think the articles were limited to specific statutory violations (but it's been a while since I've looked at them).

My own view is that it's got to be very serious, at least quasi-criminal conduct to justify impeachment. They shouldn't impeach a president just for vague impropriety.

 

[icanhelp1]

Trump would have fired mueller.... that's what he wanted.

BUT HE DIDN'T

He DID NOT allow access to everyone in his admin for Mueller.

WHO?

He released a portion of the report, with the parts that needed to be seen were redacted. That is not over.

GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS PROTECTED BY 6(E), THE CHAIRS HAD ACCESS!

He did NOT release a transcript but an essay based on it.. just like barrs essay on the Mueller report.

WHAT WAS RELEASED WAS A MEMORANDUM, PHONE CALLS ARE NOT RECORDED, WHAT WAS PROVIDED WAS AN NSC TRANSCRIPT MEMORANDUM.

You're a liar.

YOU'RE IGNORANT!

 

[icanhelp1]

You might be right. Most legal commentators I've read appear to believe that the impeachment clause is not limited to specific statutory violations.

Yes, a statutory violation is not required even though { high crimes and misdemeanors } is often touted. Impeachment is a political process. Clinton and Nixon were both charged with felonies so there is some precedent for basing impeachment on criminal violations. Removal of a president is still theory and unprecedented, it's never happened before.

It's unclear because the language is unclear. Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure in Office act, which wasn't a criminal statute, so there's historical precedent for not relying on statutes. In Nixon's case, too, I don't think the articles were limited to specific statutory violations (but it's been a while since I've looked at them).

There were crimes committed, the Watergate cover up being the most serious.

My own view is that it's got to be very serious, at least quasi-criminal conduct to justify impeachment. They shouldn't impeach a president just for vague impropriety.

You would think, but in this toxic environment who knows.

 

[jaF0]

So, who's going to handle the outcome better?

Us if they don't toss the bum out?

-or-

Them if they do?

 

[Dribble]

So, who's going to handle the outcome better?

Us if they don't toss the bum out?

-or-

Them if they do?

That would be the job of the Senate...and Mitch wont do it. So it is up to us to win. Work on getting your friends registered to vote. Hound them when it is time to vote. Give your time driving those that cant get to their voting site. Apathy...IS the reason he was elected

 

[jaF0]

Little Bitch Mitch knows her own ass is on the line next fall. Will she come to her senses and sacrifice Demon Donny to save her own job?

 

[doowdniw]

Collusion**Obstruction of justice, congress, Extortion, Bribery and now witness tampering. What else can Schithead come up with.

No telling, as apparently the sky is the limit when it comes to Trumpian dumbfuckery. Sondland and Giuliani: only the best people.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Because it doesn't matter, the Dems will just jump to something else. For example

1. Trump didn't fire Mueller> next
2. Trump allowed Mueller access to everyone in his admin> next
2. Trump released the Mueller report to the public> next
4. Trump released both transcripts of both phone calls

Collusion**Obstruction of justice, congress, Extortion, Bribery and now witness tampering. What else can Schithead come up with. Maybe blame Trump for the triple 7 plane crashes or maybe for the Astros stealing signals in the World Series.

Post a link to the transcripts.

 

[bellisarius]

Because it doesn't matter, the Dems will just jump to something else. For example

1. Trump didn't fire Mueller> next
2. Trump allowed Mueller access to everyone in his admin> next
2. Trump released the Mueller report to the public> next
4. Trump released both transcripts of both phone calls

Collusion**Obstruction of justice, congress, Extortion, Bribery and now witness tampering. What else can Schithead come up with. Maybe blame Trump for the triple 7 plane crashes or maybe for the Astros stealing signals in the World Series.

Using your post as a launching point. Up to this point in time, and looking at next weeks "witness" list, the house democrats have gone to great lengths to paint the Ukraine as a "victim" here. Yes, peripherally they may assert Biden as well, but sans any investigation that's going to be a tough sell. The Ukraine being the "victim" focus of the hearings I find it odd that not a single Ukrainian official has been called to testify, not one. Shouldn't the "victims" be heard? And looking at past and future witnesses it's apparent that only the Ukrainian officials could provide first person testimony.

Considering that the democrats are hell bent on serving up articles of impeachment it's only logical to look ahead to the Senate trial. Do you think the Senate might be calling Ukrainian officials?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Did HisRapey see this?

 

[bellisarius]

Here's an interesting read.

4GW impeachment

 

[schism666]

There was absolutely zero point to her appearance before Schiff's committee. Total fail.

so she had "less" reason to cry in front of america like a little bitch.

 

[Rightguide]

so she had "less" reason to cry in front of america like a little bitch.

Her testimony served no purpose in the impeachment inquiry of the President. She had no first hand knowledge of anything applicable. Her being upset at being fired isn't of any interest. The President has an absolute right to fire her for any reason or no reason.

 

[Rightguide]

Here's an interesting read.

4GW impeachment

That's about it. Unconventional political warfare.

 

[Conager]

The article makes all the points that I have made when the usual nitwits lay claim to invincibility because of Stalwell's nukes.

No major city has sufficient inventory to feed itself for more than 3 days. Huge warehouses are taking up the entire south side of the Phoenix metropolitan area because nobody wants to build anything in California. There's exactly two roads and a rail line between Arizona and California's starvation.

Without intact aqueducts, they don't even have sufficient water for drinking from wells, much less enough water for showers and sanitation.

. . .and California is far more self-sufficient than any other big blue metropolis that I can think of.