House Impeachment Hearings

[Adre]

By the presentation of compelling evidence that an official knowingly violated the customs and laws applicable to his or her office with unlawful purpose, that is with full knowledge of both fact and law. This requirement draws a distinct line between licit and illicit conduct and serves to exempt subjectively innocent people from criminal liability.

Coverups and obstructions are not the recommended ways to promote this legal concept.

 

[Emerson40]

The fact you use the term "deplorable" to define half the country is in itself an act of social aggression and provocation.

Half the country? Check your math, poopsmith.


Trump didn’t even get half the popular vote.

 

[Adre]

“Donald Trump said he would “strongly consider” testifying to the House in the impeachment hearings after Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited him to participate in the proceedings determining the fate of his presidency...”



What a load of horseshit.

 

[Adre]

Half the country? Check your math, poopsmith.

Trump didn’t even get half the popular vote.

20% of the country’s citizens voted for him. Isn’t that half?

 

[Rightguide]

Coverups and obstructions are not the recommended ways to promote this legal concept.

The President is doing nothing that offends the Constitution or its principle of separation of powers, unlike the Democrats.

 

[Rightguide]

“Donald Trump said he would “strongly consider” testifying to the House in the impeachment hearings after Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited him to participate in the proceedings determining the fate of his presidency...”



What a load of horseshit.

Let's put Nancy and Schiff under oath instead.

 

[Rightguide]

20% of the country’s citizens voted for him. Isn’t that half?

All of the country's citizens are not eligible to vote.

And the popular vote isn't what elects the POTUS.

 

[Adre]

The President is doing nothing that offends the Constitution or its principle of separation of powers, unlike the Democrats.

Obstructing Congressional oversight offends the Constitution mightily, sport.

The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress had the authority to consider a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[4]

 

[Adre]

Let's put Nancy and Schiff under oath instead.

Include Trump and it’s a deal.

 

[coati]

The fact you use the term "deplorable" to define half the country is in itself an act of social aggression and provocation.

The term Deplorable really only applies to a minority of people who continue to support a guy who, as Jeb Bush stated, insulted his way into the White House.

But beyond that little factoid, the "social aggression and provocation" that you are whining about is simply not the same thing as war. So once again, the implied threat of war made by the author of the cited article is not justified, and it will be disregarded by anyone with ethics.

You do not appear to fall into this category of "having ethics".

 

[Emerson40]

All of the country's citizens are not eligible to vote.

And the popular vote isn't what elects the POTUS.

Yet you still surmised ‘half the country’.


Silly vetteman.

 

[Rightguide]

Obstructing Congressional oversight offends the Constitution mightily, sport.

The Supreme Court of the United States has confirmed the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress had the authority to consider a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit".[4]

Yes but their powers of oversight are not limitless, it must have a legitimate legislative purpose and that purpose doesn't trump (excuse the pun) the constitutional principle of separation of powers. They cannot demand to know everything the President says or does, just like he can't demand the same from Congress. Be advised, this impeachment process is illegal and nothing in the President's oath of office requires him to perpetuate any illegal activity and that includes those committed by the Speaker of the House.

 

[Rightguide]

The term Deplorable really only applies to a minority of people who continue to support a guy who, as Jeb Bush stated, insulted his way into the White House.

But beyond that little factoid, the "social aggression and provocation" that you are whining about is simply not the same thing as war. So once again, the implied threat of war made by the author of the cited article is not justified, and it will be disregarded by anyone with ethics.

You do not appear to fall into this category of "having ethics".

You don't appear to fall into the category of "competent person."

 

[Adre]

Yes but their powers of oversight are not limitless, it must have a legitimate legislative purpose and that purpose doesn't trump (excuse the pun) the constitutional principle of separation of powers. They cannot demand to know everything the President says or does, just like he can't demand the same from Congress. Be advised, this impeachment process is illegal and nothing in the President's oath of office requires him to perpetuate any illegal activity and that includes those committed by the Speaker of the House.

They have the right to know that moneys they appropriate for a specific purpose are used how and when they expected. And they certainly have the right to know if that money is being used, or attempted to be used, for personal gain by the President or any other government official. And witnesses, one by one, are proving that is the case. Your assertion that this or any other impeachment process is illegal is baseless. And stupid.

 

[KeithD]

And stupid.

But that, right there, is Rightguard.

 

[Dribble]

The House is now looking at whether Trump lied to Mueller. Fucker is going down. Everyone knows he is a liar

 

[icanhelp1]

You don't appear to fall into the category of "competent person."

Chief justice Roberts ordered an indefinite delay on the house demand for Trump financial records.

That's going to leave a mark!

 

[icanhelp1]

They have the right to know that moneys they appropriate for a specific purpose are used how and when they expected. And they certainly have the right to know if that money is being used, or attempted to be used, for personal gain by the President or any other government official. And witnesses, one by one, are proving that is the case. Your assertion that this or any other impeachment process is illegal is baseless. And stupid.

What you can't seem to understand, is, spending those particular funds for the wall are within his purview. The same goes for holding back funds when it comes to foreign aid and corruption.

 

[Adre]

Chief justice Roberts ordered an indefinite delay on the house demand for Trump financial records.

That's going to leave a mark!

It’s routine while they consider hearing the case or not.

 

[adrina]

What you can't seem to understand, is, spending those particular funds for the wall are within his purview. The same goes for holding back funds when it comes to foreign aid and corruption.

It's okay since Trump is doing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Emerson40]

Found this wee repository for most things related to the Impeachment Inquiry, including calendars, documents, and committee investigations.


Impeachment Inquiry into Trump 2019

 

[icanhelp1]

It's okay since Trump is doing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No! it's OK because it's within the law and the president's purview, every president has used his article II powers

 

[HisArpy]

All of the country's citizens are not eligible to vote.

And the popular vote isn't what elects the POTUS.

His analysis also somehow includes all those people who DIDN'T vote AT ALL as actual support for someone other than Trump instead of a lack of support for the progressive candidate/agenda or ineligibility.

Thus, absent any other preference indications, one can assume that among those who didn't vote for any candidate, either didn't like any candidates or couldn't vote anyway. That means that statistically one can divide that group 50/50.

So approx 20% voted for Trump. 20% voted for Hillary. Half of the remaining 60% is 30%. That 30% added to the 20% of those who supported Trump is 50%.


Yet, a popular vote of 20% seems to be greater than 50% of the population as a whole to some people.

 

[Rightguide]

They have the right to know that moneys they appropriate for a specific purpose are used how and when they expected. And they certainly have the right to know if that money is being used, or attempted to be used, for personal gain by the President or any other government official. And witnesses, one by one, are proving that is the case. Your assertion that this or any other impeachment process is illegal is baseless. And stupid.

Don't be silly. The Congress, despite what you say, has written into the law authorizing expenditures of foreign aid, powers that direct the President to withhold aid if it is determined the funds might be used to further corrupt or illegal activities.

 

[Rightguide]

Your assertion that this or any other impeachment process is illegal is baseless. And stupid.

Tell it to the Senate.