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

[jaF0]

Could Conager get any more stupid?

Question or challenge?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

They should agree to removing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and EVERY SINGLE JUDGE APPOINTED BY TRUMP.

Trump's attempt to protect himself among Republicans by pulling Pence into his crime (he did it all too with Ukrainians, so if you throw me out, you have to throw Pence out, and you get left with Pelosi as president) can be used by the Democrats as a path forward (and no less by any Republicans who want to save their party). Impeachment is a political issue; it can be invoked or not, as deemed advantageous. I'm sure Pence can see that Trump's trying to throw him under the bus.

Democrats can do a deal with him and the Republicans in Congress--Trump has made you impeachable. We're impeaching him definitely. You get to choose if we impeach you too. We can just not do so and let you take the presidency for now if 1. More than enough Republicans in Congress vote to remove Trump (which they'd really like to do anyway); 2. You don't pardon him for anything; 3. You replace Barr with a professional; 4. You give some cooperation on moving legislation for the next year (which should suit most Republicans too and put them back on the road to acceptability among the electorate); and 5. You don't run in 2020. That leaves the Republicans free to come up with a "recovery" slate for 2020. Some combination of Haley/Weld/Romney maybe and start to put Republicans back on the road and return Congress to a normal balance of power condition--and not leaving them entirely out in the cold if Democrats take over both houses.

None of us win if the Democrats just take over Congress and act like Republicans have been doing for years. A deal can be done to get us beyond the Trump nonsense era. Most Republicans can just disown him as a bull-in-the-china-shop interloper.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Question or challenge?

*like*

 

[carlos1of2inher]

If congressmen make up shit...

If a POTUS can be impeached for now reason at all, can a congressman get impeached for trying to reverse the results of an election by making up shit and tossing it at the POTUS?

 

[bigsly]

Whole lotta unicorn fart snorting going on in this thread as that gigantic sucking sound escaping from the socialist/progressive/Democrat, disingenuous "impeachment" proceeding bubble just keeps getting louder and louder.

 

[KeithD]

Question or challenge?

Apparently just the basic truth.

 

[DeluxAuto]

If a POTUS can be impeached for now reason at all, can a congressman get impeached for trying to reverse the results of an election by making up shit and tossing it at the POTUS?

POTUS hasn't been impeached yet and when he does it will not be "for no reason at all."

 

[Conager]

Also because the House, on the whole, is on two-week recess. Could Conager get any more stupid?

So. . You are essentially saying that whatever they think Trump has done is not of any particular urgency. They've recalled Congress for far less than an impeachment proceeding. An impeachment proceeding which, by the way, they haven't begun as of yet, despite throwing the word impeachment around rather freely.

Maybe because investigation and evidence gathering come first, nit wit.

I absolutely agree. So why are we talking about impeachment when investigation and evidence Gathering hasn't happened yet? Seems to me that you should already have a pretty good idea what the person to be impeached as done before you start throwing that around.

As far as the complaint we already know what was actually said on the call what shift wants us to think that call was about and who doesn't doesn't have first-hand information about that call. Seems to me we're ready to start calling Witnesses and having an impeachment proceeding. Unless of course you don't think that now that we have all of that information in hand that it doesn't rise the level of impeachment. Which of course again begs the question why have impeachment proceedings not been voted upon. Cuz you can't have an impeachment proceeding until the Full House votes to have an impeachment proceeding.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conager View Post
Dems still haven't voted to begin an actual impeachment proceeding yet? Why nit?

Maybe because investigation and evidence gathering come first, nit wit.

This has already been going on for at least three years.

 

[RoryN]

Volker texts outline how Ukrainian investigation was linked to potential Trump-Zelensky meeting

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/03/po...ate/index.html?r=https**A**F**Fwww.cnn.com**F

 

[Carnal_Flower]

They've opened an impeachment inquiry. According to someone who knows more than you, the Speaker of the House said today,

There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

So. . You are essentially saying that whatever they think Trump has done is not of any particular urgency. They've recalled Congress for far less than an impeachment proceeding. An impeachment proceeding which, by the way, they haven't begun as of yet, despite throwing the word impeachment around rather freely.



I absolutely agree. So why are we talking about impeachment when investigation and evidence Gathering hasn't happened yet? Seems to me that you should already have a pretty good idea what the person to be impeached as done before you start throwing that around.

As far as the complaint we already know what was actually said on the call what shift wants us to think that call was about and who doesn't doesn't have first-hand information about that call. Seems to me we're ready to start calling Witnesses and having an impeachment proceeding. Unless of course you don't think that now that we have all of that information in hand that it doesn't rise the level of impeachment. Which of course again begs the question why have impeachment proceedings not been voted upon. Cuz you can't have an impeachment proceeding until the Full House votes to have an impeachment proceeding.

 

[Conager]

They've opened an impeachment inquiry. According to someone who knows more than you, the Speaker of the House said today,

There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

That's because an "impeachment inquiry" is not an actual thing. They made it up.

Rory, for once, is correct in his thread title. "Impeachment Proceedings" is the correct term and it has not started. Precedence is a full House vote to begin one. Pelosi knows that, and realizes uneducated people such as yourself and AOC will be mollified by the meaningless "impeachment inquiry."

Let me know when an actual "Impeachment Proceeding" is underway.

 

[doowdniw]

I'm waiting for the stenographers' notes from the call to be released. They would be better evidence of what was said during the call, rather than the partial transcript previously released by the White House. I'm also sure Trump will stonewall their production while at the same time claiming that they totally exonerate him.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

If a POTUS can be impeached for now reason at all, can a congressman get impeached for trying to reverse the results of an election by making up shit and tossing it at the POTUS?

https://media.giphy.com/media/d2Z27XZPC81lluFi/giphy.gif

 

[phrodeau]

That's because an "impeachment inquiry" is not an actual thing. They made it up.

Rory, for once, is correct in his thread title. "Impeachment Proceedings" is the correct term and it has not started. Precedence is a full House vote to begin one. Pelosi knows that, and realizes uneducated people such as yourself and AOC will be mollified by the meaningless "impeachment inquiry."

Let me know when an actual "Impeachment Proceeding" is underway.

Congress is in recess until the 15th of October.

Please hold your breath until then.

 

[Conager]

Congress is in recess until the 15th of October.

Please hold your breath until then.

So, this is a trivial matter, not worthy of immediate attention?

Obviously, then Adam Schiff was lying as per usual when he said:

"I think it a travesty that this complaint was withheld as long as it was, because it was an urgent matter, it is an urgent matter." -Adam Schiff.

He also failed to mention that he knew about this not only while this complaint was allegedly being withheld but he knew about it before the complaint was even written. With all that lead time if it's not important enough to do anything about it now I guess it wasn't urgent was it?

 

[Conager]

I'm waiting for the stenographers' notes from the call to be released. They would be better evidence of what was said during the call, rather than the partial transcript previously released by the White House. I'm also sure Trump will stonewall their production while at the same time claiming that they totally exonerate him.

The "stenographer" as you call him, was a CIA employee, and you have it. No one but you and a few conspiracy nuts are claiming it is a "partial trancript." What you have is a contemporaneous record written by someone who was in the room listening to the call.

As opposed to the fantasies that you hope happened that were written by someone who wasn't in the room and didn't listen to the call.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

a.) Cite? According to what authority? By what standards is it the "correct" term? By all means, show us.

I'd really like to know. From what I can tell, inquiry and proceeding are used interchangeably.

b.) Bwa ha. Yeah, that'll make Trump's problems go away.

That's because an "impeachment inquiry" is not an actual thing. They made it up.

Rory, for once, is correct in his thread title. "Impeachment Proceedings" is the correct term and it has not started. Precedence is a full House vote to begin one. Pelosi knows that, and realizes uneducated people such as yourself and AOC will be mollified by the meaningless "impeachment inquiry."

Let me know when an actual "Impeachment Proceeding" is underway.

 

[Conager]

a.) Cite? According to what authority? By what standards is it the "correct" term? By all means, show us.

I'd really like to know. From what I can tell, inquiry and proceeding are used interchangeably.

b.) Bwa ha. Yeah, that'll make Trump's problems go away.

Why do you think they have not issued subpoenas? Letters demanding appearance have no force of law. No judge is going to uphold a subpoena for an impeachment "inquiry" because there is no such thing.

I'm not surprised that you think the two terms are interchangeable because that's what Nancy would like you to think. She'd like you to think that they've taken a step and they haven't done anything at all. The next step if they choose to take one is to have a vote for the Full House to begin. Without a vote of the Full House you can't argue that this is an impeachment proceeding which means you don't get to pierce executive privilege.

She doesn't want to do that because once that process begins Republicans also have subpoena power for the very same impeachment proceeding. Right now she can keep Republicans from issuing any subpoenas.

Once you have an actual impeachment proceeding underway you could call it an impeachment inquiry of you like, but for now you have nothing. Which is why she's calling in an impeachment inquiry pretending there's some magical step that means something before you have an actual impeachment proceeding voted on by the entire house.

 

[someoneyouknow]

The "stenographer" as you call him, was a CIA employee, and you have it. No one but you and a few conspiracy nuts are claiming it is a "partial trancript." What you have is a contemporaneous record written by someone who was in the room listening to the call.

Which is not a transcript. A transcript is a verbatim record of what was said. What was produced was a summary of handwritten notes which may or may not be accurate.

So not only did the con artist not produce a full transcript of the conversation, as he said he would, there is now the question of whether what was presented is the full conversation.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's because an "impeachment inquiry" is not an actual thing. They made it up.

Rory, for once, is correct in his thread title. "Impeachment Proceedings" is the correct term and it has not started. Precedence is a full House vote to begin one. Pelosi knows that, and realizes uneducated people such as yourself and AOC will be mollified by the meaningless "impeachment inquiry."

Let me know when an actual "Impeachment Proceeding" is underway.

CORRECT! If not voted on by the full house every subpoena and witness will be protected by executive privilege and could stall indefinitely, perhaps all the way through Trump’s second term. If a full house vote doesn’t happen every subpoena will end up being litigated in court. The queen doesn’t have the votes, she missed her chance.

 

[jomar]

If they can't = obstruction.

No-win scenario for 45.

I hope so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jomar View Post
Yeah, if they can get their hands on the server, which is only supposed to have national security not political stuff, they’ll probably find lots of gold.

This is one of the reasons you sometimes hear people chanting "Lock her up" when referring to Silly Hilly.

Yeah, except it’s not an equivalent.

 

[Conager]

Which is not a transcript. A transcript is a verbatim record of what was said. What was produced was a summary of handwritten notes which may or may not be accurate.

So not only did the con artist not produce a full transcript of the conversation, as he said he would, there is now the question of whether what was presented is the full conversation.

And?

It's not a deposition. I don't know where you get the idea that a verbatim record is transcribed every time the president has a conversation with someone.

The NSA probably has a recording but for them to come up with that they'd have to admit that they illegally wiretapped the president of the United States

There's no reason at all to believe that a verbatim record would be any different than the contemporaneous record which was recorded by a CIA employee at the time.

No one that actually participated in this telephone call or was listening at the time has it anyway disputed that this is an accurate representation about what was discussed. The only person who has a different narrative is a guy who wasn't in the room.

 

[Conager]

I hope so.



Yeah, except it’s not an equivalent.

Of course it's not equivalent. The server was not insecure. It was not designed specifically to foyil foia requests, nor was it designed so that the official records act could be ignored. Nor was it designed to be able to obstruct Justice at will by simply deleting emails that you and your lawyer feel are not germane to a subpoena or you being told an active investigation requires that you retain the records.

Not at all equivalent in either the intent nor the actuality of the two servers.

 

[jomar]

The "stenographer" as you call him, was a CIA employee, and you have it. No one but you and a few conspiracy nuts are claiming it is a "partial trancript." What you have is a contemporaneous record written by someone who was in the room listening to the call.

As opposed to the fantasies that you hope happened that were written by someone who wasn't in the room and didn't listen to the call.

Its a 10 minute excerpt from a 30 minute call.

A “contemporaneous record” basically means best recollection, though hopefully accurate, which is what was released...a memorandum of the phone call. Not a transcript.