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

[jomar]

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.

So lock her up. I got no problem with that.

Trump’s apparently hiding politically sensitive things he doesn’t want in the open on a server meant to house national security concerns. Basically, his White House attorneys protecting him from himself, it seems.

 

[Conager]

So lock her up. I got no problem with that.

Trump’s apparently hiding politically sensitive things he doesn’t want in the open on a server meant to house national security concerns. Basically, his White House attorneys protecting him from himself, it seems.

Or, he quite reasonably does not trust the same alphabet agencies that set up Michael Flynn.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

So you can't cite, thanks.

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.

 

[Conager]

So you can't cite, thanks.

Of course I can. You won't read it.

See Nixon, see Clinton. https://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-14-impeachment.html

There is already well established, procedural precedent. No judge is going to go along with the Democrat's half-assed end-run with no ability for the President that you are trying to remove being able to call witnesses and cross-examine Dems witnesses.

Cite the precedent for this half-assed so-called "impeachment inquiry."

This is no different than when the idiot Nadler was calling his committee hearing, which is committee hearing, not an "impeachment inquiry" an "impeachment inquiry." Declaring it so does not magically make it so.

 

[jomar]

Or, he quite reasonably does not trust the same alphabet agencies that set up Michael Flynn.

Or, he quite reasonably has something damaging to hide.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Of course I can. You won't read it.

See Nixon, see Clinton. https://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-14-impeachment.html

There is already well established, procedural precedent. No judge is going to go along with the Democrat's half-assed end-run with no ability for the President that you are trying to remove being able to call witnesses and cross-examine Dems witnesses.

Cite the precedent for this half-assed so-called "impeachment inquiry."

This is no different than when the idiot Nadler was calling his committee hearing, which is committee hearing, not an "impeachment inquiry" an "impeachment inquiry." Declaring it so does not magically make it so.

Don’t see Clinton or Nixon because things have changed. Even your link says that about Nixon.

Geek away.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

 

[Aglaopheme]

Don’t want to geek out? Here’s a key snippet.

It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive.


The current judiciary committee would not be bound by precedents to afford the president these same procedural rights,

 

[coati]

Don’t want to geek out? Here’s a key snippet.

The urban cowboy is freaking out because he thinks the only political party that should be allowed to use its power advantage is the Deplorable Party.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The urban cowboy is freaking out because he thinks the only political party that should be allowed to use its power advantage is the Deplorable Party.

He has a penchant for going down rabbit holes that lead to nowhere.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It is amusing, though, watching Que-nager argue so strenuously about something that doesn't matter.

 

[jaF0]

I don't have the link right now, but I saw a headline earlier about DonDon trying to force a vote. That's kinda like punchin' a cop in the nose and saying, 'Go ahead, arrest me, I dare ya'!!'

 

[jaF0]

Don’t want to geek out? Here’s a key snippet.

Ya' know, if DonDon and his lackeys were halfway sane, maybe that would be included. But everyone already knows all they want to do is bully, threaten and intimidate. They've already done that openly, even calling for death for some.

 

[Conager]

Don’t want to geek out? Here’s a key snippet.

Sure because Trump is going to meekly accept a judiciary voting on partisan lines to ignore precedent and deny him those rights previously afforded his predecessors.

Great idea to exactly play into his narrative about this being a partisan "witch hunt."

He, naturally will accede to their non-binding letters of indignation insisting he wave executive privilege.

If they finally nut up and actually have a vote to begin an actual impeachment procedure so that they have the power to compel witnesses via subpoenas, good luck getting SCOTUS to enforce that subpoena power if you ignore precedent (which would be legal but politically stupid) and deny POTUS the rights afforded every other type of defendant and past Impeachment proceeding defendants.

 

[coati]

First Republican Senator to break

Romney becomes the first Republican Senator to break with the Deplorable hard line on the legitimacy of Trump's efforts to get foreign nations to support his "investigations":

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rong-and-appalling/ar-AAIhWub?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Conager]

Quelle surprise.

I'm shocked that never-Trumper Romney, the progressive governor of Massachusetts, who was humiliated by Trump after he grovelled for a Trump Administration position would stick his finger in Trump's eye.

Romney is correct, both morally and legally, but voters chose Obama over Romney despite Romney's needed acumen with business and economic matters and despite Obama's numerous impeachable offenses (that Romney failed to mention at the time, or since) so I really don't think political advice from Romney is going to be heeded by Trump.

 

[coati]

Quelle surprise.

I'm shocked that never-Trumper Romney, the progressive governor of Massachusetts, who was humiliated by Trump after he grovelled for a Trump Administration position would stick his finger in Trump's eye.

^^^A very expected response from a suburban cowboy Deplorable, but now more pressure is on other moderate Republicans to openly state their views about a president offering this type of negotiation bait to foreign leaders.

 

[coati]

Romney is correct, both morally and legally, but voters chose Obama over Romney despite Romney's needed acumen with business and economic matters and despite Obama's numerous impeachable offenses (that Romney failed to mention at the time, or since) so I really don't think political advice from Romney is going to be heeded by Trump.

Good to see you recognize that Romney is correct, both morally and legally.

 

[Conager]

Good to see you recognize that Romney is correct, both morally and legally.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" - Hillary Rodham Clinton

Romney was always a pillar of moral rectitude. That's why the highly unqualified, incompetent Obama ate his lunch.

"Politics ain't beanbag." - James Carville

 

[jaF0]

DonDon resign yet?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Hey, RoJo is an always trumper!

I’ll just drop this here as well.

In an interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said he learned of a potential quid pro quo from the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, who told him that aid to Ukraine was tied to the desire by Mr. Trump and his allies to have Kyiv undertake investigations related to the 2016 U.S. elections.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...1?redirect=amp#click=https:/*******GPLBKsc9rm

 

[Wrong Element]

Romney becomes the first Republican Senator to break with the Deplorable hard line on the legitimacy of Trump's efforts to get foreign nations to support his "investigations":

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rong-and-appalling/ar-AAIhWub?ocid=spartanntp

Trump is more tolerated in Utah than truly liked, and Mitt will always be more popular there. Given that he seems to have inherited the phony "maverick" label from fellow hard-right conservative John McCain, Mitt probably actually had more to lose by keeping quiet.

The thing to watch is the reaction of GOP senators in the reddest states, the types who have to worry more about primaries than general elections. Trump won't be in danger until folks like that begin to signal it. John Cornyn, who is up for reelection, had an obsequious defense of Trump on Twitter today, and I would expect that sort of thing to continue.

 

[Conager]

Trump is more tolerated in Utah than truly liked, and Mitt will always be more popular there. Given that he seems to have inherited the phony "maverick" label from fellow hard-right conservative John McCain, Mitt probably actually had more to lose by keeping quiet.

The thing to watch is the reaction of GOP senators in the reddest states, the types who have to worry more about primaries than general elections. Trump won't be in danger until folks like that begin to signal it. John Cornyn, who is up for reelection, had an obsequious defense of Trump on Twitter today, and I would expect that sort of thing to continue.

Spot on.

 

[coati]

Romney was always a pillar of moral rectitude. That's why the highly unqualified, incompetent Obama ate his lunch.

Moral, schmoral.

Yeah, but what I loved in your post was your recognition that Romney was legally correct about Trump's recent communications with foreign leaders.

Your subsequent post simply deflects to some shit that happened seven years ago.

Good to know at least one Lit Deplorable now recognizes the illegality of Trump's actions.

 

[Conager]

Moral, schmoral.

Yeah, but what I loved in your post was your recognition that Romney was legally correct about Trump's recent communications with foreign leaders.

Your subsequent post simply deflects to some shit that happened seven years ago.

Good to know at least one Lit Deplorable now recognizes the illegality of Trump's actions.

Well, I'm wrong sometimes. And then like some around here and probably Romney I'm man enough to admit it. It looks like I may have been wrong about that.

Romney hasn't seen the transcript of the Volker interview:

"At no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you will see from the extensive text messages I am providing, which convey a sense of real-time dialogue with several different actors, Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion," Volker stated. "Moreover, as I was aware of public accusations about the Vice President, several times I cautioned the Ukrainians to distinguish between highlighting their own efforts to fight corruption domestically, including investigating Ukrainian individuals (something we support as a matter of U.S. policy), and doing anything that could be seen as impacting U.S. elections (which is neither in the United States' nor Ukraine's own interests). To the best of my knowledge, no such actions by Ukraine were ever taken, at least in part, I believe because of the advice I gave them." - Ambassador Kurt Volker

Oops.

Looks like we're back to the fact that there was no quid pro quo again, and quelle surprise, Schiff was delivering yet another load of Schiff by using out of context quotes to imply something entirely different than what was being discussed.

 

[phrodeau]

DonDon resign yet?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1510795