Impeachment Thread

[cuck72]

We'll talk about impeachment after this is explained

I just want to hear Hunter explain how the HELL! he got that job, making all that money. PLEASE! let us all hear that? And why his daddy thought it was ok to work for a corrupt Government and gas company. WOW!

 

[cuck72]

Feel free to explain how the Democrats compelled Trump to try to extort Zelensky.

PLEASE! I really want to know, explain Hunter's story ? THAT! would be great, and you would be the FIRST! to do so.

 

[phrodeau]

I just want to hear Hunter explain how the HELL! he got that job, making all that money. PLEASE! let us all hear that? And why his daddy thought it was ok to work for a corrupt Government and gas company. WOW!

Here you go.

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/17/fact-check-hunter-biden-ukraine-burisma-payments/

 

[YDB95]

PLEASE! I really want to know, explain Hunter's story ? THAT! would be great, and you would be the FIRST! to do so.

It's not unlike Trump's story, inasmuch as he got a plum job without any real qualifications. But that is not a crime (and if it were, Trump would have gone to prison decades ago!). There is no evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden was involved in anything illegal. Even if there were, having the president threaten to withhold aid passed by Congress unless their president digs up some dirt on him is NOT the appropriate way to address that matter. Come to think of it, I don't see where the president had any standing to ask Zelensky to do anything about it. It was a Ukranian company doing business on Ukranian soil.

 

[JackLuis]

‘Naked, unapologetic and insidious’ corruption: Dems respond to Trump’s official statement on impeachment trial

Responding to President Donald Trump’s official answer to the impeachment charges against him now facing trial in the U.S. Senate, the Democratic House Managers assigned to prosecute the case rejected Sunday morning the president’s claim his conduct was “perfect” by saying there is “a different word for it: impeachable.”

“Rather than honestly address the evidence against him, the President’s latest filing makes the astounding claim that pressuring Ukraine to interfere in our election by announcing investigations that would damage a political opponent and advance his reelection is the President’s way of fighting corruption. It is not. Rather it is corruption itself, naked, unapologetic and insidious.”

The NYT says:

The president’s lawyers did not deny any of the core facts underlying Democrats’ charges, conceding what considerable evidence and testimony in the House has shown: that he withheld $391 million in aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine and asked the country’s president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden.

But they said Mr. Trump broke no laws and was acting entirely appropriately and within his powers when he did so, echoing his repeated protestations of his own innocence. They argued that he was not seeking political advantage, but working to root out corruption in Ukraine.

The GAO disagrees, though.

 

[cuck72]

Here you go.

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/17/fact-check-hunter-biden-ukraine-burisma-payments/

Thank you sounds messed up to me. YES! our President has every right to be checking this shit out.

 

[cuck72]

It's not unlike Trump's story, inasmuch as he got a plum job without any real qualifications. But that is not a crime (and if it were, Trump would have gone to prison decades ago!). There is no evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden was involved in anything illegal. Even if there were, having the president threaten to withhold aid passed by Congress unless their president digs up some dirt on him is NOT the appropriate way to address that matter. Come to think of it, I don't see where the president had any standing to ask Zelensky to do anything about it. It was a Ukranian company doing business on Ukranian soil.

Let's just have Hunter, and his stupid dad take the stand.

 

[YDB95]

Thank you sounds messed up to me. YES! our President has every right to be checking this shit out.

It's not the president's job to investigate such things on an individual level in another country (or even within the USA for that matter), and he certainly doesn't have the right to encourage a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a potential rival.

Let's just have Hunter, and his stupid dad take the stand.

Careful what you wish for.
Besides - again - there is no evidence that either of them did anything illegal, unlike Trump.

 

[allison22]

President Trump wanted to strike down a law that prohibits companies from bribing foreign officials, calling the ban “so unfair” to American companies.

In the spring of 2017, Mr. Trump was at a briefing with Rex W. Tillerson, then the secretary of state, and aides in the Oval Office. At the mention of a bribery allegation, Mr. Trump “perked up” and told Mr. Tillerson that he wanted his help in scrapping the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

That law, enacted in 1977 and heavily enforced since around 2005, prohibits companies that operate in the United States from bribing foreign officials to obtain or retain business. It has become a major factor in corporate decision-making about operations abroad.

Mr. Trump said that it was “just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/economy/trump-bribery-law.html

When a president takes a strong pro-bribery stance like this, that alone should be enough to get him impeached!

 

[JackLuis]

I think Trumpski just want to be the bribee!

 

[bodysong]

Today at noon, the House Managers, on behalf of the U.S.
House of Representatives, filed with the Secretary of the
Senate a Replication to the Response to the Summons of
President Donald J. Trump to the Articles of Impeachment.

(It is a very long response. Here is the kicker-

In the Replication, the House Managers write:

Now it is the Senate’s duty to conduct a fair trial —
fair for President Trump, and fair for the American
people.

“Only if the Senate sees and hears all relevant evidence —
only if it insists upon the whole truth — can it render impartial justice.
That means the Senate should require the President to turn over the
documents he is hiding. It should hear from witnesses, as it has done
in every impeachment trial in American history; it especially should
hear from witnesses the President blocked from testifying in the
House. President Trump cannot have it both ways. His Answer
directly disputes key facts. He must either surrender all evidence
relevant to the facts he has disputed or concede the facts as charged.
Otherwise, this impeachment trial will fall far short of the American
system of justice.”

https://medium.com/housejudiciary/u...idents-answer-to-the-articles-of-50a3bfa606ea

*tip of the hat to Daily Kos and News Corpse

 

[Dumpington]

bodysong writes: "Only if the Senate sees and hears all relevant evidence — only if it insists upon the whole truth — can it render impartial justice."

The U.S. Senate - like everybody else in America - watched the clown-show House impeachment inquiries! They KNOW what evidence was put forth by Schiff & Nadler, and then voted on by House Democrats! The ONLY bipartisanship exhibited in the House of Representatives was among those members of both parties OPPOSING impeachment! One Democratic Party House member even announced that he was switching parties and joining the G.O.P.

And now it's the U.S. Senate's turn to run things. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, & Jerry Nadler all WANT to tell the Senators what to do, but they CAN'T! The Senators all KNOW what a weak case has been put forth by the House, which is why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is begging for more witnesses! Schumer is upset that his own party's House Dems have done such a piss-poor job!

"...this impeachment trial will fall far short of the American system of justice"

TRANSLATION: Our side is losing, and we're going to scream & cry after the U.S. Senate vindicates this president because we're sick & tired of Trump kicking our collective asses over & over!

 

[JackLuis]

Fox News announces Trump added a bunch of far-right Republicans to his impeachment team

“The legal team for the White House just got a lot bigger, Fox News reported Monday.

The network announced Trump has added Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH), Doug Collins (R-GA), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Mark Meadows (R-NC), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Lee Zeldin (R-NY).

Will they bring the Clown Car?

 

[JackLuis]

Here are the rules Mitch McConnell has laid out for the Senate impeachment trial

On Monday, CNN obtained the draft of the rules proposed for impeachment by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

According to the rules, both sides must present opening arguments and evidence within two days each, in a total of 24 hours of total arguments, which is a much stricter requirement than the rules during the Clinton impeachment. This will likely mean much of the debate will have to go into the night if the House managers want to use their full time to argue their case.

At the end of the two presentations, will be 16 hours of questions. There will be no motion to dismiss after that, as in the Clinton impeachment rules, but there will then be four hours and an up or down vote to allow witnesses or documents — a concession made to Republicans like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who had been pushing for such language.

When will there be Clowns?

 

[YDB95]

The network announced Trump has added Representatives Gym Jordan (R-OH), Doug Collins (R-GA), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Mark Meadows (R-NC), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Lee Zeldin (R-NY).

Fixed that for ya.

 

[JackLuis]

McConnell lays out rules for Trump's Senate trial, allowing for vote on witnesses, documents

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will allot each side a total of 24 hours to present their arguments in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, but the time must be confined to two working days, according to the text of his organizing resolution, which NBC News obtained Monday.

The proposal also suggests that none of the evidence collected as part of the House's impeachment inquiry will be admitted automatically. Instead, according to the text, the Senate will vote later on whether to admit any documents.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said McConnell's rules "depart dramatically" from the precedent set during President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999 "in ways that are designed to prevent the Senate and the American people from learning the full truth about President Trump's actions that warranted his impeachment."

"The McConnell rules don't even allow the simple, basic step of admitting the House record into evidence at the trial," he said, adding that he would be offering amendments "to address the many flaws in this deeply unfair proposal."

Moscow Mitch, what a BITCH!

 

[YDB95]

Can't imagine anyone's surprised. It's been a long time since ol' Mitch has even pretended to play fair.

 

[JackLuis]

Angry Alan Dershowitz goes off on ‘two bullies’ Anderson Cooper and Jeff Toobin when confronted with his hypocrisy

On Monday’s edition of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz went on the defensive as Cooper and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin confronted him with his prior statements that impeachment doesn’t require a criminal act for President Bill Clinton — which he now says is required for President Donald Trump.

“Back then you said that it certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president, who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime,” said Cooper.

“Well, that’s true. You don’t need a technical crime. That’s my position today,” said Dershowitz. “I’ve said right from the beginning you need criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason.”

Dershowitz is true to Hypocritic Oath.

 

[JackLuis]

John Roberts will not like McConnell’s efforts to rush through the impeachment trial at night: Law professor

On Monday’s edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” UNC Law professor Michael Gerhardt warned that Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the impeachment trial, will be unhappy with the proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to force arguments to be rushed through in two days and continuing into the night.

“He wants to try and end this fast … [and] he wants to put it on and ensure it happens at a time people can’t see it,” said Gerhardt. “One person it’s not going to make happy is Chief Justice John Roberts. People have been hoping Roberts might save this trial in some way. In fact, I think Chief Justice Roberts looks at this as not a great thing. He doesn’t want to sit there for 12 hours. He knows that’s not going to ensure lawyers at their best. What this does is it serves the president’s interest, not the interest of the Senate, and certainly not the interest of trying to help the American people understand what’s going on.”

Justice may be blind, but she's not stupid, Mitch!

 

[JackLuis]

Mitch McConnell has a ‘Plan B’ to block the public from witnessing John Bolton’s testimony: Washington Post

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has a plan to prevent the American people from every seeing former National Security Advisor John Bolton testify in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

“President Trump’s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions,” The Post reported.

“One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton’s testimony into a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public,” The Post reported. “To receive the testimony in a classified session, Trump’s attorneys would have to request such a step, according to one official, adding that it would probably need the approval of 51 senators.”

I think the House Managers should challenge the Senators who said they would not be impartial from serving as jurors. See if John Roberts agrees that a tainted jury pool is bad for justice to be served. Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey should be removed and incarcerated until the trial is over. No phones, no visitors and only CNN for news!

 

[JackLuis]

The best arguments Republicans can come up with on both articles of impeachment is that Trump is guilty

On both articles of impeachment, Republicans are arguing that President Donald Trump shouldn’t be convicted and removed from office because he’s guilty. It’s certainly an odd legal tactic, but it shows the degree to which Republicans are clamoring for ways to excuse the president’s crimes.

In the charge of an abuse of Congress, Republicans have argued that what Trump did in his call to Ukraine was wrong and maybe even illegal but not worth removing him from office. Even Trump’s own lawyer made the argument on ABC’s “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday

“I’m making what could be the most important argument on the floor of the Senate, namely that even if everything that is alleged by the House managers is proven, assuming it’s true, they would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said on CNN.

It appears Republicans are at a loss for how to justify Trump’s behavior. They’ve tried every excuse possible, but have been slapped in the face by the president’s outright admissions of guilt on social media and on the White House lawn when talking to reporters. Even Trump’s chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters that Trump committed a crime, but asked, “so what?”

All assholes, all the time!

 

[KeithD]

I'm pretty sure John Bolton's book is going to come out and be very public before the November elections--probably close enough to the elections for voters to remember it.

 

[YDB95]

I'm pretty sure John Bolton's book is going to come out and be very public before the November elections--probably close enough to the elections for voters to remember it.

Bit of a stretch to assume anyone who will vote for Trump can read, though.

 

[icanhelp1]

It's not the president's job to investigate such things on an individual level in another country (or even within the USA for that matter), and he certainly doesn't have the right to encourage a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a potential rival.




Careful what you wish for.
Besides - again - there is no evidence that either of them did anything illegal, unlike Trump.

The president is the top cop ( WTF ). If suspicion exist that US aid will fall into the hands of corrupt players, he can, as Chief Executive, direct any agency under his command to investigate any potential corruption or bring it to the attention of a foreign entity that aid will be held until the matter is resolved. If funding is going to be held past the fiscal spending deadline or denied completely the OMB is required to notify congress of the change.

 

[YDB95]

The president is the top cop ( WTF ). If suspicion exist that US aid will fall into the hands of corrupt players, he can, as Chief Executive, direct any agency under his command to investigate any potential corruption or bring it to the attention of a foreign entity that aid will be held until the matter is resolved.

Those are two very different things. And no, the president does not have the right to unilaterally choose to withhold aid passed by Congress based on a silly conspiracy theory.