2nd Impeachment? House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

[Jitss617]

 

[blackhawk]

Say's it all.

 

[hadit]

It's your area. People wearing MAGA hats, for example, probably don't tend to live where you do but there are parts of the country where you could see them on a daily basis. There are a few places where there actually is a mix, and it is in those areas that the left tends to go unhinged and beat up people wearing the wrong colors.

oh please, racists be everywhere. some just have more balls wearing their revamped hood... the obvious 'MAGATS' tend to CONgregate openly where they are more accepted.

You made my point. You tuck Trump people tend to congregate openly where you are more accepted as well.

uh-huh. a mall.... walking down the street... at the radiologist................

Likewise for MAGA hat wearers. Answer this, is your county or city on the map red or blue? Are the surrounding counties red or blue?

well, we are blue with some deep red pockets. btw - i am the only one i have ever seen with a button. i have seen a few bumper stickers for both sides though.

That's what I thought. There are parts of the country where such a button would garner you very negative responses and very few positive ones. IOW, your anecdotal experience doesn't really inform on the larger question.

 

[playtime]

doubtful. i think pelosi is holding back just long enough for a few (R) senators to vote on the rules to allow witness', & with this latest email by one of the dudes fighting a subpoena, telling the OMB to hold back funds but keep it hush just help that happen or if more info comes out in the coming days.

What makes you think anyone in the senate will cave to the bitches extortion?

.

it will only take 3.

oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a bitch?

Wrong again dumbass, three would make it a 50/50 tie, the VP would be called to break the tie. I guess you're too stupid to know the VP is the president of the senate.

.

pence is 'president of the senate' but i don't think he can participate in breaking any tie. that would fall on roberts. m'k... how about 4 then? romney, collins, murkowski, & one more.

Wrong again commie, Pence could participate in a vote on senate rules and possibly on a motion to dismiss if it were a tie. He doesn't participate in the actual impeachment vote that takes a 2/3rds majority of senators. Once again your ignorance is showing. LMAO

.

'commie'.... LOL..... cause i'm loyal to the constitution & not a man.

fine, 4 then. that's all that will be needed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They should have used the courts while this was in the House...

Why? Every instance of obstruction was, itself, evidence of a high crime.

 

[playtime]

oh please, racists be everywhere. some just have more balls wearing their revamped hood... the obvious 'MAGATS' tend to CONgregate openly where they are more accepted.

You made my point. You tuck Trump people tend to congregate openly where you are more accepted as well.

uh-huh. a mall.... walking down the street... at the radiologist................

Likewise for MAGA hat wearers. Answer this, is your county or city on the map red or blue? Are the surrounding counties red or blue?

well, we are blue with some deep red pockets. btw - i am the only one i have ever seen with a button. i have seen a few bumper stickers for both sides though.

That's what I thought. There are parts of the country where such a button would garner you very negative responses and very few positive ones. IOW, your anecdotal experience doesn't really inform on the larger question.

i would wear it anywhere. & have. the larger question is i still got only one negative reaction & the woman was a whack out pro lifer. i basically shut her down.

 

[Meister]

They should have used the courts while this was in the House...

Why? Every instance of obstruction was, itself, evidence of a high crime.

You would be right in a kangaroo court. But,........

 

[Bob Blaylock]

DUE PROCESS APPLYS [sic] IN CRIMINAL COURTS -

an impeachment isnt [sic] criminal its strictly political.

obviously, youre [sic] too big of a dumbass to look it up.

A damning admission, on your part; as far as this particular use of the Impeachment process is concerned.

The Impeachment process was meant to be for determining whether the President has committed crimes while in office that are serious enough to merit removing him from office. While the process differs somewhat from a normal criminal prosecution, most of the same general principles were meant to apply.

I do not think that the great men who wrote our Constitution anticipated that one or both chambers of Congress would become so corrupt and partisan that this process would be used for purely political motives, to smear a sitting President with bullshit trumped-up [no pun-intended] charges, as we are seeing here.

 

[hadit]

You made my point. You tuck Trump people tend to congregate openly where you are more accepted as well.

uh-huh. a mall.... walking down the street... at the radiologist................

Likewise for MAGA hat wearers. Answer this, is your county or city on the map red or blue? Are the surrounding counties red or blue?

well, we are blue with some deep red pockets. btw - i am the only one i have ever seen with a button. i have seen a few bumper stickers for both sides though.

That's what I thought. There are parts of the country where such a button would garner you very negative responses and very few positive ones. IOW, your anecdotal experience doesn't really inform on the larger question.

i would wear it anywhere. & have. the larger question is i still got only one negative reaction & the woman was a whack out pro lifer. i basically shut her down.

No, the larger question that you really wanted to answer is, do people support Trump? Apparently the pro-lifer read you correctly.

 

[OKTexas]

"Right now I’m on a Christmas light tour in a very conservative southern city. The tour guide just mentioned Trump getting impeached, everyone applauded. Including the kids." - Sassy Scott Dworkin

i have a 'tuck frump' button on my pocketbook & only one person outa maybe 10 said something negative - the rest liked it & said he's got to go.

Do they only show CNN in your facility? LMAO

.

i don't have cable so try again. 'facility'.... how remarkably unoriginal. *yawn*

I just assumed since you're too stupid to breath, you'd need assistance. LMAO

.

 

[hadit]

DUE PROCESS APPLYS [sic] IN CRIMINAL COURTS -

an impeachment isnt [sic] criminal its strictly political.

obviously, youre [sic] too big of a dumbass to look it up.

A damning admission, on your part; as far as this particular use of the Impeachment process is concerned.

The Impeachment process was meant to be for determining whether the President has committed crimes while in office that are serious enough to merit removing him from office. While the process differs somewhat from a normal criminal prosecution, most of the same general principles were meant to apply.

I do not think that the great men who wrote our Constitution anticipated that one or both chambers of Congress would become so corrupt and partisan that this process would be used for purely political motives, to smear a sitting President with bullshit trumped-up [no pun-intended] charges, as we are seeing here.

They not only anticipated it, but feared it and warned against it. Democrats apparently don't learn much from history.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

pence is 'president of the senate' but i don't think he can participate in breaking any tie.

That's a specific function that the Constitution assigns to the Vice President—as President of the Senate, he gets to cast the deciding vote if there is otherwise a tie. The Constitution isn't really clear on how his role applies to a matter, such as impeachment, where a two-thirds vote is required, but I would imagine that in a case where it is either 66% or 67% of the Senate voting in favor of such a matter, putting it to just barely one side or the other of that two thirds, that he'd get to cast the deciding vote.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Every instance of obstruction was, itself, evidence of a high crime.

That makes as much sense as claiming that every instance in which a citizen declines to allow the police to search his home without a warrant is evidence that that citizen is guilty of a crime.

Under the principles on which our legal system operates, the government doesn't get to demand access to anyone's private property, papers, records or whatever, to search for evidence of a crime, without first satisfying a certain standard of probable cause that a crime has actually taken place, and that such a search is necessary to uncover evidence of that crime.

 

[Olde Europe]

pence is 'president of the senate' but i don't think he can participate in breaking any tie. that would fall on roberts.

As the Constitution provides, the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of the president in the Senate. The vice president has NO role in that. Roberts doesn't have a vote. That's why 51 Senators are required to adopt the rules of the trial.

 

[toobfreak]

WTF? Another impeachment? We are now entering the Twilight zone

Fuck 'em all. Once impeached, you cannot be impeached more, these a-holes merely want to create a constitutional crisis, ANYTHING to keep Biden and themselves from being investigated and Trump on the front page of NYT. The question begs: WHY WEREN'T THESE OTHER MATTERS CONSIDERED the first time around?

Because they were just in a big fricking hurry to impeach Trump and turn the matter into a circus. The Democrats have made impeachment meaningless.

Not only isn't Trump officially impeached until they file it with the Senate, but with Nancy refusing, McConnell has no basis on which to base or decided how it will proceed. And with this threat of further action, why should he start the Senate hearing until that too is resolved?

So, DEADLOCK -- -- -- -- if the idiot Demturds ever really WANTED Trump impeached, much less removed from office, they have assured that is unlikely to happen now until they either shit or get off the pot. McConnell is not going to let them make a mockery of the process through the entire 2020 election cycle as is obviously their intention.

Imagine their horror when Trump is reelected to roaring crowds even as he lingers under their faux cloud of "impeachment."

 

[OKTexas]

What makes you think anyone in the senate will cave to the bitches extortion?

.

it will only take 3.

oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a bitch?

They should have used the courts while this was in the House.....but the bitch was in too much of a hurry.
Oh well, they had their chance and blew it....like usual. Trump 2020

it has been in the courts - where you been?

It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?

all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.

Wrong again commie, one guy went to the court just for guidance and the house withdrew the subpoena, claiming it was too urgent to wait on the courts.

.

 

[OKTexas]

All the court said is McGahn has to show up, nothing says he can't still claim executive privilege and not answer questions.

.

EP wasn't extended when he talked to mueller. you can't retroactively impose it & that is the crux. nor can you claim it when a crime was committed.

Were is that written, other than left extremist hate sites?

.

lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, pussy

cat.

CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?

Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.

On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.

Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.

McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.

Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?

yer welcome.

LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.

.

only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?

OMG the fucking law says grand jury testimony is secret, stop bitching because people are following the damn law. You're impeaching yourself with such ignorant claims.

.

 

[OKTexas]

it will only take 3.

Wrong again dumbass, three would make it a 50/50 tie, the VP would be called to break the tie. I guess you're too stupid to know the VP is the president of the senate..

It takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict.

We're talking about making the rules for impeachment, the VP could be used to break a tie.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Were is that written, other than left extremist hate sites?

.

lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, pussy

cat.

CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?

Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.

On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.

Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.

McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.

Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?

yer welcome.

LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.

.

only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?

I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.

This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

The traitor isn't qualified to be a WB under ICIG rules. The subject must be within the authority and responsibility of the DNI, that doesn't apply to presidential diplomatic phone calls. Try educating your ignorant self.

.

 

[OKTexas]

What makes you think anyone in the senate will cave to the bitches extortion?

.

it will only take 3.

oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a bitch?

Wrong again dumbass, three would make it a 50/50 tie, the VP would be called to break the tie. I guess you're too stupid to know the VP is the president of the senate.

.

pence is 'president of the senate' but i don't think he can participate in breaking any tie. that would fall on roberts. m'k... how about 4 then? romney, collins, murkowski, & one more.

Wrong again commie, Pence could participate in a vote on senate rules and possibly on a motion to dismiss if it were a tie. He doesn't participate in the actual impeachment vote that takes a 2/3rds majority of senators. Once again your ignorance is showing. LMAO

.

'commie'.... LOL..... cause i'm loyal to the constitution & not a man.

fine, 4 then. that's all that will be needed.

You wouldn't know the Constitution if it busted you in the mouth.

.