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

[OKTexas]

Besides......................aren't Republicans fond of saying that we are a nation of laws? If laws are violated, then the person violating them needs to be held to account.

Yep. Once upon a time they were also fond of saying, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." These they are rather fond of keeping the nation in the dark, and pretend that crimes committed under cover of this self-created darkness don't count. Anyway, bringing up these long-forgotten principles, you will not make very many friends among their ranks.

You commies didn't seem to be too concerned when Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence against the bitch, did ya? I guess Trump can use the same defense, too stupid to know better. LMAO

.

 

[MarcATL]

If at first you don't succeed....

The corrupt bastard has already successfully been impeached.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

 

[Fueri]

If at first you don't succeed....

The corrupt bastard has already successfully been impeached.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

Not until Aunt Nancy finds the paperwork and sends it to the Senate he isn't where it will be summarily tossed in the trash.

Then you feckless fools can see if you can get it right the next time around.

Good luck.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If at first you don't succeed....

The corrupt bastard has already successfully been impeached.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

Not until Aunt Nancy finds the paperwork and sends it to the Senate he isn't where it will be summarily tossed in the trash.

Then you feckless fools can see if you can get it right the next time around.

Good luck.

You are another person who doesn't appear to know how impeachment works.

First, they get information about the possibility of an impeachable offense. Then, the House does an investigation to see if impeachable offenses have been committed. If it is determined that there were, they then draw up articles of impeachment and vote on whether or not to impeach.

Once the House impeaches the president, it is then passed to the Senate. And, while the Senate cannot reverse the impeachment of the House, they can vote to remove or keep the president. Even if the Senate votes to keep him, he's still been impeached.

The House does the impeaching, the Senate decides if the president should stay or not. Matter of fact, even though the Senate decided to not remove Clinton, because of the vote in the House, he will always be remembered as a president who was impeached.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I heard there is going to be a facebook page on impeachment.....

 

[bripat9643]

If at first you don't succeed....

The corrupt bastard has already successfully been impeached.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

Not until Aunt Nancy finds the paperwork and sends it to the Senate he isn't where it will be summarily tossed in the trash.

Then you feckless fools can see if you can get it right the next time around.

Good luck.

You are another person who doesn't appear to know how impeachment works.

First, they get information about the possibility of an impeachable offense. Then, the House does an investigation to see if impeachable offenses have been committed. If it is determined that there were, they then draw up articles of impeachment and vote on whether or not to impeach.

Once the House impeaches the president, it is then passed to the Senate. And, while the Senate cannot reverse the impeachment of the House, they can vote to remove or keep the president. Even if the Senate votes to keep him, he's still been impeached.

The House does the impeaching, the Senate decides if the president should stay or not. Matter of fact, even though the Senate decided to not remove Clinton, because of the vote in the House, he will always be remembered as a president who was impeached.

He understands exactly how this impeachment is going to work.

 

[playtime]

"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

.

you spelt breathE wrong. LMAO.

 

[playtime]

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.

.

um, yes grand jury testimony IS secret. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrr:

WHAT LAWS AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS APPLY?
Federal law and judicial precedent could play a role in the subpoena fight.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves “grave hostile acts of a foreign power” or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

Exceptions that Authorize Release of Grand Jury Information

One check on Barr’s discretion is the courts. While Barr, as “an attorney for the government,” must adhere to the secrecy provisions of Rule 6(e), he could seek permission from the district court to disclose to Congress the grand jury material in Mueller’s report. As Judge John Sirica noted in the Watergate case, once an investigation has ended, many grand jury secrecy considerations disappear. “There is no need to protect against flight on anyone’s part, to prevent tampering with or restraints on witnesses or jurors, to protect grand jury deliberations, to safeguard unaccused or innocent persons with secrecy.”

Even if disclosing the report to the public compromises too much secrecy, Barr could make a more limited to request for disclosure only to Congress.
How Barr May Interpret What It Means to Withhold “Grand Jury Information”

re: slick willy, ken starr initially released a 450 page 'summary' (100x more than the 4 page bullshit than what barr released) & later released 1800 pages of underlying testimony.

barr can go to the courts to get it all released, but instead chose not to. the question STILL begs - why won't tinkles have barr petition the court?

 

[playtime]

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.

.

& yet the ICIG said that protocol was followed & the WB was deemed credible.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

huh... 'magine that. & why do you call him/her a 'traitor' - cause he/she put country & the constitution over a big fay orange man baby puppet? deplorables are only loyal to a man.

 

[playtime]

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.

.

 

[Crixus]

so if new intel or docs or factual witness' testify that donny is knee deep in putin's shit, he should get a pass because of the current shit he is knee deep in?

The appearance of partisan piling-on--is not a good one for the Democrats..IMO. You are risking overloading the public and turning them against the left. Offend their sense of fair play at your own risk.

Risk overloading the public and turning them against the left? Offend their sense of fair play? This has already happened. I don't think the other side is sitting as pretty as they think though. In my opinion, voters hat all of them equally.

 

[easyt65]

'2nd Impeachment'?!

1. There hasn't been a '1st Impeachment' yet, as Pelosi continues to hold the House THREAT of Impeachment back instead of sending it to the Senate as required for it to become 'official'. It's like holding a vote to get up and walkout of a speech...then not getting up and walking out. It's just the latest example of the Democrats' abuse of power.

2. 'Because 4 years of undermining, illegal spying, conspiracy, leaking classified, illegally manipulating and falsifying reports and evidence, Sedition, & treason in an attempt to render millions of U citizens' votes null and void and undo the 2016 election is not enough...'

3. 'Because elected Democrats have nothing better to do than fully commit their time, effort, and our tax dollars on partisan revenge and getting their power back the only way they can....Constitution, Rule of Law, and Will of the People be damned.'

 

[playtime]

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.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

please cite the rule that requires a WB to testify.

i will add that there are rules PROTECTING both the identity & from retaliation against a WB. something donny was ( & probably still is trying) to violate.

 

[playtime]

Can someone explain why the house needs new testimony?

the same reason why any prosecutor should have any new evidence & resulting testimony of any previously unknown criminal acts committed by said crimnal.

DUH.

 

[easyt65]

i will add that there are rules PROTECTING both the identity & from retaliation against a WB. something donny was ( & probably still is trying) to violate.

Having posted the actual law itself several times in numerous threads on this board, I will remind all that the ONLY protection that is afforded to an ACTUAL 'Whistle Blower' - which Schiff's does not qualify as is the protection from being fired.

Despite D-Adam Schiff and DragonLady claiming they are afforded ANIONYMTIY and IMMUNITY, these are LIES.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump keeps breaking the law, he keeps getting impeached

No limit in the Constitution

 

[playtime]

um, no. there was no impeachment inquiry or trial regarding mueller's investigation.

If there was anything there, then they should and would have included it in the first impeachment.

The very idea of holding back charges from the first impeachment, so that they can be used as a basis for subsequent impeachments when the first fails, pretty much proves what everyone already knows—that this was never about any legitimate legal complaints against the President, but merely an abuse of the process for the purpose of harassing and undermining him.

no dummy - they wanted mcghan 8 months ago - only NOW is it possible because they went to the courts & finally got a ruling in their favor. but you are saying that now isn't a good time? oh well, homey don't play that.

You are wrong as always. You can’t compel McGahn to do anything now because you rushed your bullshit through, nullifying that subpoena. The courts will NOT force anybody to testify as the Senate and McConnell have SOLE control over the trial in that body. They can’t interfere. What an idiot........

mcghan already was ordered to testify b4 congress, & it is now on appeal. i wasn't talking about him testifying at any impeachment trial.... yet. you think they are done investigating? like i said in my first reply on this here thread, that the relevant committees are continuing with their constitutional duty for oversight & they would be in dereliction of that obligation to look the other way at anything else that could be deemed criminal & unworthy of the presidency.

 

[playtime]

You know, if a person commits a crime and is convicted of it, does that mean that person can never be convicted of another crime again? Because if you say that Trump shouldn't be impeached again, you are basically saying that.

If Trump does something that violates the Constitution, or if he abuses his powers while in office to enrich himself, violating his oath, I want him held to account each an every time. Otherwise, you are giving him free reign to do whatever he wants.

Besides......................aren't Republicans fond of saying that we are a nation of laws? If laws are violated, then the person violating them needs to be held to account.

those that would argue with you are loyal to the man & not the cornerstone on which this nation was built - the constitution.

 

[playtime]

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

There is no WB it's all a fraud. The ICIG didn't have the authority to even entertain the complaint, much less act on it.

.

I've seen no reason whatever to keep the identity secret. Leads me to think perhaps he/she doesn't really exist or was just set up as a pretense to launch the impeachment.

There's not, because he isn't a legit WB, he was nothing but an individual the contents of a classified phone call was leaked to. My question is if he had a need to know that information. If not the folks that talked to him violated the espionage act and should be prosecuted. There are many questions that haven't been answered.

.

That's a door they won't go close to.

Hopefully Barr will. We'll see.

.

barr isn't working for the american people. he's working solely for donny.

 

[playtime]

i will add that there are rules PROTECTING both the identity & from retaliation against a WB. something donny was ( & probably still is trying) to violate.

Having posted the actual law itself several times in numerous threads on this board, I will remind all that the ONLY protection that is afforded to an ACTUAL 'Whistle Blower' - which Schiff's does not qualify as is the protection from being fired.

Despite D-Adam Schiff and DragonLady claiming they are afforded ANIONYMTIY and IMMUNITY, these are LIES.

'fired' is only one protection among many under 'retaliation'.