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

[easyt65]

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

Sorry but the Democrats had 4 years - during which time they illegally spied upon Trump and his team, enlisted the aid of foreign spies, foreign agents, used Russian Counter-Intelligence propaganda, illegally modified official reports, attempted to manufacture and present manufactured 'evidence' as legitimate evidence, and, n the words of their own Constitutional Expert, endangered the republic and have and continues to abuse their power - to make their case against the President, and they failed miserably in their House Intel and House Judiciary Committee hearings on Impeachment.

They only succeeded in demonstrating, after 4 years of violating the Constitution, US citizens' Constitutional Rights, & the Rule of Law, they still have zero crimes, zero evidence of a crime, and no witnesses in a process that contradicted and was contrary to every aspect of fairness and equal justice. The Democrats even came right out and admitted the reason they could / did get away with how they ran the House Impeachment process was because it was PURELY POLITICAL, a violation of Speaker Pelosi's own requirements for Impeachment.

Now Pelosi is further demonstrating how their own Constitutional Expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Impeachment was correct when he said the only one abusing their power are the Democrats by refusing to send the House Impeachment to the Senate in an attempt to dictate to the Senate how it will operate, a clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.

And the average, minority represented, Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat-supporting, easily offended, easily emotionally manipulated, liberal extremist talking point-parroting, ignorant, products of 'Common Core' education snowflakes are cheering these proven criminal, power-abusing, butt-hurt politicians who publicly declared their intent is to deny the American people of their democratically elected President and their future choice of who their next President will be?!

Jonathon Gruber must be so proud of you...

 

[ColonelAngus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...emocrats-impeach-trump-twice-they-might-have/

So adorable.

McGahn defied a Subpoena, so Trump must be impeached again!

Next they will impeach him for liking his steaks well done.

 

[easyt65]

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

...you mean like how US AG Eric Holder, the 1st Presidential Cabinet Member to be Censured in US History for perjury / Obstruction in attempting to protect Barry from Fast-and-Furious, was?

US AG Holder was caught committing a crime and was Censured by a BIPARTISAN Congress after he was protected from Indictment by Barry.

US AG Barr was Censured by an extremely Partisan House for REFUSING TO BREAK US LAW.

Big difference, snowflake.

 

[easyt65]

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

Well, enlighten us. Post the EXACT LAW as I have done, with link, and point out all the protections afforded to an ACTUAL Whistle Blower. Schiff and DL would especially be thankful if you could post the link to that law they say exists that grants WBers anonymity and immunity....

We'll wait.

 

[MisterBeale]

This was interesting. It contains the letter from White House counsel and goes over why the White House did not cooperate with the inquiry.

This guy not very friendly with the DNC's point of view, however, he does stick with the facts, for the most part. If folks on the left would like to know the GOP's POV, based on the facts, they should give it a gander.

This is why the second article will go no where, and why this whole thread and idea is a dud.

READ: White House letter to Pelosi rejecting cooperation in impeachment inquiry
READ: White House letter to Pelosi rejecting cooperation in impeachment inquiry

White House Letter to Speaker Pelosi, Et Al. 10.08.2019 | United States House Of Representatives | Due Process Clause

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf

Example of the first page pf eight on why the administration refuses to cooperate with this show trial;

 

[hadit]

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.

Nope, never said that. Please try again. I would state that the rule that compels him to testify is when he's called to do so.

Now, as I said before, please cite the actual rules that protect a WB from being called to testify and his/her anonymity. Retaliation in the workplace, absolutely, but that's not what I'm talking about. I want the actual rules that prevent him/her from being called to testify and protect anonymity.

 

[hadit]

Trump keeps breaking the law, he keeps getting impeached

No limit in the Constitution

Since it's all a political thing, it would be stupid for them to do it.

 

[easyt65]

The US IG, testimony, and FBI texts have exposed the fact that the investigation initiated by the FBI was based on know unverified Russian Counter-Intelligence propaganda provided by a known lying, Trump-hating foreign spy who had his own anti-Trump agenda which was used to commit FISA Court abuse - violations and crimes against the US Constitution and Rule of Law...

A President's ... or US citizens'...'Obstruction' of and / or a refusal to cooperate with such extremely high crimes by partisan politicians and a betrayal of the public's trust should be celebrated / honored, not grounds for punishment.

 

[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?

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?

And, Barr is the one paid to make that decision. Starr operated under a different law, Barr didn't have to release any of the Mueller Report, yet he did. Your claim his summary was inadequate is just partisan bullshit.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.

The ICIG lied, it's that simple. Protocol wasn't followed, he didn't have the authority to even accept the complaint, much less act on it. Why do you think the DNI took it to the DOJ for review? If the so call WB didn't have a need to know about the call, he and his co-conspirators violated the espionage act. You pathetic commies could care less if it takes criminal conduct to get what you want. Don't talk of caring about our laws and Constitution, you only care when it politically benefits you.

.

 

[Nostra]

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

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

"The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals about whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn following the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
"If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment," Letter wrote."

A clear admission the Dimwingers know their impeachment is a farce.

 

[hadit]

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/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement 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.

The ICIG lied, it's that simple. Protocol wasn't followed, he didn't have the authority to even accept the complaint, much less act on it. Why do you think the DNI took it to the DOJ for review? If the so call WB didn't have a need to know about the call, he and his co-conspirators violated the espionage act. You pathetic commies could care less if it takes criminal conduct to get what you want. Don't talk of caring about our laws and Constitution, you only care when it politically benefits you.

.

And that is why the WB needs to testify. Who told him about the call, did that person have clearance to divulge it, and did the WB have clearance to hear and in turn divulge it again?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

My point was, if they need new testimony, then it raises the question, did the left have viable reason and evidence to impeach, or did they impeach without evidence in hopes of compelling these witnesses adding something unknown, to which the old impeachment articles would be disposed of, and new articles would be drawn up.

One could come to the conclusion that the left impeached a president with no evidence of any wrongdoing, and is just trying to wing it in hopes of actually finding an impeachable offense.

 

[rightwinger]

As more information is released, more impeachment charges can be filed

 

[HenryBHough]

Sleazycrats will do anything to fuck around rather than do the nation's business.

What is it about work that puts them off?

 

[mudwhistle]

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

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

"The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals about whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn following the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
"If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment," Letter wrote."

Democrats have weaponized impeachment.....and because of that...their funding should be cut off.
They cannot be allowed to use funds from the treasury to pay for the endless investigations.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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.

They might try to hold them back from the Senate till after the election to try to take the Senate back....

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?

She is a bitch.

 

[JusticeHammer]

"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.

The rest are as stupid as you.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Moron, that subpoena is nullified. Your sham “investigation” is over. Meaning you can’t force McGhan to do anything. Yes you are done moron. You will lose again and again and again. Like you always do. But your stupidity won’t be cured anytime soon.

 

[easyt65]

Engaging in never-ending coup attempts because you lost an election is the direct result of spoiled liberal progressive Socialist Democrats and their pu$$y sports 'Participation Trophies For Everyone' idea.

The Democrats' behavior the last 3+ years is exactly why there are winners and losers and why it is important to teach kids HOW to win AND LOSE with class and honor...instead of turning out like Democrats / snowflakes.'