Offical Impeachment Thread

[Faun]

You're deranged, lying fucking moron....

https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2018/12/1-Green-Roiphe-1-75.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/file/19191/download

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/03/11/no-trump-cannot-do-whatever-he-wants-with-the-justice-department/?outputType=amp

From you first link:

The Department of Justice and the Special Prosecutor disagreed about whether the President, as head of the Executive Branch under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, could direct individual prosecutions if he so chose. The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon left the issue unresolved and has never revisited it.

Your second link isn't even from this century and the third doesn't work.

But all this is, is more opinions and non-working links, good job commie, GOOD JOB!

.

The first link states:

The history and policy strongly suggest that, as a general matter, the Attorney General and subordinate prosecutors may not accept direction from the President but must make the ultimate decisions about how to conduct individual investigations and prosecutions, even at the risk of being fired for disobeying the President.​

Which was proven to be true by Nixon who fired multiple people who refused to follow his orders.

Age of the second link is irrelevant.

And this fixes the link to the third link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...hatever-he-wants-with-the-justice-department/​

Yeah, ya don't do what the boss says, your job may not be too secure. And your solution for the third link it to put it behind a pay wall, REALLY? BTW presidents have been directing the DOJ since Thomas Jefferson was president. Hell, Eric holder said he was maobamas wing man.

.

I never said presidents can't tell the DoJ what to do. I said the DoJ doesn't have to do what the president says.

Concession noted.

.

LOLOL

You're fucking deranged.

 

[joaquinmiller]

So even though any criminal or congressional case always starts out with their star witnesses, the Democrats didn't do it this time? You mean they are just warming up???

Cases do not always start with star witnesses. Why do you say that? It's not only a false claim, the reverse is often true - the star witness is withheld until the foundation is laid.

No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.

Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.

If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.

Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.

Taylor killed Jordan. Jordan is a joke.

Jordan's Gish Gallop was for the true believers. It didn't matter to them what he said.

 

[bripat9643]

Still purely opinion......

No.
Sworn, first hand testimony, dope.

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.

 

[playtime]

sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

well, since the story got out - it didn't happen. an attempted robbery doesn't go unpunished, now does it?

silly you.

Bad comparison. It's more like somebody told the cops you were going to rob a store, but you never did, so they arrest you and put you in prison anyway.

Trump withheld funds from Ukraine, just like Hussein did, and other Presidents before them. Until you can prove the reason why, this impeachment is based on assumptions and not fact. Nowhere in the phone call in question did Trump ever say that US aid would only be provided if Zelensky started an investigation.......nowhere.

that's because the transcript hasn't been released. only the edited memorandum that is being peddled as THE transcript. oh & sundland said there was a quid pro quo after he was caught perjuring himself.

 

[rightwinger]

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.

What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?

High crimes like Blow Jobs?[/QUOTE

Like lying under oath to congress

Did you get a blow job?
Nope
impeachable to conservatives

Withholding military aid unless personal favors are granted is business as usual

 

[The Original Tree]

So let me get this straight:

You wasted $40 Millions Dollars of the Taxpayer's money trying to railroad the president on a false charge that you dreamed up and financed yourself in the form of The Dirty Dossier.

You launched another 20 Investigations costing the taxpayer an additional $100 Million Dollars so far. Why bother which such farces? Only Communist Countries with Totalitarian Dictators have been able to pull off framing innocent men. You have tried to block The President's Constitutional Authority to issue Executive Orders, and secure our Borders, and Form Foreign and Domestic Policy which includes Immigration, and Trade.

In your first production called "I paid Putin for Russian Collusion and all I got was a lousy T-shirt," in that Clown Show (The Mueller Investigation,) there was Zero Due Process. The President was not allowed to submit testimony, submit exculpatory evidence, cross examine any witnesses. Mueller bent over backwards to ignore the origination of The Dirty Dossier that caused the Fake Russian Collusion Investigation, so he is not much of an Investigator, and furthermore is not an honest man since he Wiped Strozk and Page's Iphones to deceive the IG in to believing that their "COUP TEXTS" were irretrievably lost.

And Mueller's team was compromised with people involved in trying to not only cover up Clinton's Crimes, but they were seriously involved in a legitimate COUP attempt, had to be fired from Mueller's team, and are all under criminal investigation now.

And Mueller, despite a team of Leftist Hacks and an Obama administration and his holdover lackeys that was spying on The President, still could not name a single crime that The President had committed. It was a monumental flop. Nielsen was too embarrassed to post the ratings.

Fast forward past that failure.

You have again an identical situation, with again no DUE PROCESS, but even worse, Schiff is rejecting all GOP witness requests, both in the Secret Scam Hearings, and in The Public Hearings.

I equate The Subpoena Cannon, with Operation Latitude, known by it's common name "The Insurance Policy" All part of the same COUP, same as "Putin Hacked my Server" and "I've fallen on Impeachment and I can't get up." Life Alert isn't going to answer your call. They probably are 'Russian Assets says Hillary' Isn't everyone these days?

As we find out more and more about how deep and ugly The Deep State is, with people like Kelly, Tillerson, Ciaramella, Vindman and others all trying to obstruct The President's Policies, simply because they disagree with them, America is seeing with their own eyes what The President meant by "The Swamp".

I'd watch these Swamp Proceedings if they were fair and Due Process were allowed and both parties were allowed to state their case and fight it out right in front of us, but Schiff and Pelosi do not want that. They still want secret meetings, secret witnesses, and secret accusations that no one is permitted to challenge. They also don't want to work on Border Security, Lowering Drug Prices, Health Care, Infrastructure, or sign an Anti-Lynching Bill sponsored by The President which The GOP has been trying to get passed for 160 years and has for some inexplicable reason been voted down every time by The Democrats, which is what they did between 1870 and 1964 when they opposed for nearly 100 years Civil Rights for African Americans.

There is No point in watching a rigged game when you know the score before the kickoff. The Transcripts which Schiff was forced to release already are contradicting his planned leaks. He is running the hearings like a scared rabbit, a nervous Nellie, and quite frankly they are going to be awful. If you need a nap, feel free to tune in and listen to Schiff read you a fairy tale, but I am not going to watch that Schitt Show.

Despite a rigged game again, I predict more embarrassment for Soviet Schiff and his Comrades, only I am not going to bother giving any of my precious time to it. Trump will be re-elected no matter how many times they try to frame the man. Globalism and The Green New Scam and The Plan to Bankrupt America hit a Speed Bump. By the time Trump is re-elected I hope that not only is he going to turn that speed bump in to a wall to protect America from Socialism, Graft, and Corruption, but he'll have to build a prison to incarcerate all the criminals from the Clinton and Obama Crime Families that have been slowly outted these past three years.

I give the Schiff Show on a scale of 1-10, 10 Rotten Tomatoes. Too bad we can't actually throw them at role' Bobble Head Queer.

You might have hit a record for.largest number of conspiracy theories in a single post.

A conspiracy theory has no basis in fact.
Every single item in the OP is not only factual but backed up by PROOF.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what you were told.

It's not true.

Don't you have a date with Eric Ciarmella, your White House Spy who leaked classified calls between Mexico, Thailand, Australia and The United States?

 

[bripat9643]

The DOJ prosecutes scum like Biden, moron, and Trump is their boss.

You have to be brain damaged not to understand such simple concepts.

The president isn't the DOJ.
Where's Barr in this equation, dope?

The President runs the DOJ, moron. He's the AG's boss. He's the boss of everyone in the DOJ.

The president cannot prosecute anyone, dope.

He can tell his AG to prosecute them, moron.

No. The evidence determines if there is to be a prosecution, dope. Not the president.

ROFL. You're such a douche.

 

[rightwinger]

No.
Sworn, first hand testimony, dope.

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.

Thanks Perry Mason

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well we know a frame job when we see it.

Well we know a frame job when we see it.

Yes. With testimony from Trump's own appointees.

Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...

Who saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.

Saw what? Dope? Would you say that to my face? No. Keep it civil, prancing Nancy boy.

I would indeed.
Now speak to the substance of my post, dope.

If you're not too upset from my affront that is, pussy.

LOL

You took the bait. Little keyboard warrior. Poke successful. Poor little prancing nancy boy, still upset over 2016.

 

[jc456]

The readable treaty is in the link provided. The catalog link is further provided. No further proceedings in Kiev are noted other than the document referred by the President to the Senate--in the link provided.

Then there is Faun poster: A clear failure at reading, research, or archival reporting

Then Doc7505 poster is in serious deficiency, if not so serious the legal problem coming soon to the Goon Squad in the White House. The President is specifically not authorized in treaty to make the request in the phone call. The US Attorney General and the Urkaine Minister of Justice are authorized--and between nations, recognizing law and procedure in each nation.

Seems like it is coming to an anniversary of the Red-Hatter-Banzai-Surprise-Attack-America: Goon Squads showing their contempt of the Attorney General's office, of the United States.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Red-Hat Waving: Looks like goons, acts like goons.. . . .(?)!)

you think you can take my vote? come and take it fk head.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Again, unless intent can be proven there can be no impeachment. This is a waste of a thread.

Intent seems obvious
Actions show intent

Intent to investigate 2016 or impact 2020? Prove the intent was to impact 2020. I'll wait patiently. Intent HAS NOT been proven. Debate me honestly on this don't give me a smiley emoji and run away like you usually do.

 

[bripat9643]

I watched quite a bit of it and heard nothing but hearsay. Hearsay isn't even legal in a court of law.

All the Dems are doing is paving the way for a Trump win in 2020. What a pack of imbeciles.

Go Dems

Then you don't mind if Trump stops blocking witnesses and documents.

When Schiff-for-Brains stops blocking witnesses and documents..

 

[jc456]

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

well, since the story got out - it didn't happen. an attempted robbery doesn't go unpunished, now does it?

silly you.

Bad comparison. It's more like somebody told the cops you were going to rob a store, but you never did, so they arrest you and put you in prison anyway.

Trump withheld funds from Ukraine, just like Hussein did, and other Presidents before them. Until you can prove the reason why, this impeachment is based on assumptions and not fact. Nowhere in the phone call in question did Trump ever say that US aid would only be provided if Zelensky started an investigation.......nowhere.

that's because the transcript hasn't been released. only the edited memorandum that is being peddled as THE transcript. oh & sundland said there was a quid pro quo after he was caught perjuring himself.

you know that how?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Link to his "demand".

Watch this dodge...............

Not only Trump, but the staff Trump told him to deal with

Read my Signature...

Are you really that stupid? Serious question.

"I would like you to do us a favor"

Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?

Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.

Your call...............

I would like you to do us a favor though

A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.

Favor regarding 2016 or 2020? 2016 is OK but 2020 is not. Therein lies the intent. How do you prove it was for 2020? I ll wait patiently.

because biden is the top candidate that polls are showing who could beat donny. that video that every dumbfuck here is trying to peddle as the smoking gun that 'proves' biden was committing a crime.... back in 2018... when donny was a year into his term... but nothingg came of it until after biden got into the race & the polls are favorable.

You have to prove intent and that intent is to impact 2020 not to see what happened in 2016. Even during yesterday's hearings, they mentioned 2016 numerous times. Intent is very difficult to prove. As far as "dumbfuck", you're the dumbest person on this board and that is saying a lot with people like JoeB running around.

 

[jc456]

Again, unless intent can be proven there can be no impeachment. This is a waste of a thread.

Intent seems obvious
Actions show intent

Intent to investigate 2016 or impact 2020? Prove the intent was to impact 2020. I'll wait patiently. Intent HAS NOT been proven. Debate me honestly on this don't give me a smiley emoji and run away like you usually do.

he's a throw and go. It's what they all are.

 

[jc456]

The Ukraine military aid bill states that aid would be sent no later than Sept.30, Trump sent the aid on Sept.11, and there was NO INVESTIGATION of Biden by Ukraine as was alleged to a reason for the impeachment!

This legal deadline was taken care of 20 days before the deadline of the bill for military aid

Source, Kevin McCullough radio AM970 THE ANSWER

Correct! Trump released the aid within 48 hours of learning Congress had been informed of the whistleblower report. Nothing says release the military aid like, 'oh fuck, they're on to us'.

He had 20 more days, LEGALLY, YOU DUMBFUCK!

And he didn't waste any time once he knew Congress had been informed of the whistleblower. The jig was up.

was it late?

I haven't seen anyone claim that. Have you?

than what are you claiming?

 

[OKTexas]

It can't be helped you have clamped your hands over your eyes and ears and only parrot what your masters tell you to parrot.

You are a waste of time.

^ Extortion

Not even close. So how long do you republicans plan on being disingenuous?

Food for thought. It is what our foreign policy is based on and Trump was trying to weaponized it against his domestic opposition.

Yet Kent testified that Trumps policies on Ukraine are much better than maobamas was. Go figure. Kent also said he warned Bidens staff about Hunter.

.

Which of course is completely irrelevant to the misconduct in question.

Not true, if Kent had concerns about the Bidens it's perfectly understandable that the President might share those concerns. Burisma used Hunter to buy access to maobamas State Dept. State Dept emails are just now coming to light proving that.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The head Ambassador the Ukraines testimony is hardly based on hearsay. Apparently you don't mind if Trump stops blocking witnesses and documents if this is going to be your argument..

It was all hearsay, moron, and sometimes it was 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand hearsay.

 

[jc456]

I agree!




Mark Meadows‏Verified account @RepMarkMeadows 57m57 minutes ago

Brilliant job by my colleagues today on the Intel Committee. They clearly highlighted the gaping holes in the Democrats' argument and established the unreal levels of hearsay involved. No two ways about it: today was a MAJOR setback for the unfounded impeachment fantasy.

The Repubs are only looking to bastardize the hearings. Nothing else. All they have.

The hearings are already bastardized, pathetic partisan show-trials. Witnesses who know nothing, saw nothing, and no time for the President's attorneys to question them.

dude, they are not witnesses. They weren't on the call, therefore, they are not a witness to anything. all they are are demofk parrots.

 

[playtime]

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.

What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?

raymond, we all know you are one of them thar poorly educated fans of trump; but can't you for once try to show some dignity & research before you blurt?

there are several interpretations what 'high crimes & misdemeanors' consists of. i omitted the one that you claim is the only one because of redundancy

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure


There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

Congressional Interpretation

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

Misdemeanor

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

Relating to the President's Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-sy ... edure.html