Offical Impeachment Thread

[jc456]

I know you don't, it isn't there. you prove me correct.

you & zog share the same brain?

At least I have one. What's your excuse?

you haven't proven that.

GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then show me wrong.

i see you glossed over the link proving you wrong.

again.

not at all, I asked you to quote the part that fit your claim. Here we are. so no, I'm correct.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

yeah...except that is not what happened.
You reduced what Clinton did to a single act, which the blow job itself, though the most attention of course, was actually a small part of what he did to cover it up. (And I still didn't support impeaching Clinton)
And what Trump did is based on an interpretation of the phone call, and is missing any actual action.
And even if true, if you or anyone else thinks Trump is the only one to withold funds for any number of reasons - your head is buried deeep in the sand.

 

[jc456]

Really? Should I bring up our pro choice debate? You ran with your tail tucked between your legs. I was polite too and you came off like the usual moonbat.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaa................... what? wow- what's it like to stroke yer own ego like donny? will you also claim you are a stable genius too? i most likely bailed because you were getting more ridiculous & wasting my time.

Nope, you bailed because you lost. Again. But you tell yourself whatever you like. Take some more anti depressants.

Keep deflecting. When it comes to the real issues you bail. Like most in your flawed party.

whatever gets you thru the day, zog dude.

well you ain't got nothing and that's a fact. that gets me through the day just fine.

 

[bripat9643]

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

it was a joint effort between the US & other nations. biden, along with other american officials were our point men & did not go rogue on this.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

it states that biden wasn't alone.

Please quote the relevant material.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Nothing came of it" until Schiff-for-Brains started trying to impeach Trump.

Wrong.

Apparently you believe we don't watch the news.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So you believe the DOJ is a fourth branch of government?

No, I don't. That's why I never said that.

The people in every other department of the administrative branch have to do what the President says, or he can fire them. Where is it written that the DOJ is any different?

 

[jc456]

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.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

it was a joint effort between the US & other nations. biden, along with other american officials were our point men & did not go rogue on this.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

that link says what?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Exactly
Republicans pout that they can’t interview the whistleblower while they block access to Trump, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pompeo

The only reason they're calling for the president to testify is to harass him. The focus should be on the opinions filed in the complaints anyway, not an attempt to get the president or cabinet members under oath.

Democrats need a valid complaint to an actual crime before we get to that point. They have neither.

Clinton testified under oath
Why won’t Trump?

He's too busy grabbing himself.

Why are you projecting, Fawn? LOL

Sadly, I know you are but what am I, truly is the extent of your intellect .

Ha, you responded. Poke successful. I knew what QE was/is and you didn't. You're dumb.

 

[bripat9643]

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

name the high crime?

Abuse of power.

No such crime.

 

[jc456]

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

name the high crime?

Abuse of power.

what was the abuse? does he set foreign policy as President? it's a yes or no answer on that?

 

[bripat9643]

The Law Enforcement Assistance and Cooperation Treaty with Ukraine specifies that the designated officials of the two nations are the US Attorney General and the Ukraine Minister of Justice, (3.1.d.). The treaty binds those two offices--and so the usual rules in both nations, regarding those offices: In the Treaty. So from the New York Times, about the phone--Barbarous Anti-American sentiment is apparently what the White House has documented.

"A Justice Department official said that Mr. Barr had no knowledge of the call until the director of national intelligence and the intelligence community’s inspector general sent the department the whistle-blower’s criminal referral late last month, and that Mr. Trump has not spoken with the attorney general “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son.”

Political interference is not considered cause, stated in the Treaty provisions.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Red-Hatter waving takes on a new appearance. "Banzai! Surprise!" Attack on the USA apparently is supported--or on Ukraine, or Crimea!)

1. So-called whistleblowers don't hand down indictments.
2. "Cause" for what?
3. What difference does it make if Barr knew about the call?

It makes no difference if Barr knew about the call. What matters is that Barr was not investigating Biden.

That doesn't matter either.

Of course that matters in terms of the treaty since a requirement to request support includes the requestor name the authority on the investigation.

That can be provided after the fact.

 

[bripat9643]

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

it was a joint effort between the US & other nations. biden, along with other american officials were our point men & did not go rogue on this.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

All kinds of evidence supports it.

Like? Your biases don't count.

 

[jc456]

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

it was a joint effort between the US & other nations. biden, along with other american officials were our point men & did not go rogue on this.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

All kinds of evidence supports it.

Like? Your biases don't count.

Bri, he thinks you and I should die.

 

[Rambunctious]

Did I say "PERSONAL" favor... TWIT? NO!

Reading comprehension is your friend.

No. But Trump asked for a personal favor. Dumb shit.

Sorry, but that's bull shit. Please keep your bull shit to yourself. Normal people that know the truth don't need to hear that pathetic garbage.

So sad. You believe that Trump cares about corruption in general. He just asked for announcements about investigations into Biden and Crowdstrike because he was spitballin'.

Mother fucking bad faith mother fucker.

Trump campaigned on ending DC corruption...pay attention...

And he then came in and became the most corrupt president in modern history.

Really how?...when you say the most corrupt in modern history you must have an answer...so tell me how is Trump the most corrupt?...tic tock tic tock....

 

[Nostra]

Hmmm......then who was the Trump political rival you referenced?

Watch this....................

Dumbfuck, I was talking about the treaty. It matters not what Trump wanted investigated, he was not authorized to use that treaty for any purpose.

Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:

Trump's not authorized by that treaty to ask the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?

Watch this..................

And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.

Once again I will ask...........and you will dodge.............show me the part of the treaty that says corruption can't be looked into if your name is Biden.

While you are doing that, explain which political rival you were referencing if it wasn't Biden.

It sure is fun painting you into a corner. (this is where you claim I didn't paint you into a corner in a feeble attempt to ignore the two challenges in this post)

And I will tell you again, the treaty was not about Biden, try as hard as you wish to make it about him. The treaty is about Trump, who again, was not authorized to use it.

That's now twice you've asked that and twice I gave you an answer you don't like. If you keep asking you will keep getting the same answer; and you know what repeating yourself but expecting a different response symptomatic of, right?

Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.

 

[Nostra]

The United States senate is red so you should pray that you have enough along with those six psychopaths


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't believe anyone really believes the Senate republicans would vote to impeach Trump regardless of the the evidence. It Trump was convicted and removed from office, the republicans would be handing the election to democrats. There are 3 republicans who have announced a run for the presidency other than Trump. If you are like most voters, you've probably never heard of any of them. They have little if any backing and stand no chance. Others could come forward, but January is a little late to start organizing a campaign and raising funds.

What is really happening is the case against Trump is being presented to the voters. I expect the House to impeach him and the Senate to conduct the shortest impeach trial in history. I doubt the impeachment will have any effect on Trump's base but certainly will have an effect on other voters.

That's exactly right. The voting public will serve, in effect, as a jury. And it all comes down to whether or not we feel the Senate is right or if they abrogated their duty. But one party is likely to win the Senate, House and White House next year.

That's not necessarily what it comes down to at all. You're assuming that House Democrats will vote to impeach and I don't think a majority is stupid enough to crawl out on that skinny limb. There's just no proof of any crime.

Sure there is. Trump himself unwittingly confessed he solicited a foreign national to help with his campaign by opening up an investigation into a political rival. That in itself is a crinme.

There is no "crinme", dumbfuck.

 

[The Purge]

I find this QUIT INTERESTING AND DISTURBING AT THE SAME TIME....SEEMS EVERYTHING CORRUPT GOES DIRECTLY BACK TO THE SURRENDER MONKEY!!!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

ASKED to DO A FAVOR INSTEAD OF DEMANDING UKRAINE TO DO SOMETHING...OR ELSE....SEEMS WRONGWINGER SPELLED OUT THE ANSWER AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!!

They weren`t getting the money if they refused to fire a corrupt prosecutor. It`s not really the same as asking for a bogus investigation of a political rival. The drive to oust the crooked prosecutor was an international effort. Got anything else?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

A former VP threatened US aid unless the investigator who was looking into the company his son was working for was fired is not the same?

The idea that his son got this job, making 80K a month, with no experience in the industry, not even able to understand the language, is not suspicious?

And now recently, we found that the company in question, tried to garner favor of the US State Department by dropping Hunter's name in an email, that's something that doesn't need to be looked into?

We have 7.5 billion people on this planet, and out of those 7.5 billion, Hunter Biden was the most qualified for this highly paying job; a guy who was kicked out of the military, and went to rehab multiple times for his drug addiction problem?

You're so correct.........nothing to see here folks.

All of this is bullshit. I believe Biden had run a bank before he was put on this board. He was on the board of Amtrak. He worked in the US Dept. of Commerce. He was qualified to serve on this board, so let's just throw this argument back in the trash can.

Hunter Biden - Wikipedia

Yeah, his wife said he blew all their money on prostitutes, drugs and strippers where they couldn't pay their bills. Sound like the perfect guy to be on a company board, right? Every job you mentioned his daddy got for him.

.

 

[Nostra]

Democrats have yet to prove intent. I ll wait patiently.

Trumps demands of Zelensky show intent

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.

That is not a demand.

Major fail by you.

Please try again.

 

[Nostra]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

He did that when he released the transcript of the call.