Offical Impeachment Thread

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Great! Try to impeach Trump on some of these frail grounds, and see what happens to the next commie President with a Republican led house. Two can play this game you know.

 

[OKTexas]

Hearsay is not admissible evidence, as Jordan made very clear with Sondland's correction that had 6 men and 4 conversations making a mockery of Taylor's "clear (3rd hand) understanding".

Ken Starr nailed the summary, not a hint of a crime was presented, let alone an impeachable crime.

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.

Yep, and he will testify that Trump told him directly there was no quid pro quo.

.

ummmm.... he changed his testimony. d'oh!

Link?

.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump and Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the president?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: You had three meetings again with Zelenksy and it didn’t come up … and President Zelensky never made an announcement. … and you’re their star witness.

Jordan was hardly going to ask Taylor about what he did know. And he's safe in the knowledge Mulvaney won't be testifying.

The demand for the "deliverable" came through a different channel. Jordan knows that. Most sentient beings know that by now.

 

[Meister]

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

You might want to go back and re read what he was actually impeached for, RW.
Hint....it wasn't the act of a blowjob. I wasn't impressed with the Clinton impeachment
by the repubs, but it is what it is.
Nixon was on his way to impeachment because of B&E.
Clinton was impeached because of sex and lies.
Trump is up for impeachment for a phone call.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

He was speechless, alright. But not because Jordan was so "astute." Jordan's good at what he does, as the Republican's doberman. I agree. But Jordan is 95% bark and his nips yesterday barely broke skin.

What Jordan did was prove what this farce is all about. No real evidence or witnesses, just a bunch of people that heard from other people, that heard from other people. This is more like a high school debate than it is a US Congress.

It also proves is that they had the penally in place, just looking for the slightest reason to use it. That's not hard to prove given the MSM and Democrats saying they were going to impeach Trump before he even got into the White House.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

High crimes like Blow Jobs?

No, perjury, obstruction and witness tampering.

.

 

[Nostra]

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.

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,

YEP, Above you can see. More weak USMB DOPer Mod editing of our factual posts.

Link to this approval of Biden's extortion to get a prosecutor fired for investigating his son's company?

There was no extortion by Biden because of his son.

There was clear extortion by Biden on behalf of his son. You should watch the video and get educated.

 

[Nostra]

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/

In YOUR LEFTIST OPINION....which means less than nothing! Was that international effort from the same people who REFUSED FOR 7 DECADES TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF NATO EXPENSE . LEAVING AMERICA TO FOOT THE BILL?

Jesus fuck you are a liar. The nations were on a schedule to comply before fat assed Trump took office.

Link?

(I won't hold my breath)

 

[Nostra]

Let it happen. Let republicans take until November 1 to remind the other 70 percent of the American people who aren't "we'll do anything for Trump" suckers about how corrupt this president is.

Trump isn't corrupt stop lying. The only real corruption to emerge from this mess is the Biden's corruption.

Using foreign aid to extort for political gain is corruption.

You just described what Biden did.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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..

Not going to work arbuckle. Witnesses that have nothing to do with the act don't need to testify. We don't need to hear from Strzok and Page. We don't need to hear Hunter Biden. We don't need to hear the whistleblower since we now have corroborating testimonies. We do need to hear from all who were directly on the call.

/-----/ "We don't need to hear the whistleblower since we now have corroborating testimonies"
Yeah, three corroborating clowns who all have second-hand knowledge.

Say listen, a guy told me that another guy told him that you MAY have robbed the 7/11 this morning. You should turn yourself in to the police and make sure you bring 5 years of tax returns - but no lawyer.

 

[Nostra]

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?

High crimes like Blow Jobs?

Like perjury.

 

[The Purge]

Let it happen. Let republicans take until November 1 to remind the other 70 percent of the American people who aren't "we'll do anything for Trump" suckers about how corrupt this president is.

Trump isn't corrupt stop lying. The only real corruption to emerge from this mess is the Biden's corruption.

Using foreign aid to extort for political gain is corruption.

You just described what Biden did.

Trump ASKED for a favor never fulfilled

Biden DEMANDED THATVA PROSECUTOR BE FIRED AND BRAGGED ABOUT IT COMING TRUE WHEN HE WOULD NOT RELEASE $1 BILLION IN AID

YET TRUMP IS BEING IMPEACHED...???????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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..

Not going to work arbuckle. Witnesses that have nothing to do with the act don't need to testify. We don't need to hear from Strzok and Page. We don't need to hear Hunter Biden. We don't need to hear the whistleblower since we now have corroborating testimonies. We do need to hear from all who were directly on the call.

No, you do need to hear from the whistleblower because his intent needs to be determined. You need to hear from the whistleblower to find out who created the letter to Congress since it's clear it was written by an attorney, or more likely, Schiff Face. We need to hear the whistleblower testify under oath to Congress, that Schiff Face never met him, nor discussed this situation before it became public as Schiff Face claims.

Schiff Face is hiding this guy so he can't tell us the real story of how this happened. So don't say the whistleblower is irrelevant in this case. We need him to prove this was a staged coupe right from the beginning. Although Democrats are not real Americans, we real Americans have lived by the law that states the accused has the right to face his accuser in the court of law.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump and Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the president?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: You had three meetings again with Zelenksy and it didn’t come up … and President Zelensky never made an announcement. … and you’re their star witness.

Jordan was hardly going to ask Taylor about what he did know. And he's safe in the knowledge Mulvaney won't be testifying.

The demand for the "deliverable" came through a different channel. Jordan knows that. Most sentient beings know that by now.

Francisco, what are you talking about? The star witness for Adam Schiff is this. That is pathetic.

 

[Nostra]

Nazi Pelousy is on TV right now saying this farce isn't about politics, it's about Patriotism. Even did it with a straight face...........has to be all the botox.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump and Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the president?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: You had three meetings again with Zelenksy and it didn’t come up … and President Zelensky never made an announcement. … and you’re their star witness.

Jordan was hardly going to ask Taylor about what he did know. And he's safe in the knowledge Mulvaney won't be testifying.

The demand for the "deliverable" came through a different channel. Jordan knows that. Most sentient beings know that by now.

Ramon, since you're dumb. Read this:

“Mr. Jordan, it’s certainly accurate on the first two meetings, because to my knowledge the Ukrainians were not aware of the hold on assistance until the 29th of August,” Taylor responded. “The third meeting that you mentioned, with Senator Murphy and Senator Johnston, there was discussion of security assistance but … but, uh, there was not a discussion of linkage.”

 

[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..

Not going to work arbuckle. Witnesses that have nothing to do with the act don't need to testify. We don't need to hear from Strzok and Page. We don't need to hear Hunter Biden. We don't need to hear the whistleblower since we now have corroborating testimonies. We do need to hear from all who were directly on the call.

No, you do need to hear from the whistleblower because his intent needs to be determined. You need to hear from the whistleblower to find out who created the letter to Congress since it's clear it was written by an attorney, or more likely, Schiff Face. We need to hear the whistleblower testify under oath to Congress, that Schiff Face never met him, nor discussed this situation before it became public as Schiff Face claims.

Schiff Face is hiding this guy so he can't tell us the real story of how this happened. So don't say the whistleblower is irrelevant in this case. We need him to prove this was a staged coupe right from the beginning. Although Democrats are not real Americans, we real Americans have lived by the law that states the accused has the right to face his accuser in the court of law.

What IM2 really means is that Schiff-for-Brains doesn't want him to testify.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nazi Pelousy is on TV right now saying this farce isn't about politics, it's about Patriotism. Even did it with a straight face...........has to be all the botox.

Somebody should ask her why she isn't in charge of this instead of Schiff. That would be an interesting answer. But of course, the MSM will never do that.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump and Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the president?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: You had three meetings again with Zelenksy and it didn’t come up … and President Zelensky never made an announcement. … and you’re their star witness.

Jordan was hardly going to ask Taylor about what he did know. And he's safe in the knowledge Mulvaney won't be testifying.

The demand for the "deliverable" came through a different channel. Jordan knows that. Most sentient beings know that by now.

Francisco, what are you talking about? The star witness for Adam Schiff is this. That is pathetic.

Who told you he was the star witness?

BTW, I'm talking about the "deliverable." You never heard of it?