Offical Impeachment Thread

[okfine]

The networks spent millions in lost adverting revenue to air this commercial free non stop, the same people that ran reruns of Leave It To Beaver last July rather than air the 4th celebration of our nation, its heroes and military because they considered THAT a waste of money. I only had the hearing on in the background and it was bad enough, folks who propped toothpicks in their eyes today for the "big show" won't be tuning in again much tomorrow.

I watched every second and will do the same tomorrow. I can't speak for those who can't understand the big words.

Well. If you watch tomorrow, you'll be pretty bored. I'd wait until Friday.

Way to rain on my attempt at civic duty.

I guess I can go out tomorrow and replenish my special impeachment blend popcorn.

And where was your "civic duty" through all the myriad of Obama and Hillary crimes? Was it out to lunch? On vacation that day? Where is your "civic duty" when it comes to hearing the defense of Trump or the evidence against Biden? Out stuck in traffic?

It takes a lot more than wishful thinking and desires to impeach a president, and I hope the democrats try it without an iron clad steel case against Trump that he truly committed a high crime with intentional malice. You know, Trump's such an idiot, and so incompetent, he might have committed a crime like Hillary through total recklessness without even knowing better! That was enough to get her off about 15 felony charges that other people go to prison for.

Impeach Trump without all that and I'll be sitting laughing when it all comes back like a punch in the face next year when the voters reject the democrats for trying to overthrow a presidency on purely political grounds!

During those times I was working and couldn't fulfill that particular civic duty, sadly. But your scolding is duly noted.

I don't need to work anymore so I have more time now to watch the shits how that is the Trump administration. I do enjoy laughing at the biggest fool ever to hold the office of the Presidency.

Isn't life good?

 

[rightwinger]

Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption.

This is most likely wrong. Nepotism it would have been had Joe used the power of his office to secure Hunter's gig at Burisma. At the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever for that. You are right maintaining Hunter should not have accepted that job in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Still, words do matter.

why did hunter biden get hired then? he already said it was because of his name.

Flares go off with that answer.

That is how Trumps get hired

What Biden did may be unethical, but hardly illegal

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Lying fucking moron...

• The Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

Article II
ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.​

• H. Rept. 105-830 - IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

D. Article IV--Abuse of Power

Article IV - 1
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee​

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

 

[007]

Nobody is even watching this FARCE inquiry today. Yesterday was supposed to be the SLAM DUNK, the GOTCHA day, and today was supposed to be SPIN DAY for the DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING, but, not happenin', yesterday was a FLOP and the dems have NOTHING to follow with. They just blew their THREE YEAR LONG WAD and it's OVER.

 

[007]

Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption.

This is most likely wrong. Nepotism it would have been had Joe used the power of his office to secure Hunter's gig at Burisma. At the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever for that. You are right maintaining Hunter should not have accepted that job in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Still, words do matter.

why did hunter biden get hired then? he already said it was because of his name.

Flares go off with that answer.

That is how Trumps get hired

What Biden did may be unethical, but hardly illegal

I love your jokes. Did you ever think of trying out as a writer for SNL?

 

[Faun]

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.

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

 

[jc456]

I watched every second and will do the same tomorrow. I can't speak for those who can't understand the big words.

Well. If you watch tomorrow, you'll be pretty bored. I'd wait until Friday.

Way to rain on my attempt at civic duty.

I guess I can go out tomorrow and replenish my special impeachment blend popcorn.

And where was your "civic duty" through all the myriad of Obama and Hillary crimes? Was it out to lunch? On vacation that day? Where is your "civic duty" when it comes to hearing the defense of Trump or the evidence against Biden? Out stuck in traffic?

It takes a lot more than wishful thinking and desires to impeach a president, and I hope the democrats try it without an iron clad steel case against Trump that he truly committed a high crime with intentional malice. You know, Trump's such an idiot, and so incompetent, he might have committed a crime like Hillary through total recklessness without even knowing better! That was enough to get her off about 15 felony charges that other people go to prison for.

Impeach Trump without all that and I'll be sitting laughing when it all comes back like a punch in the face next year when the voters reject the democrats for trying to overthrow a presidency on purely political grounds!

During those times I was working and couldn't fulfill that particular civic duty, sadly. But your scolding is duly noted.

I don't need to work anymore so I have more time now to watch the shits how that is the Trump administration. I do enjoy laughing at the biggest fool ever to hold the office of the Presidency.

Isn't life good?

thanks to trump it's fking great

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.”

Not even Joaquin Miller's real name was Joaquin Miller. He was an American, born to German immigrant parents. You should attempt your feeble nitwitticisms by call me Fritz or Heinrich, but whatever helps you.

Oh I know. If he were truly Latino I would not be mocking the name as it would be racist. Thanks for playing, Rodrigo.

Good! Now, who told you Taylor is the "star" witness/

Trump is the Star Witness
When will he testify under oath?

The transcript is the testimony. What do you want him to testify and say when you have the transcript?

The parts of the call that were not made available in the memorandum that was released by the WH. Of course.
They urged "caution" when using this memo. You should abide.

 

[jc456]

Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption.

This is most likely wrong. Nepotism it would have been had Joe used the power of his office to secure Hunter's gig at Burisma. At the very least, there is no evidence whatsoever for that. You are right maintaining Hunter should not have accepted that job in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Still, words do matter.

why did hunter biden get hired then? he already said it was because of his name.

Flares go off with that answer.

That is how Trumps get hired

What Biden did may be unethical, but hardly illegal

perhaps not, but then again, without an investigation, we won't know, and that means sleepy joe may have bribed a foreign country as VP. That is the job of the president to fight corruption, and that's what that would be. I never said Hunter did anything wrong, I highly doubt he knew anything about the deal. His name was used to move money into sleepy Joe's bank accounts.

 

[007]

It's lights out for the dems. They've shot their wad and it's over. They've had THREE YEARS to TAKE TRUMP OUT, and this was supposed to be IT.

Well, NOPE, their deep state FAILED. But more importantly now, the democrat party is in SHAMBLES, and if they were SMART, they'd pull back and go into full blown DAMAGE CONTROL MODE and GIVE UP this GET RID OF TRUMP farce, because it's OBVIOUS by now they CAN'T. Their CORRUPT WAYS AND MEANS that worked in the past just AIN'T DOIN' IT this time. They took on a foe that was READY, WILLING AND ABLE to FIGHT BACK, and by God that even shot some sass into some of the republicans who actually found their spine, and the demtrash are left with an EMPTY look on their face wondering what just happened.

Better lick your wounds and REGROUP, DEMTARDS, because this FARCE IS OVER, and when the IG report comes out, YOU are going to be in a SHIT STORM like you've never seen before.

Going to be the DEMS TURN ON THE HOT SEAT NOW.

 

[okfine]

Amb Taylor testified under oath that one of his staffers was walking by and heard Trump on his cell phone talking to Sondland about Ukraine. The only problem with his testimony is he told the committee how Sondland responded to a question by Trump.

If this guy was just walking by and eves dropped on Trump's end of the call, how does he know what Sondland was saying on the other end?

This is how amateurish this entire farce is.

Speaker phone?

And even when not on speaker you can hear people talking on their mobile in public. If anyone hasn't, I would say they don't have a clue.

 

[Faun]

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.

Lying fucking moron...

• The Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

Article II
ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.​

• H. Rept. 105-830 - IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

D. Article IV--Abuse of Power

Article IV - 1
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee​

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

There doesn't have to be a statute, ya lying fucking moron.

Have you learned nothing at all??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

 

[Weatherman2020]

When you’ve lost the LA Times....

Opinion: Day 1 of the Trump impeachment hearing was a lost day for Democrats

 

[Faun]

When you’ve lost the LA Times....

Opinion: Day 1 of the Trump impeachment hearing was a lost day for Democrats

Did you write that opinion?

 

[Nostra]

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.

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

You claimed it barred the President from using it. You failed to show where it does that, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

 

[Weatherman2020]

When you’ve lost the LA Times....

Opinion: Day 1 of the Trump impeachment hearing was a lost day for Democrats

Did you write that opinion?

The Los Angeles Times felt it needed to said.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor? hmmmmm to be a witness, they would have had to been on the call. they weren't. All they are are dick holders.

so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor?

Nothing, dope. That's the point.

exactly, nothing, not witness to anything accept holding their schwantzes.

Per usual, you're a day late and a dollar short in uderstanding a conversation that you've inserted yourself into.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not sure why there's an 'official' impeachment thread given the fact that no one has been impeached, including Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Bait?
You responded to my post, dope.

Still upset?

I responded to trigger you. Poke successful. Plus I know in real life you’re a pussy and would cower in front of me. So this is fun.

Admitted trolling. Thanks, loser.

 

[jc456]

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor? hmmmmm to be a witness, they would have had to been on the call. they weren't. All they are are dick holders.

so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor?

Nothing, dope. That's the point.

exactly, nothing, not witness to anything accept holding their schwantzes.

Per usual, you're a day late and a dollar short in uderstanding a conversation that you've inserted yourself into.

I'm always prompt and I have the cash. And it's understanding.