Offical Impeachment Thread

[AzogtheDefiler]

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

Your ignorance is astounding.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/6-facts-about-hunter-bidens-business-dealings-in-china/

Lots of people meet Trump. So they are all corrupt?

There was nothing corrupt in China & Hunter Biden. He & his partners were involved in an investment company. So what.

Trump is involved in business in lots of countries he visits. If you want corruption in China, look no further than Ivanka Trump.

Trump has always been a businessman. Biden was in politics for 40+ years. LOL. Nepotism 101. Are you really trying to defend this? Idiot.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Sure there is. You're a coward who has been ducking the question of the "deliverable" for days. I expressed an honest opinion, and you respond with your juvenile "so" bullshit, and some Spanish names. Stick it, gomer.

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

Logic is useless to someone who won't acknowledge the "deliverable" wasn't for an investigation. It was for a public announcement of an investigation. Details are fucking irrelevant and the last thing Trump wants is a quest for the truth. Once the smear is out there, there's no need for an investigation. Trump is leveraging US foreign aid for a smear campaign to use in domestic politics.

Experience should tell you the con man is conning you. Maybe you were born every minute.

He is leveraging aid as he is the Commander in Chief of the military to ensure that Ukraine is not as corrupt as it was in 2016. How is he conning me? It was an open phone call, he released the transcript, the Bidens seem like the con artists to me. Again, I don't see anything that he did as being wrong, you disagree and that is your right, Luis.

Keep spinning until you explain why the "deliverable" was a public statement from Zelensky. Man up.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

Logic is useless to someone who won't acknowledge the "deliverable" wasn't for an investigation. It was for a public announcement of an investigation. Details are fucking irrelevant and the last thing Trump wants is a quest for the truth. Once the smear is out there, there's no need for an investigation. Trump is leveraging US foreign aid for a smear campaign to use in domestic politics.

Experience should tell you the con man is conning you. Maybe you were born every minute.

He is leveraging aid as he is the Commander in Chief of the military to ensure that Ukraine is not as corrupt as it was in 2016. How is he conning me? It was an open phone call, he released the transcript, the Bidens seem like the con artists to me. Again, I don't see anything that he did as being wrong, you disagree and that is your right, Luis.

Keep spinning until you explain why the "deliverable" was a public statement from Zelensky. Man up.

Yes and as POTUS he has the right to demand this. He wasn't hiding it. He did it in an open forum.


Burisma, a private oil and gas company in Ukraine, announced this week that it has appointed Hunter Biden, the youngest son of US Vice President Joe Biden, to its board of directors.

The company, founded in 2002, is controlled by a former energy official in the government of deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The move has raised some eyebrows in the US, given the Obama administration's attempts to manage the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

"Joe Biden has been the White House's go-to guy during the Ukraine crisis, touring former Soviet republics and reassuring their concerned leaders," writes the National Journal's Marina Koren. "And now, he's not the only Biden involved in the region."

She says that by appointing Hunter Biden head of its legal affairs unit, "Burisma is turning to US talent - and money and name recognition - for protection against Russia".

The younger Mr Biden isn't the only American with political ties to have recently joined Burisma's board. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a college roommate of Mr Kerry's stepson HJ Heinz, signed on in April.

Mr Biden and Mr Archer are also managing partners at Rosemont Seneca Partners, a Washington, DC-based investment company.

Both Mr Biden and Mr Archer have not responded to requests from reporters for comment. In Burisma's press release announcing his hiring, Mr Biden says:

I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.

All this could be explained simply as a foreign energy company looking to increase its visibility in the US and spur investment, writes the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway. State-controlled companies currently account for 90% of Ukraine's gas production, but this year Burisma became the nation's largest private producer.

Hemingway adds, however, that there may be another, less savoury possibility:

The most disturbing explanation is that the company is attempting to curry favour with the US government by enlisting the services of the close family friend and campaign bundler of the secretary of state and the son of the vice president. After all, Archer notes on one of his company's web pages that his firm's "relationship network creates opportunities for our portfolio companies which then compound to greater outcomes for all parties".

She concludes that this seems like a "cliched movie plot": "a shady foreign oil company co-opts the vice president's son in order to capture lucrative foreign investment contracts".

The White House has emphasised that the vice president's son's new job will have no influence on US foreign policy.

"Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer," Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the vice president, told the Wall Street Journal. "The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company."

 

[IM2]

And Trump has been obstructing to save his ass since 2017.

obstructing what? you never made a claim of the investigation you're after.

Yawn! You know exactly what Trump has done. And what's so pathetic is you don't mind him breaking the law. Now democrats can let this go on and then when a democrat becomes president, they let him/her do what Trump is doing.

Name the law he broke and please provide the statute. Thank you.

No. You know what laws he has broken. You are able to name every law on the books for Obama , Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan Biden, etc., but you watch Trump tell people to defy subpoenas, he defies subpoenas, refuses to testify, asks a foreign government to investigate his opponent and suddenly you don't know what laws he has broken. Fuck that.

It's something called Executive Privilege, and using it is not breaking any laws. Furthermore, just because Slow Joe is a presidential nominee (not Trump's challenger) does not excuse him from being looked into for possible suspicious activity while serving as VP. Coke head Hunter got a very lucrative job for somebody that's never dealt in the country before in an industry he has no experience in. That's very suspicious.

Executive privilege does not exist when Trump has run his mouth. Biden can be looked at by US agencies. Not foreign governments. Hunter was qualified to sit on that board and the fact is that his father was asking to fire a prosecutor that was not investigating corruption. Learn to accept the facts. You don't get to keep running your mouth about untrue bullshit like it happened because it's what you choose to believe.

 

[Nostra]

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

Your ignorance is astounding.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/6-facts-about-hunter-bidens-business-dealings-in-china/

Lots of people meet Trump. So they are all corrupt?

There was nothing corrupt in China & Hunter Biden. He & his partners were involved in an investment company. So what.

Trump is involved in business in lots of countries he visits. If you want corruption in China, look no further than Ivanka Trump.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

obstructing what? you never made a claim of the investigation you're after.

Yawn! You know exactly what Trump has done. And what's so pathetic is you don't mind him breaking the law. Now democrats can let this go on and then when a democrat becomes president, they let him/her do what Trump is doing.

Name the law he broke and please provide the statute. Thank you.

No. You know what laws he has broken. You are able to name every law on the books for Obama , Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan Biden, etc., but you watch Trump tell people to defy subpoenas, he defies subpoenas, refuses to testify, asks a foreign government to investigate his opponent and suddenly you don't know what laws he has broken. Fuck that.

It's something called Executive Privilege, and using it is not breaking any laws. Furthermore, just because Slow Joe is a presidential nominee (not Trump's challenger) does not excuse him from being looked into for possible suspicious activity while serving as VP. Coke head Hunter got a very lucrative job for somebody that's never dealt in the country before in an industry he has no experience in. That's very suspicious.

Executive privilege does not exist when Trump has run his mouth. Biden can be looked at by US agencies. Not foreign governments. Hunter was qualified to sit on that board and the fact is that his father was asking to fire a prosecutor that was not investigating corruption. Learn to accept the facts. You don't get to keep running your mouth about untrue bullshit like it happened because it's what you choose to believe.

Which US agencies? Do tell. If Ukraine wants weaponry then they need to prove their shenanigans are behind them. Elections have consequences.

 

[IM2]

By DESMOND BUTLER, MICHAEL BIESECKER and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

AP Source: 2nd US Official Heard Trump Call With Sondland
A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,”

A second U.S. Embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing a need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.

The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a Kyiv restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.

The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation.

The accounts of the two embassy staffers could tie Trump closer to alleged efforts to hold up military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. In defending Trump on Wednesday, Republicans repeatedly highlighted that Taylor never directly heard the president direct anyone to demand that the Ukrainians open the probe.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...nd-us-official-heard-trump-call-with-sondland

 

[JoeMoma]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Clinton was impeached by the house and then acquitted by the senate.

 

[BlindBoo]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

 

[The Original Tree]

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Clinton was impeached by the house and then acquitted by the senate.
View attachment 289838

That's actually wrong. The House Writes Articles of Impeachment, and that is all they can do. They vote on The Articles of Impeachment to decide whether they are to be approved by a majority and then sent to The Senate. They then send them to The Senate.

The Senate Impeaches.

 

[BlindBoo]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.

Call your handlers, quick.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did they have any hearing today or did dems realize how fucked they are

 

[The Original Tree]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

You have to have a victim for High Crimes and Misdemeanors to be cited under US Code, like when The Special Counsel for Clinton recommended 13 crimes he be indicted for unlike Mueller who found none.

Once you can cite which High Crimes and Misdemeanors occurred under US CODE, you write up Articles of Impeachment and those get voted on and approved by a majority, and then sent To The Senate which either agrees to start The Impeachment, or decides it has No Merit, and simply tosses it in The Trash Can if they want to.

The Victim, The Ukraine, said Nothing Happened. The Mueller Report said, Nothing Happened and there were no Indictable Offenses.

So, all The Left is Left with is Masturbation over a fantasy.

 

[BlindBoo]

Did they have any hearing today or did dems realize how fucked they are

I think Jimmy Jordan begged for a time out.

 

[The Original Tree]

Did they have any hearing today or did dems realize how fucked they are

There was supposed to be a hearing today. LMAO, that ALL WENT QUIET ON THE LEFTIST FRONT.

The Hearings were supposed to be Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Instead we have Ad Naseum Coverage over two dead people in California which has the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Leftist don't care about the 1,000s that die in Chicago every year, or The Truth for that matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did they have any hearing today or did dems realize how fucked they are

I think Jimmy Jordan begged for a time out.

He was arm weary from beating the non-witnesses, who saw nothing and knew even less

 

[BlindBoo]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

You have to have a victim for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and to move forward with an impeachment. The Victim, The Ukraine, said Nothing Happened.

No, the corrupt intent exposed now is enough to impeach him, and is already enough to convinced enough independent voters that he has got to go.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did they have any hearing today or did dems realize how fucked they are

There was supposed to be a hearing today. LMAO, that ALL WENT QUIET ON THE LEFTIST FRONT.

The Hearings were supposed to be Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Instead we have Ad Naseum Coverage over two dead people in California which has the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Leftist don't care about the 1,000s that die in Chicago every year, or The Truth for that matter.

Or the Americans that die at the hands of illegals.

 

[Flopper]

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

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

Logic is useless to someone who won't acknowledge the "deliverable" wasn't for an investigation. It was for a public announcement of an investigation. Details are fucking irrelevant and the last thing Trump wants is a quest for the truth. Once the smear is out there, there's no need for an investigation. Trump is leveraging US foreign aid for a smear campaign to use in domestic politics.

Experience should tell you the con man is conning you. Maybe you were born every minute.

He is leveraging aid as he is the Commander in Chief of the military to ensure that Ukraine is not as corrupt as it was in 2016. How is he conning me? It was an open phone call, he released the transcript, the Bidens seem like the con artists to me. Again, I don't see anything that he did as being wrong, you disagree and that is your right, Luis.

Keep spinning until you explain why the "deliverable" was a public statement from Zelensky. Man up.

Yes and as POTUS he has the right to demand this. He wasn't hiding it. He did it in an open forum.


Burisma, a private oil and gas company in Ukraine, announced this week that it has appointed Hunter Biden, the youngest son of US Vice President Joe Biden, to its board of directors.

The company, founded in 2002, is controlled by a former energy official in the government of deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The move has raised some eyebrows in the US, given the Obama administration's attempts to manage the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

"Joe Biden has been the White House's go-to guy during the Ukraine crisis, touring former Soviet republics and reassuring their concerned leaders," writes the National Journal's Marina Koren. "And now, he's not the only Biden involved in the region."

She says that by appointing Hunter Biden head of its legal affairs unit, "Burisma is turning to US talent - and money and name recognition - for protection against Russia".

The younger Mr Biden isn't the only American with political ties to have recently joined Burisma's board. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a college roommate of Mr Kerry's stepson HJ Heinz, signed on in April.

Mr Biden and Mr Archer are also managing partners at Rosemont Seneca Partners, a Washington, DC-based investment company.

Both Mr Biden and Mr Archer have not responded to requests from reporters for comment. In Burisma's press release announcing his hiring, Mr Biden says:

I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.

All this could be explained simply as a foreign energy company looking to increase its visibility in the US and spur investment, writes the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway. State-controlled companies currently account for 90% of Ukraine's gas production, but this year Burisma became the nation's largest private producer.

Hemingway adds, however, that there may be another, less savoury possibility:

The most disturbing explanation is that the company is attempting to curry favour with the US government by enlisting the services of the close family friend and campaign bundler of the secretary of state and the son of the vice president. After all, Archer notes on one of his company's web pages that his firm's "relationship network creates opportunities for our portfolio companies which then compound to greater outcomes for all parties".

She concludes that this seems like a "cliched movie plot": "a shady foreign oil company co-opts the vice president's son in order to capture lucrative foreign investment contracts".

The White House has emphasised that the vice president's son's new job will have no influence on US foreign policy.

"Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer," Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the vice president, told the Wall Street Journal. "The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company."

Bullshit. Trump made every effort to hide his request of Ukraine, including, to this day, denying there was a quid pro quo. He used a backchannel of his personal attorney and two currently-indicted associates, who engaged in a smear campaign to remove an Ambassador. The WH hid the call records, in which Trump never mentioned the word corruption, tho he mentioned Biden and Giuliani. A whistleblower report was suppressed.

But, yeah, It's just an honest, above-board effort to root out corruption. The demand for a public statement of a Burisma/Biden investigation is so innocent you can't even conceive of an explanation for it.


Yeah, he didn't pay hush money either.