Offical Impeachment Thread

[Sandy Shanks]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.

Despite a preponderance of evidence of Trump's deceit and abuse of power, it would be a mistake for the House to impeach Trump.

The ultimate purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Passing an Articles of Impeachment and a Senate trial is enormously divisive. The ultimate result of an impeachment is that it would tear our country apart.

The ultimate goal of Democrats, in one form or another, is to remove Trump from office. Many observers feel that would not be accomplished if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Why? One reason is the Democrats would be doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do, or so he says. He wants a Senate trial. He thinks it is his only chance to win reelection because everything he has done has turned sour. His forlorn accomplishments would include a failed Middle East policy, the lunacy of freeing up Iran to resume her nuclear research, his retreat in Syria which enhanced Russian interests in the pivotal Middle East, and his months long trade war with China which resulted in higher prices and a stagnant Wall Street from Jan. 2018 through Oct. 2019. The stock market only now is beginning to recover because analysts think Trump's trade war is coming to an end.

Another reason is, Americans are not behind impeachment. For impeachment to be successful, it would require an overwhelming support of Americans, somewhere in the area of 85 to 95%. Then Republicans in the Senate would listen.

Which brings us to the third reason why impeachment will fail. Many Republicans think what Trump did in Ukraine was inappropriate, but not a reason to remove him from office. Many disagree, thinking that a Presidential request for foreign interference in our Presidential election does warrant removal from office. They would ask Republicans, is foreign interference in our elections now acceptable? Apparently it is for Republicans because they are not breaking ranks. As things stand right now, not one Republican would vote to remove Trump from office.

So, what is the point of impeaching Trump? The best chance Democrats have of removing Trump from office is to continue to question his honesty and competence. Trump is an extremely unpopular President. They should feed on that, and maybe they will win next November.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.
...
He then provided a list of witnesses in his Senate trial. The list included the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden.

Conspicuous by their absence are witnesses close to Trump and close to the issues surrounding Ukraine and the July 25 phone call. Absent are Mick Mulvaney, director of the OMB, the agency that withheld the military aid to Ukraine. Also, SecState Mike Pompeo is missing, and he was the boss of many of the witnesses who appeared in the hearings. Absent also is John Bolton, the fired NSA and the person most knowledgeable of the events surrounding the July 25 phone call. Also missing is Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer who played a key role in the Ukrainian controversy.

If Trump is innocent like he says he is, and the call was "perfect" then, hypothetically, these witnesses could tell their story and prove Trump was, indeed, innocent.

However, Trump does not want these people to appear at his Senate trial. Why? They have first hand knowledge of Trump's wants and desires ... and the motivation.

That's why.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.

Despite a preponderance of evidence of Trump's deceit and abuse of power, it would be a mistake for the House to impeach Trump.

The ultimate purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Passing an Articles of Impeachment and a Senate trial is enormously divisive. The ultimate result of an impeachment is that it would tear our country apart.

The ultimate goal of Democrats, in one form or another, is to remove Trump from office. Many observers feel that would not be accomplished if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Why? One reason is the Democrats would be doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do, or so he says. He wants a Senate trial. He thinks it is his only chance to win reelection because everything he has done has turned sour. His forlorn accomplishments would include a failed Middle East policy, the lunacy of freeing up Iran to resume her nuclear research, his retreat in Syria which enhanced Russian interests in the pivotal Middle East, and his months long trade war with China which resulted in higher prices and a stagnant Wall Street from Jan. 2018 through Oct. 2019. The stock market only now is beginning to recover because analysts think Trump's trade war is coming to an end.

Another reason is, Americans are not behind impeachment. For impeachment to be successful, it would require an overwhelming support of Americans, somewhere in the area of 85 to 95%. Then Republicans in the Senate would listen.

Which brings us to the third reason why impeachment will fail. Many Republicans think what Trump did in Ukraine was inappropriate, but not a reason to remove him from office. Many disagree, thinking that a Presidential request for foreign interference in our Presidential election does warrant removal from office. They would ask Republicans, is foreign interference in our elections now acceptable? Apparently it is for Republicans because they are not breaking ranks. As things stand right now, not one Republican would vote to remove Trump from office.

So, what is the point of impeaching Trump? The best chance Democrats have of removing Trump from office is to continue to question his honesty and competence. Trump is an extremely unpopular President. They should feed on that, and maybe they will win next November.

 

[Ame®icano]

I strongly accused you of LYING twice 1 and 2 but you ignored it.

I did not ignore it, I answered to it within the whole context. Since your attention span is shorter than of the gold fish, let me repeat.

According to the letter written in May 2018 by House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions to Secretary Pompeo, about Ambassador Yovanovitch was making anti-Trump comments and he suggested she should be recalled. That has nothing to do with Giuliani or anybody else, it's just her disliking the president she was serving. Notice the date that is way before Giuliani got involved, and way before the elections in Ukraine.

Second, here is the text from the transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Read this, asshole.

Zelensky:"... I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough."

2. The only proof you got that Ukraine meddle in 2016 came from conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and Guilliani trying to save Putin. How convenient.

Ukrainians admitted they were interfering with US elections by working with DNC to help Hillary campaign. The have head of their new Anti-corruption bureau" on tape that they were helping Hillary campaign. Their Ukrainian court declared they were doing so. Even Politico, which is nowhere near the right wing wrote about it.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

You may want to discredit it, but its truth that the Wikileaks DNC email dump also confirmed DNC operative Chalupa working with Ukrainians on getting dirt on Manafort and Trump. Her actual emails confirms that.

Edit: Here is the audio tape that Glenn Beck played about Ukrainian officials were helping Hillary. Tape was released by member of Ukrainian parliament and it reveals Artem Sytnyk, director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, stating that he tried to sabotage the campaign of Donald Trump in an effort to boost Clinton.

WATCH HERE

Manafort . Are you saying that Trump just silly willy hired people without verifications? Are you saying he doesn’t know him beforehand? Bullshit.

I am not saying that. Manafort used to work for Reagan, I think. Then he became lobbyist. Then he went to Ukraine, made shitload of money. There used to be investigation about it years back, but he was cleared back then. The reason the investigation was reopened by Mueller was because he work for Trump campaign and new information surfaced from Ukrainians that channeled it to DNC. Without that, Mueller would have nothing on him.

Military aid to Ukraine. I worked with active military and veterans on regular basis. So I know far more than you. And I gave a you a straight facts.

Riiight. You work with military and veterans. So what? I don't give a shit who you work with, and what you think know is what you "heard" from suppose people that probably have no relations with Ukraine.

Listen the testimonies of people directly involved in Ukraine. No lethal military aid was provided during Barry's administration. Those ARE the straight facts.

And by the way, I am a veteran.

Did the Russian separatist advance against those blankets and first aid? The answer is NO?

NO? LOL

Tell me, who controls Crimea today?

Yavanovitch. All of that you posted against her are totally FALSE. You don’t have any proof or record of that... Getting Guilliani involved alone is way off. Maybe you have not watched the hearing. She even said.... She doesn’t know why Guilliani is bad mouthing her. Most or all of the witnesses despised Guilliani. Most or all of the GOPs grilling at the hearing admired her service and dedications. Except fuck up Trump.

If she wasn’t a Trump supporter for 3 years and doing a bad job they should/could have fired her a long time ago. Don’t you think? Not when they are getting her involved with Trump corruption.

I posted link to letter from Sessions to Pompeo. And above I quoted Zelensky own words. Those were actual proofs.

 

[depotoo]

You should know better.

I do know better, at least know better than you.

Let’s get these facts straight.

The word "fact" doesn't mean what you wish it to mean.

1. Manafort resigned as Trump campaign manager when he was exposed of illegal activities. Then Mueller went after him now in jail.

None of those activities are related to Trump campaign or Trump. They were all process crimes that Trump didn't know about, and when he find out, he fired him. That doesn't discredit Trump in any way.

2. Ambassador Yavanovich was employed by Trump for 3 years. She is a career diplomat with high remarks. She is a Trump supporter except when Guilliani went after her to inject Trump corrupted ideas. Going around bad mouthing her.
Why? Guilliani and cronies knew she is tough and would not put up corruptions. Obviously she is a good one to have that job for 3 years.

I notice you got her name wrong several times, it's Yovanovitch, by the way.

Before being US Ambassador during Trump presidency, she was Ambassador in Ukraine for President Barry, who appointed her there. I don't know where did you get that, but she was not Trump supporter. There was no smear campaign against her, those are her claims that nobody else can back up. There are several reasons she was replaced, and from what I understood it goes like this.

In March 2019, while she was still US Ambassador in Ukraine, she delivered speech where she openly called for firing of then current Ukrainian prosecutor general, and that would be Yuriy Lutsenko. Although Lutsenko was corrupt, and deserve firing, it's not up to her to call for his firing, since as US Ambassador she has to follow rules of Vienna Convention that regulate conduct of foreign diplomats in host countries. She violated the international rule that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs and elections of their host country.

Vienna Convention Chapter III

Second, she is US Ambassador and serve at the pleasure of the president. Not former president, but the current president. According to the letter written in May 2018 (notice the date that is way before Giuliani got involved, and way before the elections in Ukraine) by House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions to Secretary Pompeo, about Ambassador Yovanovitch was making anti-Trump comments and he suggested she should be recalled. That has nothing to do with Giuliani or anybody else, it's just her disliking the president she was serving.

I'm sure you can find the letter yourself if you tried. If you have SCRIBD account, you can read the letter HERE.

3. Obama military aid for Ukraine during Putin Crimea invasion. Do you honestly believe that those massive crates shipped to Ukraine are just blankets and first aid? It must be very powerful blankets and first aid that Russian separatists had not advanced an inch.

Unlike you, I don't speculate, i support what I write with links to documents and articles. During this impeachment inquiry, several witnesses testified that Ukraine did not get lethal military help from Barry's administration. Even Ambassador Yovanovitch testified so. I don't have to think what Barry send to Ukraine, all I have to do is listen to people that were involved.

YOU ARE LYING.
1. Zelensky never said any bad words against Yavanovich. Yavanovich never expressed anything against Zelensky. All of that came from lying president Trump.

2. The only proof you got that Ukraine meddle in 2016 came from conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and Guilliani trying to save Putin. How convenient.

As for lying, compare what I wrote to your own writings. As I said above, unlike you I don't speculate. I provide documents that are actually facts you mentioned at the top of your post. Speculations are not facts. All you have so far are just that... speculations.

I strongly accused you of LYING twice 1 and 2 but you ignored it.


Manafort . Are you saying that Trump just silly willy hired people without verifications? Are you saying he doesn’t know him beforehand? Bullshit.


Military aid to Ukraine. I worked with active military and veterans on regular basis. So I know far more than you. And I gave a you a straight facts. Did the Russian separatist advance against those blankets and first aid? The answer is NO?

Yavanovitch. All of that you posted against her are totally FALSE. You don’t have any proof or record of that... Getting Guilliani involved alone is way off. Maybe you have not watched the hearing. She even said.... She doesn’t know why Guilliani is bad mouthing her. Most or all of the witnesses despised Guilliani. Most or all of the GOPs grilling at the hearing admired her service and dedications. Except fuck up Trump.

If she wasn’t a Trump supporter for 3 years and doing a bad job they should/could have fired her a long time ago. Don’t you think? Not when they are getting her involved with Trump corruption.

From a leftist source, the LA Times.

Obama approves $75 million in nonlethal aid to Ukraine

Here is another one charwin can peruse, and then come back and deny again. What do you bet? Lol
US ships 300,000 MREs to Ukraine military

 

[beagle9]

You also realize that this other guy, Holmes, claim on the call he overheard (haha) with Sondland and Trump goes against what Sondland said, correct?

We're supposed to only believe anti Trumpers. Everyone else is lying.

There were not all anti-Trumpers - well at least until the fat ass tried this bribery scam..

What the fuck makes you morons think that only die hard Trump supporters should be believed?

Because our people didn't start this clown show, the Democrats did. We on the right are honest. You on the left are despicable.

It all started with Trump when on July 25, he ask Zelensky for this little favor of investigating the Bidens. The most shocking part of this is that Trump saw absolutely nothing wrong in asking a foreign goverment to investigate a candidate for president that he will most likely face in the next election. If the Senate fails to convict Trump which is almost certain, the biggest celebration will not be in the White House but in Moscow.

One thing wrong here, and that is that Joe Biden is guilty of a Quid-pro-quo, and was trying to shield his son from a prosecutor in Ukraine (where as he was given a job worth millions for nothing), in which caused Joe to be worried about just how close the prosecutor was getting. Trump had every right to investigate such corruption before sinking any more aid to the tunes of millions of taxpayer dollars to them, and to also use the tools that Ukraine would or could furnish in order to get to the bottom of it all.

If Biden and son wasn't up to their eyeballs in this bullcrap, then they would have had nothing to worry about in concerning Donald Trump or anyone else in that manner.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.

Despite a preponderance of evidence of Trump's deceit and abuse of power, it would be a mistake for the House to impeach Trump.

The ultimate purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Passing an Articles of Impeachment and a Senate trial is enormously divisive. The ultimate result of an impeachment is that it would tear our country apart.

The ultimate goal of Democrats, in one form or another, is to remove Trump from office. Many observers feel that would not be accomplished if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Why? One reason is the Democrats would be doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do, or so he says. He wants a Senate trial. He thinks it is his only chance to win reelection because everything he has done has turned sour. His forlorn accomplishments would include a failed Middle East policy, the lunacy of freeing up Iran to resume her nuclear research, his retreat in Syria which enhanced Russian interests in the pivotal Middle East, and his months long trade war with China which resulted in higher prices and a stagnant Wall Street from Jan. 2018 through Oct. 2019. The stock market only now is beginning to recover because analysts think Trump's trade war is coming to an end.

Another reason is, Americans are not behind impeachment. For impeachment to be successful, it would require an overwhelming support of Americans, somewhere in the area of 85 to 95%. Then Republicans in the Senate would listen.

Which brings us to the third reason why impeachment will fail. Many Republicans think what Trump did in Ukraine was inappropriate, but not a reason to remove him from office. Many disagree, thinking that a Presidential request for foreign interference in our Presidential election does warrant removal from office. They would ask Republicans, is foreign interference in our elections now acceptable? Apparently it is for Republicans because they are not breaking ranks. As things stand right now, not one Republican would vote to remove Trump from office.

So, what is the point of impeaching Trump? The best chance Democrats have of removing Trump from office is to continue to question his honesty and competence. Trump is an extremely unpopular President. They should feed on that, and maybe they will win next November.

They have no chance next November if this economy continues. That's why the impeachment. It's do or die for the commies.

 

[Flopper]

it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

It means NOTHING THAT EVERY WITNESS HAD SECOND, THIRD OR 4TH HAND INFO....YOU RAVING LUNATIC!

Vindman was listening in on the call, because he speaks Ukrainian language.
Vindman is an ethnic Ukrainian and purple heart from Iraq.

Sondland is a participant in the bribery plot.
A participant is the best sort of witness, because they actual participated.

Taylor however, was a diplomat for Ukraine, and testifies as to what his co-workers / underlings witnessed.

Vindman LIES!..... is a narcissist and presumes HE can make foreign policy! A modern day BENEDICT ARNOLD!

Bribing using taxpayer money for personal gain is not "foreign policy"

Bribery needs evidence to prove it happened..........You don't have that now.......perhaps you'll find it before Trump gets out in 2024 after you lose 2 more Scotus picks.........

LOL

It needs evidence but not the kind evidence admissible in federal court because there is no federal law against bribing an offical of a foreign country.

The definition of bribery is money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. Bribery is certainly a good description of Trump's action but I doubt it will be listed as an article in his Impeachment because it does not meet the requirement of the federal bribery law. However, no violation of the law is required for an article of impeachment but politically it would be a poor choice.

 

[candycorn]

Quid pro quo...confirmed

I doubt anyone is surprised. Trump is garbage.

I also doubt his supporters care. Many of them act like garbage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.
...
He then provided a list of witnesses in his Senate trial. The list included the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden.

Conspicuous by their absence are witnesses close to Trump and close to the issues surrounding Ukraine and the July 25 phone call. Absent are Mick Mulvaney, director of the OMB, the agency that withheld the military aid to Ukraine. Also, SecState Mike Pompeo is missing, and he was the boss of many of the witnesses who appeared in the hearings. Absent also is John Bolton, the fired NSA and the person most knowledgeable of the events surrounding the July 25 phone call. Also missing is Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer who played a key role in the Ukrainian controversy.

If Trump is innocent like he says he is, and the call was "perfect" then, hypothetically, these witnesses could tell their story and prove Trump was, indeed, innocent.

However, Trump does not want these people to appear at his Senate trial. Why? They have first hand knowledge of Trump's wants and desires ... and the motivation.

That's why.

No, it's a smart legal move to prevent the underhanded Democrats from setting up a perjury trap, which is the only reason they want them there.

Like I said earlier, write to Schiff Face and ask him to make Trump an offer: Any two of those people he wants, in exchange for the rat and his or her informant. Watch how fast the room empties.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It means NOTHING THAT EVERY WITNESS HAD SECOND, THIRD OR 4TH HAND INFO....YOU RAVING LUNATIC!

Vindman was listening in on the call, because he speaks Ukrainian language.
Vindman is an ethnic Ukrainian and purple heart from Iraq.

Sondland is a participant in the bribery plot.
A participant is the best sort of witness, because they actual participated.

Taylor however, was a diplomat for Ukraine, and testifies as to what his co-workers / underlings witnessed.

Vindman LIES!..... is a narcissist and presumes HE can make foreign policy! A modern day BENEDICT ARNOLD!

Bribing using taxpayer money for personal gain is not "foreign policy"

Bribery needs evidence to prove it happened..........You don't have that now.......perhaps you'll find it before Trump gets out in 2024 after you lose 2 more Scotus picks.........

LOL

It needs evidence but not the kind evidence admissible in federal court because there is no federal law against bribing an offical of a foreign country.

The definition of bribery is money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. Bribery is certainly a good description of Trump's action but I doubt it will be listed as an article in his Impeachment because it does not meet the requirement of the federal bribery law. However, no violation of the law is required for an article of impeachment but politically it would be a poor choice.

Which is why the senate will never convict him or attempt to remove him from office.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who is his political enemy IN NEARLY A YEAR from now?

You should ask your boi why is he afraid and after Biden?

Because Ukraine is corrupt and so is Biden. With no experience, Hunter got a multi-million dollar job with a corrupt company in a corrupt country. But as far as the left is concerned, nothing to see here folks!

You don’t have any evidence that Biden was corrupt.
But we have a very very clear evidence that Trump is very corrupt. That’s a fact jack.

This planet has 7.5 billion people on it. Do you mean to tell me there is nothing corrupt about a VP's son getting the job when he was the least qualified out of all these people? Not only that, but the highest paid member on the board?

Talking about corrupt. Why don’t you start with your Boi Trump?

The only idiots that keeps talking about Biden and his son committed corruption are Trump supporters. Nobody else.

As far as unqualified. Trump is inept and most unqualified president. The whole world knows that.

The requirements to be a US President are written within the US Constitution, and Trump meets those requirements. You don't have to be an establishment person to get to be President.

A two year 45 million dollar investigation that turned up nothing in regards to why it was started began over a joke Trump made about getting Hillary's emails. But a drug addict, kicked out of the military, in and out of rehabs three times, gets a job for 83,000 a year, and nobody is supposed to care.

 

[Picaro]

Now that the 'Impeachment' scam is completely dead and there is now no way they can vote for it, what is the next propaganda campaign going to be?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

When he can't get Trump, Adam Schitt will try to impeach Ivanka.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because our people didn't start this clown show, the Democrats did. We on the right are honest. You on the left are despicable.

Wrong. Your people started these corruptions. Trump is the most corrupted disgusting dishonest POTUS. Trump is not a good person.

If your boi was smart enough to make an illegal move. The whole country would not be in this predicament. The Trump team are so inept and stupid they could have done this very easily without all the other people involved.

But Nah! It has to be a grandeur.

Let’s get this straight. Biden bragged and fired a corrupted prosecutor general. Clear and simple.

Trump asked a favor from a foreign leader to investigate his political rival. Is very clear example of a corrupted POTUS.

HIs so-called political rival got his drug addicted son a job paying 80K a month in an industry he had no experience in, in a country he had no business in; didn't even know a word of their language. And you want to label who is corrupt?

None of what you and the other commies claim can be proven. Unless you can testify and show how Democrats are able to read minds, then you have no legitimate case.

We went these over before.
Hunter got the high paying job with no experience. So?

Trump asking a favor to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival. Is not acceptable no matter how much you twist it. Trump is a piece of shit.

How is Kushner running around with out diplomatic experience? Don’t tell me he is doing it for free.

How is Guilliani a private citizen running around like a diplomat? Spreading corrupted propaganda. Don’t tell me he is doing it for free.

WTF does that have to do with it? Trump can hire anybody he wants.

View attachment 291181

This is not about Joe hiring somebody. It's about getting favors from a foreign corrupt company. Favors are not granted out of kindness. People expect something in return. An email was discovered through the FOIA that showed one from Burisma, dropping Hunters name to curry favor from the State Department.

Impeachment is not for what you or others find acceptable or not. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors, none of which Donald is part of.

Talking about hypocrite.
You mentioned Hunter unqualified and highly paid. I gave you an exact example of the same situations. You are full of cow dung.

I deal with hundreds of suppliers and vendors. So when I ask one of them to hire one of my nephews. That is a favor. Is that bad?

Biden ask Burisma to hire his son. Where did Biden violate any rules?

We don't know because it''s never been investigated. That's why Trump asked Zelensky to "look into it" as a favor. And if there is something that shows corruption, then Trump could have the IG look at that.

No, it's not bad if you ask a vendor to hire your nephew. But then again, you have no power to return the favor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How can you charge Trump with crimes no one saw?

Bribery? Nope

Quid Pro Quo? Nope

Trump is not being legally charged with any crimes. He's being impeached. Articles of impeachment can include climes but most articles are not federal crimes. The most common articles are violation of oath of office, misuse of executive power, conduct unbecoming the office, and lying to congress.

Impeachment is a political process used to remove a president just as election is a political process for selecting a president. What this means is that all laws and regulation involving evidence and criminal court procedures do apply. The entire process is regulated by House and Senate rules and the constitution.

For example, the legal concept of hearsay applies in trials and related proceedings in court. It doesn’t apply and doesn’t make sense in the congressional impeachment inquiry, nor in any potential impeachment trial in the Senate.

Congress is not a court, and no rules of evidence apply to its activities, including impeachment. This is not a technical distinction: It’s a foundation part of the constitutional structure.

Why hearsay isn't a problem for Congress in impeachment hearings

Super. Then let's stretch the limits of the Constitution and the definition of 'hearsay' so that the minority Party will always just Impeach every sitting President from now on.

Hearsay evidence is admissible in impeachment hearing, grand juries, probate hearing, parole hearings, etc where there is no cross examination. The reason hearsay evidence is not admissible is that it is generally less reliable and it becomes impossible to cross examine a witness who gives hearsay evidence because the witness can not answer questions about evidence.

Congress is not a court. It’s a legislative body, and it’s not bound by the centuries of common law that built up around the admissibility of hearsay evidence. It will be interesting to see what hearsay evidence will be allowed in the a senate trial since rules of evidence and procedures are government by senate rules that are mostly based on precedent.

However, all this makes little difference since the Senate will vote along party lines as will the House which makes evidence irrelevant.

And if you support that, don't be crying when what comes around goes around. If the commies are able to get away with this, don't expect the Republicans for forgive and forget. Like the filibuster rule with judicial nominations, it will come back to haunt the Democrats, trust me.

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

 

[edward37]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.

Despite a preponderance of evidence of Trump's deceit and abuse of power, it would be a mistake for the House to impeach Trump.

The ultimate purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Passing an Articles of Impeachment and a Senate trial is enormously divisive. The ultimate result of an impeachment is that it would tear our country apart.

The ultimate goal of Democrats, in one form or another, is to remove Trump from office. Many observers feel that would not be accomplished if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Why? One reason is the Democrats would be doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do, or so he says. He wants a Senate trial. He thinks it is his only chance to win reelection because everything he has done has turned sour. His forlorn accomplishments would include a failed Middle East policy, the lunacy of freeing up Iran to resume her nuclear research, his retreat in Syria which enhanced Russian interests in the pivotal Middle East, and his months long trade war with China which resulted in higher prices and a stagnant Wall Street from Jan. 2018 through Oct. 2019. The stock market only now is beginning to recover because analysts think Trump's trade war is coming to an end.

Another reason is, Americans are not behind impeachment. For impeachment to be successful, it would require an overwhelming support of Americans, somewhere in the area of 85 to 95%. Then Republicans in the Senate would listen.

Which brings us to the third reason why impeachment will fail. Many Republicans think what Trump did in Ukraine was inappropriate, but not a reason to remove him from office. Many disagree, thinking that a Presidential request for foreign interference in our Presidential election does warrant removal from office. They would ask Republicans, is foreign interference in our elections now acceptable? Apparently it is for Republicans because they are not breaking ranks. As things stand right now, not one Republican would vote to remove Trump from office.

So, what is the point of impeaching Trump? The best chance Democrats have of removing Trump from office is to continue to question his honesty and competence. Trump is an extremely unpopular President. They should feed on that, and maybe they will win next November.

You don't think that putting all Trumps shit on the table for all to see would hurt him in 2020 election ? Know repubs in the senate would cut off their right arms before voting against their god but real Americans might just vote against the scum who support Trump

 

[edward37]

Think we already get a hint how Americans feel in KY Va La. states Trump won by 20,30%

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Today Trump refused to answer questions from reporters about the impeachment hearings, but he spoke for over 50 minutes on "Fox and Friends." In the interview he declared "I want a trial," referring to a Senate trial if the House passes Articles of Impeachment.

Despite a preponderance of evidence of Trump's deceit and abuse of power, it would be a mistake for the House to impeach Trump.

The ultimate purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from office. Passing an Articles of Impeachment and a Senate trial is enormously divisive. The ultimate result of an impeachment is that it would tear our country apart.

The ultimate goal of Democrats, in one form or another, is to remove Trump from office. Many observers feel that would not be accomplished if the House passed Articles of Impeachment.

Why? One reason is the Democrats would be doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do, or so he says. He wants a Senate trial. He thinks it is his only chance to win reelection because everything he has done has turned sour. His forlorn accomplishments would include a failed Middle East policy, the lunacy of freeing up Iran to resume her nuclear research, his retreat in Syria which enhanced Russian interests in the pivotal Middle East, and his months long trade war with China which resulted in higher prices and a stagnant Wall Street from Jan. 2018 through Oct. 2019. The stock market only now is beginning to recover because analysts think Trump's trade war is coming to an end.

Another reason is, Americans are not behind impeachment. For impeachment to be successful, it would require an overwhelming support of Americans, somewhere in the area of 85 to 95%. Then Republicans in the Senate would listen.

Which brings us to the third reason why impeachment will fail. Many Republicans think what Trump did in Ukraine was inappropriate, but not a reason to remove him from office. Many disagree, thinking that a Presidential request for foreign interference in our Presidential election does warrant removal from office. They would ask Republicans, is foreign interference in our elections now acceptable? Apparently it is for Republicans because they are not breaking ranks. As things stand right now, not one Republican would vote to remove Trump from office.

So, what is the point of impeaching Trump? The best chance Democrats have of removing Trump from office is to continue to question his honesty and competence. Trump is an extremely unpopular President. They should feed on that, and maybe they will win next November.

You don't think that putting all Trumps shit on the table for all to see would hurt him in 2020 election ? Know repubs in the senate would cut off their right arms before voting against their god but real Americans might just vote against the scum who support Trump

They might....

And they might also vote against the morons who ran this fucking circus.

 

[RealDave]

You also realize that this other guy, Holmes, claim on the call he overheard (haha) with Sondland and Trump goes against what Sondland said, correct?

We're supposed to only believe anti Trumpers. Everyone else is lying.

There were not all anti-Trumpers - well at least until the fat ass tried this bribery scam..

What the fuck makes you morons think that only die hard Trump supporters should be believed?

Because our people didn't start this clown show, the Democrats did. We on the right are honest. You on the left are despicable.

It all started with Trump when on July 25, he ask Zelensky for this little favor of investigating the Bidens. The most shocking part of this is that Trump saw absolutely nothing wrong in asking a foreign goverment to investigate a candidate for president that he will most likely face in the next election. If the Senate fails to convict Trump which is almost certain, the biggest celebration will not be in the White House but in Moscow.

One thing wrong here, and that is that Joe Biden is guilty of a Quid-pro-quo, and was trying to shield his son from a prosecutor in Ukraine (where as he was given a job worth millions for nothing), in which caused Joe to be worried about just how close the prosecutor was getting. Trump had every right to investigate such corruption before sinking any more aid to the tunes of millions of taxpayer dollars to them, and to also use the tools that Ukraine would or could furnish in order to get to the bottom of it all.

If Biden and son wasn't up to their eyeballs in this bullcrap, then they would have had nothing to worry about in concerning Donald Trump or anyone else in that manner.

Jesus fuck you people are dense.

1) What Joe Biden did or did not do does not change what Trump did

2) That Prosecutor's investigation into Hunter Biden's company had been dormant with no action.

3) Hunter Biden was never under investigation

4) Other countries also wanted that prosecutor fired

5) Trump was not worried about corruption or he would not have limited his demand to Biden. Biden was gone how would any thing Biden did effect current events in the Ukraine?

6) Trump advisors had told him there was nothing to the Biden thing

7) Trump wanted an announcement into the Biden investigation.

Any fucking idiot knows you are full of shit. Everyone but those with their heads up Trump's ass. He is guilty as shit. Try being an American instead of a Trumpette.

7)