Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Slade3200]

they are law professors giving legal testimony. They are literally presenting legal arguments. Brains not working very well today huh? Try taking a nap

More OPINIONS based on the OPINIONS of Schifferbrain's Star Witnesses' OPINIONS.

And...

No case............

Not according to Turley, the republican lawyer who acknowledged there is a quite serious case which needs to be further vetted.

He clearly said the case was weak and wrong.

Please try to keep up.

No he didn’t. He said that bribery was wrong and that they didn’t have enough proof to back up the accusations. He thinks the White House witnessed should testify and the process should not be rushed. Try and be more accurate

 

[bripat9643]

There are No Legal Arguments. WTF are you talking about? These are just Opinions by Liberal Democrat Law Professors.

You can't even qualify these people as Witnesses.

they are law professors giving legal testimony. They are literally presenting legal arguments. Brains not working very well today huh? Try taking a nap

leftwing partisans always cloak their biases in the aura of professional expertise.

So what? If they make a false claim then call them on it. Their bias has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the things they say

They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.

Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?

No.

So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee

no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?

IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?

It amazes me what a bunch of fucking Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.

 

[easyt65]

Republicans and Trump will not allow the witnesses to testify that will get to the real truth.

Democrats have FAILED to prove a crime was even committed, FAILED to provide any evidence to support their claim, and FAILED to provide even 1 witness who has 1st-hand knowledge / witnessed anything. Americans are not guilty until proven innocent, no matter how many times you and Democrats make the opposite claim.

REALITY is, in this latest failing coup attempt, that a claim was filed by an anti-Trump 'unnamed' person who did not witness anything, a claim that was initially dismissed by the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ based on zero evidence of any crime being committed....

REALITY is that the only people directly involved in the phone call have repeatedly declared that the unproven accusations by the Democrats NEVER HAPPENED.

REALITY is Democrats are demanding the world believes the accusations made by a man who lied for 2 years about having direct evidence of crimes committed by the President, who admitted to leaking classified information, a man who lied about the Whistle lower and communications with him, a man who declared before his committee began Impeachment hearings that he would protect the VP - who gave a videotaped confession of committing a crime - and his son and then who has been exposed as having taken large sums of money from a Russian-born arms dealer who did business with corrupt former Ukraine officials and Burisma...

...we are supposed to take the word of THIS man, who has proven no crime, presented no evidence, and produced no witnesses, instead of the only individuals who took part in the phone call....and the transcripts themselves that prove no crimes were committed.

 

[toobfreak]

Put a fork in impeachment, it's done.

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevantfacts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and Ihave previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highlycritical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, Ihave repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter withthe Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Ratherthey are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policiesor actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not justwoefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachmentof an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to myimpeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my onlyconcern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process ofimpeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in thewake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concernedabout lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance ofanger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment wouldstand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnestevidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
7
Thatdoes not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and,at times, bitterly divided

Read: Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony

1. Turned on the TV, caught some hearing.
2. Listened to some guy absolutely DESTROY the Democrat's case!
3. I said: WHO IS THIS GUY? It was John Turley.

THREE KEY POINTS I RECALL:

• Words like Bribery and Obstruction, have narrow, not gaping broad meanings as the Democrats were trying.
• Impeachment requires a massive body of proof over time, not rushed with conjecture.
• Presidents are impeached for promoting information which isn't true, not for promoting information that WAS true, and the ties to Ukraine by Joe Biden and Hunter are absolutely indisputable.

STICK A FORK IN IT, THE DEMOCRATS LOOKED LIKE TOTAL IDIOTS.

 

[bripat9643]

You guys do not understand

This is not about the Bidens. Its about Tramp!!

I’ve got to disagree with you there. The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Your belief that Trump has to prove that only shows what a Stalinist douchebag you are. Dims are the only ones required to prove anything.

 

[Dragonlady]

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

 

[The Original Tree]

Put a fork in impeachment, it's done.

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevantfacts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and Ihave previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highlycritical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, Ihave repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter withthe Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Ratherthey are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policiesor actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not justwoefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachmentof an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to myimpeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my onlyconcern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process ofimpeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in thewake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concernedabout lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance ofanger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment wouldstand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnestevidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
7
Thatdoes not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and,at times, bitterly divided

Read: Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony

1. Turned on the TV, caught some hearing.
2. Listened to some guy absolutely DESTROY the Democrat's case!
3. I said: WHO IS THIS GUY? It was John Turley.

THREE KEY POINTS I RECALL:

• Words like Bribery and Obstruction, have narrow, not gaping broad meanings as the Democrats were trying.
• Impeachment requires a massive body of proof over time, not rushed with conjecture.
• Presidents are impeached for promoting information which isn't true, not for promotion information that WAS true, and the ties to Ukraine by Joe Biden and Hunter are absolutely indisputable.

STICK A FORK IN IT, THE DEMOCRATS LOOKED LIKE TOTAL IDIOTS.

WELL SAID!

 

[The Original Tree]

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

Wrong. Read again. ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS are supposed to GUARANTEE DUE PROCESS.

Procedural due process

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

 

[Nostra]

More OPINIONS based on the OPINIONS of Schifferbrain's Star Witnesses' OPINIONS.

And...

No case............

Not according to Turley, the republican lawyer who acknowledged there is a quite serious case which needs to be further vetted.

He clearly said the case was weak and wrong.

Please try to keep up.

No he didn’t. He said that bribery was wrong and that they didn’t have enough proof to back up the accusations. He thinks the White House witnessed should testify and the process should not be rushed. Try and be more accurate

Yes, he did. Why lie about it when his testimony is posted?

 

[edward37]

Is that why all those pos republicans are afraid to honor their subpoenas? because they'd HAVE to be honest??

'Innocent until proven guilty' is one of the pillars of our Justice system, one the Democrats have proven they do not believe in or acknowledge based on the fact that they have continuously declared the President to be guilty of Impeachable offenses despite being unable to produce a crime committed, present evidence of a crime committed, or come up with1 single actual witness to substantiate their false accusations.

You hypocritically and comically mention 'honesty' when the man who led the House Intel Committee Impeachment Inquisition committed Sedition by lying for 2 years about having DIRECT evidence of crimes committed by the President with the intent of causing an insurrection, a call for the unwarranted removal from office the President of the united States...the man who attempted to present as evidence of Impeachable offenses his own self-authored fictional account of the phone call between the Ukraine PM and the President then called it a 'parody' when exposed for what he was trying to do....the man who admitted leaking classified information...the man who lied about his communication with the non-existent Whistle blower only to claim later he has no idea the identity of the individual?

Bwuhahahaha....

Your president leaked also Inf from Israel And guess who he leaked too?? His Russian pal Putin

 

[the other mike]

"Trump wanted dirt on the Bidens from Ukraine. "

 

[kiwiman127]

Put a fork in impeachment, it's done.

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevantfacts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and Ihave previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highlycritical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, Ihave repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter withthe Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Ratherthey are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policiesor actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not justwoefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachmentof an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to myimpeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my onlyconcern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process ofimpeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in thewake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concernedabout lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance ofanger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment wouldstand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnestevidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
7
Thatdoes not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and,at times, bitterly divided

Read: Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony

1. Turned on the TV, caught some hearing.
2. Listened to some guy absolutely DESTROY the Democrat's case!
3. I said: WHO IS THIS GUY? It was John Turley.

THREE KEY POINTS I RECALL:

• Words like Bribery and Obstruction, have narrow, not gaping broad meanings as the Democrats were trying.
• Impeachment requires a massive body of proof over time, not rushed with conjecture.
• Presidents are impeached for promoting information which isn't true, not for promoting information that WAS true, and the ties to Ukraine by Joe Biden and Hunter are absolutely indisputable.

STICK A FORK IN IT, THE DEMOCRATS LOOKED LIKE TOTAL IDIOTS.

Turley seems to have reversed himself in regards what he stated during the Clinton Impeachment process.
He stated; "“While the Senate can decide not to remove a president in the interests of the nation for a variety of reasons,” he said then, “the House should not falter in maintaining a bright line for presidential conduct.”
Who Is Jonathan Turley? Republicans’ Lone Expert on Impeachment

 

[OKTexas]

house impeachment is an investigation not a trial .....

sooner or later RW dipshits MIGHT figure that out-

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Really, why is the intel committee not providing all testimony to the judiciary committee. What is shitt hiding?

.

 

[berg80]

So much for Turley's, "you're going too fast" argument.

As the New York Times’s Peter Baker noted, it has been 71 days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that the House would begin impeachment proceedings. In the case of Bill Clinton, it was 72 days between the House authorizing the impeachment inquiry and actually impeaching Clinton. (This time, the House waited a month before voting on formalizing the inquiry, but depositions began very quickly after Pelosi’s announcement.)

The Johnson example is even worse for Turley’s comparison. Johnson was actually impeached just three days after committing the offense for which he was impeached — the removal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Johnson removed Stanton on Feb. 21, 1868; he was impeached on Feb. 24; and then the House decided on the actual impeachment articles. It was sent to the Senate by March 4 — less than two weeks after the offense for which Johnson was impeached.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...diciary-committees-first-impeachment-hearing/

 

[berg80]

house impeachment is an investigation not a trial .....

sooner or later RW dipshits MIGHT figure that out-

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Really, why is the intel committee not providing all testimony to the judiciary committee. What is shitt hiding?

.

Why do you think testimony was withheld?

 

[edward37]

Did the Libnut hack Karlan just say "While the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a Barron"?

Is this the kind of lunacy the Dimwingers are basing this farce on?

LOL do you have a mad dog too?

 

[The Original Tree]

So much for Turley's, "you're going too fast" argument.

As the New York Times’s Peter Baker noted, it has been 71 days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that the House would begin impeachment proceedings. In the case of Bill Clinton, it was 72 days between the House authorizing the impeachment inquiry and actually impeaching Clinton. (This time, the House waited a month before voting on formalizing the inquiry, but depositions began very quickly after Pelosi’s announcement.)

The Johnson example is even worse for Turley’s comparison. Johnson was actually impeached just three days after committing the offense for which he was impeached — the removal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Johnson removed Stanton on Feb. 21, 1868; he was impeached on Feb. 24; and then the House decided on the actual impeachment articles. It was sent to the Senate by March 4 — less than two weeks after the offense for which Johnson was impeached.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...diciary-committees-first-impeachment-hearing/

Do you not CEASE from LYING?
Go back to The Commie Shit Hole you came from. Turley warned Nadler that a Hastey and Speedy Impeachment of Johnson was not to be followed.

 

[Nostra]

OUCH!
Matt Gaetz just destroyed the liberal hacks on the panel with their own words.

 

[Nostra]

Did the Libnut hack Karlan just say "While the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a Barron"?

Is this the kind of lunacy the Dimwingers are basing this farce on?

LOL do you have a mad dog too?

I have no idea what you think you are trying to say here, and I'm guessing you don't either, Moron.

 

[Nostra]

house impeachment is an investigation not a trial .....

sooner or later RW dipshits MIGHT figure that out-

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Really, why is the intel committee not providing all testimony to the judiciary committee. What is shitt hiding?

.

Why do you think testimony was withheld?

Schitler is hiding something.