Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Democrats are not going after anything but OBSTRUCTION!

If you listen that will be their reasoning for Impeachment...

 

[Slade3200]

You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.

Nope. Not even that. Even if it SERVED him, it must be proven that:

A). Trump INTENDED IT to serve him. And they must show the intent.
B). That this was his only and original selfish motivation. IE: Corruption. Not merely that the result happened to work out that way fortuitously.
C). That there was no legitimate US interest or need in the findings.​

I doubt they can prove A, I seriously doubt they can prove B and there is no way they can prove C. Therefore, if the Dems think they can win this beyond blowing smoke up their own asses and feeling like queens for a few days while patting themselves on their backs, they are sadly delusional!

The ramifications of dragging Trump through the mud like this only to have it all exposed as a sham and thrown out in the end, all the while by necessity, forcing the very scrutiny of the Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine and all their connections that they sought to avoid, is only going to totally blow up in their faces a year from now.

Biden is unelectable now, they've made Trump a martyr, and whomever replaces Biden to run against Trump will serve as a CONSTANT reminder of the Democrat's four-year-long farce and attempted coup, and is going to dismay the left as much as it will rally more support for Trump than they ever dreamed possible!

The election will be:

BIG GOVERNMENT ENTRENCHED DEEP STATE against little man Trump for the People.

I disagree with all that. This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process to fire the president. They need to convince enough congressmen to vote for it and hope that public opinion is what pushed them to do so. It pretty obvious what Trump was doing in my eyes.

that said o think impeachment t is a horrible idea and I do think it wins trump reelection. If the stop it now then Biden still wins

Biden was never going to win.

.

I disagree

He's already cutting staff and running out of money, the writing is on the wall.

.

Nice try. He is the front runner, who do you think you’re fooling?

 

[Crepitus]

The ranking member is yelling as much as an ex-wife. He seems to be just as reasonable too.

I'm a little upset at Nadlers Kangaroo Court myself.

Lots of Trump supporters are upset. You think Trump is above the law.

Not a Trump supporter.

But if you think Nadler, or the group to his left, is being fair, you're more partisan than I considered possible.

Many tRump supporters are beginning to claim they aren't tRump supporters.

Funny huh?

 

[dblack]

Democrats are not going after anything but OBSTRUCTION!

If you listen that will be their reasoning for Impeachment...

Sure they are. They know Trump is stubborn above all else. They knew he would refuse to cooperate with the impeachment hearings, which he is legally and morally obligated to do, and that would ensnare him. I hope they pull it off, but Democrats are about as bad as Republicans, so it's mostly a wash. Too bad they can't both lose.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

you are ahead of the curve... that is the argument that all the Trumpsters will eventually get to. Validating the Biden investigation is what it’s all going to boil down to..

Why shouldn't Biden be investigated? He did after all, violate his oath of office and probably several laws as well.

I disagree. There is no evidence of any crime and the accusations that Trump is now leveling years later are obviously political in nature.

Biden violated the UN charter by meddling in the internal political affairs of another country, there is a reason to investigate that.

.

you're stretching... nice try though

No stretch, a fact. Oh and the old, just following orders defense won't cut it.

.

 

[Crepitus]

ThereS nothing illegal about what Biden did. Quid pro quo isn’t illegal when used in national diplomacy. Did you not know that?

What Joe Biden did is called "bribery" and yes, that is a crime. And unlike Trump, there is evidence of it.

No it’s not a crime when used in diplomacy. Nobody in congress or the executive objected to how Biden handled affairs with Ukraine because it was in line with our national policy. Trump on the other hand made move against what the set policy was

The President of the United States sets the policy of this country, and Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

So if bribery is supposedly "not a crime" when used in diplomacy, why the impeachment hearings?

You're desperately clutching at straws, dude.

you are right, the president sets policy and if he thought there was corruption with Biden in Ukraine he has every right to root it out and there is a process for that. He didn’t go through that process. He back channeled with Rudy Guliani because he was trying to get political dirt, not serve the interest of his country.

Not to worry. It'll all come out to the light of day when the impeachment reaches the Senate, and Joe and Hunter Biden are subpoenaed as witnesses. They might even need to get Obama up there on the witness chair.

Why would they?

None of tRump's lackys did.

 

[Auld Phart]

The ranking member is yelling as much as an ex-wife. He seems to be just as reasonable too.

I'm a little upset at Nadlers Kangaroo Court myself.

Lots of Trump supporters are upset. You think Trump is above the law.

Not a Trump supporter.

But if you think Nadler, or the group to his left, is being fair, you're more partisan than I considered possible.

Many tRump supporters are beginning to claim they aren't tRump supporters.

Funny huh?

‘Trump Lusts After His Own Daughter’

and hundreds more with the same sentiment.

You're pissing up a rope, mate

 

[Nostra]

Are the witnesses being accused of something?

Why are you evading the questions?

I’m answering all your questions. The witnesses are not being accused of anything. They are there to give legal analysis

They were accused, and convicted of, being leftist political hacks.............by using their own words against them.

So? What does their political bias have to do with their legal opinions?

The woman says she has to walk to the other side of the street when going past Trump Tower. Does this sound like someone who is all there?

again with the character assassination crap... who cares?! she obviously hates Trump. Are you saying that the analysis of people with bias should not be considered?

Hers? Yes.

Next?

 

[Zorro!]

Democrats are not going after anything but OBSTRUCTION!

If you listen that will be their reasoning for Impeachment...

Sure they are. They know Trump is stubborn above all else. They knew he would refuse to cooperate with the impeachment hearings, which he is legally and morally obligated to do, and that would ensnare him. I hope they pull it off, but Democrats are about as bad as Republicans, so it's mostly a wash. Too bad they can't both lose.

Trump is going to rub Democrats noses in this like they are puppies being potty trained.

McConnell’s warning shot: Senate Dems better cooperate in impeachment rules, or else


“OK, can 51 of us agree [on] how we’re going to handle this?”

McConnell told reporters yesterday, he would make an effort to craft rules for the trial that would get bipartisan support. However, Cocaine Mitch made it clear that he’s going to be in charge, and that he’s almost as happy to follow House Democrats’ example in dictating the rules to the minority:

Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday said that if he’s unable to reach a deal with Democrats to set the rules for a Senate impeachment trial then he will try to to do so solely with GOP votes.

A Senate trial is expected to last as long as five or six weeks, depending on how much time the resolution allows House impeachment managers to make their case and the president’s defense team to offer a rebuttal.

McConnell said he’ll try to negotiate a deal with Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) but that if it fails he’ll try to muster 51 votes in the Senate Republican Conference to set the rules of the trial.

“It would depend on what we could agree to,” McConnell told reporters when asked if he would prefer to reach a bipartisan deal to set the parameters of the trial.

“That failing, I would probably come back to my own members and say, ‘OK, can 51 of us agree [on] how we’re going to handle this?’” McConnell said.​

McConnell’s warning Schumer that he has no problem pushing forward on a partisan basis to answer impeachment articles produced by an even more partisan and ahistorical process. In fact, some in his own caucus might prefer that kind of arrangement after watching Adam Schiff’s imperious charge into impeachment.

Vanity Fair didn’t miss that subtext, although they’re certainly not cheering it. They headline the news by noting that McConnell is “fully prepared to shut Democrats out of impeachment,” although it’s been Democrats who have shut Republicans out it up to now:

But while the process has so far been a Democratic-dominated affair—no Republicans on the Intelligence Committee voted to advance the report—Republicans may soon be the ones calling the shots. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested Tuesday that when impeachment makes its way to the Senate for a trial, he’s prepared to let his slim GOP majority take the reins on setting the rules.

McConnell told reporters Tuesday that he’s preparing a “back-up plan” for figuring out the Senate rules, in case he’s not able to strike a bipartisan deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on how to structure the proceedings. “The first thing Sen. Schumer and I will do is see if there’s a possibility of agreement on a procedure,” McConnell said. “That failing, I would probably come back to my own members and say: ‘OK, can 51 of us agree how we’re going to handle this?’” The Majority Leader added that he wasn’t sure if he’d prefer a bipartisan deal or working solely with Republicans, telling reporters, “it would depend on what we would agree to.”

McConnell’s potential decision to force the impeachment procedure through with only Republican support would stand in stark contrast to former President Bill Clinton‘s impeachment trial, in which a bipartisan compromise on the trial rules passed in a vote of 100-0.​

It’s quite a stretch to compare McConnell’s potential action here to what happened in 1998. In the Clinton impeachment, there was an actual statutory crime established in fact (perjury) that came out of a special-prosecutor investigation by Ken Starr. The House Republican majority used existing precedent to debate and vote on impeachment, with far more deference to the White House than is currently on display by Adam Schiff. The decision to impeach was still a mistake, as it became clear that no consensus for removal was to be found in either Congress or the electorate.

House Democrats have upped the partisan ante even further in this case, pursuing an impeachment without a statutory crime and basing it on hearsay without any direct evidence. McConnell’s warning Schumer that either Democrats had better apply the sauce-for-the-gander rule when it comes to majoritarian rule or prepare to get steamrolled as McConnell’s House colleagues have been.

Of course, this only works if McConnell can get to 51 votes for whatever rules the Republicans plan to implement. He can only afford to lose two, and at least three would probably be in play: Susan Collins, who’s up for re-election, Lisa Murkowski, and Pierre Delecto — er, Mitt Romney. Even a go-it-alone package would have to offer some due process to the minority for McConnell to get one of those three on board, so McConnell’s not likely to go Full Schiff. But McConnell knows he can do plenty of damage with a Half Schiff — and so does Chuck Schumer. Don’t think for a moment McConnell’s main counterpart doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope. Not even that. Even if it SERVED him, it must be proven that:

A). Trump INTENDED IT to serve him. And they must show the intent.
B). That this was his only and original selfish motivation. IE: Corruption. Not merely that the result happened to work out that way fortuitously.
C). That there was no legitimate US interest or need in the findings.​

I doubt they can prove A, I seriously doubt they can prove B and there is no way they can prove C. Therefore, if the Dems think they can win this beyond blowing smoke up their own asses and feeling like queens for a few days while patting themselves on their backs, they are sadly delusional!

The ramifications of dragging Trump through the mud like this only to have it all exposed as a sham and thrown out in the end, all the while by necessity, forcing the very scrutiny of the Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine and all their connections that they sought to avoid, is only going to totally blow up in their faces a year from now.

Biden is unelectable now, they've made Trump a martyr, and whomever replaces Biden to run against Trump will serve as a CONSTANT reminder of the Democrat's four-year-long farce and attempted coup, and is going to dismay the left as much as it will rally more support for Trump than they ever dreamed possible!

The election will be:

BIG GOVERNMENT ENTRENCHED DEEP STATE against little man Trump for the People.

I disagree with all that. This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process to fire the president. They need to convince enough congressmen to vote for it and hope that public opinion is what pushed them to do so. It pretty obvious what Trump was doing in my eyes.

that said o think impeachment t is a horrible idea and I do think it wins trump reelection. If the stop it now then Biden still wins

Biden was never going to win.

.

I disagree

He's already cutting staff and running out of money, the writing is on the wall.

.

Nice try. He is the front runner, who do you think you’re fooling?

You might want to check his numbers in the early States, he's down in some, slipping in others. National polls are irrelevant at this point.

.

 

[Nostra]

Why shouldn't Biden be investigated? He did after all, violate his oath of office and probably several laws as well.

I disagree. There is no evidence of any crime and the accusations that Trump is now leveling years later are obviously political in nature.

Joe Biden admitted on video that he committed quid pro quo, where were you when that happened? He got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he wouldn't back off of an investigation that was entangling Biden's son. Hunter Biden is now in deep shit, as some in Ukraine are saying he stole millions of dollars of their money, and they want it back.

We also have an Obama-era treaty with Ukraine, to root out corruption there, so it's not looking very good for the Bidens right now.

ThereS nothing illegal about what Biden did. Quid pro quo isn’t illegal when used in national diplomacy. Did you not know that?

It is when you go rogue and use it to stop an investigation into your son.

Oops!

Yes that would be illegal. But that’s not what happened. It wasn’t a rogue act, it was national policy. You’re just making the rogue thing up

Biden went rogue. Why hasn't Obama come forward to say he was acting on his behalf?

Hmmmm.....

 

[Nostra]

Joe Biden admitted on video that he committed quid pro quo, where were you when that happened? He got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he wouldn't back off of an investigation that was entangling Biden's son. Hunter Biden is now in deep shit, as some in Ukraine are saying he stole millions of dollars of their money, and they want it back.

We also have an Obama-era treaty with Ukraine, to root out corruption there, so it's not looking very good for the Bidens right now.

ThereS nothing illegal about what Biden did. Quid pro quo isn’t illegal when used in national diplomacy. Did you not know that?

What Joe Biden did is called "bribery" and yes, that is a crime. And unlike Trump, there is evidence of it.

No it’s not a crime when used in diplomacy. Nobody in congress or the executive objected to how Biden handled affairs with Ukraine because it was in line with our national policy. Trump on the other hand made move against what the set policy was

Bullshit. Nothing in our national policy said Ukraine needed to fire Shokin

It absolutely was. Not only our national policy but that of many country’s in the EU. You need to education yourself. Ron Johnson even signed a letter calling for reforms to Shokins office.

Ron Johnson and the EU sets our "National policy"?

Link?

 

[bripat9643]

When you use it for personal gain at the expense of the taxpayers, then it is illegal.

agreed... that’s not what Biden did but it is what Trump is being accused of. Glad you recognize that as a crime

That is exactly what Biden did.

No that’s not at all what Biden did.

had Biden leveraged the loan in order to drop the Burisma case then it would be on par with what Trump did and I’d agree that would be a criminal act

Biden used the loan to bribe Ukraine into dropping the investigation into Burisma to protect his son. that's the bottom line.

No he didn’t. You don’t know the details of this situation, that was completely wrong. Do your homework before you make in accurate statements like that

Yes he did.

 

[Zorro!]

Jonathan Turley: ‘This is not how you impeach an American president’


“This isn’t improvisational jazz. Close enough is not good enough.”

Turley issued a warning that “President Trump will not be out last president” and therefore it matters how this impeachment is carried out. “I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” Turley said. “I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would created a dangerous precedent for future impeachments.”

Turley pointed out that a common factor in previous impeachments was that they “all involved established crimes.” “This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime,” he said.
Turley politely disagreed with the other three witnesses (who he describes as “friends”) over the legal standard for bribery. He said that the founders offered a specific example of what they had in mind by bribery. That example involved “accepting actual money as the head of state.”

“Louis XIV…gave Charles II a huge amount of money as well as other benefits, including apparently a French mistress, in exchange for the secret treaty of Dover of 1670. It also was an exchange for his converting to Catholicism. But that wasn’t some broad notion of bribery. It was actually quite narrow. So I don’t think that dog will hunt in the 18th century and I don’t think it will hunt today. Because if you take a look at the 21st century, bribery is well defined. And you shouldn’t just take our word for it, you should look to how it’s defined by the United States Supreme Court.”

Turley then pointed to a case called McDonnell vs. United States in which the court unanimously overturned a conviction saying the crime of bribery could not be viewed under a “boundless interpretation.” Turley concluded, “You can’t accuse a president of bribery and then when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say ‘Well, it’s just impeachment. We really don’t have to prove the elements.’ That’s a favorite manta, that it’s sort of close enough for jazz. This isn’t improvisational jazz. Close enough is not good enough.”

 

[Nostra]

When you use it for personal gain at the expense of the taxpayers, then it is illegal.

agreed... that’s not what Biden did but it is what Trump is being accused of. Glad you recognize that as a crime

That is exactly what Biden did.

No that’s not at all what Biden did.

had Biden leveraged the loan in order to drop the Burisma case then it would be on par with what Trump did and I’d agree that would be a criminal act

But that's exactly what he did: Fire the prosecutor investigating the Burisma case, or you're not getting the one billion dollars.

And son of a bitch, they fired the prosecutor.

You are making that up. Biden didn’t get sokin fired because he was investigating Burisma. That investigation wasn’t even active. He got him fired because it was a source of corruption in Ukraine and it was our countries policy and that of our allies to seek reforms in his office.

Link to this "USA policy"?

 

[bripat9643]

When you use it for personal gain at the expense of the taxpayers, then it is illegal.

agreed... that’s not what Biden did but it is what Trump is being accused of. Glad you recognize that as a crime

That is exactly what Biden did.

No that’s not at all what Biden did.

had Biden leveraged the loan in order to drop the Burisma case then it would be on par with what Trump did and I’d agree that would be a criminal act

But that's exactly what he did: Fire the prosecutor investigating the Burisma case, or you're not getting the one billion dollars.

And son of a bitch, they fired the prosecutor.

You are making that up. Biden didn’t get sokin fired because he was investigating Burisma. That investigation wasn’t even active. He got him fired because it was a source of corruption in Ukraine and it was our countries policy and that of our allies to seek reforms in his office.

We've heard this cover story a thousands times. Where is the proof that the US or our allies wanted him fired? No one has ever posted it.

 

[Nostra]

Nope. Not even that. Even if it SERVED him, it must be proven that:

A). Trump INTENDED IT to serve him. And they must show the intent.
B). That this was his only and original selfish motivation. IE: Corruption. Not merely that the result happened to work out that way fortuitously.
C). That there was no legitimate US interest or need in the findings.​

I doubt they can prove A, I seriously doubt they can prove B and there is no way they can prove C. Therefore, if the Dems think they can win this beyond blowing smoke up their own asses and feeling like queens for a few days while patting themselves on their backs, they are sadly delusional!

The ramifications of dragging Trump through the mud like this only to have it all exposed as a sham and thrown out in the end, all the while by necessity, forcing the very scrutiny of the Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine and all their connections that they sought to avoid, is only going to totally blow up in their faces a year from now.

Biden is unelectable now, they've made Trump a martyr, and whomever replaces Biden to run against Trump will serve as a CONSTANT reminder of the Democrat's four-year-long farce and attempted coup, and is going to dismay the left as much as it will rally more support for Trump than they ever dreamed possible!

The election will be:

BIG GOVERNMENT ENTRENCHED DEEP STATE against little man Trump for the People.

I disagree with all that. This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process to fire the president. They need to convince enough congressmen to vote for it and hope that public opinion is what pushed them to do so. It pretty obvious what Trump was doing in my eyes.

that said o think impeachment t is a horrible idea and I do think it wins trump reelection. If the stop it now then Biden still wins

Biden was never going to win.

.

I disagree

He's already cutting staff and running out of money, the writing is on the wall.

.

Nice try. He is the front runner, who do you think you’re fooling?

Here is your front runner.....

 

[bripat9643]

What Joe Biden did is called "bribery" and yes, that is a crime. And unlike Trump, there is evidence of it.

No it’s not a crime when used in diplomacy. Nobody in congress or the executive objected to how Biden handled affairs with Ukraine because it was in line with our national policy. Trump on the other hand made move against what the set policy was

Bullshit. Nothing in our national policy said Ukraine needed to fire Shokin

It absolutely was. Not only our national policy but that of many country’s in the EU. You need to education yourself. Ron Johnson even signed a letter calling for reforms to Shokins office.

Post some evidence. I've never seen a single one of you douchebags do that.

Here’s a piece... now you do the rest and see how the rest of the world wanted the same thing...
3 GOP senators called for Ukrainian government reform in 2016 letter

Nowhere is Shokin's name mentioned.

 

[Crixus]

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."

Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.

i agree... I don’t like the 3 on 1 and I don’t like how each side is using the witnesses to push their agenda instead of challenging them with questions and good debate.

I would love to see Turley and the guy on the left end have a sit down debate/discussion about it. Get these soapbox politicians out of the way.

Nadlers closing statement indicated the decision has already been made, so why the dog and pony show?

.

Because for three years democrat leadership has been telling a bunch of freshman congress critter that it will all be okay and to trust them.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oops....the credibility of all of the Democrats' self-professed Constitutional Scholar witnesses was just burnt to the ground:

White House, GOP cite evidence of Democrat law prof witnesses’ past anti-Trump bias



Another Frustrating 'Scream At The Sky' Moment for Democrats / Snowflakes.....

...poor snowflakes.

.

The only thing they showed as "witnesses" is how much they hate Trump.