Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[HereWeGoAgain]

What question was it? I missed it.

Who ordered the subpoenas of phone records. Who ordered the cross checking and identifying the numbers.

That is going to be THE MEMORABLE MOMENT in The Impeachment. WHO ORDERED SPYING ON House Reps and THE PRESS? Either Adam Schiff did, or You......


and "Do you know what a QUID PRO QUO IS?" (Reads Joe Biden's Ver Batem Quotes about bragging about his own quid pro quo)

Joe Biden is the only one who did such a thing....so Either JOE BIDEN IS A LIAR and trying to IMPRESS PEOPLE or HE DID IN FACT BRAG ABOUT COMMITTING A QUID PRO QUO with holding Billions of Dollars and threatening The Ukraine to fire The Prosecutor investigating his son and Burisma which THEY DID INDEED DO!"

Just EFFING EPIC!

Yep!!!!
That Shit Was Scathing!!!!!
Loved every second of it!

 

[The Original Tree]

This is shaping up to be another BRUTAL DAY for Adolph Schiffler, Nazi Nadler and Propagandist Pelosi, and The DemNazi Party.

 

[The Original Tree]

You know things are going badly for The DemNazi party and Adolph Schiffler when the Resident Retard DemTards, are silent, most of this hearing.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Goldman is toast and now Nadler is pissed.....

Collins accused him of lying under oath and then refused to hear his response. Collins is a blowhard. No one who watched that performance could say it was necessary to attack a baby lawyer that way.

He refused to answer THE QUESTION. Collins should have let him outright lie, but what he did was commit a lie of omission. He is under oath, and he needs to answer the question, or plead the 5th.

What question was it? I missed it.

Here.....

 

[Flash]

The Democrat "witnesses" for this clown committee: Three idiot partisan college professors and a couple of staff lawyers.

Not a damn fact witness to be found. Just TDS afflicted shitheads giving their opinion.

 

[Crixus]

What question was it? I missed it.

Who ordered the subpoenas of phone records. Who ordered the cross checking and identifying the numbers.

Why is that important? Does anyone know? How do we know baby lawyer knew?

It goes to personal biases of those investigating and illegal use of our governmental systems. Schiff was spying on TRUMP and his staff just like the FISA abuse was done. He selected a close contact and then obtained the data and records which exposed Trump and Guliain to unwarranted search and seizure.

Isn't that part of an investigation? It's not called spying when there is an investigation. Same as the FISA thing, which Durham could find no fault with.

That's not what I'm hearing. The FISA stuff is where the law was broken. Replace all political intrigue with meth, and congressional committees with cops and district attorney's and this case would have been tossed on warrant gathering alone. And if it made it to trial people would be in trouble.

 

[Crixus]

Goldman is toast and now Nadler is pissed.....

Collins accused him of lying under oath and then refused to hear his response. Collins is a blowhard. No one who watched that performance could say it was necessary to attack a baby lawyer that way.

He refused to answer THE QUESTION. Collins should have let him outright lie, but what he did was commit a lie of omission. He is under oath, and he needs to answer the question, or plead the 5th.

What question was it? I missed it.

Here.....

That was awesomeness.

 

[skye]

I'm so tired of the circus...you can not even begin to have a conception.

 

[The Original Tree]

LOL Swalwell. No wonder he had to drop out of The Presidential Race.

I wonder if he is going to drop a NUKE on The White House.

 

[Crixus]

LOL Swalwell. No wonder he had to drop out of The Presidential Race.

I wonder if he is going to drop a NUKE on The White House.

He is a dumbfuck. I doubt he holds a seat after all this. Short of that, I look for a bunch of democrats to be plunked on those committees after 2020. There SHOULD be reprisals.

 

[Zorro!]

Why is that important? Does anyone know? How do we know baby lawyer knew?

If you need to ask those questions, then I am done with you. The answer(s) are so obvious to the legality of it all . . . .

So the Republicans are saying the subpoenas were illegal, I am guessing. Of course they think that. Sort of damning evidence from those records.

That is why subpoenas are litigated in the Courts, but for Fat Jerry and the Boys, having a different opinion on a matter is not grounds for each side to present their views to an impartial judge, why no, disagreeing with Fat Jerry and the Boys is an "impeachable offense"!

Looking forward to seeing just how far the Senate Republicans shove this down their collective throats.

Such a serious matter, and they don't want to go through the process that allows DUE PROCESS and allows their targets to actually defend themselves against illegitimate subpoenas.

They don't want Trump to defend himself against illegal subpoenas and they don't want him to defend himself against illegal spying.\
\
More About FBI Spying | American Civil Liberties Union

https://www.aclu.org › other › more-about-fbi-spying
During the Cold War, the FBI ran a domestic intelligence/counterintelligence ... The FBI used the information it gleaned from these improper investigations not for ...

See, it's always been called spying, but, now suddenly Dems and the Deep State want to rewrite the dictionaries.

 

[Zorro!]

From now on, impeachment can be used against any first-term president with a record of success. It will be used solely as a political strategy by the opposition party that controls the House to weaken a president’s reelection chances. That’s the Democratic Party’s legacy and Democrats will live to rue it.

The Legacy of Low-Bar Impeachment.

Rule I. Impeachment is not credible when it involves criminalizing a president for thinking about doing what other presidents have routinely done. A president should be specifically impeached on the basis of evidence that shows he committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or “treason” or “bribery.”

Rule II. Impeachment and conviction, to be credible, require bipartisanship and careful step-by-step deliberation. In 1998-1999, the Republicans found some bipartisan help in the House but hemorrhaged more Republican votes in the Senate while failing to pick up a single Democratic Senate vote. It is likely that not one Republican House member will vote for impeachment and not a single Republican senator for conviction, but at the same time likely that a handful of Democratic representatives will join Republicans in the House.

Rule III. It is hard to remove a president even for perjury and obstruction of justice during boom times. The public believes it is counterproductive to try. The current Democrats, nonetheless, since acquiring control of the House, are oblivious to the growing economy and feel as the Republicans did in 1998, that the mere idea of impeaching a president will over time change the polls. It did not then and will not this time around. They will likely pay the same price of hemorrhaging seats as the Republicans did in both the congressional elections of 1998 and 2000.

Rule IV. Some sort of special prosecutor’s report is needed for impeachment. The Democrats do not have one. And worse, they have already sought to use special counsel Robert Mueller as a pathway to impeachment. Yet the charge of “collusion” was found to be nonexistent and the second writ of “obstruction” was found not actionable in the Mueller report. The only thing worse than not having a special counsel brief is having a prior exonerating special counsel’s brief.

Rule V. Majority public support is needed for impeachment. The Democrats currently lack it. And they are likely not to obtain it if the economy holds and they can find no sensational new witnesses or evidence.

Rule VI. Impeachment should not become a substitute for a looming election. The opponents of Nixon and Clinton had two powerful arguments for impeachment. First, there was no other chance of removal, given neither president was up for reelection. And, second, none of the elected officials of the House or Senate, who would be shortly voting on the presidents’ fate, would themselves be running against the president in the next election. In Trump’s case, he will be facing the voters in less than a year who can make up their own minds. More importantly, a number of Democratic senators are running for president and thus will be voting whether to convict the likely Republican incumbent nominee for president—to their obvious self-interest.

Rule VII. Impeachment should focus on one area of alleged criminality. In the Democrats’ case, Ukraine is merely one element of a three-year effort to get Trump, dating back to his election. That some Democrats are now seeking to resurrect the Mueller report to find additional ammunition is a commentary of the serial poverty of their entire impeachment effort.

Congress could have impeached Obama for hiding the exact terms of the Iran Deal (which he refused to submit to the Senate for treaty ratification), specifically a quid pro quo, nocturnal cash ransom for hostages; for unconstitutionally suspending immigration law and giving amnesties by fiat without congressional approval to millions of illegal aliens; for weaponizing the IRS to use its powers during the 2011-2012 election cycle to deny viability to conservative nonprofit political organizations and to aid Obama’s own reelection effort; for surveilling Associated Press reporters on rumors they were recipients of leaked materials; for his administration’s unmasking of names of surveilled Americans that were then leaked to the press; and for allowing the top officials of the CIA, FBI, and the Justice Department to surveil an opposition party’s presidential candidate’s campaign, based on the unverified and purchased opposition research of his own party’s nominee.

None of these Obama scandals warranted impeachment by the old standards. All of them certainly could have under the new ones.

 

[BS Filter]

I hear every black Democrat at this so called hearing invoke the founding fathers. That's funny as hell because I hear these same black people often refer to the founding fathers as racist old white men.

 

[Zorro!]

 

[toobfreak]

Goldman is toast and now Nadler is pissed.....

Collins accused him of lying under oath and then refused to hear his response. Collins is a blowhard. No one who watched that performance could say it was necessary to attack a baby lawyer that way.

He refused to answer THE QUESTION. Collins should have let him outright lie, but what he did was commit a lie of omission. He is under oath, and he needs to answer the question, or plead the 5th.

What question was it? I missed it.

Here.....

Why SHOULDN'T Schiff and the Democrats go after the private phone records of people they don't like, like some oppressive regime? Isn't that the SAME Gestapo methods used by and taught them by their guru mentor Obumma when he did the same thing with James Rosen and members of the Associated Press just a few years ago? And what was done about it by the GOP then? Where were the hearings, inquiries and impeachment investigations into any of that? The problem with Washington is that they are long on hearings and investigations, wasting money and stroking the taxpayer, but short on the actual RESULTS in getting prosecutions and cleaning up real crime in the capitol because, sadly, the laws simply don't apply to those they most need to apply to, those that WRITE the laws to apply to all but themselves!

Just as with Obumma
Just as with Hillary

there have been a dozen crimes committed by these impeachment proceedings so far that will be glazed over and buried, never to be prosecuted, because the laws are written to PROTECT the rich and powerful unless like Trump they just really, really don't like you! Just take a look in the prisons: how many rich and powerful people do you see in there? The prisons are filled full with the poor, the needy, the helpless, hopeless and indigent who are but mere victims of the system that has failed them.

 

[Zorro!]

As Impeachment Moves Ahead Trump Surges in Battleground States.

 

[BS Filter]

Anyone with average intelligence that is watching this hearing can see that it's purely partisan and unfair.

 

[Crixus]

As Impeachment Moves Ahead Trump Surges in Battleground States.

Don't forget all the judges to.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

It would appear that Trump's fans are incapable of thinking beyond 2020.

Throughout his entire President, a majority of Americans have disapproved of Trump's performance. Trump is the least popular President in modern American history. The GOP has lost several key elections in 2018 and 2019 and they lost control of the House because of Trump.

In other words, in all likelihood Trump will lose in 2020.

Trump's fans ignore all the evidence -- they avoid it, actually -- and insist that Trump is innocent. They are totally unaware of the consequences of that judgment.

Most likely in 2021 a Democrat will become President. If not in 2021, then 2025, or at some point a Democrat will be in the Oval Office.

If Trump is declared innocent of asking a foreign government to intervene in our election on his behalf, if Trump is declared innocent of using bribery as an incentive, if Trump is declared innocent of obstructing justice when he clearly defied Congress, then Democratic Presidents will be allowed to continue the practice.

That possibility exists as early as Jan. 20, 2021. Do Trump's fans really want to grant that kind of power to Democratic Presidents?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Anyone with average intelligence that is watching this hearing can see that it's purely partisan and unfair.

I watched the Judiciary Committee hearing today, and it was quite interesting. The Democrats concentrated on the evidence and what Trump did and said.

The Republicans on the committee were caught between a rock and hard spot. They are dealing with a President who, by his own words and those of his chief of staff, is guilty of a number of impeachable offenses. Consequently, they avoided the evidence and what Trump did and said, concentrating on the process, whistleblower, whistleblower's complaint which has been superseded by a mountain of evidence and testimony, Hunter and Joe Biden, the Mueller Report, the economy, job growth, and constant references to an election that took place three years ago.

It should be significant to Trump's fans that the Republicans were unable to deal with the evidence, and were helpless when it came to what Trump said and did.