Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[Hutch Starskey]

"Oversee" must be a euphemism meaning "smear" or "railroad."

"Oversee" to the democrat mind just means the president is subordinate to Congress and is not allowed to defend himself in any way.

Was Nixon defending himself when he refused to turn over evidence?

No, but guess who found him to be obstructing? Not the democrats in the House, and not the partisans who wanted him gone. Face it, Schiff could have gone the same route and compelled testimony, but instead let the clock dictate his actions. Neither he nor you have the standing to declare Trump to be obstructing.

Interesting. You think the court found Nixon guilty of obstructing? That’s not the case. SCOTUS merely ordered him to turn over the subpoenaed materials and Nixon complied after he lost the case. Nixon did exactly what you’re claiming Trump is entitled to do.

Now, Nixon was very likely going to be impeached for obstructing Congress, but never got the chance.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen. The legislative demands information from the executive, the executive refuses, it's taken to court and the court either compels the executive to comply or tells the legislative to pound sand. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. Why? Because Schiff did not want to take the time or put in the effort to pursue it in court. That's the bottom line, so complaining that Trump is obstructing is worthless.

Ah, and therein is how it's supposed to happen.

No. That is most decidedly not how "it's supposed to happen". That is not how subpoenas work.

 

[easyt65]

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

How many times are you going to repeat this lie...without ever offering any link or anything to prove what you are saying is more than the lie it is?

I poster the Whistle lower Law itself with a link.

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE, perpetuated by snowflakes who have refused to even read the law, who prefer to continue to parrot instead what proven Ling Dems and fake news MSM tells them.

The LIE D-Adam Schiff (and snowflakes like DragonLady) professed, that the 'whistle Blower' is afforded the protections of ANONYMITY and IMMUNITY are completely proven to be nothing but a lie within the actual law.

The FACT that the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that NO CRIME had been proven to have been committed and there were NO WITNESSES has already been confirmed through multiple links that have been posted numerous times.

Snowflakes such as yourself continue to perpetuate the lie that claims to the contrary have been substantiated through testimony and / or documentation has been repeatedly DEBUNKED. The FACT is not one person who testified in Schiff's coup Impeachment circus substantiated any of the FALSE claims about the Whistle Blower HOAX.

- The non-qualifying WB is admittedly a Trump-hating, Democratic party-supporting, Biden-connected, Brennan-subordinate Deep State CIA agent who admitted they did not personally witness anything, that their complaint was based on hearsay.

- Again, no one who testified under oath is a 'witness' because NONE of them 'witnessed' anything. Even Sondland was forced to admit his BELIEFS were based on things he HEARD from other people, nothing he heard / witnessed himself.

- When directly asked under oath to state what crimes the President committed, what Impeachable offenses he committed, NOT ONE could name 1 crime, 1 Impeachable offense.

The complaint was NOT corroborated - you LIE!

There is a finite number of people who actually listened in on and participated in the actual phone call between the US President and the Ukraine PM, and not one of them have substantiated the false claims made by the Democrats. NOT ONE!

The President did not hesitate to release the transcripts of the phone call, and the entire case for Impeachment for the Democrats completely depends on the pathetic Bill-Clinton-esque tactic of twisting the meaning of 1 single word. For Bill Clnton that word was 'SEX'. For the Democrats and their justification for Impeachment is THEIR INTERPRETTION of the word 'US'.

The Democrats broke laws, violated the Constitution, trampled citizens' rights, endangered our national security, became 'dangerous to our republic', manufactured evidence / altered official evidence / documents, engaged in Sedition, set a new speed record for rushing to Impeachment with the weakest case in US history - based on their partisan definition of the word 'US' in a phone call none of them witnessed / were part of.

Holy shit!

 

[Nostra]

More crawfishing. You lost. If she doesn't send them to the Senate, she is in violation of the Constitution.

Mitch can tell her to pound sand, she has no say in anything the Senate does.

LOLOL

So you say, but you're a dumbfuck. So there's that. In reality, nothing in the Constitution says when she has to send them.

I just posted directly from the Constitution where it does. If she doesn't, he wasn't impeached, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, this only proves you don't understand what you posted. All it says is the Senate has sole power to try all Impeachments. Nowhere does it compel the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in a timely fashion.

Now she might want to send them before the next session of Congress is seated because they might expire when that happens. Of that I'm not sure; but other than that, Pelosi can take as long as she wants.

Ironically, this is a lot like McConnell refusing confirmation hearings for Obama's SCOTUS nominee. While the Constitution says the Senate advises and consents presidential nominees, it doesn't include any timeframes for when they have to hold confirmation hearings.

Pelosi is now playing by the McConnell Rule.

It says the Senate "SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ANY IMPEACHMENT". If she doesn't sent it to them to try, it didn't happen and she is in violation of the Constitution.

You lose again, Halfwit.

Again, who said she's never going to send them?

And he's impeached already. Impeachment is not predicated upon the House sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever??

Not me.

What I said was if she doesn't send them over there is no impeachment. The Constitution is clear on this. "The Senate SHALL TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS". No trial, no impeachment.

Nazi is about to void her own Schitt Show.

 

[easyt65]

Trump's denials to Sondland AFTER GETTING CAUGHT are not credible.

Sondland admitted under oath during Schiff's one-sided inquisition that he never witnessed anything, that is BELIFES were based on what he heard others say. It' sin the actual transcript.

Next lie to debunk.....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So I’ll ask again if you think Nixon was merely defending himself when he refused to produce evidence? And if not, what is different about Trump?

You’re setting a standard where the executive can refuse anything for any reason and any subpoena from the legislature will take years to be enforced. Is that the future you want for this government?

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

He's claiming executive privilege. If Congress doesn't contest that, then he's perfectly within his rights to refuse these subpoenas.

He's claiming executive privilege.

They have not claimed executive privilege. There is no such thing as a blanket privilege that covers all subpoenas anyway.

 

[easyt65]

1.We need to find out if he actually listened to the call itself
2. To whom did he report the call and Trump's "crime"?
3. When did he contact Adam Schiff?

The requirement for 1st-hand knowledge for a whistle blower complaint was removed, allowing 2nd-hand knowledge, or HEARSAY, to be used in a complaint. This is the ONLY reason the 'complaint' survived '1st contact' with the IC IG, however, again, the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ dismissed the complaint because not only did it not include a witness, it did not contain any crime committed.

End of story. Nothing since has changed. Schiff and Nadler only helped to confirm this.

 

[Terri4Trump]

Schumer's pipe dream..........

....is the same as your pipe dream. You both love sucking pipe.

 

[colfax_m]

1.We need to find out if he actually listened to the call itself
2. To whom did he report the call and Trump's "crime"?
3. When did he contact Adam Schiff?

The requirement for 1st-hand knowledge for a whistle blower complaint was removed, allowing 2nd-hand knowledge, or HEARSAY, to be used in a complaint. This is the ONLY reason the 'complaint' survived '1st contact' with the IC IG, however, again, the prosecutorial divisions within the DOJ dismissed the complaint because not only did it not include a witness, it did not contain any crime committed.

End of story. Nothing since has changed. Schiff and Nadler only helped to confirm this.

There was never any requirement for first hand knowledge to file a whistleblower complaint. This has been debunked by many people including the ICIG’s office but lives on as a zombie lie.

The DoJ is under the authority of Trump. It doesn’t get to declare his guilt or innocence of high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[easyt65]

I think Schiff sold her a bill of goods, claiming he had a phone call they could lie about because Trump would hide it. My guess is she knew the jig was up when he released the transcript, but it was too late to pull out.

Anyone who trusted Schiff after he was exposed as having engaged in Sedition for 2 years - falsely claiming to have evidence against the President that he did not, deserves all the bad things heaped upon them.

 

[easyt65]

There was never any requirement for first hand knowledge to file a whistleblower complaint.

Thank you for reminding everyone why there is never any reason to read a thing you post.

"Earlier this year, right before the current “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump was filed, the intelligence community surreptitiously “eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” according to a Friday report by The Federalist."


"…A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,”


Intelligence community changed whistleblower rules to include hearsay shortly before complaint was filed

BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed

Feel free to STFU and go back to the kids' table so the grown-ups can talk...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.

Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.

Derp.....

Schumer to meet McConnell Thursday to discuss trial rules

 

[Zorro!]

The real impeachment scandal: The Democrats are always guilty of what they accuse Trump of.

“If anything has become clear over the past couple of months, it is that the Democrats have no case against the president; there are no crimes alleged, just the emission of a turgid vapor about ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of Congress’. There was no ‘quid pro quo’, no ‘pressure’, no ‘abuse of power’. All people with first hand knowledge of the infamous conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky acknowledge this. There was just the president doing the people’s business, legitimately exercising his power. . . .

In this case, the real Ukraine scandal is the Biden family scandal. Yet somehow Joe and Hunter Biden’s corruption got transmuted in supposed wrongdoing by Donald Trump. How does that work? ‘How Did the Bidens’ Corruption Become Trump’s Scandal?‘
​

The American People Are Not Fooled!

 

[bripat9643]

I think Nixon was defending himself and crossed the line into obstruction. What's different about Trump is that no court has weighed in on the legitimacy of what he is doing, and won't because the House democrats are more interested in a campaign issue than true justice.

As long as the courts say there are valid reasons for the executive to refuse a subpoena, that avenue HAS to remain open. Otherwise, we face a future where a Congressional committee cam simply demand anything they want for whatever reason they want and dig through it looking for dirt on the president. Is that the future you want, a democrat facing a hostile Republican House that demands documentation on every step he takes?

How did Nixon “cross the line” into obstruction? Where is that line?

A hostile Republican house demanding documentation on ever step the president takes? We’ve been there.

1. Had he failed to comply after SCOTUS ordered him to, clearly he would have been obstructing. It could be argued that he didn't really obstruct when he complied with the order. The court has to determine where that line is in each case. It's not up to Congress who is demanding something, or the president who is resisting.
2. A Congress with unlimited power to compel the release of any and every document a committee chair demands? No, we've not had that.

Earlier you had said that Nixon had been obstructing but seem to be backing away from that. I was asking your opinion as to why you initially said it. Have you changed your mind?

The court does not decide if the president is obstructing. They can’t. That’s not their job. If an average Joe is obstructing justice, they’re tried criminally for it but that’s not an option here. The president can only be held accountable by the legislature via impeachment process. It is therefore the sole responsibility of the legislature to decide if the president has crossed the line.

I don’t think Congress has unlimited power, but I don’t think they have zero power either. Trump isn’t holding up some subpoenas. He’s refusing EVERY subpoena. I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s definitely a ways back from where Trump has staked his position.

He's claiming executive privilege. If Congress doesn't contest that, then he's perfectly within his rights to refuse these subpoenas.

He's claiming executive privilege.

They have not claimed executive privilege. There is no such thing as a blanket privilege that covers all subpoenas anyway.

i believe he is.

 

[easyt65]

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE

No it isn't. Why would you lie about this?


What is a whistleblower?
A federal whistleblower is an employee who reports gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or other illegal or unethical activity to management, authorities or — in the case of the executive branch — to Congress, which has oversight capacity.

What are whistleblower protections?
Federal Legal protections for whistleblowers were enacted through the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The law offers the whistleblower some protection from criminal prosecution and administrative retaliation, such as firing or demotion. Because of concerns about classified information, the protections initially did not include the intelligence community.

Congress established a process for intelligence workers to report misconduct through the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. It wasn’t until 2014 that lawmakers codified a directive from President Barack Obama also extending protections against retaliation to intelligence officials. Despite these legal efforts, the law isn’t perfect. While non-intelligence civil servants can take retaliation cases to court, the intelligence community does not have this privilege due to concerns about classified material. This means intelligence whistleblowers could face punishment at work even if it’s illegal, possibly with limited legal recourse.

Did Trump’s whistleblower follow protocol?
Short answer: Yes. In recent weeks Trump and his supporters have accused the author of the complaint of being a “deep-state operative.” However, both the inspector general for the intelligence community and the acting director of national intelligence have said the individual followed legal procedure. Contrary to Trump’s claims, the law does not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information, it only requires a reasonable belief of a violation, said David Colapinto, co-founder and general counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, an advocacy group.

The protocol is for an intelligence official to file a complaint with the inspector general who is expected to refer the matter to the director of national intelligence. In this case, the inspector general alerted the House Intelligence Committee, even though the acting DNI consulted the Department of Justice first.

Will the whistleblower’s identity be kept a secret?
The president told reporters he is “trying to find out” the identity of the whistleblower. Ultimately, there’s nothing that can block Trump from revealing who he or she is, said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who specializes in national security. However, the law explicitly tasks the president with enforcing protections against retaliation.

“It is patently offensive and insulting to whistleblowers to have the president talking about how he is going to out this person, how he is going to confront this person,” Moss said. “No matter who is in the Oval Office … the need for whistleblowers to be able to raise their concerns with confidentiality and anonymity is critical.”

What is unique about the Trump whistleblower complaint?
This is the first time a credible whistleblower case has involved the president. Now, the president is publicly criticizing a person he is mandated by law to protect. Questions also remain about the executive privilege and the president’s ability to stymie ongoing investigations against him.

No where in this diatribe do I actually see a link to the actual Whistle Blower Law.....

Your claim that the complaint goes straight to Congress was only made possible by the requirement regarding 1st-hand account information only being allowed was changed before the faux Whistle blower filed their complaint. Interestingly enough Schiff admitted that he and his staff talked to the WBer BEFORE the complaint was filed? How long before the filing? Was it before or after the IC IG changed the requirement to allow HEARSAY?!

 

[easyt65]

The FACTS remains that the WBer does not meet the legal qualification as an actual 'WBer', the faux WBer never personally witnessed anything & their complaint was based on HEARSAY, the Democrats could not present 1 single person who witnessed anything personally -

No crime
No evidence
No witness

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

What other relevant information do you imagine further WB testimony would produce?

1. We need to find out if he actually listened to the call itself
2. To whom did he report the call and Trump's "crime"?
3. When did he contact Adam Schiff?

We know the WB was not on the call.
We know they filed a WB complaint with the ICIG who forewarded it to the DOJ.
When they contacted Schiff is irrelevant.

None of that sheds any new light on the president's actions.

 

[colfax_m]

There was never any requirement for first hand knowledge to file a whistleblower complaint.

Thank you for reminding everyone why there is never any reason to read a thing you post.

"Earlier this year, right before the current “whistleblower” complaint against President Trump was filed, the intelligence community surreptitiously “eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,” according to a Friday report by The Federalist."


"…A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay, rumor, or gossip would be rejected.

“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,”


Intelligence community changed whistleblower rules to include hearsay shortly before complaint was filed

BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed

Feel free to STFU and go back to the kids' table so the grown-ups can talk...

Hey! I know you think you’re some smart shit and all but you’re what would be described as a useful idiot. That is, someone who repeats what they’re told without questioning the information or thinking for yourself. Combine that with your arrogance, you’re basically an impenetrable wall of ignorance.

Link to ICIG statement blowing up your idiotic lie.

Be honest, did you do any independent thought before regurgitating this or not?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then why is McConnell refusing to allow any witnesses?

Because it was Schiff and Nadler who were supposed to call them. Why did Schiff refuse to call the whistle blower?

Schiff and Nadler cannot call witnesses in the trial.

There was no purpose to call the whistleblower other than intimidation and diversion.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

What do you mean there was no purpose in calling the whistleblower? He/she is the one who made the accusation. They should be questioned and cross-examined. That is obvious.

Yes, they made the complaint. The complaint has since been corroborated by many other sources including the call memo itself.

What other relevant information do you imagine further WB testimony would produce?

1. Who leaked to the WB what he thought were the contents of a presidential phone call with a foreign leader, did they have the authority to pass it, and did the WB have authority to receive it.
2. What was the extent of his/her involvement with Schiff's office in drafting the "complaint".
3. To whom he passed what he thought were the contents of a presidential call with a foreign leader.
4. Are they a real person or a pretext created to give Schiff cover to go after the president.

We don't need testimony to know these things.
The complaint was made to the ICIG who then forewarded it to the DOJ. It then was given to congress.
Schiff had nothing to do with it.

The president's own call memo corroborates the WB complaint.

 

[Auld Phart]

The snowflake claim that the 'whistle Blower' qualifies as a 'whistle blower' is a LIE

No it isn't. Why would you lie about this?


What is a whistleblower?
A federal whistleblower is an employee who reports gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or other illegal or unethical activity to management, authorities or — in the case of the executive branch — to Congress, which has oversight capacity.

What are whistleblower protections?
Federal Legal protections for whistleblowers were enacted through the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The law offers the whistleblower some protection from criminal prosecution and administrative retaliation, such as firing or demotion. Because of concerns about classified information, the protections initially did not include the intelligence community.

Congress established a process for intelligence workers to report misconduct through the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. It wasn’t until 2014 that lawmakers codified a directive from President Barack Obama also extending protections against retaliation to intelligence officials. Despite these legal efforts, the law isn’t perfect. While non-intelligence civil servants can take retaliation cases to court, the intelligence community does not have this privilege due to concerns about classified material. This means intelligence whistleblowers could face punishment at work even if it’s illegal, possibly with limited legal recourse.

Did Trump’s whistleblower follow protocol?
Short answer: Yes. In recent weeks Trump and his supporters have accused the author of the complaint of being a “deep-state operative.” However, both the inspector general for the intelligence community and the acting director of national intelligence have said the individual followed legal procedure. Contrary to Trump’s claims, the law does not require a whistleblower to present first-hand information, it only requires a reasonable belief of a violation, said David Colapinto, co-founder and general counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, an advocacy group.

The protocol is for an intelligence official to file a complaint with the inspector general who is expected to refer the matter to the director of national intelligence. In this case, the inspector general alerted the House Intelligence Committee, even though the acting DNI consulted the Department of Justice first.

Will the whistleblower’s identity be kept a secret?
The president told reporters he is “trying to find out” the identity of the whistleblower. Ultimately, there’s nothing that can block Trump from revealing who he or she is, said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who specializes in national security. However, the law explicitly tasks the president with enforcing protections against retaliation.

“It is patently offensive and insulting to whistleblowers to have the president talking about how he is going to out this person, how he is going to confront this person,” Moss said. “No matter who is in the Oval Office … the need for whistleblowers to be able to raise their concerns with confidentiality and anonymity is critical.”

What is unique about the Trump whistleblower complaint?
This is the first time a credible whistleblower case has involved the president. Now, the president is publicly criticizing a person he is mandated by law to protect. Questions also remain about the executive privilege and the president’s ability to stymie ongoing investigations against him.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

 

[xyz]

I think it was a huge mistake for the Democrats to base the whole impeachment only on the Ukraine thing.

There are weird things going on with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Trump has investments in both, although possibly more in Turkey.
Donald Trump’s Huge Conflict of Interest in Turkey

Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

What supposedly happened is Kushner gave the green light to kill Khashoggi, and Turkish intelligence intercepted the conversation.
REPORT: Kushner OK'd Khashoggi Arrest, Turkey Heard Call & Blackmailed Trump over Syrian Troops

So then Trump is blackmailed to not only pull the troops out of Syria, but Trump also refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

So while in this case Trump is being blackmailed and not the other way around, it is very important that his conflicts of interest are revealed, meaning specifically his business transactions. These business dealings can dictate his foreign policy and I believe could be subject to impeachment.

And yes, this means his Russia dealings as well.