Why didn't House Democrats follow normal protocol to call impeachment witnesses?

[jc456]

They don't really want wittiness's they want the GOP to say no to them so they can call the senate corrupt....

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

 

[jc456]

Yet the foreign leader in question has repeatedly stated that he didn't feel pressured? How do you explain that? Trump asked what he did as a favor. You on the left have attempted to make it "blackmail" or "extortion" because you were trying to make it an impeachable offense!

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

 

[Care4all]

They don't really want wittiness's they want the GOP to say no to them so they can call the senate corrupt....

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

The president has no say in how the house runs an impeachment inquiry.. in to himself, the Congress has the sole constitutional power to impeach

 

[Care4all]

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

Liar.

Obama notified congress as PER The LAW.....

Trump did not notify congress, he hid it from them..... Trump broke the law....And then tried to cover it up.

 

[BlindBoo]

Everything was contingent on the new President publicly announcing the investigations Trumpybear wanted.

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

The fact that withholding the aid was illegal was just a side note and not at all the substance of his impeachment.. The intent of his corrupt Ukraine shakedown scheme was to inflict political damage on half the country.

Embrace your corruption.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

 

[BlindBoo]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

 

[Nostra]

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

Liar.

Obama notified congress as PER The LAW.....

Trump did not notify congress, he hid it from them..... Trump broke the law....And then tried to cover it up.

GAO said Obama broke the law 7 times.

Oops!

 

[Nostra]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

Link to this "strongarming"? Looks like I drove you off your "demand" lie, so you are playing a semantics game.

The President of Ukraine says he felt no pressure to do anything.

The Ukraine didn't even know the funds were delayed.

No announcement was made by the Ukranian govt.

The funds were released before the legal deadline.

Face it, you lose again.

 

[Siete]

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

The president has no say in how the house runs an impeachment inquiry.. in to himself, the Congress has the sole constitutional power to impeach

the constitution doesnt mean jack shit to Trump's ass lickers - thats why they are ass lickers.

 

[Nostra]

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

The president has no say in how the house runs an impeachment inquiry.. in to himself, the Congress has the sole constitutional power to impeach

the constitution doesnt mean jack shit to Trump's ass lickers - thats why they are ass lickers.

Funny shit coming from someone who has his lips wrapped around the hemorrhoids on Nazi Pelousy's ass........who tried to dictate to the Senate how to run the trial.

 

[Oldstyle]

from your own fking link..

But it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence, Pifer said.

money for name. can't make it up!!! there you go.

So it's a common practice in Ukraine. That is there is no law preventing companies from hiring high profile people. Likewise, no law in the US prevents the offspring of any politician from benefiting from their names by taking a position offered unless some evidence says otherwise. Has the Trumpyubear offer any evidence for this type of corruption involving the Bidens?

VP son. Sorry son that’s a conflict of interest in our country! Excuse me. That’s illegal

Prove it by citing the US law Hunter broke by accepting the position.

The only thing Hunter "broke" by taking that payoff money from Burisma was his father's rather slim chances of ever being President! Joe Biden should have known better but then again when you've got a useless drug addict for a son and he needs money to fuel his habit and pay for his strippers...what's a father to do! Joe Biden's been down this road enough times to probably figure out that he didn't really have a chance at the White House. Sooner or later he ALWAYS says or does something so monumentally stupid that his campaign goes down in flames. Might as well get some money for his troubled son before the inevitable happens once again.

Got it, so when you can't prove that any law was broken in the Ukraine or in the US, just get down and dirty and start smearing the candidates and their children and hope that generates enough hate. Trumpublican SOP I guess.

I'm "smearing" Joe Biden when I point out it was stupid for him to let his kid cash in like that right before he's going to run for President AGAIN? If it hadn't been Trump roasting him for it...it would have been one of his Democratic competitors! I've never claimed the Biden's broke any laws, Boo...they just committed the Cardinal sin of politics...they gave the opposition "ammo" to use against them! Then again, Biden never was that sharp.

 

[Oldstyle]

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

The president has no say in how the house runs an impeachment inquiry.. in to himself, the Congress has the sole constitutional power to impeach

the constitution doesnt mean jack shit to Trump's ass lickers - thats why they are ass lickers.

Oh, so this is all about the "Constitution", Siete? Don't make me laugh!

 

[Oldstyle]

This is about a bunch of poor losers who still haven't gotten over Hillary getting beat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

So yes, you're hypocritically attacking a political rival in order to influence the election for your own personal gain, while ranting and railing about your "outrage" at him for that very thing.

Got it.

 

[BlindBoo]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

Link to this "strongarming"? Looks like I drove you off your "demand" lie, so you are playing a semantics game.

The President of Ukraine says he felt no pressure to do anything.

The Ukraine didn't even know the funds were delayed.

No announcement was made by the Ukranian govt.

The funds were released before the legal deadline.

Face it, you lose again.

A demand can be made without using the word demand. The demand was a public announcement of investigations by the President of The Ukraine to put him in a box. Did Trumpybear say I demand X before I give Y? Maybe, let's hear from our federal employees who he discussed it with, like that Ghouliguy, let's put him under oath and see what he has to say. We have plenty of time before Nov..........

Republicans in the Senate said the House Managers proved their case. He did what they accused him of. They're just willing to accept that level of corruption in the Trumpybear. We all should. He see's nothing wrong with his scheme (except that he got caught).

 

[Nostra]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

Link to this "strongarming"? Looks like I drove you off your "demand" lie, so you are playing a semantics game.

The President of Ukraine says he felt no pressure to do anything.

The Ukraine didn't even know the funds were delayed.

No announcement was made by the Ukranian govt.

The funds were released before the legal deadline.

Face it, you lose again.

A demand can be made without using the word demand. The demand was a public announcement of investigations by the President of The Ukraine to put him in a box. Did Trumpybear say I demand X before I give Y? Maybe, let's hear from our federal employees who he discussed it with, like that Ghouliguy, let's put him under oath and see what he has to say. We have plenty of time before Nov..........

Republicans in the Senate said the House Managers proved their case. He did what they accused him of. They're just willing to accept that level of corruption in the Trumpybear. We all should. He see's nothing wrong with his scheme (except that he got caught).

Getting caught in a lie sure gets you twisting yourself into pretzels feebly trying to save face.

 

[BlindBoo]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

So yes, you're hypocritically attacking a political rival in order to influence the election for your own personal gain, while ranting and railing about your "outrage" at him for that very thing.

Got it.

I have no leverage like the full power and influence of the Federal Government, or millions of dollars in defense aid, to use to influence a foreign government into announcing an investigation into my political rival for my own personal gain.

Words are just not that powerful.

 

[BlindBoo]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

Link to this "strongarming"? Looks like I drove you off your "demand" lie, so you are playing a semantics game.

The President of Ukraine says he felt no pressure to do anything.

The Ukraine didn't even know the funds were delayed.

No announcement was made by the Ukranian govt.

The funds were released before the legal deadline.

Face it, you lose again.

A demand can be made without using the word demand. The demand was a public announcement of investigations by the President of The Ukraine to put him in a box. Did Trumpybear say I demand X before I give Y? Maybe, let's hear from our federal employees who he discussed it with, like that Ghouliguy, let's put him under oath and see what he has to say. We have plenty of time before Nov..........

Republicans in the Senate said the House Managers proved their case. He did what they accused him of. They're just willing to accept that level of corruption in the Trumpybear. We all should. He see's nothing wrong with his scheme (except that he got caught).

Getting caught in a lie sure gets you twisting yourself into pretzels feebly trying to save face.

Pretending you caught something just makes you look stupid.

 

[Nostra]

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

Link to this "strongarming"? Looks like I drove you off your "demand" lie, so you are playing a semantics game.

The President of Ukraine says he felt no pressure to do anything.

The Ukraine didn't even know the funds were delayed.

No announcement was made by the Ukranian govt.

The funds were released before the legal deadline.

Face it, you lose again.

A demand can be made without using the word demand. The demand was a public announcement of investigations by the President of The Ukraine to put him in a box. Did Trumpybear say I demand X before I give Y? Maybe, let's hear from our federal employees who he discussed it with, like that Ghouliguy, let's put him under oath and see what he has to say. We have plenty of time before Nov..........

Republicans in the Senate said the House Managers proved their case. He did what they accused him of. They're just willing to accept that level of corruption in the Trumpybear. We all should. He see's nothing wrong with his scheme (except that he got caught).

Getting caught in a lie sure gets you twisting yourself into pretzels feebly trying to save face.

Pretending you caught something just makes you look stupid.

You claimed Trump "demanded" an announcement of an investigation. That is a lie.

I called it out.

You have failed to make your case, miserably failed. There was no demand.

Your latest pathetic attempt to save face is to say a demand doesn't need to be a demand.