Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[protectionist]

YOU are hopeless!!!!

What a coincidence! I was thinking exactly that about you.

 

[Care4all]

So Lindsey Graham, the president's bestest Bud in the Senate, said paraphrased, that Giuliani needs to curb his Ukrainian crapola, and go to the CIA or intel agencies with it first, before running his mouth in the public presenting it as facts, when he could have been fooled by Russian created propaganda...

Graham kisses the president's ass and if he is saying something like that, then he knows something that is making him guide Rudy, from Rudy's own shenanigans and over zealousness to please the Pres... imo.

 

[protectionist]

donny NEVER asked for an investigation prior to biden entering the race. he did NOT ask for any investigation into corruption in 2017, or 2018.

nice try, but your bullshit doesn't fly.

He asked for it when the video was shown to him. Know more. Judge less.

 

[playtime]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

Is that why you did your sham investigation in secret and without Trumps or Republican input? Now you want only your sham to have credibility and deny Trump and those who voted for him due process in the Senate just like you did in the house!.

there were several (R)s on the committees' investigations. nothing was held secret by those appointed to those committees. trump, however, had no legal or constituional right to have input. congress is separate from the executive branch for a reason.

 

[playtime]

There is no impeachment until the Senate receives the articles.

lol... you keep going with that.

 

[22lcidw]

So Lindsey Graham, the president's bestest Bud in the Senate, said paraphrased, that Giuliani needs to curb his Ukrainian crapola, and go to the CIA or intel agencies with it first, before running his mouth in the public presenting it as facts, when he could have been fooled by Russian created propaganda...

Graham kisses the president's ass and if he is saying something like that, then he knows something that is making him guide Rudy, from Rudy's own shenanigans and over zealousness to please the Pres... imo.

Repubs have different opinions and some are to far to the left. Progs are interchangeable. So if they want to legalize pedophile behavior, they will. One way or the other. From behind the scenes or one of their extremist judges.

 

[Nostra]

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

There was no FIX in the house. You were lied to.

There is no Trial in the House, and the founders specifically made it easier for the house to impeach... which means basically, to indict.... they only need a probable cause as well to indict..... And the Congressmen do not need to take any special oath on impeachment..... And only a majority is needed to bring impeachment indictments, So it was designed to be more political if it be..... in the House.

The founders then made it fair, serious, just..... in the Senate.
The Senators have to take an oath under God. Or whomever, to do justice through thoroughness, examining all the evidence impartially, allowing for legal representation of the defendant, allowing the defendant to bring forth their exculpatory evidence and witnesses to counter the prosecution's, it has a Sc Justice to oversee it, and unlike the house with a mere majority to indict, the Senate needs 2/3s of the Senators, to convict and remove....

The founders believed the Senate trial was where a fair impeachment trial could take place and put in measures, especially their newly sworn, impeachment OATH, to do just that....

They never anticipated Senators would be partisan, impartial, jurors.... there were not political parties at the time of our founders either, nor were Senators elected by we the people, they were chosen by State legislatures is my understanding of the time....

The entire farce in the House was fixed.

Could you please explain why you believe this... what you actually saw or the Dems did to make you feel this way, so I can understand and be able to continue to debate with you on it?

You clearly didn't watch how the Dims ran the impeachment. Once you get up to speed we'll talk.

 

[Nostra]

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

 

[playtime]

donny NEVER asked for an investigation prior to biden entering the race. he did NOT ask for any investigation into corruption in 2017, or 2018.

nice try, but your bullshit doesn't fly.

He asked for it when the video was shown to him. Know more. Judge less.

uh-huh...

ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

 

[protectionist]

uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.

Some people have to be told twice.

Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?

 

[playtime]

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

 

[Nostra]

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not obstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

Fuck your lefty source.

 

[playtime]

uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.

Some people have to be told twice.

Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

 

[hadit]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

We know absolutely how most of the democrats are going to vote. Why are you pretending this totally political, non-criminal thing is anything OTHER than a totally partisan crap shoot? Do you not have the decency to admit that the democrats already know exactly who among them will vote for conviction before a word is heard?

 

[playtime]

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not abstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

Fuck your lefty source.

you dummy - that source is congress itself. why must you always prove just how poorly educated trump's base is?

 

[Nostra]

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not abstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

Fuck your lefty source.

you dummy - that source is congress itself. why must you always prove just how poorly educated trump's base is?

Quote where it says challenging subpoenas in court is obstruction.

GO!

 

[Care4all]

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

There was no FIX in the house. You were lied to.

There is no Trial in the House, and the founders specifically made it easier for the house to impeach... which means basically, to indict.... they only need a probable cause as well to indict..... And the Congressmen do not need to take any special oath on impeachment..... And only a majority is needed to bring impeachment indictments, So it was designed to be more political if it be..... in the House.

The founders then made it fair, serious, just..... in the Senate.
The Senators have to take an oath under God. Or whomever, to do justice through thoroughness, examining all the evidence impartially, allowing for legal representation of the defendant, allowing the defendant to bring forth their exculpatory evidence and witnesses to counter the prosecution's, it has a Sc Justice to oversee it, and unlike the house with a mere majority to indict, the Senate needs 2/3s of the Senators, to convict and remove....

The founders believed the Senate trial was where a fair impeachment trial could take place and put in measures, especially their newly sworn, impeachment OATH, to do just that....

They never anticipated Senators would be partisan, impartial, jurors.... there were not political parties at the time of our founders either, nor were Senators elected by we the people, they were chosen by State legislatures is my understanding of the time....

The entire farce in the House was fixed.

Could you please explain why you believe this... what you actually saw or the Dems did to make you feel this way, so I can understand and be able to continue to debate with you on it?

You clearly didn't watch how the Dims ran the impeachment. Once you get up to speed we'll talk.

What I saw, was a bunch of Republicans, putting on all kinds of dog and pony shows, and holy roller political scenes of nonsensed drama, and a right wing multitude of fake news propagandist repeating it was unfair, unfair, ufair..... brain washing you Trumpsters in to repeating the term 'it was unfair, a hoax' in the house, when in reality, it went just as the founders intended.

Trump, the defendant, the person being charged or indicted in a crime in the courts, does not get to tell the prosecutors and investigators, how to run their investigation in to themselves.... the House in impeachment, acts as the prosecutors and grand jury who makes the charges.... it is not a trial, nor does it have any provisions required to accommodate the defendant..

THAT is the bottom line.

And every time the showmanship Republicans asked for something from Pelosi, she caved and gave it to them..

first it was the deposition testimony of witnesses was done in the Starr chamber, in secret, behind closed doors.... WELL DUH, they were operating under the Rules the Republicans put in when THEY were in the majority, to take depositions in private... but Nancy caved, gave them the right to call PERTINENT witnesses and they refused when given the opportunity.. and she released the depositions so they were not secret any longer...

the R's complained that they had not voted on impeachment rules in the full house, so Nancy brought up the new rules, and the full house voted on them...

She has been VERY Accommodating to them....

 

[protectionist]

The next question is, while the Senate does not get this impeachment façade, what will the Democrats do in place of that ?

IOW, what new charge(s) will they come up with, to do another House frame up, to demonize Trump, ?.....from now until November 2020.

 

[protectionist]

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

I WARNED YOU >>>

 

[playtime]

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not abstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

Fuck your lefty source.

you dummy - that source is congress itself. why must you always prove just how poorly educated trump's base is?

Quote where it says challenging subpoenas in court is obstruction.

GO!

i did. are you illiterate too? here... in simple terms for a simple mind:

Contempt of Congress

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Contempt of Congress