Printable View
July 25: Trump asks Zelensky for the favor of conducting investigations and meeting with Giuliani and Barr
Aug. 12: Whistleblower files complaint
Sept. 9: Trump tells Sondland "I want nothing"
Also Sept. 9: Congress notified of whistleblower report.
Sept. 11: Aid released
Looks like the whistleblower saved Ukraine’s (and indirectly the US’s) bacon.
The entertainment value is still pretty high. Sondland was a hoot!
That's laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Schiff's "shit show story telling" will be shown on comedy routines forever if liberal arse Hollywood allows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
A favor?
Look up that definition.
Ok, Boomer.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Sorry you thought favor = demand...snowflake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Ok, Boomer.
Why don’t you look up the word “bribe”?
BRIBE
Any valuable thing given or promised, or any preferment, advantage, privilege, or emolument, given or promised corruptly and against the law, as an inducement to any person acting in an official or public capacity to violate or forbear from his duty, or to improperly influence his behavior In the performance of such duty. The term “bribe” signifies any money, goods, right in action, property, thing of value, or advantage, present or prospective, or any promise or undertaking to give any, asked, given, or accepted, with a corrupt intent to Influence unlawfully the person to whom it is given, in his action, vote, or opinion, in any public or official capacity.
And while you are at it, read the Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He asked for a favor. A bribe has give and receive. Do they teach snowflakes about unilateral and bilateral? Obviously they don't understand the whole favor concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Guisslapp wrong again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And yes Ken Starr would know.
Published 3 hours ago
People bilaterally exchange “favors” all the time. If you condition one thing on another, which the evidence says Trump did, it isn’t a unilateral gift. Calling it a favor doesn’t change the arrangement.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Didn't Mulvaney and Sondlan already call it a quid pro quo?
Trump asked for a favor. He didn't offer anything in return. Your fellow socialists dreamed that one up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The facts do not support any of your claims. I don't think Trump was every worried about Biden running for president.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
:laugh: Marriage is exchange “favors” all the time and many times bribery/quid pro quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Sondlan finally statedQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
he didn't hear one from Trump ever but that Giuliani's request to him/Sondlan was one.
There is no bribery/quid pro quo from Trump to Sondlan. It's all of Schiff's (Gollum's/Smeagol's) bedtime story to scare the liberal steeple and their children. Just more Dem lying and scare tactics.
https://media2.foxnews.com/BrightCov...7265001-vs.jpg
https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/mul...__3515567b.jpg
And from today: Fiona Hill describes a meeting on July 10 when European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland said he and Trump's acting chief of staff had worked out a deal for Ukraine's president. Under the deal (which she referred to as a “drug deal”), Volodymyr Zelenskiy would visit the White House in exchange for opening investigations.
Also today, Nunes and Jordan look noticeably more fatigued from dancing around doing their damn dear not to step anywhere near an overwhelming amount of facts and evidence.
All that remains to be seen - will the Republicans finally come across the aisle to line up on the right side of history?
At the time Trump was very worried because the polls showed Biden beating Trump by at least 12%. The evidence shows that Trump wanted Ukraine to announce the investigations, not that the corruption in Ukraine was of any concern to him. He just wanted something to smear Biden with and that his base would accept as "proof".
Not sure she used that wording highlighted above or even knew it to be the case. Fiona Hill also stated there was no way Sondlan couldn't have known about Barisma and the Bidens i.e....Sondlan lied his arse off today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
All that is left is for the fallout of a sham and very boring TV soap which the Dems will live to regret.
Congressman accuses Schiff of hiding impeachment 'evidence'
Charges chairman presenting only 'carefully curated panel of public witnesses'
https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/congress...ment-evidence/
Democrats would admit they're not making 'overwhelming' impeachment case
Ken Starr on impeachment hearings so far: We're 'nowhere close' to impeachable offenses
Crenshaw slams 'abhorrent' mainstream media 'spin' on impeachment testimony
Dem witness admits Ukraine backed Hillary in 2016
Fiona Hill contradicts her opening statement dismissing 'fictional narrative'
https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/dem-witn...-hillary-2016/
Here's a real problem with today's hearings.
Soros' influence pops up in Dem impeachment drive
Prominent witness linked to far-left billionaire activist
A key witness in the Democratic impeachment investigation, former National Security Council official Fiona Hill, worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and has connections to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the infamous "unverified and salacious" dossier of Democratic Party-funded opposition research on Donald Trump.
The Gateway Pundit reported a former Trump adviser accused Hill in 2017 of being a "deep state spy" in the White House under then National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster."
https://static.wnd.com/wp-content/up...orge_soros.jpg
A key witness in the Democratic impeachment investigation, former National Security Council official Fiona Hill, worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and has connections to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the infamous "unverified and salacious" dossier of Democratic Party-funded opposition research on Donald Trump.
The Gateway Pundit reported a former Trump adviser accused Hill in 2017 of being a "deep state spy" in the White House under then National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster."
Along with working for the Open Society Institute from 2000 to 2006,Hill has known Steele for years, beginning when Hill was working on Russia at the National Intelligence Council and Steele was on MI6's Russia desk.
Hill also was on the rostrum of speakers at the Aspen Institute Security Forum in July 2017 along with House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff.
TRENDING: Schiff gets 3 'Pinocchios' from Washington Post over whistleblower claim
And Hill has connections to Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Maltese professor who met with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in London.
The Washington Examiner noted that Hill told the House Intelligence Committee she could not remember the name of the Ukraine director when she joined the White House.
MORE
https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/soros-in...achment-drive/
Are we holding our breath that the Republicans will be allowed to conduct their minority hearing?
This is why the Republicans shouldn’t have changed the rules in 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Remember this?
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...a-rules-115068
It would be wise for Republicans to learn their lesson that what goes around comes around.
Relatedly, if you don’t impeach and remove a president that abuses his power to lean on a foreign government to help his campaign, you green light this behavior going forward. That is a existential threat to our country.
If Republicans were capable of breaking out their tribal tunnel vision for a hot minute to really consider what that means, they would realize they have a constitutional duty to perform here.
Your right as we should have impeached Obama. We will still get Hillary and Biden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Trump just said he is pushing for a full impeachment trial in the Senate. He wants everything to be on the table, including subpoenaing Schiff, the Biden’s, obummer and all the other pieces of filth involved.
That would be worth watching!
Of course in the meantime the truth will be released on Dec 9th.
I said somewhere that I love the idea of McConnell taking it up in the Senate. Spread it out over 2 months and prevent all the dem candidates from campaigning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I agree. The longer it goes more votes for Trump will be counted. Man have the liberal, socialist and marxist left gone off the deep end.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Independents souring on Trump impeachment as House inquiry heats up, polls indicate
Photo surfaces of alleged whistleblower shaking hands with Obama
Graham moves to uncover transcripts of Biden-Ukraine president phone calls
yes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I don't believe the democrats are ever going to take a vote on impeachment, certainly not Shitt show. The republicans will make him testify and he can't testify without lying. The democrats also wouldn't want the Bidens to testify. They would also have to lie.
Have to lie? They are dems, they lie now.
Then it was green lit back in Clinton's days and Bush and Obama and honestly probably long before that. "existential threat to our country" you say you don't get your talking points from CNN, MSNBC, etc. but your language tells the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Four syllable adjectives when an adjective is not needed...
They have royally screwed this up again and they are starting to realize it. I think they find a way out of calling a vote. I think they try to censure at this point as that is probably the closest they can get to satisfying their base. It probably won't be enough though. The lemmings think they have Trump dead to rights and nothing short of impeachment is worthwhile. The independents out there know they are grasping at straws and wasting time that could be using their time more wisely showing people why they should be in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Democrats- “We have to impeach. We have a moral imperative to do what is right.”
Also Democrats- “Wait, it’s an election cycle and our constituents don’t like impeachment? Never mind.”
Republican lemmings have yet to figure out what is at stake. If they don’t impeach then forever more the President is free to ask foreign governments to intervene in our elections. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle if this one is allowed to stand.
Democrat lemmings think the genie hasn't been out of the bottle for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Absolutely nothing from the Democrats or witnesses have shown this, yet. The whole impeachment hinges on this and not one person has shown this to be the case. All we (independents) have asked for is actual proof of this claim and it has not come. There has just a lot of grandstanding and mentioning of other unrelated stupid things from democrats and republicans; and most of it is showing to be within the powers of the office of the President since they have few limits on their foreign affairs powers. Without the literal phrase "to help me in the election" (or some variation), it is all hearsay and innuendo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
One of the issues I've had in all this is Trump asking a foreign government to investigate a citizen. That's the FBI's job. If they can't do it, then it doesn't get done. We (the United States) have vehemently rejected all treaties that allow U.S. citizens to be extradited on foreign charges. I think we even have a law that prevents us from doing so, anyway. But this angle isn't being used because it's not sexy.
The other issue is the withholding of military support to Ukraine. Ukraine is in a war with Russia, however much some don't want to say it. We, rightly or wrongly, have been in a proxy war with Russia on several fronts. The only reason to hold back any aid, regardless of any other stated reason, is to help Russia. But this is not being used either.
At most, Congress should have censured Trump. Sure, it might get overturned later but it could still be damning enough to knock him down a peg or two. This would especially be so if Congress did some legislation around it to limit the power of POTUS and regain some of its own.
Example?Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
BS. Why were they asking for Ukraine to make a public ANNOUNCEMENT of the investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
That was the key point.
The only other example I can think of was Nixon and his pre-presidential intervention in the negotiation of the peace treaty to end the Vietnam War to keep it going to improve his election chances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ggest-3595441/
Nixon and Trump have a lot in common.
That impeachment hearing in the senate will be very interesting if it happens. Can you imagine a drugged out Hunter Biden being interrogated by Republicans answering how he took 3 million from a crooked company while his daddy explained how he was joking when he told the Ukraine president that he wouldn't get billions of US tax money if he didn't fire that investigator that was investigating the crooked company his son was taking money from for doing nothing. This show will get great ratings. It will be much better than the Shitt Show.
All this impeachment hoax will accomplish is to ensure that President Trump is re-elected in a landslide of historic proportions, and that the House of Representatives will return to a Republican majority while the Senate remains in Republican control. That'll give Republicans two full years to ram anything they want to down the Democrat's throats. We'll see how many Republicans remain loyal to the Deep State then.
Perhaps Ginsburg will retire once President Trump wins re-election. It'd sure be nice to see President Trump appoint the replacement for that disaster of a Supreme Court Justice.
So our liberal friend above reads rewritten history which now blames Nixon for the war Dem. Kennedy started and Dem. Johnson embellished upon killing 50,000+ American men. Prolonged my arse! Many of us here lived during this time and were in the military. We know what happened. The liberal Dems left hates the fact they started this war and a GOP/Conservative got us out. And they hate the fact of their real reputation of not being able to fight and win a war. They always have hated the real facts, so now they write and tell tall tales. I guess you would rather have stayed at war in N. Vietnam (which the Dems started).You are much like Obama allowing hundreds of thousands raped, tortured and killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Ukraine military aid officially put on hold the same day that Trump made his telephone call to Ukraine's President. The military aid was released on the same day that Trump learned of the whistle blower's complaint.
Good that you agree that Trump and Nixon have much in common.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Nope per Guisslapp's BS post.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
You didn’t know Nixon talked South Vietnam into walking away from the Peace Talks in 1968 when he was a political candidate?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ct-22-1968.pdf
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668
:rolleyes:
Just some of the many reasons the "Quad", Pelosi and Schiff circus is a big arse joke.
TRENDING:Impeachment support plummeting among blacks, Hispanics as story unravels
https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/trump-pummels-obama-mentions-god-thanksgiving/
Hunter’s China connections raise ethics questions, national security concerns
- Rep. Gaetz says Hunter Biden would be 'top witness' in impeachment inquiry
- Rep. McClintock on voter reaction to impeachment inquiry: 'People are sensing this is a travesty’
Sondland slams report accusing him of sexually harassing 3 women
Good luck with these below you evil treason loving Dems.
Schiff gives Democrats only 24 hours to sign impeachment report
In today’s news, we are still awaiting the first fact witnesses to be called by any committee.
They had 3 left wing loon professors today to tell all of us deplorables why Trump should be impeached, what a farce that was. Everything they said was a lie. Nadler has no idea what the hell he is doing. Every democrat repeats the same lie over and over.
The Dems are in deep chit! What a farce. I hope they vote to impeach. Puhleeeze do it! That will make an easy 2020 sweep of the WH and Congress easier and even bigger.
Dems are the sorriest, lowest form of life on the planet.
Continued lies like thee aren't endearing the regressive Dems to the America people. Schiff just makes smit up as he goes.
Rudy phone log released by Schiff wrongly claims calls to budget office amid Ukraine aid holdup: report
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is attempting to use phone records to bolster the impeachment case against President Trump, but the White House reportedly says he has the wrong number.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doubts-raised-after-schiff-claims-phone-records-prove-giulianis-white-house-budget-office-calls
Such a 3 ring circus. So is she gay as well? That would explain a ton per her bias.
Karlan told Politico in 2009, "It's no secret at all that I'm counted among the LGBT crowd".[12] She has described herself as an example of "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women".[13] Her partner is writer Viola Canales.[14]
Pamela Karlan
Personal detailsBornPamela Susan Karlan
February 1959 (age 60)
Domestic partner Viola Canales
EducationYale University (BA, MA, JD)
Found footage: Dems' 'expert witness' admits deep-seated hatred of Trump
https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e...?s=96&d=mm&r=gBy Jared Harris, The Western Journal
Published December 5, 2019 at 4:28pm
Found footage: Dems' 'expert witness' admits deep-seated hatred of Trump
https://www.wnd.com/wp-content/uploa...27-913x479.jpg@jason_howerton / Twitter screen shot
Found footage: Dems' 'expert witness' admits deep-seated hatred of Trump
One of the Democrats' so-called expert witnesses disliked President Donald Trump long before the Ukraine phone call that is now the subject of the impeachment inquiry against him.
Rediscovered footage shows Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan at the 2017 American Constitution Society National Convention explaining just how far her hatred of Trump goes.
Karlan chairs the ACS board of directors, where she uses her elitist law background to push her viewpoints to the nation.
Anyone that cares about the Constitution should be disgusted by Trump.
You're dreaming and lying to yourself if you think the regressive and elitist Dems care "one tinker's dam" about the Constitution of the United States. It's been proven over and over again by their own words they hate it and wish to tear it up and re-write it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
This latest is all about power and votes. They are the ones trying to influence and change 2 elections in fact with nothing more than lies and made up crappola.
Schiff should be used to wrong numbers. All his high school friends probably told him the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
There have been several articles and pieces written that have stated the country has gone too far to ever reconcile. Identity politics have pushed people to the point that we as a country can no longer come together as Americans as in the past. The raw hatred and disgust of the progressive "elite" has been on full display for the last month or so. The so called prestigious law professor from Stanford with 3 degrees from Yale, said that democrats and progressives love each other because they live so close to each other.. Conservatives hate each other because they live so far apart. Progressives hate "flyover" country. The only things that matter are California and DC, east coast.
Why not just go ahead and Balkanize the U.S. East and West coast can have their socialist utopia and all of the flyover, deplorables can have their utopia with all of the farm land, and 80% of the refining capacity in the country. Progressives hate all of those fossil fuels anyway.:laugh:
Professor Turley said something in that meeting with the 3 stooges yesterday that I've been saying for a while. The only people that are abusing their power are the democrats trying to impeach Trump with crap that they have made up. Turley also said that he got several death threats after that meeting. I'm really looking forward to the report coming out on Monday by the IG. :D
Rush is warning folks to temper expectations about the IG report. Seems The Swamp has gotten to him via their combination of threats and bribes. We'll see...
Or maybe there was nothing there to begin with...the right wing of America is lost in the gutter because they put their faith in a charlatan.
OMG!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
When did that become the basis for going forward?
Pot meet kettle
The Swamp protects itself. What too many people do not realize is that there is a third "party" in the so-called "two party" system. Almost all of the Dems in DC join The Swamp and a majority of Repubs too. Those that don't join are usually voted out of office...or worse. The non-elected bureaucracy controls the The Swamp, just as school secretaries actually run schools, not the principals. So, don't be surprised by them doing it again.
As for the impeachment farce, I think the desperate Dems are playing it this way:
They know there is nothing there, yet the Dems will still vote for impeachment knowing full well the Senate will not vote to convict Trump. Then the Dems will TRY to use that in the 2020 elections (WH and Congress) as a tool against the Repubs saying "See! the Repubs are in league with the unconstitutional President Trump, protecting him, vote for us!" It'll have minimal effect...mostly in the most lib areas who wouldn't vote for the Repubs anyway.
So, this strategy won't work because most Americans know this whole impeachment thing is a farce, and it will even drive some fence-sitters into the (R) camp.
I corrected it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I never realized you supported tyranny.
Even Alan Dershowitz, who voted for Clinton, admits as much.
Are we ready for another day of hearsay, speculation, and opinion? If you expect more, you will either be disappointed or are just too dense to realize what is happening.
Can you imagine how much more damning the evidence would be if Trump stopped unconstitutionally obstructing Congress?
Funny how refusing to go into that setting blind is considered obstruction.
I expect our president to continue to fight fire with fire. Virtually no Republican requested witnesses admitted. Republicans repeatedly interrupted in the middle of questioning or when calling the majority on the carpet for violating House rules. No first hand witnesses as of yet. Trump should allow all the documents and witnesses he is withholding to come forward as soon as the majority subpoenas they through the courts, just like Nixon’s case. Or he should allow those items when a fair process is initiated in the hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Okay Boomer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Your TDS is so bad you can’t, or don’t care about, distinguishing fact from fiction.
The democrats are obstructing justice. And parading up a bunch of democratic operatives to give their opinion is not fact.
I am not a Boomer.
Btw, the Dems are using the same rules passed by the Republicans. Remember?
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...a-rules-115068
Trump has no legitimate legal objection to the subpoenas. It is just a delay tactic. His obstruction is unprecedented even by Nixon standards.
Unfortunately, his efforts to undermine our elections by continue and he doesn’t even recognize they are wrong, so when we have already heard what we have heard, there really isn’t much reason to wait. If he has anything exculpatory, he should bring it out.
Great interview last night on Mark Levin with Alan Dershowitz, a liberal democrat on why the democrats don't have anything to impeach Trump with. Professor Turley, another democrat explained it real good on that 3 on 1 debacle also. How about Shitt not even showing up today,how crazy is that? This is the biggest witch hunt since 1692 when 18 innocent people were hanged. Can't wait to see Shitt and Biden questioned by the senate.:D
Nope not in this process. You obviously watch nothing but CNN and MSNBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Oh and you've missed these bits.Ken Starr: Dems are 'defining impeachment down' with no evidence of a crime
You've got to stop watching CNN and MSNBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Why watch the news when you can watch the hearings?
Yeah, like reading the Mueller Report, eh! :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I will never say that Trump is not a sleaze ball. I will never say that he has never and will never do anything wrong. This “process” proves only 1 thing. You have to have more than what at best is suspect testimony, interpretation, and opinion. NO MORE OPINION WITNESSES!
Trump won’t turn over the documents or allow people at the center of the investigation testify. I wonder why. Maybe what they have to say is consistent with everything else we have heard. If it were exculpatory, he wouldn’t be fighting to keep it hidden.
You are right. They should vote to impeach immediately! Obstruction of congress...such irony.
I’m still not sure that Trump isn’t the master of playing the opposition like a fiddle. Tax returns-nah, just withhold them and piss everyone off. Saying things that are not presidential-isn’t it fun to watch their heads explode when I say things in a way that they don’t like. Witnesses and documents-just hold off until we get to the Senate and release the hounds on the Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And what will you think when he continues to block release of documents and witnesses to the Senate?
You'd be funny, if you weren't a lawyer...but you ignorance of the law is dumbfounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
"Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process - no matter how many times the executive branch has asserted as much over the years - even if the president expressly directs such officials' noncompliance," Jackson wrote, adding that "this result is unavoidable as a matter of basic constitutional law."Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
Are you saying Judge Jackson is wrong?
If so, I hope you aren’t giving legal advice.
Why is the whistle blower being blocked from testifying by Shitt? .Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Biggest problem for Dems....they obviously think they have the goods to get Trump without any of the documents and witnesses he is supposedly blocking. They can’t be upset about him allegedly withholding evidence if they are going forward.
The Articles are self defeating. Abuse of power and withholding evidence of abuse of power. If you haven’t seen evidence of abuse of power because it has been withheld, how can you charge with abuse of power?
Won’t go back to collusion or corruption because they could/would open up Hillary, Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and others for questioning. Won’t go to bribery because it will lead to same for Biden’s. They may all get called anyway.
Does the whistleblower want to testify? The statute protects him.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Do we really have a whistleblower at all though? More of a leaker.
If you bothered to read the federal whistleblower statute, you would know that this leaker is specifically excluded from any coverage or protection under the statute. Just another Schiff smokescreen because he got caught with his beady eyes all over the cookie jar. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And there are exactly zero real articles of impeachment since the so-called articles fail miserably to meet the constitutional standard required. But the Republicans will play along just to get to call all of the witnesses they will get to tear into. "Abuse of power" is only in the eye of the beholder because that isn't impeachable without an underlying high crime or misdemeanor that is not identified. And "obstruction of Congress" means Trump was performing his constitutionally enumerated duties as President despite House of Representatives interference.
You are reading the wrong statute.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
“the Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken.”
Educate yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
In the Constitutional Convention, Madison successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
Waiting on FBI SWAT teams to break down the doors of John Brennan at 5:00am to arrest him for perjury and lying to Congress just as they did for Stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
All they had to do is to take this to court and have both sides present their case and have the courts decide. That's what they are there for.
They did and Trump lost. Trumps argument is ridiculous. It is just a delay tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Trump has lost nothing. and you are as delusional as Comey and Hillary/Pelosi. And this is far from over. The Dems are playing their short game. Trump is 3 steps ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Oh and the next report will hammer the regressive and their leaders.
Horowitz: Obama FBI misled court to spy on Trump campaign
Ex-independent counsel 'aghast' to learn extent of Obama AG's involvement
So I haven't been keeping up. Are they allowed to have council present for the questioning? I seem to remember that being an issue early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It was a bogus issue from the beginning and a court has already ruled the same. There is no executive privilege for impeachment and the ability to protect this confidentiality was the basis for the White House requiring counsel to be present in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
This is the central point of the obstruction article of impeachment. The White House has no colorable basis to restrict the production of documents or to block the witnesses. It thwarts Congress’s constitutional power of oversight.