Bitcoin Forum

Seems like a try for Trump's impeachment is all but certain at this point. Even FOX News ran a poll (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment) indicating that 51% of voters not only want to see Trump impeached but removed from office. The White House's refusal to cooperate with the House Democrats impeachment inquiry is being labeled as obstruction of justice (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html), almost guaranteeing the impeachment process will become a reality. And of course we know what Joe Biden thinks (hint: he's for it).

So, who's fault is it? Of course the blame needs to be assigned to a subversive, undermining and anti-American party, or how would conservatives know where to aim their righteous indignation? Its surely coming. Let's guess where its going.

Everyone gets two votes, as it may very well be a combination of factors. For example, I think that George Soros teamed up with the Lizard People to punish Trump for not bending to their One Government / New World Order agenda. I added "Donald Trump" as a joke option at the end, because as we all know, he's probably the most perfect president America has ever had. And definitely the best.

You forgot the FAKE NEWS!!!



This surprised me.

https://i.gyazo.com/4a94efd8659928bf65de41f913bca4d5.png

The whole thing is so silly.  The dems have been talking about impeachment since before trump moved into the White House.  They have been analyzing trumps every word since he got into office.  I think the impeachment will happen but the senate will not convict.  The vote will be 100% along party lines as this is a politically motivated tactic just before an election year.

FOX is nowhere near what is was a few years ago.

I mean there's something we have to take note of when we're talking about impeachment.

Impeachment is only the act of being brought up on charges in the House, that's it. It doesn't mean you're removed from the office, and it just means that the Senate is now going to vote on if you're guilty on the charges that you're being brought up for. Nothing more, nothing less.

So -- I think it is pretty likely that Trump is brought up on charges in the House, unknown on what it is but I know that Pelosi and the Democrats have a whole have signaled that they do have the votes for this.

Though I think the chance that he is found guilty and removed from office in the Senate is SLIM TO NONE. First, there is not enough votes in the Senate to support it and I dont think it is popular enough among the American people to remove this president.

Its cute that these tards think Fox News is the voice of the conservatives just because that is all they are ever exposed to on their glowing retard box. Keep dreaming about a reversal of the 2016 election results while we prepare for 4 more years.

IF Trump is brought up on impeachment charges, the benefit will be that the world will find out what the Dems and the Soros-types have been doing to conquer the world behind the scenes... through the US Government.

But what else can the Dems do? This is essentially their last little piece of strength. If they do nothing, they will go down for sure. So they are playing "their" Trump card, knowing that if they lose, "their" Trump card will turn against them.

8)

I stopped watching news altogether years ago when I got rid of cable.

But didnt I hear FOX hired Sam Sheppard (fired by CNN) and Donna Bazille (DNC corrupt leader) ?

Yeah and that Gutfeld guy Youtube keeps trying to force feed me really annoys the piss out of me. He is like a 2nd rate wannabe Colbert, who is himself a 2nd rate hack, so I dunno what that makes Gutfeld.

Makes you wonder what changed with FOX. I'd be willing to bet we could follow the money and find a funding change that occurred prior to them hiring those people.

Most likely fake news. I'm still surprised someone like him can become president of such a huge nation. He is a fucking idiot.

I don't know why those numbers are surprising. Its basically aligns with the election results.  People who support Trump don't want him removed and people who always hated Trump anyway want him removed.  Thats the reason the democrats made such a big deal out of the phone call.

It's not a stretch to say Tucker, Hannity and the Fox and Friends anchors are a voice for the Trump administration.



This is such a silly way to put it.  A president leaving office before the end of his term doesn't 'reverse' anything.

The VP would become president.

If I remember right, Rupert Murdoch was forced out some how.



Tucker is alright, I am still not a fan of any of those other knobs. Funny how he is constantly under pressure to censor his reporting and is repeatedly suspended for what he says. One, more reliable voice on the network does not give the entirety of the network credibility no matter how much people like you think every conservative loves Fox and only Fox.



That is a perfect way to put it, because that is exactly what it is. This has been a non-stop hysterical fit from the left over losing control and a deluge of lies, media hype, and politically based non-stop investigations on going since he became a serious contender. He is dismantling the destructive legacy of the left as well as the establishment in general, and that is what they desperately want to reverse.

What the fuck are you even rambling on about Nutilduhh? I honestly don't know. No one said anything about installing Hillary, you are just pulling selective interpretations out of your ass to distract from the fact that the left has been losing its mind perpetually trying to remove Trump since 2016. None of your blithering means anything.

Honestly, anyone with half a brain and/or real life exposure, did nothing but a huge eye roll when impeachment was mentioned.
    Nothing but another cry-baby temper tantrum, and trying to throw more dirt on him before he exposes the years of political corruption.

   How does anyone in their right mind support Democrat's after all the nonsense we've watched for the last 3 years?   AOC, Clinton Cash... the stupidity and bribery are astounding.  

   Now look at the bulk of their supporters.  Kids who have no life experience, believe what Twitter headlines tell them, and make tide-pod eating decisions.

    One look at my paycheck and you'll see the root of my frustrations.  Like most working citizens, 40% of my paycheck doesn't make it to me. I'm tired of working my ass off to support those who refuse to support themselves.

   In reality, the person in the Oval Office has little effect on an individual's personal life.  Only two presidents have personally affected me.  Obama wrecked my healthcare fees.  Trump gave me a tax break.  No one else affected me

Edit: forgot Bill ..  his useless "assault" weapons ban made my pre-ban rifles quadruple in value.

This post reads like a cry-baby temper tantrum.

If we reverse the 2016 election, does that mean the 2018 election also gets reversed?

I think it must.

Maybe he means that if Trump gets removed from office, it opens up a rift in the space-time continuum and we return to a different parallel universe in 2016 where Clinton won the election. In which case the results of the 2018 election would indeed be reversed.

If you morons are going to jerk each other off to make yourselves feel like you made a point and feel better, can you at least go somewhere private like behind a dumpster or something so the rest of us don't have to be subjected to this pathetic display?

Elections have consequences.  Don't forget that.

Sounds like a lesson you haven't come to terms with yet.

But.... but.... the TV told him to be mad at the orange man !

Election season is starting, Dems needed to pull out the biggest smear they could think of to do whatever they can to discredit the one President to actually keep campaign promises.

Smear him, because they have nothing notable to offer themselves.

Nothing but constant lies and twists based in no fact.

Racist.... sure, ok
woman hater.... another BS claim
Corrupt.... oh geez, about the only Pres ever to not be in this for the money

I could go on.... but some pissy pants child will call me racist for seeing thru the BS and actually admiring the best accomplishment made by any Pres in just 3 short years.

My paycheck is up, my 457b is rocketing, my military is finally rebuilt, and my borders are getting more secure

Big Pharma is smart. Drive the impeachment process, but make it look like everybody else is doing it. Go to the article and click the links.


President Trump says Big Pharma could be driving impeachment hoax (https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-11-trump-big-pharma-is-driving-impeachment-hoax.html)




8)

The impeachment for trump is all about bringing chaos and fear to the people, as we all know people behind this is going to take profit for the result, just like what happen to other countries from.middle east to asia, people who are hungry for power will do anything to make it to the position that they want, remember that no matter who sits on the whitehouse its hard for them to do what they wan't because there will be someone who will them again want the position of power its is just a cycle, what a country really needs is a people who has one goal and not personal because once personal goal mixed in that will be the end of it, and thats what humans are made of it will keep on happening, its a disease there is no cure for it

Killery only escaped prosecution because of the complicity in corruption of those leading the organizations responsible for investigating and prosecuting her. Also, she was required to testify under the law, the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

As usual your argument...

https://i.imgur.com/6g39sr3.jpg

This is false.

The constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.  It doesn't specify how Impeachment proceedings should be initiated and it certainly does not give the president the right to decide whether or not his own impeachment hearings are valid.

Trump took an oath to defend the constitution.  By not complying with House oversight he is violating that oath and will rightfully get another impeachment article for doing so.

Lindsey Graham was right:

“Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon was based on the idea [he] failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back at that time said, ‘You’re taking impeachment away from us. You’re becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.”

Congress absolutely has oversight authority, but it does in fact specify how impeachment is initiated and processed, otherwise congress could simply unseat any sitting president any time they liked by inventing an inequitable process. The idea that there are no rules or protocols for impeachment is totally asinine and nonsensical. This authority exists within the protocol of law, it can't just be invented as they go along, this is not oversight, this is outside of their authority. The currently issued subpoenas have ZERO AUTHORITY under the law because they are issued OUTSIDE of this protocol, unlike the Nixon impeachment, which was a criminal proceeding, unlike the current investigation.

"Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations."

"The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” the president in question."

"Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member “acting jointly.” If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship. (https://www.congress.gov/105/crpt/hrpt795/CRPT-105hrpt795.pdf)”"

"The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate (https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/RulesofProcedureFinal.1_0.pdf) that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”"

"Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. The resolutions authorizing both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings granted the judiciary committee this authority."

"It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive."

"The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

As you can see, the house is operating outside of its authority, and furthermore these actions are completely unprecedented in any previous impeachment proceedings. This is not due process, this is just more of the same endless and basel3ss politically motivated investigations.

You never cease to amaze me with how shallow your attempt at a logical argument is.  You really think a US president has the right to judge impeachment proceedings as invalid?

The constitution doesn't specify how impeachment is initiated and processed.

Congress (house and senate) can absolutely unseat a sitting president whenever they want.

The currently issued subpoenas are valid.

The Nixon impeachment wasn't a criminal proceeding (it wouldn't have been if it happened).  Congress does not have the power to charge someone with a crime.  The DOJ would have to do that.

Are you capable of an original thought, or do you have to wait for me to have one first so you can repeat it back to me? The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding. I gave well sourced documentation of why this is not only unprecedented but outside of their authority. You, you just repeated yourself.


I often wonder what kind of morons buy this kind of empty sophistry, then I only have to look at you two screaming over and over...

https://i.imgur.com/6g39sr3.jpg

Congress can not indict or convict a someone with of a crime.  Just because they are investigating a crime doesn't make it a criminal proceeding.

If Nixon was actually impeached and convicted, he still wouldn't have a criminal record until the DOJ indicted him and he either plead guilty or was found guilty by a trial.

Like the FBI, they can recommend someone get indicted.  But they can't actually charge anyone with a crime.

Thanks Captain Obvious. The point is it was based on criminal activity of which Nixon was involved in, which was of primary relevance to their oversight ability. What criminal act is this current impeachment based on? Oh right, 3 years and not a shred of evidence of criminal activity on Trump's part has been presented. Even Nixon had a vote for his subpoenas to be issued. This investigation and resulting subpoenas are a farce.

Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious."


Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it.

You sure are a thirsty boi now aren't you?

"The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

The subpoenas were issued based upon a criminal proceeding.

I was making a direct reply to this argument.


The subpoenas issued to Nixon were based upon criminal proceedings upon which the articles of impeachment against him were based. There are no such criminal proceedings on which the subpoenas issued to Trump are based. You keep struggling for that W, no mater how small it is thirsty boi.

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

You really think that because the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon must comply with the House subpoenas makes the current subpoenas unenforceable because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on them?

Did you come up with this on your own or read it in a conspiracy blog?

That's just not how it works.  It's not the Supreme Courts job to sign off on every House subpoena. The rulings they make set a precedent.  The Nixon case actually proves that the House does have the power to subpoena Presidential records to provide oversight of the executive branch.  This is why Trumps lawyers tried to argue to a judge that the 1974 ruling  (which was unanimous) was wrongly decided.  The judge basically laughed in Trumps face.

In the 1990s I used to wonder what would happen if the far right had a voice on the internet. I just didn't realize they would be so many, and that they would be able to say so much nonsense. It's incredible ;D

I dont even know what to say to this.   Because I never thought I'd see the day when the far left had an un-censored platform to spew:
    Hatred of human decency
    Screwing children
    Hatred of America
    Approval of narcotic use
    Forcing children to believe they are opposite sexes
    Hatred of police
    Advocating physical violence against anyone who disagrees with them
    Hating men
    Hating white people (yeah, apparently thats not racist)
    Supporting illegal activity (illegal border crossings)
    Shooting cops
     
I could go on.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.



No, the point is they are not comparable. You used it as an example and claimed Trump could be impeached on this fact alone, when in fact he was not legally subpoenaed, which requires force of law with a penalty for defiance. The two situations are not at all comparable. The precedent says, as I documented above, that there first needs to be a vote before a subpoena with force of law can be issued. What the democrats are doing is unprecedented in an impeachment process.



"“There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas,” the piece, published Thursday, began.

“You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued,” he said. “The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.”

“What is portrayed as an ‘impeachment inquiry’ is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.”
Do you think that Donald Trump will be impeached?

McCarthy pointed out something we’ve noted and most the establishment media hasn’t: An impeachment inquiry is a very specific thing usually requiring a vote in the House Judiciary Committee to commence. That vote hasn’t happened and presumably won’t."

"The committees aren’t using their subpoena power — in part or in whole, McCarthy says, “because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object.”

“Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court,” he wrote. “They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply ‘shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.’ What a crock.”


“In criminal proceedings, prosecutors demand information all the time and witnesses often resist — just as congressional Democrats encouraged the Justice Department and FBI to resist when Republican-controlled committees were trying to investigate such matters as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse,” he wrote.

“Presumptively, resisting an information request is not evidence of obstruction. It is evidence that the recipient of the demand believes he or she has a legal privilege that excuses compliance. The recipient can be wrong about that without being guilty of obstruction.”


“Congressional Democrats know this, of course — many of them are lawyers. They are issuing partisan letters that pose legally offensive threats, rather than subpoenas, because this is a show, not an impeachment inquiry.”"

"“Every presidential impeachment inquiry, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, has been the subject of bipartisan consultation and debate. The House has recognized that its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its most solemn actions, must be based on the consideration of the whole body, not the diktat of a few partisan bosses,” he wrote.

“Not this one. This one is a misadventure in exactly the bare-knuckles partisanship the Framers feared. To be sure, no one has the power to prevent willful House leadership from misbehaving this way. But we’re not required to pretend the charade is real.”"


"Ex-Fed. Prosecutor McCarthy: Despite Dem Antics, No Impeachment Inquiry Happening"

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

This is all just theater.  Trump want/needs to be booted.  He's playing the crazy card to give his 'enemies' as much ammunition as he can.

I told you all way back in 2016 before he was seated that Trump wouldn't do a 2nd term and didn't wish to.

The most interesting hypothesis I've heard is that this is a way to get one of the Kushners in.  Either Jarred or Yael.  Basically Trump leaves, Pence takes over and makes a Kushner VP (which no Dem would go against) then Pence leaves and bingo.  Chabad-Lubavitch has the U.S. Presidency...more directly than ever.  Just like the predictive programming shows:

https://youtu.be/F4MkCH6dWMA?t=6100 (https://youtu.be/F4MkCH6dWMA?t=6100)

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


The Democrats have control of the House (elections have consequences) and the House has the sole power of impeachment.

Pelosi doesn't have to structure the impeachment proceedings based on Clintons, Nixons or Johnsons and the next impeachment doesn't have to be based on Trumps.  Even if it's Trump again.

She needs to hold one vote.  "Should the president be impeached."

If there ends up being a trial in the Senate do you think Mitch will give in to a single request from the Democrats or base any of his decisions on what happened during Clintons trial unless it benefits him?  Of course not and he shouldn't since the people put Republicans in control of the Senate.

The constitution and the law are the only rules that must be followed.

Agreed.  This is all just a ridiculous display of peacocking and pointing fingers.

Can we get back to just running the country? And stop with doing absolutely nothing other than trying to dismantle each other's party.

There are only a certain small group of people who have any chance of 'running the country'.  All of the people in this group will do exactly what their controllers tell them to, and the plan is to nose-dive the United States into a mountain at an opportune time.  The controller's plan is to pick up the pieces and re-build to suite their agenda.  It's called 'creative destruction.'

Get out before the crash.  Go back after...at least if there is some hope at that point of re-building on some of the founding principles of the country.  There may or may not be;  that part is difficult to predict.

The whole "everyone around me is just a stupid drone, I am the only one who can see the truth" is a dangerous mentality to have.  It will prevent you from thinking objectively and questioning yourself.  



Congressional oversight (especially when it comes to the executive branch) is one of the most important parts of "Just running the country".

Did you ever stick your dick in something you shouldn't have ?    Did that make you unqualified to do the job your were hired to do?

That's all this comes down to. Bill did it. Trump did it. Kennedy did it. I'm sure most presidents have.

Everyone trying to exploit someone else's personal behavior for their own benefit.

Let look at something else objectively.  If it's so bad for one side to try to hide a sex partner during an election..... you think that's influencing the election.  Then why is it ok for the other side to expose someone else's sexual indiscretions prior to an election.... isn't that just as influential ? 

Both sides do the same shit. 

I'm doing all right, but thanks for your concern.

Most of my greatest successes have been doing things, and looking at things, differently than the 'herd'.  I do try to 'give something back' for ethical reasons.  Also, to a degree, to protect my own skin.  I could easily be mistaken for one of 'them' when people's eyes are finally jolted open.  I want it on record that I did what I could.

By the way, I have no problem whatsoever 'thinking objectively and questioning myself'.  A decade ago I was just like you.  Not surprising;  life-long indoctrination by the same basic group who did you.  Only through the aforementioned process did I make what seems to be a 180 degree course correction.  It's actually not exactly what it seems, but is significant.

Exactly. There needs to be a vote, a vote of the full house. This is exactly what she is NOT doing because it gives the president rights to subpoena his own witnesses and bring his own evidence. Instead of holding a vote she is engaging in this extralegal partisan display, calling it impeachment, and acting OUTSIDE of the law.

Well, you were though. You said that impeachment proceedings were the same thing as a criminal investigation. Its not. Ergo, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what kind of contextual padding or re-arranging you want to do, this statement remains incorrect:

Not at all what I said, but have fun speaking for me and then telling me I am wrong if it makes you feel better Nutilduhhh.

You literally said exactly that:

Only in your own mind buttercup. Keep stretching for any warped semantic interpretation you can manage.

"it" = The Watergate criminal investigation, upon which the issued subpoenas, on which that particular article of impeachment was based. IE those subpoenas had the force of law of an active criminal investigation giving it legal authority and the ability to be substance for an article of impeachment, thus not a valid comparison to the letters issued to Trump pretending to be subpoenas.

No that's literally what you said.  He quoted you directly.

Impeachment is only for removal from office.  Impeachment can not extend further than removal from office.  A president, or any citizen, can only be charged with a crime in a criminal court - the kind with lawyers and judges.  Congress is not a criminal court.  (although the Chief Justice is required to preside over a presidential Senate trial)

The house can impeach the president for something that isn't a crime.

The house can subpoena the executive branch even if they don't think a crime has been committed.

Impeachable does not equal criminal.

Criminal does not equal impeachable.

The president has no right or legal standing to declare his own impeachment invalid. It's pretty ridiculous this even needs to be said.

Sorry but you don't get to reinterpret my words and then demand I defend your interpretation of them. I said what I said, not what you said I said.

The premise is that the subpoenas had force of law because they originated from a criminal investigation, making the comparison illegitimate. A crime is not required, but in order for a subpoena to exist, it must have the force of law including a penalty for defying it, which requires a vote in the house, or in Nixon's case a criminal investigation from which to issue the subpoena, the violation of which having legal penalty was the basis of that article of impeachment. In Trumps case there is neither a crime to base a subpoena on, nor a house vote, making them not legally even subpoenas.

You said "The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."  

You can keep saying you didn't, but you did.

You probably just didn't know what a criminal proceeding was at the time, or weren't familiar with the first article of the constitution.  This doesn't make you stupid - so just chill out and stop trying to insist you weren't wrong or you didn't say that.  We all have eyes and a brain, you aren't fooling anyone.

I said: The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."

I did not say: "The Nixon impeachment was a criminal proceeding."

You keep repeating yourself all you like. I an not responsible for defending how you reinterpret my words, only what I actually said.

You were arguing that the Nixon impeachment proceedings were a criminal proceeding.  Go back and read what you wrote dude.  You said it more than once.  Instead of just admitting you weren't right you're really going to try and convince us that you never said what you were saying?  Even though we're on an internet forum where our posts are saved?

Look, here's another example of you not saying the Nixon Impeachment was a criminal proceeding!

Nixon was being investigated under a criminal proceeding, which was the basis for subpoenas, which he defied, which was the basis for the article of impeachment against him. Anything else is just you attempting to redefine my argument and demanding I defend your interpretation.

You're now saying one thing lead to the other. Before you were saying one thing was the same as the other, which is not true.


An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. I think you at least understand this now.

You two repeating your preferred interpretation of my words doesn't change what I actually said. The impeachment was based on a criminal proceeding, now its not. Your endless regurgitation is just a sad attempt at distracting from the premise, which is correct.

I voted for nutildah, based on my scientific analysis of blame disbursement in this thread.

Could also be that Nixon guy who is also mentioned a lot but isn't an option in the poll unfortunately.

Haven't they been trying to impeach the president since before he started his first day?  ;D lol

Those are both strong options. Even though Nixon's brain is being kept alive inside a jar in a secret military base in Antarctica, I didn't think to include him as an option seeing as how he was also a Republican. But you could very well be right, who knows. I get all my news through 2 sources: a week-old copy of USA Today that I have delivered to my palm frond hut in the Philippines, and Infowars stories that I hear second hand from my outlaw miner friend, Leroy F.


Indeed. But now the shitstraws have just piled too high on the camel's back. It couldn't carry any more shit, and its back broke. Too many shitstraws.

These days, we have trucks.

Big trucks.

Camels just don't cut it, no air conditioning.

Big trucks can carry a whole lot of shit.

Camel shit.     :D

It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.

Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.

That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."

The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach.  There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach.  

That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions.

In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc.

That is why...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

I'm not saying there aren't guidelines.  There are.  Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them.

If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate.  Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote.  Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment. 

It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first.

There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation. 

All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment.

trump wont be impeached it will backfire and massively damage the democratic party.

And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE.

It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

Yeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that.  That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland.
I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely.  Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP.  At least in the short term politically.

I hadn't read about this ruling before:


I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding.  Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial.  They just need to have one vote.  So maybe it's not the same.  Who knows.  

Actually I think the Senate should decline to hear the case, if it is frivolous and due process has been flagrantly violated, and if the Dems keep acting like spoiled brats. But that's just me, others may feel differently.

Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected?

Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated.  Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent. 

Or is it something else I'm missing?
 

I see nothing wrong with asking anyone to open an investigation if there is suspicion of a crime.  I'm all about criminals being investigated, and even more importantly...and much more rarely...actually prosecuted.  Being a politician should not insulate one from investigation into wrongdoing or give someone a free pass for criminal behavior.  That's a big problem that the U.S. and many other countries have and part of the reason why we have such corrupt governments.

If politician A asks country B to investigate a non-existent crime against politician B for political reasons then politician A is committing a crime for which he/she can be punished.  That's the deterance.  If politician B is guilty of a crime then it's doing the world a favor to pound his balls flat.

Here's an idea:  How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals?  Someone should try that someday.

Hey look at this tidbit I found in The Constitution of the United States of America.

"An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature."

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

You are wrong. Are you going to admit it Nutilduhh?

The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal.  They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide.  He also could have gone through the Department of State.

Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor.  I mean, wtf?

Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally.  The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.

Am I making sense?











Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, most of the GOP candidates from 2016 and all the Dem candidates besides Biden, Beto and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.)

I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president.

(Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term)

Your logic makes zero sense. All of those organizations were infiltrated and openly hostile to the president, the FBI, The DOJ, and ESPECIALLY the CIA. The President is the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government. This is literally his job.

"Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally."

Are you sure about that? That sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. There are a lot of regulations regarding officials and criminal activity, even outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, don't the American people deserve to have this information? Funny, that was the argument made about climbing up Trump's ass for over 3 solid years...

Fine fine.  muh deepstate, I get it.

Even though the head of the FBI, CIA and DOJ all serve at the pleasure of the president, we should obviously trust Ukraines investigation results more than ours.  And the fact that it's the presidents political adversary is just a coincidence.  He really just can't stand any corruption anywhere.

Hi Techole:

You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury.

According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense.

Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation:


Here's a recent article by the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-basics-what-to-know-about-the-process-11570661211) to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet:

That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding.  Even though did say that, multiple times.

Here's another good one from Constitution:

You should be pissed but you should also place the anger in the right place, you should be pissed at the American Oligarchs running the political system.  It's the Oligarchs funnelling money up the pyramid that has fucked you in the ass for DECADES while you stupidly blame whomever places like FOX and the Church tell you to hate.

Feel the Bern American Oligarchs!

And just WOW, Bitcointalk, the only cesspool in the world (short of 8chan etc) where FOX is not far enough to the right LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Anyone, Trump included who suggested/requested that Ukraine evaluate the Biden crime family's activities in Ukraine was doing UKRAINE a favor.

Were they also helping themselves?  Sure they were; that's how humans roll, and it's certainly not limited to politicians.  This is a minor kerfuffle between two quasi-American crime families (Trumps and Bidens) who are in a bit of a turf war.  If Ukraine get's an opportunity to limit the damage they are doing in their nation, that's great.  If the American peeps get a peek the nature of the crimes that these families are involved in, that's also great.  With me at least.



Your apologetics for the Biden clan make perfect sense.  More importantly they are amusing to watch.

Are you calling it the Biden crime family because he's a democrat?  You realize 2 of his 3 kids and their mom are dead right?
He's been a Senator/VP since 1973, is there any actual evidence of him committing a crime?  

Crime families often suffer high mortality rates.  It warms the cockles of my heart when a whole genetic line of these scum are wiped out.

Yes, there is prima facie evidence of Biden in mob boss mode getting the Ukranian prosecutor fired in the form of Joe himself braging about it at the CFR.  And to add insult to injury, he was using my tax dollars as a tool in this operation.

The only thing worse than a mob boss is a kiddie groping mob boss.  There is prima facie evidence of creepy 'uncle Chester' Joe having that perversion in his resume as well.

A blind man could see that the Dems have put up Joe Biden to make sure that they lose.  Probably because there is a three-card-monte trick being played on the Trump side which will get a Kushner in and they don't want the mock-Dems to mess it up.  Funny enough, either Jared or Yael Kushner could probably run as a Dem and win anyway.

The corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA are VERY well documented. The Strzok/Page "insurance" texts, Comey's criminal FISA warrant, giving Hillary a pass on releasing classified information, the meeting on the tarmac, there are tons of examples of their corruption, and complicity in coverups of corruption as well as bias against Trump. Don't even bother trying to defend the CIA. Funny you have been watching over 3 years of fruitless investigation into Trump and anyone he has ever met, but you don't ever apply that standard of "coincidence" there now do you?


Not just an interpretation, an actual quote from the constitution.

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense.

The other interpretations are not exclusive. I was specifically referencing the criminal case upon which the subpoenas issued to Nixon were based, which were the criminal basis upon which the articles of impeachment were based. Even in the counter interpretation is still goes on to explain a criminal impeachment trial can also be based on criminal acts. I never said anything about exclusivity, this is just you trying for a hail Mary. Note the words in red. When is some one convicted and put on trial? That's right, in a criminal proceeding.

The Constitution of The United States of America > The Wall-street Journal.  So are you going to admit you were wrong Nutilduhhhhh?




I never did insist it was a criminal proceeding, I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.

The red part states that the person can still be subject to a criminal trial after the impeachment. IIRC some federal judge (back in 1980s or 1990s) tried to argue that double jeopardy protection should apply to his impeachment and he lost that one. So this actually seems to reinforce the non-criminal nature of impeachment.

Hey look who is here to try to help their dumb pals save face with some unsourced single incident as if it trumps the constitution.

You still aren't addressing the constitution itself.

""Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

Trial of crimes (impeachment described as a criminal proceeding) shall be by jury, except criminal proceedings of impeachment. Why even include a reference to impeachment if they were not describing it as a criminal trial? Your argument makes zero sense."

https://i.imgflip.com/3dmtor.jpg


https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm


Both the "shall nevertheless be liable" clause and the double jeopardy clause are in the Constitution of the United States as well, but I keep forgetting that you're a Zerohedge law school graduate so you get to cherry-pick your own constitution.

From your source:

"The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes."

Perjury and conspiracy you say? What is perjury and conspiray? Oh that's right, crimes, crimes independent of the original charges. In this context, you have essentially just proved my point, because a double jeopardy argument would only be valid if they were both criminal proceedings for the same crime (but the crimes were independent), so thanks for that. Of course this is a district judge anyway and not a presidential impeachment, so they aren't the same thing anyway. This is just a fumbled attempt at pulling a Hail Mary out of your ass.

What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary non-precedent, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law.

I apologize, I did not mean to attack your person. I meant to attack your sloppy attempt at an ad hominem and your ridiculous cherry-picking of the Constitution that appeared to be lifted from some conspiracy blog. I apologize if that wasn't Zero Hedge. I shall make a note to myself that you read more than one conspiracy blog. I also apologize that you don't feel sufficiently refuted. There is only so much I can do if you refuse to acknowledge or read things that you don't like. I have long ago accepted that you are never ever wrong.

It doesn't matter if I read it from a tattoo on your mama's ass, it is a direct quote from The US Constitution. Its validity is not dependent on 3rd parties that reference it. Run along now with your hive mind buddies and work on your next attack strategy.

The quote doesn't say that impeachment is a criminal trial, you're just stretching it to that meaning because you really want it to mean that.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for - among other things - ridiculing the Congress "in a loud voice". Such a horrible crime.

A subpoena does not have to be for a criminal proceeding for it to be valid.

---

You're using a bunch of twisted facts, lies and debunked conspiracy theories to conclude that Trump should trust Ukraines investigator more than the entire US intelligence community, all run by people he hand picked.

Comey didn't give Hillary a pass.  The FBI doesn't prosecute people, the DOJ does.  He just didn't recommend prosecution and said he didn't think any prosecutor would be able to get a conviction - Obviously Sessions and Barr agreed.  Otherwise she would have been indicted like Trump promised.

Same goes for anyone else Trump has been calling a criminal for years on twitter.  

Where are the indictments?  Why isn't anyone in jail or being punished?

Oh wait, I almost forgot, Trumps Campaign Manager, Personal Lawyer are both in prison now.  His Sec of Defense #1 is a convicted felon waiting to be sentenced, so is his deputy campaign manager.  
And his current personal lawyer is under federal investigation.  This isn't because of the Democrats or Comey or the FBI.  It's because Trump hires people that are willing to commit crimes for him.






TLDR;

Trump hand picked the head of FBI, CIA, DOJ and all the rest.  He's been president for almost 3 years.  Why aren't any criminal Democrats being indicted - but members of his cabinet and campaign are?

I bolded a good idea almost seeing what is happening.

Dems vs Repubs.  Is the exact same as the WWF.   Trump is a combo of Vince McMan and the Undertaker and the Dems are putting up meatball canonfodder “good guys”

Ie Trump is winning the election after he is impeached and not removed when the senate backs him.

His campaign will be Obama Biden Biden did quid quo pro with Ukraine and the only way to prove their “crimes” was for him to muscle the Ukraine into telling the truth.

It is all laid out on tv for us to view. Btw White House spoke about foreign influence and elections today.

Saying there will always be that condition.  They are right fox tv was own by an australian and nbc was owned by a  French company for a while.

Sadly it is just another WWF show with the bad guy beating on some meatballs.

All this will setup Pete booty-check for prez in 2020.

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

If it is not saying impeachment can be a criminal trial, why exactly does it exclude impeachment from the normal due process of criminal trials? Wouldn't that be totally pointless? I never claimed ALL impeachments were criminal trials, so your point is moot. I am not stretching anything, except for maybe your mama's booty hole.



Some, but not all impeachments are in fact criminal trials. You haven't established anything except for your desperation to have a "gotcha" moment regardless of the main premise of discussion. I not only didn't make a misstatement, you made a misstatement in your pathetic attempt to claim I did so. The congress is supervisory authority over the office of the president, so yes, they do in this case hold criminal impeachment trials against them in some circumstances. This is established in the constitution itself, once again...

"Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

They are literally stating it can be a criminal proceeding, and that a trial by jury is not required in this specific instance.

So are you going to admit you are wrong Nutilduhhhh?

Lets not forget that the reason we are debating about whether it's criminal or not is because TECSHARE thinks that House subpoenas are not valid since the house isn't the established process of impeachment.



From the article he posted to defend his stance:


https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html


I'm guessing they are implying that they don't mean they can change the rules that are actually in the constitution without an amendment.  (Chief Justice must preside and stuff like that)

According to NBC News, this is the full text of the "subpoena":

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454557/2019-10-04-EEC-Engel-Schiff-to-Mulvaney-WH-Re.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-subpoena-house-democrats-sent-white-house-trump-ukraine-documents-n1062766


The so called "five chairs letter" referenced within it:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FiveChairsLetter8.22.pdf


"Subpoena" sent to Mike Pompeo:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf


A sample subpoena legal form for the jurisdiction of The District of Columbia:

https://oah.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oah/publication/attachments/OAH-402-General-Subpoena.pdf


If you read the source material, you will see some very distinct legal terminologies that give a subpoena force of law completely absent from these "subpoenas", which in reality are just carefully worded requests for information. Pelsosi could in theory issue subpoenas from the various sub-councils, but this would be ineffective because until there is a vote to engage in an official impeachment inquiry, the two branches of government stand on equal levels of authority and the president is well within his rights to exercise executive privilege. If the full house were to vote, and it was passed, this protection under executive privilege would be severely limited, however it would also grant the president the authority to issue his own subpoenas.

Pelosi knows this full well, and knows if she does this, Trump is going to take a massive shit all over the Democrat party by exposing all of their own corruption and getting it on public record for everyone to see. As I previously explained, they are boxed in. If they vote to impeach, they give Trump the power to bring his own evidence. If they fail to impeach they piss off their own base. Hence they are engaging in a strategy of PRETENDING to impeach and PRETENDING to issue subpoenas in order to play this out as a political and media battle rather than a legal battle, IE an actual impeachment. This strategy satiates her base, confuses most of the public who don't have the time or inclination to bother to look this close, and creates "bad optics" for Trump, but has ZERO AUTHORITY under law.

Half of the house engaging in "impeachment" is not constitutional nor is it due process. If the accused has no ability to defend themselves and the accuser makes all of the rules, that is not due process. If the accuser ignores all previous precedent and constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government, that is not due process. This is all a made for TV movie, not a legal proceeding, and you all lined up to buy tickets because it serves your confirmation bias. Just don't forget your $15 tub of popcorn rubes.


Some more reference material:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/white-house-tells-pelosi-your-fake-impeachment-subpoenas-have-no-real-legal-authority/

https://canadafreepress.com/article/subpoenas-not-valid-since-there-is-no-impeachment-inquiry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/

https://www.lucianne.com/2019/10/07/house_sends_more_carefully_wordedbr_impeachment_demand_letters_not_brsubpoenas__omb_and_pentagon_17139.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/02/pelosis_sidestep_on_impeachment_vote_cuts_both_ways__141391.html

Yes, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. And so all the things like facing your accuser, due process and the like, simply don't apply which also means they write their own form of subpoena. Impeachment is basically like a grand jury proceeding and indictment. Trump will have his turn to defend himself etc if he gets impeached (indited) and it goes to the senate for "trial". So what's your point?

As for issuing his own subpoenas etc, I get the impression it has nothing to do with impeachment, but which committee is doing things. If I was Pelosis I'd probably do the same thing just so he couldn't turn it into a circus and just get it done and then, assuming they want to go through with it, get it into the hands of the senate as soon as possible and let them have their shit show.

I really don't get the whole "real impeachment" thing. Congress can do things how they want. The right just throws out "prior presidential" impeachments as precedent but what about all the other impeachments. The constitution seems pretty crystal clear to me, congress has sole power and can run things however they want. If he gets impeached, then maybe he should try and take it to the supreme court and get a ruling on it or something. If it's such a big deal, then maybe they should have written some laws or do some constitutional amendments to set out exact procedures to follow. But really, do you think either side wants to really do that? They all love the show they get to put on far to much. I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how little the Dems are making this a show. I thought it would be a hell of a lot more. Almost makes me think they're actually serious about it.

Funny that you would post links to pretty much all right wing sources and then talk about other peoples confirmation bias. I also noted that most of them showed a hell of lot of "red" on newsguard for "This website severely violates basic standards of credibiilty and transparency". I find that humorous since it's not exactly tough to do things in a way to get some green from that tool so the overall rating shows green. Even breitbart shows up as green (despite two categories I would consider very important being red for them)

Then what's the problem with Trump's impeachment not being a criminal trial? You're kinda all over the place with your itch to prove... something.


Wrong board for your mommy issues.

You don't have ANY fucking clue what you are talking about, so save us both some time and just shut the fuck up. You are joining in halfway through this conversation, not bothering to read anything, and just parroting what your hive mind buddies are saying.

The subpoenas don't exist, they are requests with no force of law. Of course you know this because you didn't just skip reading the actual "subpoenas" and jump right into parrot mode now did you? Oh Pelosi wants to prevent a shit show? Well clearly she is doing a fine job! If she wanted it over as soon as possible, she would just call a vote, no one is stopping her, but as I explained and you promptly ignored, she can't do that because if would expose widespread corruption within the Democrat party.

You don't really get this whole thing, period. You have no problem having strong opinions about it though now do you? Again, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about and just want to join the collective parrot symphony. I explained all of these things you are criticizing using the ACTUAL supposed subpoena documents as well as actual subpoena forms. The additional articles are just there to demonstrate I am by far not the only one saying this. OF COURSE they are all "right wing" do you really think CNN or The Huffington Post would report on this even if they knew it was true? OF COURSE NOT. Attacking the source or the lean of the source is not a valid argument. Your appeal to authority fallacy in sourcing Newsguard is not a valid argument either.

Also, you will notice, you didn't actually refute anything I said, you just repeated past talking points, made several logical fallacies, and declared your beliefs as facts with no substantiation. You are contributing absolutely NOTHING to this conversation, so unless you do in the future I am probably just going to ignore you, because it doesn't make any sense to put this much effort into replies to some one who doesn't bother to read anything, refute anything, and just vomits up what everyone else is saying understanding none of it.



Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda.

The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi.

I did read it and I couldn't figure out what exactly you're so angry about because you keep jumping around, mostly arguing with yourself. That's why I asked. Let's try again.

Congress can impeach the President. Are you disputing this?

Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Are you disputing this?

Go back and read the thread Suchgoon, I am not dancing to your parrot tune.

I think Trump just needs to accept the consequences of the 2018 election.  Then TECSHARE will also.

While I'd love to see you dance, that would be off topic here. So I take it you're not really disputing that the Congress can impeach, can subpoena, and impeachment is not governed by criminal trial rules.

That's right, keep topic sliding and no one bother responding to the rock solid evidence I gave of these "subpoenas" being nothing but  deceptively worded requests for information.

How could I be parroting if I didn't read anything as you seem to think. Bit of false reasoning on your part it seems.

I read the actual subpoena. I looked at that "form". But I also went and read a bunch of stuff about what a congressional subpoenas is, what it means, how courts treat them etc etc etc. You seem to be the uneducated one in this as all your talking points are straight from the right wing media and those that traffic in "conspiracy theories".

From my understanding, the only vote she has to call is the actual impeachment one since, nothing is laid out in the constitution except that congress can do it how they want. Why do you have such a hard time seeing that. Seems that you simply want to hold onto your opinion as it suits your bias.

How about you give me balanced legal arguments from actual legal sources from both sides so I can then make up my own mind. You won't though as you seem to only reference opinion crap that suit your purposes. You'll just make some personal attack as justification for not doing that when in fact you can't.

I did. Ranting and raving like a lunatic claiming I don't know anything while not providing any solid information to back up your claims does not make you right. It just shows that you're unwilling to have a rational debate about these things.

The real funny thing is that you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I actually agreed with you on several points. But for some reason you are unwilling to admit that congressional subpoenas are different than "legal" ones. I was going to post links about what they are and what "powers" they have but I wanted to see if you would go and research it yourself. You didn't. You don't care about facts. You don't care about expanding your knowledge. You only provide information that confirms your opinion. Makes me think at this point that you simply seek to rant at people, call them names and the like cause they don't believe everything you do and that's all you care about. You only want to "win" like a true keyboard warrior.

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution". Many times a court won't hear cases regarding these subpoenas because it's a political thing and not legal. I suspect they only get involved if it's actually about the powers given out in the constitution. i.e. you refuse to provide information to a group who has the power to get that info under the constitution so they can do their job, then they would hear the case and rule against you.

The problem is that because of the overlap of terminology, people assume it's all just like the legal system with law backing it up. It's not. They're a completely different beast.

The result of not complying could be different but for both, "obstruction" is a typical one which is exactly what the congressional subpoena he was talking about says in it. Don't provide the documents, then you can be "charged" with obstruction. In this case it would get added to the impeachment. I did hear something else about what they could do, some sort of special "jail". But I haven't researched that at this point. It's the first time I've ever heard that there is something like that.

Yeah.  This is what I was getting at.  It's best to keep things short and succinct with TECHSHARE in my experience to avoid triggering a Hillary/Comey/Libtard rant.

there should also be a option, "he won't be impeached and it will backfire"

after trumps presidency americans will have to face the weaknesses and shortcommings of the isolated structure of their geographic society.

no more euro-christian immigrant boosters, no snakes from the entire world want to tear usa appart.

"he won't be impeached" is the first option.  It also has the most votes.

Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land moron. Too bad you are completely clueless about all of this. Also I see Nutillduuuhhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon are all avoiding addressing the fake subpoenas now... did some one realize they were wrong?

Quoting because of topic sliding:

Subpoenas issued by congress technically aren't the same as subpoenas issued by a court for a civil or criminal investigation.

Congress has a different set of rules to follow.

It's not the same.

Does that make them "not legal subpoenas?" LOL. Please... PLEASE argue this.

"Standing committees in both houses of the United States Congress have the authority to send out subpoenas for legitimate lawmaking and investigation purposes. This compels the production of testimony or records, and failure to respond constitutes contempt of Congress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

"violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or a committee thereof to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/399/

"As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation."

"in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

Guess they have some law backing them up.

As for your claim that it's just a "letter" and so has no standing.. Here's some of the 54 letters that republicans issued when investigating Clinton.. I suppose that if one doesn't comply with the request they'd escalate to something more official. Interestingly, as I was looking through the list of stuff the republicans had issued, even those "subpoenas" didn't use that form you posted. Seems like the only thing that's required is for it to state it's a subpoenas and be signed by specific people.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(3) Ryan to DNI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(4) Ryan to FBI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(47) Chaffet to Comey 07-06-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-28-2016 Chaffetz to Eichner re Combetta and Suazo.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-22-2016 Chaffetz to MacDougall re Pagliano.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating
(have to remove the first part of the url in order to access the documents on that list)

The "letter" you're saying is fake, says it's a subpoena. I don't remember seeing that in any of the letters I looked through from the republicans though but maybe some did. For example, the letter from Ryan to Comey did not say it was a subpoena.

Oh.. Here's a subpoena the republican used
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70) Chaffetz Subpoena to Pagliano 09-16-2016.pdf

Not the same form. The form you posted though, is only a "sample" of what is used when "A party in a case may seek a witness to appear or documents to be produced at a hearing.". What's going on is not a hearing.

https://oah.dc.gov/publication/general-subpoena-form-sample-only

"A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearing

So. Got some real legal stuff to back up your opinion it's "fake"? Or are you just going to rant and call me names?

There you go, now at least you are making an effort. You are still in over your head though...

I am going to address your criticisms point by point, so pay attention.

First of all, I never denied they have the authority to issue subpoenas, in fact I have already stated they could. Regarding 2 U.S.C. § 192, "under inquiry" has a definition. "Under inquiry" requires a formal legal process, otherwise congress could lock people up for refusing to answer any questions, and they clearly don't have that authority. In this case "under inquiry" means calling a vote to engage the legal authority of the full house, not just Nancy Pelosi making a statement at a press conference.

Regarding "Wilkinson v. United States" and "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund" these cases are not applicable. The question is if the legislative branch can force the executive branch into compliance when they have equal amounts of authority under constitutional checks and balances. This is of course assuming an actual subpoena is issued. Until the full house votes to engage in this inquiry, all you have is a unilateral declaration from within the house that has no extra authority over the executive branch.

They have oversight authority, that doesn't mean they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process. This is why everyone is pressing them to put it to a vote, because this is not just precedent, it severely restricts executive privilege, but also gives the executive branch the authority to produce their own evidence. This whole secret hearings and unilateral declarations is not operating within the constitutional checks and balances, due process, or standing precedent of past impeachment processes.

You people defending these actions are insane. Do you realize what you are advocating for? Do you really think that allowing impeachment to become a unilateral, one sided, secretive political process that not only ignores due process and the constitutional balance of powers is a good idea? What happens when it is "your guy" and the shoe is on the other foot? Suddenly these rules will become very relevant to you I am sure, but tell me more about my blind allegiance to Trump. Do you have any idea the kind of chaos you are unleashing upon this nation in your blind frothing rage induced compulsion to get Trump at all costs? Is creating possibly years or decades of civil unrest and possibly civil war worth it? You aren't thinking very far ahead.

"House Republicans Issued More Than 70 Subpoenas and Letters"

All of your links, while superficially very impressive I am sure, are again, just letters. None of your broken links are actual subpoenas. Notice they use words like "request" not "demand", "compelled", "commanded", or "ordered". Just saying it is a subpoena doesn't magically make it a subpoena. A subpoena is a legal process which has specific requirements and penalties for noncompliance. They REFERENCE several subpoenas, but they are not themselves subpoenas. That is except for one...

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

As you can clearly see, the letters the house issued are not subpoenas, but just letters REQUESTING information using deceptive language. I had plenty of "real legal stuff" to back up my opinion previously, but you are too cool to read it and decided to make this redundant argument which ultimately just proved your own argument wrong. Again, as I said from the start, you will notice some distinct differences between this and the "subpoenas" (request letters) issued by the house committee. So are we done here parrot?

Give me legal documents that backs that up as opposed to just saying it's so. But before you do, you should read some of the other stuff I'll be posting as none of that would back up what you're saying.

"lock up" people for refusing to answer questions. They could be locked up for obstructing justice if they wanted to do that.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm

As long as the subpoena meets the requirements set out in stuff I had listed before, and the investigation (note the difference), is within their authority, they can do so. While people are calling it an inquiry, it's simply operating as an investigation at this point. I suspect that if they decide to go to court over some issues, at that point they'd have a vote for an "inquiry" in order to "strengthen" their position.

I should note that in this document you actually posted and then cherry picked from, they talk about some of the same things. Perhaps you should read it again.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

You might also want to give this a good read

https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhenCongressComesCalling.pdf

Should also note that with Nixon, a resolution was passed in Oct 1973 for the judicial committee to investigate whether there were grounds for impeachment. They needed to do that in order to give them the authority to do so and have subpoena powers. Today however, committees have been given far more powers and authority, a lot of which the Republicans brought about. The impeachment inquiry was not voted on until Feb 1974. We're in the first part and they may decide to do the second part as well. Clinton was a different thing all together because the impeachment was derived from the investigation done by Starr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

Five different committees initiated inquiries into bengasi without any vote. They did it all on their own because it's simply not required.

As for all your other stuff.. That's just your opinion. For example, you're parroting the same right wing talking points regarding past impeachments. Again. Did you even read that article you posted? The right you parrot only ever points to the presidential impeachments and conveniently ignores all the others. Allowing the presidents lawyers to sit in and question. Allowing the republicans to issue subpoenas. That was a "courtesy" and not any sort of requirement. It was purely done for optics. You're arguing politics and not legal. Back up your stuff with actual legal documents.

Something else to note. It really doesn't matter if the other side can issue subpoenas. The majority can over rule them if they want and they can also limit what questions Trumps lawyers could ask as well in order to keep it focus and on track. It is simply not a trial. The trial takes place in the senate and it should be noted that the senate can do what they want as well.

You can blame the republicans for a lot of this since they're the ones that opened up the door to committees having broad powers. I seem to remember everyone saying the same thing about them doing that. But that's what it is now and everyone has to live with it. That entire paragraph was nothing more than you pleading for me (and others reading it), to agree with your opinion cause it's "wrong" as far as you're concerned. You're making a political argument and not one based on anything legal.

By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public.

Bottom line, you're just making arguments based on opinion because you want it to be a circus so it will drag on for months and then you all can make the argument that there's no use he gets impeached cause the election is so close. And all this other stuff you and the republicans are spewing is so that if he does get impeached etc then you all can claim he was railroaded and it was illegal and on and on. At least be honest about what you're really trying to do.

Funny thing I heard the other day. The thought was that Trump doesn't want a second term and will actually do things like he's doing so he gets impeached. Then he can spend the rest of his time claiming he got "everything" done he said he would and then play the victim and gain a hell of a lot of support to any new ventures he starts like his own media company.

Most of the other stuff in your response was just opinion and wishful thinking. i.e.

Show me the legal arguments that makes the case as opposed to your opinion cause it doesn't fit what you want to happen.

Well yes, yes they do. It says so in the constitution. If you have legal arguments to back up your opinion, then post them because everything I read says they do. Maybe you might want to give some of this a read as well.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769

Actually no, you had a whole bunch of opinion articles and the one "real" thing you had was bullshit because it was specifically for hearings and says right on the page I posted that it's a sample meant to show some of the info that should be in the subpoena. As I stated and you can go look at it again, the "letter" you claim is not a subpoena, says right in it that it's a subpoena, outlines what inquiry that it relates to and states the potential punishment. It contains the information required just isn't on some "form".

Give me an actual legal document instead of writing paragraphs of your opinion and how you "wish" it would be, or posting opinion articles. Show me the "form" that's supposed to be used for committee investigation subpoenas. Surely there should be something on the gov site(s) if one actually exists.

Umm, it most certainly is. Ever been in a Senate or House committee hearing? You just walk in, unless all the seats are taken. by people waiting all night (that's typical for the politically interesting hearings, but most are not).

Bar that and the live CSPAN (also installed in all those rooms) and you've got the very definition of SECRETIVE.

As for the rest of your argument with Tecshare I don't have a clue what you are trying to get at. Vaguely, sort of, that everything Pelosi is doing is okay? Is that your POV?

Ok, if you say so. My perspective is that if I can read a transcript or whatever after the fact then I don't view it as secret. Fact is, I prefer they do things behind closed doors cause as soon as they do it for the cameras, it just becomes a circus wasting everyones time. The only thing that matters is seeing the transcripts after the fact.

What is she doing that isn't ok? Care to provide some information. And I don't mean "opinion" as to what may or may not be wrong. I mean actually legally wrong. Cause as far as the political optics of it, one can sit here and point fingers at both sides on a whole lot of different things over the years cause they all suck.

Tecshare has made a bunch of claims, all so far based on opinion. We're discussing those claims.

^^^ All US politics is doing one major thing against the people. It is hiding the fact that government is not king, and that the people can use jury nullification to toss out any laws that they don't like.

8)

Actually, it matters a great deal whether committee meetings are open or secret. Now you are arguing something like "Whatever my team does is right and I'll defend it."

Most likely the reasoning behind secret is to amass a pack of lies and then dump it at a strategic moment for political effect. Since this has been backfiring on the Dems now they will try doing it covertly and dumping the package at a carefully timed moment. Say three days before the election, with insufficient time to respond. That's what your lying liars do and what you defend.


What is she doing that isn't ok? Care to provide some information. And I don't mean "opinion" as to what may or may not be wrong. I mean actually legally wrong. Cause as far as the political optics of it, one can sit here and point fingers at both sides on a whole lot of different things over the years cause they all suck.

Tecshare has made a bunch of claims, all so far based on opinion. We're discussing those claims.
[/quote]

You are not going to be able to win that argument by taking refuge in what is "legal." As you have seen, there are various forum members that can easily debate the details of the legal arguments.

As I pointed out, the obvious outcome of Pelosi breaking all the rules is the senate with the "sole ability to try the impeachment" just giving Pelosi one big raised middle finger.

And that's not "an opinion," rather it's a POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

I don't have a team.

Republicans sit on the committees and so are taking part in the interviews asking questions as well. But I guess there could be in on some
mass conspiracy if that's what you're proposing. Or maybe you're just blissfully unaware of what's actually going on.

Oh? I don't see anything backfiring at all. I do see the right running around not knowing what the hell to do.


You're not arguing anything so there's nothing to win. At least Tecshare can come up with some stuff that can be looked into. You just spout off nothing of value. And no, there really aren't any that I've seen so far. Not one can come up with a solid legal argument. It's funny. Judge Andrew Napolitano was on Fox and Friends saying all the same sort of stuff I and others have been pointing out. Google shows the videos being on fox news but it appears Fox has removed them lol.

She's not breaking any rules. If you have proof she is, then provide it or just stop wasting our time with "opinion". As for what the senate does, that's perfectly fine as that's within their authority.

Found a copy of the Napolitano video that didn't have some left or right wing commentary guy spouting off their own take on things.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/the-house-gets-to-write-its-own-rules-on-the-impeachment-process-judge-andrew-napolitano-says/vi-AAIVEUP

And his article

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-is-the-impeachment-process-fair

Take it all for what you will.

Not because of this issue, but over the last two years he's gone off the deep end.

Meanwhile back in the real world (comparatively)...

https://babylonbee.com/news/republican-national-committee-raising-money-to-help-democrats-televise-5-live-debates-a-week

Of course you and your ilk would say that. As soon as someone doesn't tow the party line you pile on. Hey. That's exactly what the left does. Go figure. You're all the same.

Side note.. He does have some "interesting" ideas on some things that's for sure.

??? FYI, the guy describes himself as libertarian, not Republican, and I've followed him for twenty years.

And gave you my opinion of some recent changes he's shown.

It's ironic that people are now complaining about the confidential hearings.  The republicans have bitched and moaned about hearings being public many times as recently as last month.

It does makes sense to not want the person you're investigating, or the witnesses you're questioning to know what you know until all the facts have been gathered.  This makes it a lot more difficult to know what you can get away with lying about.  Not to mention the witnesses don't have to worry being attacked by the president, his army of trolls and right wing media for being a "rat".

Again, as far back as I know, you or I or virtually any US citizen could walk right into one of these committee hearings, sit down and watch all of it. Meanwhile, all of it is put on CSPAN and is available right then. The exceptions of course involve classified material hearings.

Going "secret" is a major, major change.

No, I don't think I will. You don't have enough understanding of basic concepts of law for me to spend my time making references you don't even comprehend enough to argue accurately, making the effort a complete waste of time. Not to mention this is a completely tertiary issue. I gave you legal documents. I produced the so called "subpoenas" the house issued regarding the fake impeachment, and I referenced the subpoena you yourself linked and showed very clearly they are not the same document.

Subpoena is a Latin word that means "under penalty". A subpoena is a document with legal force that has specific requirements in order for it to carry that force. It doesn't matter how it is issued, basic information like the information, things, or persons being subpoenaed, dates, signing parties, and clear language stating it is a legal order carrying a penalty for contempt of the order MUST be included. It is like arguing a contract is valid if it doesn't include what is being exchanged, between who, and by when, etc. It is a basic legal concept that you apparently don't comprehend, and I charge for tutoring. Teaching you the basic concepts to make these arguments is not my responsibility. Like I said you are in way over your head and just parroting other sources with zero personal understanding.

Obstructing justice, again is a legal term that requires an official investigation to have the force of law. The Benghazi investigation was not an impeachment, and again is not a valid comparison. An official impeachment hearing REQUIRES the ability for the executive to be able to present evidence, it is not a "courtesy". Do you really believe that the impeachment process was designed for the house to unilaterally try the president without the ability to present counter arguments and evidence? If you do you are a fucking retard, because that would be constant chaos and the country could never run effectively under that metric. All you are doing is showing your ignorance of the law bringing these issues up.

I don't want this dragged on for months. I want Pelosi to either issue a vote in the house, or drop the issue as soon as possible. Pelosi is trapped between having an official vote and having corruption blow up in her face, or dropping it and having her base blow up in her face. That is a pretty good motive to run a circus rather than a hearing.

You keep demanding "legal arguments" but you don't have the tools to even understand what that is. Cases against corporations and individuals are not the same as an impeachment. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you. No the constitution does not say they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process. The constitution outlines checks and balances, all of which are currently being ignored. The legislative and executive branches are on equal standing, one doesn't get to unilaterally dictate to the other unless explicitly codified, and it is not explicitly codified, except under an official vote.

Have you noticed your buddies Nutilduhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon have gotten really quiet all of a sudden? Do you wonder why that is? I will tell you why. They are doing one of two things. They are either desperately searching for an ACTUAL subpoena that never existed, or they have realized they were wrong and wisely decided to shut the fuck up rather than embarrass themselves arguing what they know to be false, much like you should. They have knowledge of basic concepts of law that you lack, that is why you are the only one here now vomiting your parrot spew all over me understanding none of it.

A subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

Not a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

Briefly stated, you have "subpoena" correct and those you argue with do not. I don't know WHY this argument is going on. This is very simple stuff.

As mentioned, a congressional body / committee might issue a request - a letter - and then if they didn't get what they want, they could issue a subpoena.

Even if they did issue an actual subpoena, if it is done outside of an official impeachment hearing, it still is issued from a co-equal branch, and the executive still has every right to exercise executive privilege and not comply. Once the hearing is voted on and official, this executive privilege is severely limited and the subpoena would then have the force of law, allowing it to be ruled on by the judiciary in the form of a suit, which would then give them enforcement ability.

That's correct, and I don't see why people are arguing with you. No right-winger has even claimed the House could not have impeachment hearings against Trump, or whoever. That's part of their job.

But the specter of a small cabal in the House hijacking that Constitutional right has many glaring problems, and few if any advantages, either long or short term.

No, the process was designed to have the trial in the Senate, not in the House. The House can adopt the articles of impeachment with as much investigation as they want, or none at all.

Correct as to the House.

And the Senate will have the sole right to try.

BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO!

"Kimberley Strassel: “How Trump Haters Are Breaking America” | American Thought Leaders"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSMxQHqHYI0

This is very debatable.  

It's obvious the guys that wrote the constitution were very concerned about future presidents having too much power, abusing that power, being above the law,  and also other countries interfering in our election.

Anyone that's able to look at this situation without considering Trumps policies or his political opponents' policies surely sees that Trump is absolutely, without a doubt, checking all of these boxes.

But, the founders didn't say explicitly that the senate must have a trial.

Mitch has come out and said if the House impeaches, he would have no choice but to try Trump.  Who knows what he'll actually do though.  Maybe he'll hold the trial and then just immediately call a vote to end it.  Seems like the best move would be to have the trial as long as he's sure there won't be a conviction.

I just wish you guys that are Trump fans and fighting tooth and nail to defend everything he does (tecshare) would take a step back and realize you're arguing to give future presidents who have control of either the Speaker of the House or Senate majority leader to be a King.  That's all it takes.  The president and the leader of the House or Senate.  The President can't be indicted or impeached.  Can ask foreign countries for help and  do whatever the fuck they want.

When it comes to the impeachment and ethics stuff, your stance should not be swayed based on which party is in power.

Interesting you would say that. I just heard Mitch McConnel Fox News say that if Trump was "impeached" with the Pelosi method he wouldn't pay any attention to it. Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to it to have an exact quote.

And there we are. Hypocritical stern moralizing about how the House can break their traditional rules, but the Senate cannot.

Wrong on that, buddy. Gamble on that outcome, you are going to lose, and lose bad.

This is what he said a couple days ago.

“I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell said in a CNBC interview. “How long you are on it is a different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up based on a Senate rule on impeachment.”










I'm confident that if Hillary were elected and she pulled all the shit Trump has pulled, and then said she couldn't be impeached because of 'traditional rules' I'd have the exact same stance.  Are you?

I've answered your assertions, no need to discuss further.

And there you have it. A bunch of hypocritical stern moralizing about how the House can break their traditional rules, but the Senate cannot.

Wrong on that, buddy.

More fucking "NO U!!!1" arguments...

How does insisting due process, historical precedence, and checks and balances be observed allow the President to "be a king"? All Pelosi has to do is call a vote. No one is stopping her, but she knows it will expose far more about them than it does Trump, because just like the Russia collusion delusion, it is all BASED ON NOTHING.

You are literally arguing for the dems not having to follow due process out of one side of your mouth while condemning me for having blind allegiance out of the other. So are you going to admit those "subpoenas" have no force of law or just more of the usual...


https://i.imgur.com/6g39sr3.jpg

Option #3: we have a life outside this forum. I know you didn't consider that one, but its the correct answer.

Don't worry techole I'll get back to you. I don't care about the subpoena aspect BTW. And I don't have the time or desire to read your 1000 word replies when I know they are mostly snarling, emotionally-laden attacks on your critics.

I think this (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mulvaney-admits-trump-withheld-ukraine-funding-over-investigation-push) is more interesting:

I didn't mean to make assertions or moralize anything.  Just trying to have a discussion and figure out what the most pragmatic path to whatever is best for America would look like.

Yes yes, of course. That is why you all went from 60 to zero with constant tit for tat replies within minutes to nothing, because you are much too busy, not because you don't have a leg to stand on. Of course you suddenly don't care about the issue when you are wrong! Lets look at something else now! All you have to read are 2 short documents.

A subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

Not a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

Are you going to admit you were wrong Nutilduhhhhhh?

Hello Techole,

I travel a lot. Sorry I can't dedicate the entirety of my online existence to pointing out the ways in which you are wrong. But I can address this one: I never said shit about the subpoena (non) issue, so how can I be wrong about it?

I can also tell you this: sitting around playing constitutional lawyer has zero effect on the outcome of the impeachment inquiry.

Senate rules say they have to "take it up". However, it's very vague as to what happens to initiate a trial. There is this one short part in there that says they discuss it. It's possible I suppose they could dismiss it outright and not take it to trial. But they have to accept the articles of impeachment from the congress.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Side note. The rules also show an impeachment subpoena. In the form of a letter. Go figure.

I didn't follow you're guys tiff much, but all I hear Tech[hole] say is that if there is a danger that subpoenea could be launched by Trump as a function of his defense, a trial would be unlikely.  I'd bet money that he's right on that because every one of his attackers have skeletons buried and Trump probably knows where to start digging.

Since I 'sensed' that Trump would not be interested in a 2nd term from even before he started his first, I've been expecting an 'out' of some sort for 3 years now.  'Impeachment' would be just the ticket.  He currently could claim victory (in running the country) and most of the people who are still his supporters would eat it right up.

I'll look for yet more stagecraft where Trump slides back out of government and his mock-enemies don't have to worry about a backlash in the form of (real) subpoenas (filed in anger.)  I expect that one of the Kushners will end up at the helm.  Probably by way of Mike Pence and/or civil war.

I think that for 98% of people anywhere civil war comes to them rather than the other way around.  I think it possible, if not likely, that the 2% could and would hit the go button, and it could happen at any time.

How Americans will react (to civil war) is pretty hard for me to judge.  The extreme interest in gun control indicates to me that some people anticipate an 'event'.  It's really the only reasonable explanation for the intense focus on what is basically a non-issue.  5G is another wildcard in 'reaction profiles' as I see it.  It is another program that has been rolled out with a very suspicious degree of frenzy...the wonderful ability to download a DVD in 4 seconds isn't really explaining things to my satisfaction.

Anyway, it's better to watch what happens in/to the U.S. from afar.  Seems to me that Malaysia is well out in front of The Philippines insofar as understanding the root cause of the evils vexing the modern planet.  I'm afraid that The Philippines would fall into the trap without ever seeing it coming.

Put one more vote down for SOROSSSSSS!

https://i.imgur.com/vbp9xJF.png

"Watch GOP Lawmakers Storm Secretive Impeachment Hearing In Capitol Basement"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gop-lawmakers-storm-secretive-impeachment-hearing-capitol-basement-demand-transparency

Do you believe this, or are you just joking or what?

I've wondered about Soros possible involvement in the current debacle, but didn't think it was possible that his group would act in so stupid a way as to create the current divisive and destructive movements as displayed currently by the Democrats.

Looks like Trump is right on it and knows what to do.


Watch GOP Lawmakers Storm Secretive Impeachment Hearing In Capitol Basement (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/270510-2019-10-23-watch-gop-lawmakers-storm-secretive-impeachment-hearing-in-capitol-basement.htm)




8)

No, fuck you. This is America, not the Philippines. You keep your death squads, we will keep our due process. Speaking of death squads, your president recently just threatened the life of George Soros if he sets foot in the Philippines. I wonder why.

Why not?

Almost all House and Senate committee meetings are open to anyone, period. That means you and me, not just other Congressmen. Some are closed for obvious reasons, like secrecy matters. So this is really following the protocol for classified meetings, but without any national security issues.

That's pretty weird. I grant you that the Republicans on the committees have the typical privileges of the minority party in committee operations.

Since you are only capable of communicating in the form of cartoons, this is what you sound like...

https://i.imgur.com/bm7BQYy.png


Funny you talk about changing the rules when you don't like them when that is all the Democrat party has been doing since 2016, including this sham impeachment. As usual, more of this...


https://i.imgur.com/6g39sr3.jpg


"“This morning, I was denied access to any and all classified documents related to impeachment. In my nearly 17 years in Congress, this is the first time that I’ve been unable to review documentation being held at the House Intel Committee. This is completely unacceptable,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said in a statement.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said he tried to join the impeachment inquiry closed-door session being held on Oct. 16 but was denied access.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) gained access to an impeachment inquiry hearing on Monday but was thrown out."

https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-republicans-say-theyre-being-blocked-from-impeachment-inquiry_3118345.html


“House regulations clearly permit all House members to attend depositions,” the letter states. “You have also consistently denied the right of non-committee members to view the transcripts of depositions and interviews without specifying any authority to do so. These transcripts are committee records. Committee records are the property of the whole House and under House rules, no Member can be denied access to committee records.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/18/house-republicans-demand-democrats-release-rules-on-impeachment-inquiry-n2555022


"Rep. Gaetz, Freedom Caucus hold a 'transparency' press conference"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd8Uq-OEg1g


Don't pretend you care about rules. In your book rules are only for thee and not for me and are only to be used as a cudgel to attack your opponents, not as a means to protect the overall system which they are intended to maintain.

No, my counter argument with sources was my counter argument. I went to bed, that's how concerned I am with your verbal fecal/vomit combo.

I have to say - you do look a bit concerned in that photo.

Very impressive. You can jerk each other off, make character attacks, and force memes. Quite convincing debate tactics. That might have worked in grade school but everyone wears big boy pants now, time to put away the pullups and learn to stop shitting in your pants.

You live under a dictator who runs death squads, I am not sure you really should be pointing fingers at the USA or have any right whatsoever to tell us here what we should be doing with our nation when you ran away like a puss and wag your finger from afar. This impeachment is a complete farce, and the only argument you have is forced memes and cartoons. Just be sure you have your mommy change your nappies before you get a rash.

Pretend time is fun.

Any chance you are going to debate the topic or are you just going to continue to force stale memes while you simultaneously try to blame me for the childish level of discourse you are personally responsible for?

I suggest that you spend some time on the ground before you speak with authority about 'dictators' and 'death squads'.  Much of the 'information' about the situation is highly filtered by the very same people who's programs are getting royally fucked up by certain policies of 'the dictator' who 'runs death squads.'  If nothing else, ponder just a wee bit about why so many of his countrymen support him and his policies given that he is so evil.  Remember that the Philippines is a country where people are fairly free to read what they want so they have access to both sides of the story.

As for 'running' you are probably one of the Americans I would rather have around.  Unfortunately it implies that you'd be on the short-list of enemies of the neo-state and neutralized early on without making any lasting contribution whatsoever if/when the shit hits the fan.  In the mean time you (or anyone else in the country) are also unlikely to be able to do much of anything positive.  There is simply no base upon which to gain leverage and I don't see a way that there will be.  There will the potential for a base after a proposed 'event', but again, I expect that you'll be no longer.  And if by some stroke of luck you are, you'll be glad that there is some support from 'outside'.

Yeah, I know you are. That's why you rely on memes to cover up for your inability to defend your ideas in a logical debate.



I never said he was evil. I was simply pointing out the reject above doesn't have any grounds to point fingers. He is of the type neither of us want around and would not be a help to anyone, even himself. I know enough about the Philippines to know it is a low trust nation where everyone is suspicious of everyone else and rule of law is not stable. I would prefer that not become the standard here, and I find people wagging fingers from afar with plenty of their own domestic problems don't hold much water. If you are done being upset I was critical of your dear leader, do you care to actually comment on the topic or just want to continue tribing up?

He's a dictator who runs death squads...but he ain't evil though.  Whatever.  Anyway, words  mean things.  Even where the 'dictator' has 'marshal law', it is hardly the case that things operate from any person's dictates.  Civil courts and judicial protocol are still very much the norm as far as I can see.  And relatively high level officials even get into trouble sometimes.  The 'dictator' would like to get rid of martial law because it is an expensive hassle but the people want it.  That should tell you something...or you could regurgitate what globalist media like CNN and (Oymidar funded) Rappler say because it is easier than thinking.


The 'rule of law' could well be more healthy in The Philippines than it is in the United States.  It really depends what levels and from what angles one looks at things (and very few people bother to try.)  To a large degree 'rule of law' is a con(fidence) game in the United States just as is the economy.  It's kept polished and shiny on certain surfaces but on many levels it is utterly corrupt.  What The Philippines lacks relative to the U.S. is mostly the polished surfaces.


This thread, like many others, is not really worth bothering with because all of you n*ggers are fighting in a synthetic-world ring created for you by psychological engineers.  WWF level stuff here.  IIRC, I already clued you-all in on some things earlier.  But you all seem to be having fun, so knock yourselves out.

Yeah I figured as much. Another "master" above having a discussion. Words do mean things, so don't attribute words to me I didn't use. Tell dear leader I said hello.

Yeah, pretty much.


Hey, my use of the word 'evil' made it so that you didn't have to contemplate the corundum, right?  I mean you got to use the basic and fairly lame mock-strawman play.


If I remember to do so I will.

I am looking forward to Flying Hellfish not taking action on your off topic retardation and posting about it in the log of his related behaviors. I make use of you no matter what angle you take Nutilduhhh.

Cool story bro. I know you think the rues only apply to everyone else but they in fact apply to you too. Have fun with your pretend time until then.

I'm quite sure that even if Trump gets impeached, the chemtrail brigade will declare the impeachmant illegitimate, or perhaps some sort of strategic move by Trump to trap Pelosi, like TECSHARE did after mid-terms (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5066899). And we know he's never wrong.

Yep, because the dems cleary aren't hanging themselves right? Also the Russian collusion hoax didn't just get turned into a criminal investigation now did it? Once this is over the democrat party might as well cease to exist. You keep patting yourselves on the back and reassuring each other though. That worked out great in 2016.

Where are the "military tribunals of many high level people" and the investigations of "well documented" election fraud in the midterms?

Let's face, you made up a conspiracy theory because you didn't like the result of the midterms. You're gonna make up (you're already starting to) another one if you don't like the result of the impeachment process. You're amazingly insecure for such a Tough Intertubes Troll.

I didn't make up anything, and even with the house the dems have demonstrated themselves to be completely impotent. Your mom hasn't sung yet, so its not over. Please don't make yourself scarce like Flying Hellfish when his Russian collusion delusion was proven to be the actual conspiracy theory.

A little edit to point out the examples of stuff you made up.

A little edit to point out the stuff you refused to read (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html).


You go ahead and declare yourself the winner when we are still in the 4th quarter though if you like.

Except this has nothing to do with "military tribunals of many high level people" and the investigations of "well documented" election fraud in the midterms, just to name a couple of things that were supposed to happen "Over the next year or so". Yes, I know you'll be arguing that the "or so" can be infinitely long. That's pretty much my point - you're never wrong, even when you're obviously completely wrong, because at some point in the future something might happen that you might be able to twist into "victory".

Because military tribunals are always conducted in public are they? Also, you don't consider drumming up a Russian collusion narrative and illegal spying to interfere in the election process election fraud? MMmkay... funny how that works when the shoe is on the other foot. Don't worry butt dumpling, it won't be too much longer, just don't make yourself scarce.

Well, you tell me, you were babbling about it... so I'm gonna quote the whole post because you seem to backpedaling harder than usual on this one. Emphasis mine.

I have little interest in trying to predict the future, but Barr has opened criminal investigations. If I had to guess I'd say some low lying fruit will be picked and jailed, and Hillary will get off scott free. Also Flynn's conviction will be over turned.

 I find Clapper and Brennan highly offensive. Even allowing that anyone heading the CIA is likely a total psychopath/sociopath, their attitudes and statements seem problematic. It's not they are anti-Trump, perhaps it's more that they shouldn't be publicly babbling after that job, because people see the sorts of characters we put in those jobs.

I am not back pedaling anything, and you are just repeating yourself. It isn't over yet, but you keep repeating yourself if it reassures you. Just be here when it comes out.

"Trump accuses Obama of treason for ‘spying’ on his 2016 campaign"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-accuses-obama-of-treason-for-spying-on-his-2016-campaign

Hmm that is a pretty serious charge. I wonder what information that has yet to come to light that backs this claim up...

Going from "indictments", "prosecutions", and "military tribunals" to "things Trump said" is quite serious backpedaling. Trump has accused a lot of people of treason (e.g. recently Pelosi and Schiff for starting the impeachment proceedings - behold my masterful swing back on topic) but none of them have been prosecuted for the grave crime of defying Trump, which he seems to equate to treason, let alone prosecuting for actual treason.

Well, if its as solid as any other Trump claim, I would say absolutely nothing backs it up. Its not even a news item. What you posted was a book advertisement on a right-tilted website. The book is to be sold to people like you.

No, it is forward pedaling regardless of how you wish to imagine it. This is just the first signs, and more is to come. This isn't done yet regardless of you insisting to call the match before the game is over and your team just lost the lead. I don't know what you would call illegally using your oversight authority to remove a duly elected sitting president, but I would say treason is a fair description of those activities. This has been nonstop since before he was even inaugurated. The Democrat party refuses to accept the results of the 2016 election results and have been seeking to undo its results from day one at all costs, even if it severely damages the nation in the process. Accusing a former president of treason is no small matter, and you are going to have an exceptional amount of crow on your plate once you find out how much information actually backs that claim. Until then you keep imagineering your preferred interpretations and try to call the game before it is finished in a last second act of desperation hoping it won't be true. It is true, and you better start coming to terms with it, because it is going to hurt a lot more if you are forced to accept it all at once. Of course you won't because you haven't even come to terms with the results of the 2016 election.

Those were your own words that we were going to see those things that you mentioned and we haven't seen them. No matter how many coats of your 2016 projection bullshit you put on it. Do you wanna give us a revised timeline of when those things are gonna happen?

I don't need to revise anything to meet your interpretations. I said what I said, not what you wish I said. Projection... that would be funny if it weren't totally insane. I am looking forward to the puff of dust you leave behind when this all comes to light just like your pal Flying Hellfish when the Russian collusion story turned out to be the conspiracy theory.

Hey Nutilduhh... that poll didn't turn out like you thought it would did it? If only everyone belonged to the hive mind like you, things would be so much easier right?


MORE:

"Finally! DOJ Criminal Investigation of #Spygate, Smoking Gun Clinton Email Cover-Up Doc & MORE!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIfoWkijBYQ

Amazing... the consensus is correct, until they disagree with you, then it is the hive mind. Brilliant. Such a counterculture victim you are with all of the media parroting your beliefs 24/7 365. The "NO U" while projecting my own words back at me is also a nice touch. Not delusional at all.


"'We Will Not Legitimize The Sham Impeachment': House Minority Leader Responds To Pelosi Announcement"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/pelosi-hold-vote-impeachment-inquiry-week

He won't be impeached.

Now in the us there are no forces that will be able to deprive Trump of power.  This can only happen during the next presidential election and therefore I do not really understand the meaning of this question.

I do not know if Trump is the best president but at least he has respect for life when he placed his position against abortion. I believe the thing against Trump is the group of Hilary Clinton. They have lost the election and Trump got into power and thus they are using the media which they have big influence on to destroy Trumps reputation. They only want to throw Trump so they can regain power at their side. Its all politics and its a dangerous game. But I bet Trump has also a trump card against the opposition and he will never fall down easily without a fight.

Your emotional instability is not my concern. I read news from all kinds of sources. Unfortunately any main stream sources are going to have a bend spinning it in the most anti-Trump way possible and people like you will cherry pick the most bullshit parts of it and go "SEE YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS...". If I pick an independent source then you will attack the source without addressing the topic in any way every time, and unfortunately they are the only ones who will cover most of these issues at all. Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and CNN, CBS, NBC would never report it because they are not unbias in the slightest. If the partisanship of the media I link bothers you, maybe you should look at the purveyors of the vast majority of bullshit, the MSM. They have been abandoned by mass numbers of people for good reason. You wonder why that is? I don't, its because they are full of shit. I would trust a piss smelling hobo on the corner more than CNN, CBS, or NBC. Compared to them, independent blogs and aggregators deserve a Pulitzer Prize.

Zerohedge does now and then have an interesting scoop.

Zerohedge is not on my scheduled rounds, but I'm not remembering very many times when I've seen fabricated or 'fake news' on the site.  Most things I remember seeing have some basis in reality.  Most importantly to me, much of the stuff I've seen is perfectly valid and interesting information which no 'mainstream' outlet will touch with a 10 foot pole.  It's a good place to get leads of general interest to follow up on.

As for basic credibility, I would rate Zerohedge so far above CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc that the latter are not even in sight.  Also the comments are fun and interesting and seem to have a higher 'real-people/bot' percentage than the mainstream rags (which nowadays don't even allow user participation most of the time anyway.)

Some years ago I used to routinely skim stories then head directly for the comments where all the bullshit propaganda from the written piece was dissected.  Not long after than the owners of most of these platforms started highly editing and simply deprecating comments.

I voted for the Lizard People. In the poll, I mean, not in real life. Although in real life, yes, in a straight choice between Trump and the Lizard People I would be campaigning hard for our reptilian friends.

Politics in the Western world is becoming increasingly absurd. It is far beyond parody now. In the UK, it's just as bad. We're governed by a man with the brain and appearance of a dishevelled sock-puppet.

The comment streams are all that matter.

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191028/BILLS-116-HRes660.pdf

Well now that's a crock of shit.

Your side can call witnesses in its defense, but they must be approved by your adversary.

Stalinist methods.

It matters not how much they undermine the rule of law and due process, control must be taken at all costs.

You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think?  (Merrick Garland for example.)

That's what you guys sound like right now.

Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court.

On the contrary, after Scalia passed away and left a vacancy on the SC, the ever-diplomatic, gracious Republicans cited the "Biden Rule" in deferring the discussion about the SC vacancy:

The Senate's Republican leadership was quick to assert that the vacancy should not be filled until after the 2016 presidential election.[13] They cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, in which Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent. Republicans later began to refer to this originally little-noticed idea as the "Biden rule".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination#Biden_rule_debate

This isn't just "something", this is an attempt to unseat a sitting duly elected president. I believe you understand the gravity of this and are simply being disingenuous at this point. Speaking of being disingenuous... you seem oddly silent on the issue of the non-subpoena subpoena issue you insisted was legitimate so vociferously earlier. Funny how quickly such things become a non-topic for people trying so hard to topic slide when they run out of arguments.

No need to play these games man.
He did it because he wanted a shot at filling the vacancy with a Conservative.  And it worked.  Which is fine.  It's politics.

---

I mean, refusing to even hold a hearing for the guy the president nominated for the Supreme Court isn't just "something" either.  Some would argue it would have a greater affect on the Country than any president.

One party does everything they can to make something happen, and the other does everything they can to stop them.  Both sides are going to do whatever they can to make the other side look as bad as possible.
If Clinton won and the GOP were trying to impeach her using the same plays that Pelosi is using, would you really be like "wait a minute, that's not fair!  The Dems should be able to subpoena whoever they want, even if they don't have control of the House!"  Of course not.

It would be foolish to allow the Republicans to subpoena whoever they want.  They'd use it to keep the Dems from controlling the pace of the hearings, which is a huge advantage for them.  

You aren't really surprised the Democrats are keeping them on such a short leash, are you?

---

Had a big project to finish past couple weeks, that's why I haven't been active.

It does look that way. The thing is, these guys have publicly advocated impeaching Trump since the very first day he was in office, and they really didn't care if there were or were not valid reasons for doing so. And they've been upfront about it, not hiding it at all.

Kavanaugh was already vetted. Second of all I am amazed you think bringing that up is supporting your argument when the whole thing ended up having ZERO substantiation behind it whatsoever. You keep pretending like the democrats subverting the law and due process is just how its done and is a virtue. All they are doing is splitting the nation in half with their lawless efforts to subvert the vote of the people to try to take back power at any cost.

When Clinton was impeached he was allowed to defend himself including being able to call his own witnesses, make his own subpoenas, and introduce their own evidence. This isn't due process, this is a fraud, and the fact that you try to justify it shows me you would rather this country be ruled by lawless totalitarianism than by rule of law. Who ever heard of the accused being able to introduce evidence to defend themselves right? What is justice is the accusers totally defining everything and anything introduced. Now THAT is due process! Who gives a fuck if it leads to civil war right? What counts is Trump is removed. Fuck the will of the people, you need to win at all costs.

You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!

The reason it took almost 10 months for them to have these impeachment hearings is because not enough democrats supported it.

I'm one of those people that think Trump has at least 'deserved' to be impeached since not too far into his presidency.  Like most people who agreed with me at the time, I believed my reasons were valid.  Just because you believe they are not valid, does not mean I don't care whether or not they are valid.  It just means have a different opinion on what valid is.

Opinions are great. Where are the facts?

I'm totally fine with not allowing the GOP to have the power to subpoena whoever they want.  It would be foolish to give them the power.  They'd use it to delay, muddy the waters, and whatever other political moves they come up with.  And I wouldn't fault them for doing that.  There's also no chance in hell they'd give the democrats the same power if the roles were reversed. 

Remember, this is not the trial.  We're just deciding whether or not there should be a trial.  We don't do special prosecutors anymore.  The house will lay out the prosecution and then send it to the senate where a few of them will serve as the actual prosecutors, and the president will have every chance to defend himself.

We have already established you don't care about due process, the rule of law, or precedent. You can call being able to present a defense "muddying the waters" all you want, that doesn't wave a magic wand over totalitarianism and make it right. Rather convenient you can just unilaterally declare a defense not necessary, because after all nothing should get in the way of this extrajudicial railroading right? Your proclamation that if the roles were reverse they would act the same is nothing but you justifying democrat totalitarianism with assumptions based on absolutely nothing. The House has oversight authority, not just one half of The House. Nothing about this process is within the law. So again, those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still pretty quiet... No matter, just keep shifting to new accusations as you fail to justify the last, people have short memories and you can perpetually justify this insanity by simply sliding the topic.

I'm simply pointing out the massive amount of hypocrisy that goes on in US politics from both sides.  

I think that most peoples views on this whole impeachment thing is mainly driven by a drive for whatever side they agree more with policy wise to win.  That's fucked up.  Your views on immigration or healthcare or taxes shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it's ok to blatantly lie to the country.  Yet whenever a politician lies, only the opposition calls them out.  And I'm not just talking about Trump.  This is just a general example.

It's become perfectly normal to respond to someone you disagree with by insulting them and trying to make them look or feel stupid which just creates a vicious cycle of non-productive 'debate'. (if you can even call it that).  Without productive debate, we aren't really a democracy.  The best ideas won't be considered.  We'll just use the ideas of  whoever is best at making the other politicians look the most stupid.

What you are doing is simply creating a false equivalency. We aren't talking about immigration, healthcare, or taxes, we are talking about negating the vote of the people completely outside of the law and due process. It has been failed attempt after failed attempt at this since election day, and people like you just keep on making excuses for why it is ok and we should just ignore all the previous failed illegal attempts to overthrow the president and negate literally anything and everything he does at all costs. But we are talking about Trump, not general examples no matter how much you want to topic slide.

Your little anecdote about debate is nice, but it doesn't excuse ignoring the rule of law, due process, or precedent. You aren't even making an argument for why it is just fine for the Democrats in the house to ignore the rule of law, due process, and precedent, you are just listing a bunch of non-sequitur excuses with some fallacious "fog of war" type argument. I also noticed you still refuse to comment on the non-subpoena subpoenas they issued. No matter, excuses make the need for due process go away, because it is all the same to you anyway, because if you can't have your people be in control, fuck the whole system right? Burn it all down! Sounds like rule of law to me. Just point at the other side and screech...


https://i.imgur.com/6g39sr3.jpg

and poof, magically all arguments are equal, therefore everything is excused under the rubric of false equivalence. Facts are for chumps, and emotion is equal to logic am I right?

his own fault. why should it be someone else's fault? this is one of the most disastrous governments of all time, there are many reasons for the impeachment, the ukrainian case is just one.  Impeached or not for sure he won't be reelected, more people who didn't vote must have realized what they did and they regret.

Oh look, more false equivalence and strawmanning. This has been a non-stop effort at fraudulently ousting Trump from day 1, and every failure is some how justified because "oh but Republicans would do it too", not because of facts, but because you declare it so. Simply just point back at your opponent and screech about equivalence. There is a difference between hyper-partisanship and ignoring the rule of law, which is exactly what Democrats have been doing over, and over, and over again. You aren't providing any evidence of wrongdoing, you are just claiming it and declaring equivalence. I am providing actual evidence as well as a long history of failed fraudulent efforts. Still not seeing anyone addressing the non-subpoena subpoenas. Hey, after all...

"TwitchySeal: It's a shame that political discussion is driven by hyper-partisanship.

TECSHARE: HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS AREN'T ALWAYS WRONG AND REPUBLICANS AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!"

https://i.imgur.com/6g39sr3.jpg

Just accuse your opponent of exactly what you do, and vomit up tales of equivalence over and over again. No need for fact based discussion or debate.

The fact is the impeachment proceeding is underway, regardless of how any of us feel about it.

Playing armchair constitutional lawyer doesn't change its legitimacy, or the fact that it is happening.

I'm just sharing my thoughts.  I'm not trying to change your mind or attack you.

My point is just that I think at the moment, a lot of Americans feel like they have root for either the Dems or the GOP like it's a Football game.  They picked their team in 2016 based on each parties policies and now all that matters is a win at the end of the day (term).

Only problem is that the 'official rule book' that everyone swears to defend was written 100 years before electricity was even invented.  We've got a bunch of rules that are vague and barely ever used or updated.  It's really easy to interpert the rules to benefit the team that you've already decided to be loyal no matter what.  I just think that's a super dangerous path.


I don't think it's ok for anyone to ignore the rule of law.

Due process is also vital to any civilized society.  But politics and the criminal justice system don't go hand in hand like you seem to think.

A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption.

For example:  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in our Criminal Justice system, is based on Blackstone's Ratio (we'd rather let 10 guilty people get away with a crime than jail one innocent person).  In reality it's probably much closer to 100 - 1 today in America, especially when it comes to people who can afford to hire the best lawyers.


If we make it as easy to get away with corrupt acts for the leaders of our country as it is for private citizens, we risk the country becoming corrupt.

If we impeach and remove a president because it seems pretty damn likely they are corrupt, without reaching the same burden of proof that a criminal prosecutor is required to prove, the result is the VP becomes President (same political party), the Cabinet and Congress stays the same, and if the country thinks Congress didn't represent them accurately by removing the president, they get voted out when their term is up.

This is a concept I think the founders made clear. The office of the president and the person who holds the office of the president or two separate things with separate rights.  That's why they went out of their way to give Congress the responsibility of oversight and impeachment, but not the power to charge anyone criminally. Also the term limits are great.  They obviously didn't want a President to be able to use the office to become a King.

As for precedent in Congress.  It's fine to break it.  As long as you aren't breaking any rules, it's up to the people you represent (and your party/committee leader, or 2/3's of the entire House or Senate I suppose) to decide whether or not your actions are acceptable.  

That's correct. The Democrats can have a vote, and impeach Trump for stepping on a bug if they want to.

The Senate will laugh at them, of course.

They'll do what all of them on both sides do. If the polls turn against them, they'll impeach him.

I didn't ask you about your thoughts or feelings. I am talking about facts that can be demonstrated in observable reality. Your relativist interpretation of the law by characterizing it as some antiquated and murky ill defined thing exists only in your mind. The law is clear. You pretending it is not is an artifact of your own desire to justify ignoring the law while simultaneously drawing false equivalence by claiming "the other side" does exactly what "your side" does. This isn't an argument, it is a logical fallacy. What you or anyone else "feels" about it is irrelevant. Documented facts are relevant.

You claim you support rule of law, but when it serves your preferred narrative suddenly the rule of law becomes really subjective and relative all of a sudden doesn't it? What the Democrats are doing has been a years long pattern of abusing any and all authorities they have to ILLEGALLY overthrow a duly elected president. You can imagine that this is what "the other side" does or would do, but those are assumptions that exist only in your mind with no factual basis in observable reality and in no way justifies it. Their all out effort to retake control of the government is doing tremendous harm to this nation, and the damage they have already done is going to take decades to repair.

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law. Yes, even powerful elected officials have a right to due process regardless of any asinine bullshit you imagineer to try to bend over backwards to justify this blatantly illegal coup attempt. Just because you are convinced doesn't negate the requirement for due process, facts, or evidence. That is the whole point of due process, to protect the rights of the individual from angry mobs of retards riled up by bad actors. This whole scam is only happening because Democrats know they don't have a candidate that has a CHANCE IN HELL of beating Trump, so this is their only option to retake power.

Meanwhile the simple fact that Trump asks for Biden to merely be investigated, well of course that is impeachable and proof that he is using his position to attack his political opponents! Never mind Biden doesn't have a chance in hell of beating him, and no one pay attention tot he 3 years of endless politically motivated investigations of Trump and anyone who even served him lunch. Sorry, but anyone who buys this narrative at this point is either brain damaged or willfully full of shit and thinks the ends justify the means.

Also... you are still strangely silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue... almost like you don't care about facts and only pushing your preferred narrative. Facts be damned, Trump needs to go, even if it leads to civil war. What is important is the people I agree with are in charge again! Fuck the will of the people, I know whats good for them whether they like it or not!

I'm not going to agree with, disagree with, or even consider that type of comment worthy of responding to.

And yet you responded to it. Bravo!

I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad.  I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process.

I just looked it up:

noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition.

Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime.  They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State.  Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think.

If the people elect a congress that removes a president, the president isn't owed anything and he hasn't been denied any rights.  It's a privilege to serve as the President - never a right.  The president serves the people.  Not the other way around.

Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law.  Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president.  They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law.

You should probably link your source, plagiarism is a bannable offense, but not for special people like you who don;t need to follow the rules I am sure. How many definitions did you have to cherry pick before you found one vague enough to confirm your bias? No matter, lets look at a LEGAL dictionary.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process


So in summary, your assumptions are absolutely wrong, again. Speaking of being wrong again, how about those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still no comment?

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

That's a good article on due process.  It helped me organize what I'm trying to say a bit.

Life, Liberty and Property are things that only an official court of law can deprive another human of.

Congress does not have the power to deprive anyone of their life, liberty or stuff.

They don't need it though, because Impeachment does not threaten the Presidents life, liberty or property - therefore due process of law is not required.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.

Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance.  Let me try again:

'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them.  

Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things.  (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them)

Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property.  They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not.

He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The constitution is clear. No one said anything about just courts, it clearly says ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and DUE PROCESS OF LAW with FAIR PROCEDURES, not "due process of court". So now carrying out his duties as a duly elected president is not part of his liberty now is it? What about the people who elected him? Fuck their liberty too right? Careful with all that stretching, you are about to break your back bending over backwards to justify totalitarianism.

By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? You would think you would want to defend your position from such a clear example demonstrating the Democrat and the media's willingness to totally lie to the American people to get their narrative pushed, as well as their willingness to operate completely outside the due process of law, but I guess not.

Now they are admitting that they are the Deep State. Isn't government supposed to be controlled right out in the open? But here a bunch of people are admitting that they are trying to control government covertly. That's the way that crooks and criminals do things.


"Thank God For The Deep State": Intel Agents Admit They Want To "Take Out" Trump (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/270982-2019-11-01-thank-god-for-the-deep-state-intel-agents-admit-they.htm)




8)

I'm back to my original assessment of your opinion.

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

Essentially, now, and because you are following, and defending, the actions of the Democratic House, you are trying to come up with justifications / rationalizations for their actions. But when those justifications and rationalizations seem unhinged and crazy (and crazier and crazier) that's when one has to step back and just say, "maybe this is all wrong. maybe it's just a power grab regardless of the ethics."

And that's really where we are, isn't it? Just a power grab, by whatever means they want.

I guess what I'm saying is please don't defend stupid, and don't double down on stupid.

Yes, there are laws in place that make it very difficult to fire a federal employee.  Tons of paperwork, tons of evidence.

Politically appointed federal employees are different though.  They can be fired at any time for pretty much any reason (I'd guess it's still illegal to fire them because of their gender race or religion though).  No due process required since the reason can literally be "i don't like you" or "I disagree with your opinions" or "I want someone else to have your job".  If a non-politically appointed federal employee was fired for any of these reasons, they'd easily win a lawsuit for a very nice pay day.

Due process is a very well understood concept and ingrained in culture, institutions, law, and common law.

Let me know if you want to continue arguing that the President of the United States is not entitled to due process. If you do, please present case history and similar facts. Otherwise I will ignore postings, I don't think your "opinion" matters in something like this.

Yeah, that's what we're discussing right?

Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?

It's relevant because I'm trying to make the point that getting fired without due process is not just a right that every American has.

They can be fired by their boss (e.g. by the President when applicable) but they can also be subject to impeachment - yes, a cabinet member can be impeached - so not sure how that analogy helps here. These are two different ways to remove someone from a job.

Extending this to the President's job basically means the he can be voted out by his "boss" (the people) or be impeached. Voters don't really engage in any due process, they can vote any way they want for any reason or no reason at all, so that's fine. But the House is not President's boss so they have to follow the constitutionally prescribed impeachment procedure, which to be fair is sufficiently vague for everyone to find something to complain about. But there is at least the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing.

Yes, I have fired people without due process. And there's a long tradition of a new administration bringing, essentially thousands of new employees in with it, and the old employees giving up their jobs for those new ones.

As for what the House can theoretically do, that's certainly a very broad matter. If they act outside reasonable bounds, the Senate can just basically laugh at what they said or did.

In this case at hand, the people of the USA voted Trump in, so speaking for myself, I see the House as needing to respect due process. The House is not Trump's boss, the people are.

Found an interesting paper that goes into detail of exactly what we've been debating : High Crimes Without Law (https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/vol132_Bowie.pdf).

Part 1 goes into detail of Johnsons Senate Trial.  During the Trial, his lawyer based his entire defense on one of the same arguments that TECSHARE and Spendulus have been making, and it worked:  


Part 2 is Modern Counterarguments to the idea of nullum crimen sine lege

The consensus among law nerds over the past 150 years is pretty clear that when the constitution was written, the founders would not have considered nullum crimen sine lege to be a valid defense during the Senate Trial of an impeached official.

One point I hadn't heard or considered before was that 'high crimes' are crimes naughty actions that only a President (or someone in power) can be held accountable for.  If a civilian did the same thing, they wouldn't be in any trouble with the government, because it's not against the law.  There is no official extensive list of things a President can be impeached for.  There for, the assumption is that it's up to Congress to decide whether it's naughty enough to remove him from office - not whether or not it's a crime.  



Another interesting point is that since the Constitution explicitly states that after being impeached/removed, a President can still be charged criminally for the same thing that got him removed.  This contradicts the Double Jeopardy clause, unless being convicted by the Senate isn't the same as being convicted of a crime.


And then you get to the end of the paper and realize none of it even really mattered:

That is interesting but really, it has zero relation to my argument about a need for due process.

In fact if you are going to argue for impeaching a President for things that are not a crime, that's all the more reason to require strict due process.

Relevant meme:

https://i.imgur.com/8hGfcO1.jpg

True story.

I know. It's a big problem that all the nut-job psychos are always on the side of the ultra-rich Republicans/Conservatives/right-wingers.
There were plenty of people wanting to assassinate Obama because of outrageous policies like providing basic healthcare to poor people. You know, human rights stuff.
But no-one wants to assassinate Trump, because all the gun-totin' crazies are big Trump fans. Yee-haw.

Funny how all the gun crime seems to happen in Democrat controlled districts if all the crazy right wingers are the violent ones.

FBI & DOJ Statistics > claims about a post on 8chan

Do the FBI and DOJ have a statistic on where all the gun crime seems to happen?

https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Five-Year-Murder-Rates-600x0-c-default.png

https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Non-Fatal-Shootings-600x0-c-default.png

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/

Looks pretty blue to me. There is more if you want to argue the point.

Looks like Ocala, FL is #1.  Pretty sure they are very, very red.

Most big cities are blue, so it would make sense that most gun violence in cities with 250k+ people would be blue.

https://i.gyazo.com/5091762cd717bec0e77551e6b46b489d.png

So your argument is, lets not count the blue cities because they are the biggest? Most of the gun crime happens in Democrat controlled areas. Your one cherry picked city doesn't negate all the blue surrounding it.

Puzzles me.

Because the only way to make forward progress is to correctly understand things. But if that is made difficult or impossible by way of alternative facts and smokescreens, then real world problems cannot be solved.

Well, the results are coming in.

So far we know for sure that 15 people wasted their vote in this poll.

Now that Trump has been impeached, who are conservatives blaming? And how closely does it mirror the results of this poll?

"House Democrats" and "Deep State" seem to be their favorites, which is close enough to the poll since they obviously couldn't possibly blame Trump.

According to the poll results, I myself as am equally liable for Trump's impeachment, albeit the Lizard People are slightly more so.

Its true that I was working as a social media disruptor to spread misinformation about Trump's phone call, but I was not alone. I manned a batch of 1,000 Facebook accounts while George Soros manned another 1,000. Working day and night we pushed the agenda of there existing a "quid pro quo." Our results were eagerly broadcast by the Fake News.

We will both just say we are patsies though if we should be arrested, hopefully before we are assassinated by Hillary Clinton, who of course works for the Lizard People.

Probably the littlest known fact is that Donald Trump was personally orchestrating his own impeachment the whole time.