REEE: [US Only] Impeachment Vote

[Spendulus]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election.  Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached?

They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony.  

Oh is it clear? Because to me it is clear they are pushing removal and resistance first then manufacturing evidence to support these actions later. This is all about butthurt over losing in 2016. The left are tyrants that cant tolerate a peaceful handover of power. They must be in charge at all times, and if they can't be they will stomp their feet, scream, and burn it all down. Why would anyone cooperate with this? Obstruction of what cupcake? You mean like obstruction of the Russia investigation that also never happened?

I do recall a lot of "Obstruction" words being batted around back in the Days of Mueller. But it all seemed to fade away.

But I do think that Twitch has a point, that Trump abused his power to influence the election. Just remember the Repub debates. Trump against 16 or 17. Next it was just Trump. You know that was unfair. His superior abilities against their inferior abilities.

And then Trump abused his power by beating Hitlery. The proof is that he won, see?

[TECSHARE]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election.  Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached?

They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. 

I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet.

Do it. Please, just do it.

Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there...
However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related

Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done.

And that's "good." Interesting point of view.

I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.

Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

[Spendulus]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election.  Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached?

They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. 

I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet.

Do it. Please, just do it.

Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there...
However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related

Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done.

And that's "good." Interesting point of view.

I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.

Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

I was reviewing yesterday the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Communists took over in 1917 Russia. What started as enthusiasm and idealism, and the freshness of a new political system in just a few years devolved into statis and totalitarianism.

It seems the American left, once a party of serious principles, has gone a similar route.

[BADecker]

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

I was reviewing yesterday the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Communists took over in 1917 Russia. What started as enthusiasm and idealism, and the freshness of a new political system in just a few years devolved into statis and totalitarianism.

It seems the American left, once a party of serious principles, has gone a similar route.

The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

If you are serious about cleaning up America, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0GFK_5dQFk.

[Spendulus]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

[BADecker]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

Yep.     

[Spendulus]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

Yep.     

They look at you a bit funny when you started talking like that?

[TECSHARE]

doesn't typically have to provide information relating to subpoenas if they are to deem it executive privilege. (Which is obviously then tested in court, it is currently being tested)

The Supreme Court has already ruled in the past on this and executive privilege, what they can withhold, is narrowly limited to certain things in the case of impeachment (at least I think's that what it is. could be for oversight in general). Their main reasoning for withholding things seemed to do a side step around that and instead said the entire inquiry etc was invalid and talked about due process. And again. They turned over documents to citizens but not the same sort of stuff to congress.

If you're referring to the case about the Mueler report, that's different. That's about whether private Grand Jury testimony can be made available for impeachment. There's also previous case law for that and it was in favor of congress getting it for impeachment. The impeachment trial is considered a judiciary proceeding. Since the investigation and articles of impeachment are required for the trial, all of what the congress does also falls into that. Some Rule 6e about grand jury testimony has an exception for judicial proceedings. So that case will only fail if the dems screw up in some way, or the appeals court etc somehow decides to completely overturn previous case law. If they don't, I doubt the supreme court will hear the case. If they do, then the supreme court probably would.

Yeah those pesky step arounds. You mean like the "step around" where Pelosi refused to hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry until just recently, actually making all the "subpoenas" issued before this date legally invalid? Funny how the letter of the law is only important when the ends justify the means.

[BADecker]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

Yep.     

They look at you a bit funny when you started talking like that?

The whole idea of the formation of the USA was to get around having a monarch. But the people seem to want a monarch, like a King George. So, they absolutely are going to look funny at any person who wants freedom, and who uses the freedom that is built right into governmental documents.

How about you?, since you are the one asking. Would you be free? Or do you want to worship government like it is a king?

[Spendulus]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

[BADecker]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

But everybody knows he was ordered to by LBJ - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/144737-2013-11-06-roger-stone-o-g-politiko-nixon-insider-lbj-killed-jfk.htm - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/080738-2010-12-23-robert-morrow-my-files-on-the-lbj-cia-assassination-of.htm - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/094435-2011-08-08-first-lady-jackie-kennedy-accuses-lbj-of-orchestrating-jfks-assassination.htm.

[TECSHARE]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so.

[Spendulus]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so.

So...you mean here in the free version, it is not a Twitchy sort of Truth?

[BADecker]

Impeach all of government.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Emolument Clause:

Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title from any "King, Prince, or foreign State," without congressional consent. This clause is meant to prevent external influence and corruption of American officers by foreign States. A similar provision was included in the Articles of Confederation, applicable to both federal and state officers. The language of the modern clause, however, suggests that only federal government officials are prohibited from accepting any emoluments.

That the phrase "Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States" applies to all appointed officials is undisputed, however there is much debate as to whether it extends to elected officials.

History does not provide a clear answer: When he served as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton produced a list of persons holding such offices at the request of the Senate; the list did not include any elected positions. Further, during their presidencies, while George Washington did not seek or obtain congressional consent for foreign gifts, Andrew Jackson did.

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, on the other hand, enumerates several elected positions in its definition of "employees" who may not accept any gift of more than minimal value without congressional approval. Such "employees" include the President and the Vice President, a Member of Congress, and the spouses and dependents of the same.

...

[Spendulus]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—House Democrats today announced a new plan to ensure Trump wins the White House again in 2020.

"We hereby unveil these articles of impeachment, which clearly lay out the undeniable fact that we will not win the White House back next year," said Rep. Jerry Nadler. "We have found Trump guilty of absolutely nothing, but we already started this whole process and it would look bad to back out now, so here we are."

"I declare here and now that Trump will be in the White House for at least another four years."

Some questioned if this was the best strategy, but Democrats pointed out that with four more years of Trump, they will be able to generate far more outrage than if they took back the White House. "It's a lot more fun to be extremists and scream at the sky for years and years instead of proposing policies that most Americans support and actually win elections."

https://babylonbee.com/news/house-dems-announce-trump-will-win-2020-election