Democrats set Thursday vote on U.S. House path in Trump impeachment probe

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

I dont understand what point, if any, you are trying to make with that statement.

 

Got it. So if I, ordinary man, allegedly commit a crime under the jusrisdiction of the USA in a foreign nation, then all I have to do to stop a prosecution or investigation is run for President?

 

Cool, I announce my candidacy. Im immune.

 

Do you guys even realize how crazy all your impeachment sounds to the non obsessed?

No. All you have to do is ask your own agencies to investigate.

 

You cannot ask a foreign govt to do it. Especially when that govt already investigated and found a nothing burger.

 

Do you realise how crazy it sounds that a president cannot be charged with a crime. Impeahment is the only recourse.

[atyclb]

2 hours ago, J Town said:

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

Another poster in denial of reality.

I stopped trying with that one. If Trump supporters were interested in truth, then they wouldn't be Trump supporters.

 

tvf objective statement of the year winner

[atyclb]

below is not in defense of trump, but in defense of any president regardless of party affiliation. could be a dem president with republicans acting the same way the current dems are acting.

 

 

"The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

 

alan dershowitz .   snippet . https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468483-a-partisan-impeachment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared

[bristolboy]

53 minutes ago, atyclb said:

below is not in defense of trump, but in defense of any president regardless of party affiliation. could be a dem president with republicans acting the same way the current dems are acting.

 

 

"The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

 

alan dershowitz .   snippet . https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468483-a-partisan-impeachment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared

"At a campaign stop in Iowa on Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he could shoot someone in public and still not lose any voters.

“They say I have the most loyal people — did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” he said. “It’s like incredible.”

The same goes for the Senate today. Does that mean he shouldn't be impeached? That he can continue to use the office of the Presidency to hide his misdeeds?

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, candide said:

No you don't get it. There is a legal procedure for that. There is even a treaty with Ukraine on mutual assistance, with precise articles.

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

 

How do you explain that Trump used a crooked way instead of the legal way?

Um, yes can you point me to the statute that shows that the president of the United States, the chief executive, the commander-in-chief, the chief law enforcement officer has no power to call up some foreign leader and demand that they investigate a set of circumstances relating to possible violations of United States law? 

 

I mean, President Obama had the power to get the ukrainians to fire a prosecutor didn't he? Instead of making a phone call, he just sent his point man to withhold aid with something was done.

 

So tell me how it was a crooked then? Surely you can cite a law violation?

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

You cannot ask a foreign govt to do it. Especially when that govt already investigated and found a nothing burger.

 

Hi same question as as to somebody else......can you cite me a statute that prohibits the chief executive of the United States of America from demanding that a foreign government do something in their own country?

[roobaa01]

15 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Um, yes can you point me to the statute that shows that the president of the United States, the chief executive, the commander-in-chief, the chief law enforcement officer has no power to call up some foreign leader and demand that they investigate a set of circumstances relating to possible violations of United States law? 

 

I mean, President Obama had the power to get the ukrainians to fire a prosecutor didn't he? Instead of making a phone call, he just sent his point man to withhold aid with something was done.

 

So tell me how it was a crooked then? Surely you can cite a law violation?

highlight high treason, misdemanor that makes impeachment, where are these crimes to be found ??? in the phone call of the ukraine hoax certainly not . 

 

wbr

roobaa01

[atyclb]

51 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

1 hour ago, atyclb said:

below is not in defense of trump, but in defense of any president regardless of party affiliation. could be a dem president with republicans acting the same way the current dems are acting.

 

 

"The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

 

alan dershowitz .   snippet . https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468483-a-partisan-impeachment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared

"At a campaign stop in Iowa on Saturday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he could shoot someone in public and still not lose any voters.

“They say I have the most loyal people — did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” he said. “It’s like incredible.”

The same goes for the Senate today. Does that mean he shouldn't be impeached? That he can continue to use the office of the Presidency to hide his misdeeds?

 

what harvard constitutional lawyer professor alan dershowitz wrote was NOT based upon emotion and hysteria

[Sujo]

50 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Hi same question as as to somebody else......can you cite me a statute that prohibits the chief executive of the United States of America from demanding that a foreign government do something in their own country?

What part of english do you not understand. You have been told many times. There does not need to be a crime to be impeached. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political trial and congress decides what is impeachable and what isnt.

 

You could also try using google yourself instead of asking. Here is one of many links.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/laws-trump-could-have-broken-ukraine-whistleblower-case-2019-9

[candide]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Um, yes can you point me to the statute that shows that the president of the United States, the chief executive, the commander-in-chief, the chief law enforcement officer has no power to call up some foreign leader and demand that they investigate a set of circumstances relating to possible violations of United States law? 

 

I mean, President Obama had the power to get the ukrainians to fire a prosecutor didn't he? Instead of making a phone call, he just sent his point man to withhold aid with something was done.

 

So tell me how it was a crooked then? Surely you can cite a law violation?

On point one, see Sujo's reply. It has been widely commented before by expert lawyers.9

 

On point 2: President Obama had the right to apply an official US policy. In the same way, the head of the IMF at that time had the right to make a public statement also threatening Ukraine to withold funding.

 

Same question as before: why is it that Trump did not follow the legal procedure? Could it be that there was no ground to do so?

[RideJocky]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Pretty much all of it.  The investigation has not fizzled, the whistleblower has not been identified, and LtCol Vindham has not damaged his credibility or reputation.

 

A high crime or misdemeanor?  How about holding up $400 million of congressionally approved military aid desperately needed by Ukraine in order to pressure President Zelensky into opening investigations on a Trump political opponent and a totally discredited conspiracy theory?  You know, seeking foreign aid in an election and throwing a bone to Trump's buddy Vlad by muddying the waters regarding Russia's election interference.

 

Funny, without evidence Trump accused President Obama of tapping his phones and interfering with "our very sacred election process".  Now we learn Trump is willing to accept illegal foreign assistance in his re-election attempt and even willing to resort to blackmail to obtain it.

Yes, Adam Schiff already explained the call to us, but thanks.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

What part of english do you not understand. You have been told many times. There does not need to be a crime to be impeached. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political trial and congress decides what is impeachable and what isnt.

 

You could also try using google yourself instead of asking. Here is one of many links.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/laws-trump-could-have-broken-ukraine-whistleblower-case-2019-9

So basically y'all are saying that one branch of the legislature can just make up anything it wants inside to impeach a duly elected president. There doesn't need to be an actual crime or even offense. Ok then.

 

48 minutes ago, candide said:

On point one, see Sujo's reply. It has been widely commented before by expert lawyers.9

 

On point 2: President Obama had the right to apply an official US policy. In the same way, the head of the IMF at that time had the right to make a public statement also threatening Ukraine to withold funding.

 

Same question as before: why is it that Trump did not follow the legal procedure? Could it be that there was no ground to do so?

I hate to clue you guys in, but it's official US policy that no country can get foreign aid if they are corrupt. I think there's even the statute to that effect. So wasn't Trump within his rights to ask ukraine to clean up their act?

 

Not that it matters, since it's the contention of the anti trumper's that impeachment is appropriate if someone doesn't like the color of the presidents Tie

[Nyezhov]

26 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, Adam Schiff already explained the call to us, but thanks.

Has Schiff explained his prior contacts with the CIA and Democratic Operative so called Whistleblower?

 

Make sure y'all give me a laughing or sad or confused emoji. Asking questions is not allowed, especially when they make folks uncomfortable. 

 

And god forbid you try to debate me ????

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

What part of english do you not understand. You have been told many times. There does not need to be a crime to be impeached. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political trial and congress decides what is impeachable and what isnt.

 

You could also try using google yourself instead of asking. Here is one of many links.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/laws-trump-could-have-broken-ukraine-whistleblower-case-2019-9

Yes, everyone keeps telling us about all the crimes he commits and then the tell us the President does not need to have committed a crime to be impeached. 
 

I think we’re all clear on your position. 
 

What I’m not clear on, is why have they waited until now to start the “proceedings”.? The left has been calling for impeachment for three years, they tell of of all the crimes he has and (apparently) is committing. They make it clear they can impeach him at any time for any reason, yet they do nothing until they get worried about the election.

 

What’s that about? 

[Sujo]

32 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So basically y'all are saying that one branch of the legislature can just make up anything it wants inside to impeach a duly elected president. There doesn't need to be an actual crime or even offense. Ok then.

 

I hate to clue you guys in, but it's official US policy that no country can get foreign aid if they are corrupt. I think there's even the statute to that effect. So wasn't Trump within his rights to ask ukraine to clean up their act?

 

Not that it matters, since it's the contention of the anti trumper's that impeachment is appropriate if someone doesn't like the color of the presidents Tie

He didnt ask them to clean up corruption. He asked them to do him a favor and investigate his political rival. Yawn.

 

And to your first paragraph, yes. Thete does not need to be a crime. 

 

Are u a lawyer?

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 They make it clear they can impeach him at any time for any reason, yet they do nothing until they get worried about the election.

 

What’s that about? 

Not only that, they basically blew Biden out of the water. So now they must come up with articles of impeachment that at least look plausible. If they dont...well there are a lot of Dem Senators up for relection in Trump country. Plus they knocked out the only person on the Dem side who could conceivably beat Trump. Way to go AOC.

[RideJocky]

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Has Schiff explained his prior contacts with the CIA and Democratic Operative so called Whistleblower?

 

Make sure y'all give me a laughing or sad or confused emoji. Asking questions is not allowed, especially when they make folks uncomfortable. 

 

And god forbid you try to debate me ????

Yes

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, everyone keeps telling us about all the crimes he commits and then the tell us the President does not need to have committed a crime to be impeached. 
 

I think we’re all clear on your position. 
 

What I’m not clear on, is why have they waited until now to start the “proceedings”.? The left has been calling for impeachment for three years, they tell of of all the crimes he has and (apparently) is committing. They make it clear they can impeach him at any time for any reason, yet they do nothing until they get worried about the election.

 

What’s that about? 

Its called an investigation. Remind me how long bengazi investigation was?

[RideJocky]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

Way to go AOC.

The gift that keeps on giving...

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And to your first paragraph, yes. Thete does not need to be a crime. 

Yep. The folks elect, the Congress doesnt like the combover, so they can make up anyhting they want to remove the president. Just as the founders of the US intended.

 

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Are u a lawyer?

Yeah I was. Maybe thats why your comments and the positions you represent are so disturbing to those steeped in our constitutional and political history.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

The gift that keeps on giving...

Exactly. Expect to see her face along with Beto and Schiff and Stalin in loads of political ads. 

 

 

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Has Schiff explained his prior contacts with the CIA and Democratic Operative so called Whistleblower?

 

Make sure y'all give me a laughing or sad or confused emoji. Asking questions is not allowed, especially when they make folks uncomfortable. 

 

And god forbid you try to debate me ????

Debate? All you are doing is asking questions you can get answers to yourself instead of wasting time.

 

The whistleblower is now irrelevant as all he has said is true. Vindman who was on the call has given that evidence.

 

Try waiting for the transcripts and public evidence 

[JAG]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

That is so absurd, and contrary to historical fact, that I don't know if you are using satire or you actually believe the nonsense you post.

Well given that he claimed, a few posts ago, that illegals and dead people(!) were responsible for Mrs Clinton actually winning more votes than Mr Trump, I suspect that it is the latter, perhaps triggered off by glimpses of the full moon through the firing slits in his fortified log cabin deep in the Blue Ridge Mountains - perhaps that very moon that Laurel and Hardy immortalised in song? 

 

And I thought that I had heard some dodgy reasons for disregarding the democratic process in the debate over Brexit!

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Yep. The folks elect, the Congress doesnt like the combover, so they can make up anyhting they want to remove the president. Just as the founders of the US intended.

 

Yeah I was. Maybe thats why your comments and the positions you represent are so disturbing to those steeped in our constitutional and political history.

I too am a lawyer. But a barrister. Which concerns me as you dont seem to have an understanding of congress power.

 

Yes if they want to impeach for a combover they can. Yet again, what part of that dont you understand. Congress makes the rules. Impeachment is for whatever they want it to be.

 

Jeez its like explaining to a trump supporter.

[RideJocky]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He didnt ask them to clean up corruption. He asked them to do him a favor and investigate his political rival. Yawn.

 

And to your first paragraph, yes. Thete does not need to be a crime. 

 

Are u a lawyer?

Oh, so he was only asking for a favor. Some others here were claiming he was extorting a foreign leader, thanks for clearing that up. 
 

I’m guessing they listened to Adam Schiff’s rendition of the call he worked up with the “whistle-blower” and not the actual call. 

[Nyezhov]

Just now, Sujo said:

Debate? All you are doing is asking questions you can get answers to yourself instead of wasting time.

Of course. Why make folks confront the speciousness of their ideas. I notice you cant or dont answer a number of the questions.

 

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The whistleblower is now irrelevant as all he has said is true. Vindman who was on the call has given that evidence.

Really. That presupposes that: a) you know exactly what Vindman said, when a transcript hasnt been released and b), you take the position that issues of bias, prejudice and crediblity of the witnesses are irrelvant in an impeachment. Is that what you are contending.

 

Hypothetical: lets say that the "whistleblower" is subpoenaed and testifies as follows: that he works for the Dems, that he hates Trump and that Schiffs staff wrote his "whistleblower" complaint for him. Thats not relevant in your view? 

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Of course. Why make folks confront the speciousness of their ideas. I notice you cant or dont answer a number of the questions.

 

Really. That presupposes that: a) you know exactly what Vindman said, when a transcript hasnt been released and b), you take the position that issues of bias, prejudice and crediblity of the witnesses are irrelvant in an impeachment. Is that what you are contending.

 

Hypothetical: lets say that the "whistleblower" is subpoenaed and testifies as follows: that he works for the Dems, that he hates Trump and that Schiffs staff wrote his "whistleblower" complaint for him. Thats not relevant in your view? 

Correct. Impeachment is political. How many times do you need to be told. Jeez.

 

Here this may help.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-basics-what-to-know-about-the-process-11570661211

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I too am a lawyer. But a barrister. Which concerns me as you dont seem to have an understanding of congress power.

 Well Im concerned with your lack of understanding of the law in general in the USA, or even the common law.

 

And its not the power that concerns me, its the excersize of it.

 

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes if they want to impeach for a combover they can.

And there it is in a nutshell. There are no high crimes and misdeameanors, there is nothing more than sore losers who cant win an election tantruming. How low the Dems have sunk. And whats worse, they have not only tossed away the constituion and tradition, but guaranteed a Trump reelection and loss of the house.

[RideJocky]

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its called an investigation. Remind me how long bengazi investigation was?

but-but-but Hillary. 
 

Please try to stay on topic.

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Correct. Impeachment is political. How many times do you need to be told. Jeez

I wonder how the Senate is going to react to that LOL. The Dems made a big mistake in this process, and you are even seeing cracks in the Democratic Media over it, as they realize that there is no there there and the Senate is going to toss it out...and I bet some vulnerable Dems join their Republican counterparts.

 

But OK dude, this is tiresome. Get back to me in November 2020 when Trump is relected.