House Judiciary Committee Officially Votes To Impeach President Donald Trump

  
By:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  247 comments

House Judiciary Committee Officially Votes To Impeach President Donald Trump

The House Judiciary Committee officially voted to report two articles of impeachment to the full House for a final vote next week.  Trump is accused of Abuse Of Power and Obstruction Of Congress. 

The full House is expected to vote next week and then the impeachment charges will be sent to the Senate for a trial shortly after New Years. 

Previously, 500 of the nations law professors and legal scholars had offered a joint opinion that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. 

“There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress,” the group of professors wrote. “His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/more-than-500-law-professors-say-trump-committed-impeachable-conduct/2019/12/06/35259c16-183a-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    2 months ago

I have heard that conservatives are complaining that the committee was forced to come back to vote this morning instead of taking the vote late last night. One of them called Nadler "Stalinesque".

Obviously this was done so as to make it breaking news.  They finished late last night and the story would have waited 8 or 9 hours to get widespread media attention.

If Trump had done something similar his fans would be talking about how brilliant the move was. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
Obviously this was done so as to make it breaking news. 

Do you actually believe that JR?

They finished late last night and the story would have waited 8 or 9 hours to get widespread media attention.

It would have been the first thing people saw and or heard when they woke up in the morning.   It would have gotten and will continue to get media attention 24x7 until Pelosi has the vote in the full house.

I'll submit that the only reason it was delayed is because Nadler was literally having trouble keeping his eyes open any longer.  It was a farce of a show going in and was a full blown Keystone Kop circus coming out.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    2 months ago

I think John’s right,

the only reason for the vote’s delay  was because it was too late to make the evening news last night. It was a ratings stunt.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.1    2 months ago
It was a ratings stunt.

Then it must have been networks paying him off.   Regardless of when it happened, it would have been and will continue to be on every news outlet until it gets to the full house for another charade.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    2 months ago
I'll submit that the only reason it was delayed is because Nadler was literally having trouble keeping his eyes open any longer.

That, plus there were bored committee members watching golf, playing online games, and IMing people. 

  It was a farce of a show going in and was a full blown Keystone Kop circus coming out.

79771317_10220323523547764_2587789530383

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

The Congressional Democrats are a national disgrace and embarrassment, and rapidly becoming the laughing stock of the entire civilized world.

They should be ashamed of this sad shitshow. It now appears the voters will make them don dunce caps and stand in the corner.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.1  loki12  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 months ago

Boris Johnson, who the left wrote off just crushed the liberals in the UK, that ass whooping is going to look gentle compared to what Nancy is going to bring  to her party.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.2  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 months ago
rapidly becoming the laughing stock of the entire civilized world.

That's your idol Trump. Every intelligent person laughs their ass off at him.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.3  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.2.2    2 months ago
Every intelligent person laughs their ass off at him.

That explains why the liberals appear to be so miserable all the time, Maybe they should educate themselves?

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
1.2.4  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 months ago

We as they say, let them BRING IT ON!  We are ready to acquit and dismiss out of hand. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
One of them called Nadler "Stalinesque".

The shitty shebang really did have an eerie tone of Soviet style politics and how the KGB did its dreadful business.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

You forgot to mention that they found on two counts and you know full well this will be dead on arrival when voted on in the Senate so all the drama the Democrats have created will be totally for nothing because the Senate just will not vote to convict. The progressive liberal left just cannot seem to get it through their heads that impeachment by the House just does nor guarantee removal from office by the Senate! Of he two presidents impeached in U.S. history, both remained in office and completed their terms.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.1  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4    2 months ago

What the Senate will do is irrelevant to what actions the House takes. Ask Newt. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @1.4.1    2 months ago

Nice try but no cigar. House cannot trump (no pun intended) the Senate and you know that.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.4.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4.2    2 months ago
Nice try but no cigar. House cannot trump (no pun intended) the Senate and you know that.

That's not how it works.  Neither the House or the Senate can "trump" each other.  They each have their own jobs to do.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.4.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.4.3    2 months ago

I never said the Senate could could teump the House, but in essence we are in agreement.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.4.5  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.4    2 months ago

Exactly. It's all as John just said, a publicity stunt. Unfortunately it's a bad play that will go the opposite direction in the long run. Pelosi knows the Senate won't go through with it, so it can only be for the headlines and bad polls.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.6  XDm9mm  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.4.5    2 months ago
Pelosi knows the Senate won't go through with it, so it can only be for the headlines and bad polls.

Pelosi is trying desperately to fend off the 'Squad' and their threats of putting any and all Democrats that don't vote to impeach into primary battles in their home districts.

What Pelosi was hoping for, a massive upswing in approval for impeachment has gone in the opposite direction.  One must surmise that Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler both lied to her with their constant bleating that they had seen the evidence with their own eyes.  (They simply neglected to note that was after they snorted some crack.)

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.4.7  r.t..b...  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.4.5    2 months ago
the Senate won't go through with it

Doing so without calling witnesses the opposition requests, and thus doing the exact thing they accused the Democrats of doing in committee. After he is impeached, the actual 'trial' will begin. When the majority has openly admitted they will work in coordination with the accused, any semblance of conducting a fair and impartial trial is lost. It only makes this theater of the absurd more ludicrous. Ask for a vote on day one, Mr. McConnell, saving us from weeks of interminable bloviating when the results are already known.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.8  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @1.4.7    2 months ago
Ask for a vote on day one, Mr. McConnell, saving us from weeks of interminable bloviating when the results are already known.

We should have asked that of Pelosi.  She and the Democrats have put this country through two and a half years of nonsense with nothing to show for it.  It was after all Nancy Pelosi that said the other day in response to a question of why so fast, she admitted that it has been going on for 2 1/2 years.

It was a foregone conclusion that the vitriolic hatred of Donald Trump by the vast majority of the left and essentially any and all federal elected Democrats would have the end result of impeachment. 

So please save us the admonitions of one side bad, one side good.   It's politics and the Democrats jumped before they knew what they were jumping into. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.4.9  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.8    2 months ago
So please save us the admonitions of one side bad, one side good.

One side doing their Constitutional duty to hold accountable the executive branch for soliciting interference from foreign entities in influencing our electoral process (all names and parties deleted to focus on the facts at hand) while the other side obfuscates by decrying the process while willfully ignoring the crime. Assigning 'bad' or 'good' is but partisan polemics. This is a case of right or wrong in context of the Constitutional responsibilities of the Legislative branch and the Constitutional requirements of the Executive branch. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.4.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  r.t..b... @1.4.7    2 months ago
Ask for a vote on day one,

that would not be near as effective as using the forum to investigate the investigators and also show who is the real quid pro joe.

question everything said in the house and those who said it.

now that would be fun enough :)

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.4.11  r.t..b...  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.4.10    2 months ago
question everything said in the house and those who said it.

If the focus was on the former, the Senate would be conducting an actual trial by investigating what was said in the House in trying to ascertain the truth. But alas, the focus will be on the latter and thus, not conducting a trial on the accused, but excoriating the accuser and even worse, in openly admitted duplicity with the defendant. Surreal.

 
 
 
CometRider
1.5  CometRider  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

The House Judiciary Committee officially voted to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.1  Ozzwald  replied to  CometRider @1.5    2 months ago
The House Judiciary Committee officially voted to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States.

Just like the Republicans did with Clinton?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.5.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.1    2 months ago
Just like the Republicans did with Clinton?

Hardly.   Clinton was found guilty of perjury and has even lost his law license for that little FELONY.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.3  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.5.2    2 months ago

Clinton was found guilty of perjury and has even lost his law license for that little FELONY.

Not by the House he wasn't.

 
 
 
loki12
1.5.4  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.3    2 months ago

Sigh.....................

Article 1.

willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee

The house can't find anybody "guilty" but they sure as hell impeached him for perjury. This was one of the articles approved by the house. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.5.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.3    2 months ago
Not by the House he wasn't.

Maybe you should review your history before you post ignorance.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton , the 42nd president of the United States , for " high crimes and misdemeanors ". The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice . The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky . The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report , a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee . [1] On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson , who was impeached in 1868 ) [a] when the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication . A trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal. [3]

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Oh, you can play all the word salad games you want, but to hopefully ward that off a bit I'll submit this:

per·ju·ry

/ˈpərj(ə)rē/

noun

  • 1. the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation: "he claimed two witnesses at his trial had committed perjury "

lying under oath   =  perjury

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.6  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.5.5    2 months ago
Maybe you should review your history before you post ignorance.

Maybe you should review the 3 branches of the government. 

Impeachment is political in nature, not criminal.  Clinton wasn't, and couldn't have been found "guilty" of anything by the House.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.6  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

The total number of lawyers in the United States has seen little increase in the last few years; in 2019, there were 1.35 million lawyers in the U.S.

Soooo - 500 Dem lawyers out of 1.35 million total lawyers means that jjjjjjjuuuuuuusssssstttttttt a little bit of under .000000004% "believe" he should be impeached.

Wow - what overwhelming power those 500 must have.  Oh yeah - most of them are now Congressional members.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  1stwarrior @1.6    2 months ago
Oh yeah - most of them are now Congressional members.

Shhhh....   you're not supposed to divulge that DIRTY little secret!!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

It's the Committee vote. It was strictly along party lines 23 to 17. It now goes to the full House. That's the vote that will separate the dems in safe districts from the moderates who won the House for you. Shall we call it separating the men from the boys?  BTW; you can expect 0 Republican votes. They are united like never before!

 
 
 
JBB
2  JBB    2 months ago

Trump IS Toast...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @2    2 months ago
Trump IS Toast...

And he'll be laughing all the way back to the White House on inauguration day 2021.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @2    2 months ago

Impeached...probably, depends how many freshman Democrats defect.

Removed from office....never.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.1  loki12  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    2 months ago

The only thing that will be bi-partisan about the vote will be to NOT impeach......The turds that the democrat party has become are now circling the bowl.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2    2 months ago

Yep, the Dems can scream impeachment and howl at the moon all they want. Impeachment still never guarantees removal from office. There will be a lot of angry progressive leftist liberal heads imploding when the Senate votes not to convict. Not to mention a probable large defection from the Democrat ranks. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JBB @2    2 months ago
Trump IS Toast

the only people hurt by that impeachment show is the bidens... LOL

  • trump will not be pushed from office.
  • trump will be re-elected. 

if that's toast?  it has strawberry jelly on top and tastes really good.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    2 months ago
House Judiciary Committee Officially Votes To Impeach President Donald Trump

WRONG

The House Judiciary Committee simply voted to approve ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT.   They did not and CANNOT vote to impeach the President.

If you're going to seed something, at least make sure it's accurate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @3    2 months ago

So, did they vote to let him go? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.1  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 months ago

No, they voted to submit the articles to the house. like any other bill that comes out of committee. anyone with a basic understanding of civics would understand that.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 months ago
So, did they vote to let him go? 

No they did not.  They simply voted to send to the FULL House of Representatives what they THINK will be sufficient to formally impeach him.   And then the Senate will tell them to fuck off.

See how that works JR? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @3    2 months ago
If you're going to seed something, at least make sure it's accurate.

It's not even a seed. There's no link to the original article that John blockquoted. I even searched the headline, and there isn't a match to his introduction.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2    2 months ago

I even searched using the headline, and there isn't a match to his introduction ... especially what he "quoted".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2    2 months ago

It's not a seed ace. Ask for your money back from detective school. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    2 months ago
It's not a seed ace. Ask for your money back from detective school. 

Who, pray tell, did you quote in your introduction? Here it is:

“There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress,” the group of professors wrote. “His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.”
 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    2 months ago
Who, pray tell, did you quote in your introduction? 

Imaginery friend?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    2 months ago

A link to the source of the quote has now been added to the article.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.6  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.5    2 months ago
A link to the source of the quote has now been added to the article.

Good to know. Thanks, sandy. Unfortunately, WaPo is subscription-only, so some/many of us cannot read the full article.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.6    2 months ago

Yet if you were actually curious about the statement, you could have used the google machine and searched the quote. 

https://medium.com/@legalscholarsonimpeachment/letter-to-congress-from-legal-scholars-6c18b5b6d1168

BTW, the list of signatories is now @ 854. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.8  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @3.2.7    2 months ago
Yet if you were actually curious about the statement, you could have used the google machine and searched the quote. 

You're a little late with your personal jab, Dulay, and you are wrong. I wanted to read the article from which John copied/pasted the headline and block quote. sandy and John corrected everything long before you made comment 3.2.7 .

BTW ... just some friendly advice: Google and Bing are known to collect large amounts of personal data. Although it's not perfect, Duck Duck Go is much safer. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.8    2 months ago
You're a little late with your personal jab, Dulay, and you are wrong. I wanted to read the article from which John copied/pasted the headline and block quote. sandy and John corrected everything long before you made comment 3.2.7 .

Actually, you didn't ask for an article, you asked WHO was being quoted. 

Who, pray tell, did you quote in your introduction?

I provided a link to WHO was being quoted. 

You're welcome. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    2 months ago

Previously, 500 of the nations law professors and legal scholars had offered a joint opinion that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. 

“There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress,” the group of professors wrote. “His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.”

I quoted the joint opinion of the 500 law professors. I thought that was obvious.  Who did you think I was quoting? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.11  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.10    2 months ago
I quoted the joint opinion of the 500 law professors. I thought that was obvious.  Who did you think I was quoting? 

When I posted my comment, you had not yet cited your source. Even though I can't read WaPo articles because they are subscription-only, thank you for finally including your source.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
3.2.12  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.8    2 months ago

So is Good Gopher. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
3.2.13  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.10    2 months ago

An idiot.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XDm9mm @3    2 months ago

The House can only recommend impeachment to the Senate. Only the Senate can convict and remove a sitting president from office. The left just cannot seem to comprehend that.🤣

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3    2 months ago
The House can only recommend impeachment to the Senate.

Nope. The House impeaches, the Senate convicts. 

Clinton was impeached, Jackson was impeached. Period full stop. 

Do YOU comprehend that?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.3.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @3.3.1    2 months ago
Only the Senate can convict

Appears to be what he said. 

That wasn't hard to comprehend.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.3.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @3.3.1    2 months ago
Nope. The House impeaches, the Senate convicts. 

That's what Ed said in his comment 3.3 :

The House can only recommend impeachment to the Senate. Only the Senate can convict and remove a sitting president from office.
 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.4  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @3.3.2    2 months ago

He said this too:

The House can only recommend impeachment to the Senate.

That is false. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.3    2 months ago
That's what Ed said in his comment 3.3 

Nope. 

The House can only recommend impeachment
The House impeaches

Not the same. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.3.1    2 months ago

They both remained in office despite impeachment because the Senate would not vote to convict. Both were eventually exonerated. Do you comprehend that?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.3.4    2 months ago

Okay, I admit I was wrong on that account. Still does not change the fact that only the Senate can convict and remove a sitting president. Or do you dispute that as well?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.6    2 months ago
They both remained in office despite impeachment because the Senate would not vote to convict.

Good. You've at least admitted the obvious that the House CAN and DOES impeach. 

Both were eventually exonerated.

Oh please DO forward that opinion to your fellow travelers. They seem to be of the opinion that Clinton was found guilty of perjury and obstruction. They'll be aghast to learn that Clinton was exonerated. 

Do you comprehend that?

Yes, I comprehend that you've back peddled. Good to see reality hit. 

BTFW, I for one believe that acquittal doesn't equal exoneration. But hey, you be you. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.3.9  katrix  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.6    2 months ago
Both were eventually exonerated

Unfortunately, Trump will be as well. Impeachment seems like nothing but a farce with our partisan system of government.

 
 
 
katrix
3.3.10  katrix  replied to  Dulay @3.3.8    2 months ago
BTFW, I for one believe that acquittal doesn't equal exoneration

That's an interesting point. I would have argued that it does - but then, we still say "Clinton was impeached" and his acquittal apparently doesn't change that fact. Impeached in the House, acquitted in the Senate.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.3.8    2 months ago
ey'll be aghast to learn that Clinton was exonerated. 

Cool. Can't wait for you to start proclaiming  that Trump was exonerated of all charges once the Senate trial ends. .

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.3.8    2 months ago

It is onviouscthat being conciliatory to some people on NT is a total waste of time. I owned up to a mistake I made and had it thrown back in my face. Speaks volumes about you. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.13  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.3.8    2 months ago

What a total load of crap you are using the leftist time honored tradition of making a argument with yourself telling people what they believe or know.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.3.14  KDMichigan  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.12    2 months ago

I could comprehend what you said, but hey feel like you did your civic duty today giving Dulay a gotcha. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.7    2 months ago
Okay, I admit I was wrong on that account.

Good. 

Still does not change the fact that only the Senate can convict and remove a sitting president. Or do you dispute that as well?

I never disputed that in the first place, why would I do it now? 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.11    2 months ago

Obtuse. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.17  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.12    2 months ago
It is onviouscthat being conciliatory to some people on NT is a total waste of time. I owned up to a mistake I made and had it thrown back in my face. Speaks volumes about you. Have a nice day.

You weren't 'conciliatory' nor did you own up to a mistake in your 3.3.7 comment, which is what I replied to.

Take umbrage it you must, I care not. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.18  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.3.13    2 months ago
What a total load of crap you are using the leftist time honored tradition of making a argument with yourself telling people what they believe or know.

[delete]

I didn't tell anyone what they believe or know. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.19  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.3.18    2 months ago

Sure you did read your post .

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.21  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.3.19    2 months ago

Did you have a point? 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.22  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.3.21    2 months ago

He most certainly did. You are just unable or unwilling to recognize it.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.23  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.22    2 months ago

Well WTF was it? Spit it out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.24  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.3.23    2 months ago

Why bother? You'll just deny it anyways!

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.25  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @3.3.23    2 months ago

My point is you don't know what people are thinking and what they know about the Clinton impeachment. You tell people what they believe and then argue against your perception of what they believe. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @3.3.25    2 months ago

Seems like a few have adopted that strategy----tell you what you believe and make like you stated such, then argue that instead of what you ACTUALLY state.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.27  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.26    2 months ago

I didn't tell people my race on this site until after being called a racist and Nazi a few hundred times.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Dulay @3.3.23    2 months ago

Texan already answered exactly what I would have so you're just going to have to deal with that. Sounds like you are getting a little testy and frustrated here.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.3.29  bugsy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.28    2 months ago
Sounds like you are getting a little testy and frustrated here.

Well, that is what normally happens when one constantly loses.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
3.3.30  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Dulay @3.3.1    2 months ago

When was Jackson impeached?  My history books don’t mention that gem.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.3.31  Gordy327  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @3.3.30    2 months ago
When was Jackson impeached?

February 24, 1868.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.32  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.31    2 months ago
February 24, 1868

That would be Andrew Johnson.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.3.33  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.32    2 months ago

My mistake

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.3.34  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @3.3.30    2 months ago

I think he means Andrew JOHNSON , not Andrew JACKSON.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.35  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.33    2 months ago

No biggie. It was a group effort.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.3.36  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.35    2 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.38  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.3.25    2 months ago
My point is you don't know what people are thinking and what they know about the Clinton impeachment. You tell people what they believe and then argue against your perception of what they believe. 

Then my point would have to be that you obviously have an issue with understanding what the words 'seem to' mean. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.39  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.28    2 months ago

So seems like and sounds like and seems to....

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.3.40  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.11    2 months ago
that Trump was exonerated of all charges once the Senate trial ends

the word your looking for is:  acquitted

 
 
 
bugsy
4  bugsy    2 months ago

I would like to thank Nancy Pelosi, Adam "shifty" Schiff, Gerald Nadler and all the democrats in the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees for ensuring President Trump a landslide second term.

 
 
 
Sunshine
5  Sunshine    2 months ago

When you can't beat them fair and square impeach them..

384

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    2 months ago

Not exactly news, is it? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago
Not exactly news, is it?

Not at all. The House will impeach...The Senate will not convict...and Trump will run for re-election. It has been a forgone conclusion from the start...but still an investigation worthy of the offenses committed. He will join the annals of history as only the fourth to face impeachment. We all may need a fifth to get through the coming election. bottoms up......

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1    2 months ago
He will join the annals of history as only the fifth to be impeached.

The third.  Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and now Trump (probably).

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1    2 months ago
He will join the annals of history as only the fourth to be impeached.

Not a done deal yet.  Entire House still needs to vote.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.1    2 months ago

...duly noted and edited as req'd. Maybe I need that fifth before the proceedings even begin. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.4  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.3    2 months ago

Only 2 democrats voted against opening the impeachment proceedings.  If more than 2 vote against the formal impeachment vote it will prove what worthless POS, Schitt and Nadler are.  they will have held multiple hearings and managed to convince more democrats that trump did nothing wrong. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.5  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1    2 months ago

Hello razing ..

.but still an investigation worthy of the offenses committed. 

I watched all of the hearings, really listened to the testimony .. there just seemed like so much hearsay and spectulation.  .. an individual claiming to have overheard a phone call was allowed to testify and the guy talking to the president on the call supposedly overheard recalls nothing other than there was quid pro quo .. after he amended his testimony -- ??? 

What the president did was not acceptable .. but is it really an impeachable offence ,, ?  ... is where I find myself on the issue..

Of course Trump will run for reelection, he already is .. I am concerned he may be reelected because of the (D)'s intense focus on impeachment - it is indeed scary!

Good to see you razing .. Merry Christmas if I do not see you before said holiday : )

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.5    2 months ago
Merry Christmas if I do not see you before said holiday : )

To you and yours as well, Colour.

As far as the impeachment and its' outcome..time will tell, history will judge, and we'll all move on to the next thing. We should step back and be appreciative of the important things (and I know you are) and take everything else for what it's worth. A selfless sense of discernment should be the gift we all hope to discover under the tree this year.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.5    2 months ago
What the president did was not acceptable .. but is it really an impeachable offence ,, ?  ... is where I find myself on the issue..

So what do you suggest as a penalty for those 'unacceptable' actions? No desert tonight? 

Of course Trump will run for reelection, he already is .. I am concerned he may be reelected because of the (D)'s intense focus on impeachment - it is indeed scary!

What is 'indeed scary'? That Trump will be re-elected of that the Democrats are focused on their jobs? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.5    2 months ago
I am concerned he may be reelected because of the (D)'s intense focus on impeachment - it is indeed scary!

There you go, dont blame the scumbag, blame the Democrats. 

That seems to be the way.  Trump is blown about  by forces of incompetence he cannot control but only benefit from.

rofl

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.9  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.6    2 months ago
We should step back and be appreciative of the important things (and I know you do) and take everything else for what it's worth.

Only way to stay sane is to keep ones priorities in focus .. I am not going to live long enough to know what history thinks about the actions of Congress or what it thinks about the current president or the past 3 or 4 presidents for that matter (but I can speculate : )

I love my country, the US is strong .. President Trump will not be the downfall or even the crippling of America … the only way to topple her is from within - partisanship will crush a democracy!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.11  Jasper2529  replied to  Dulay @6.1.7    2 months ago
Democrats are focused on their jobs? 

Congress' job is to legislate, enact and pass laws, and to represent Americans. House Democrats have solely focused on impeaching Trump since 2017. Pelosi said so herself.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.12  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @6.1.7    2 months ago
So what do you suggest as a penalty for those 'unacceptable' actions?

Not impeachment .. you can spank him if you like....

That Trump will be re-elected of that the Democrats are focused on their jobs? 

Think my original comment answers your questions .. nearly 3 years of desperate attempts to find an impeachable offense is not being 'focus on their jobs'

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.9    2 months ago
partisanship will crush a democracy!

...the double-edged sword that inevitably cuts both ways.

It will take an extraordinary leader, or even better, a new generation of leaders to shake us out of our collective dysfunction. The kind of public servants who will see the folly of our ways, will elevate the discourse, can agree to disagree without enmity, and are courageous and confident enough to propose public policy knowing you will never get all you want, but are willing to compromise to achieve the best outcome for the majority of the citizenry. Time for a viable third party to fill the sanity gap.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.8    2 months ago
There you go, dont blame the scumbag, blame the Democrats. 

What in the holy hell are you talking about? Blame the scumbag himself for being reelected? So what does she need to blame him for? That's what he is in it for. jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

Here is what Colour typed (which you referenced)

"I am concerned he may be reelected because of the (D)'s intense focus on impeachment - it is indeed scary!"

So just what in the hell would blaming him do????????

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.11    2 months ago
Congress' job is to legislate, enact and pass laws, and to represent Americans. 

HR 775 is legislation. 

House Democrats have solely focused on impeaching Trump since 2017.

Unless of course you count the 4,703 Democratic bills proposed in the 115th Congress or the 4,867 proposed in the 116th. 

Pelosi said so herself.

Bullshit. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.11    2 months ago

We're talking about the Democratic Oversight committee.   It's their job.

This 'president ' is not above the law

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.17  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.13    2 months ago
. Time for a viable third party to fill the sanity gap.

Hear Here!!!

Great comment razing .. thank you for so eloquently expressing your thoughts!  Buttigieg seems to grasp the concept to which you speak -- but...……..!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.18  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.17    2 months ago
Buttigieg seems to grasp the concept to which you speak -- but...……..!

Why not? You saw the potential early on...a generational change may be just what this country needs. An unapologetic yet contrite intellect, with the gravitas and eloquence and sense of duty that should appeal to every voter, now more than ever. It could happen.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.12    2 months ago
Not impeachment .. you can spank him if you like....

According to Stormy, that wouldn't be a penalty, it would be a turn on...

Think my original comment answers your questions .. nearly 3 years of desperate attempts to find an impeachable offense is not being 'focus on their jobs'

Aren't the over 9000 bills that they've proposed in that time period part of focusing on their jobs? 

How about the 55 bills proposed by Democrats that became law this year alone?

BTW, that's almost double the amount of Republican bills that became law in 2019. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.1    2 months ago

Then there's Nixon, who resigned before impeachment, as that was a certainty.

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.21  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.11    2 months ago
Congress' job is to legislate, enact and pass laws, and to represent Americans

Congress' job is also to provide checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and the GOP has prevented that from happening. It doesn't help that Trump is appointing partisan people to jobs that shouldn't be partisan, like Barr as the AG.

BTW, the Dems have legislated quite a  bit, but the bills are all DOA because McConnell refuses to even look at them. Then he blames the Dems for being obstructionist and his idiotic base believes him. McConnell has turned out to be quite the unpatriotic scumbag.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.22  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.18    2 months ago

Haha - I guess I was pushing his candidacy before anyone (me included) could even pronounce his name.  

I like Buttigieg, def do not see eye to eye with him - but I see what he could / does bring to the table .. his influence would be positive - it has been a while since I cast a ballot for president .. 4 times I have voted 'None of the above' .. I think I am due : )

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.23  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @6.1.21    2 months ago
Congress' job is also to provide checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and the GOP has prevented that from happening.

Did you not hear about a vote today?  Exactly how has the GOP prevented anything?  Specifics please, not the Democrat talking points that are you regurgitate.  

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.24  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @6.1.19    2 months ago

It is not the quantity of bills passed that shows success, it is the quality .. we have enough laws, starting to enforce and funding the ones we already have on the books is what Congress needs to be doing - in my opinion

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.25  KDMichigan  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.24    2 months ago
It is not the quantity of bills passed that shows success, it is the quality .. we have enough laws

That is a major flaw of the left, they think laws being passed is progress. The sad part is the house issued more subpoenas than Bills passed, I'm sure that makes Dulay proud too.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.26  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.16    2 months ago
We're talking about the Democratic Oversight committee.   It's their job.

"We" are? I don't know who your "we" are, but most of us are discussing Nadler's Judiciary Committee, Schiff's Intelligence Committee, and how they formulated and voted on unprecedented, partisan, and unsubstantiated articles of impeachment.

When did the House Oversight Committee become involved in Trump's impeachment? When did this committee hold hearings? Who were the witnesses? Please be specific by providing details supported by facts.

This 'president ' is not above the law

Indeed, Tessy. Democrats and their complicit MSM have repeated this for 2-3 years. How ironically hypocritical that they never noticed the crimes committed between Jan 2009 - Jan 2017. But, that's a discussion for another day.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.27  Jasper2529  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.24    2 months ago
It is not the quantity of bills passed that shows success, it is the quality

Exactly. Passing a bill to give an honorary name to a local post office, library, or street isn't much of an accomplishment.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1.28  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @6.1.21    2 months ago
but the bills are all DOA because McConnell refuses to even look at them.

Harry Reid was a good teacher!  jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.29  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.14    2 months ago
What in the holy hell are you talking about? Blame the scumbag himself for being reelected? So what does she need to blame him for? That's what he is in it for.

Here is what Colour typed (which you referenced)

"I am concerned he may be reelected because of the (D)'s intense focus on impeachment - it is indeed scary!"

She said it is scary. Who should we blame for Trump's re-election being scary? The Democrats ? The fact that his re-election is scary is on him and those that might vote for him. Period. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
6.1.30  Colour Me Free  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.29    2 months ago
The fact that his re-election is scary is on him and those that might vote for him. Period. 

Democrats in Congress have created a tone def public .. shutting out the noise, thus leading to uniformed voters .. The public hearings proved nothing (not everyone is consumed by all things anti Trump)

You have noticed that the presidential candidates are not discussing impeachment, they are talking about defeating Trump at the polls... there is a reason for that...

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.24    2 months ago
It is not the quantity of bills passed that shows success, it is the quality ..

Well gee, it looks like the GOP and Trump thought that the Democrat's bills were of sufficient quality to pass them and sign them into law Colour. 

we have enough laws, starting to enforce and funding the ones we already have on the books is what Congress needs to be doing - in my opinion

You know that they have to pass legislation [laws] to do that right? 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.32  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.25    2 months ago
The sad part is the house issued more subpoenas than Bills passed, I'm sure that makes Dulay proud too.

You are clueless, both about how many subpoenas vs bills the House has passed and about what makes me proud. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.33  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.1.5    2 months ago

Hello Colour Me! Been a while. Hope all is well with you and yours up in the great North Country.  As usual, you and I are on the same page here and agree with you whole heartedly. The Democrats have just pushed and focused so hard on the impeachment thing with their sheer hatred of Trump, they just cannot see the potential harm they have brought to their own party. IMO this will definitely come back to bite them in the posterior. Dear lady, I wish you the best and happiest of holidays.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.1.21    2 months ago

'Congress' job is also to provide checks and balances on the Executive Branch, and the GOP has prevented that from happening. It doesn't help that Trump is appointing partisan people to jobs that shouldn't be partisan, like Barr as the AG.

BTW, the Dems have legislated quite a  bit, but the bills are all DOA because McConnell refuses to even look at them. Then he blames the Dems for being obstructionist and his idiotic base believes him. McConnell has turned out to be quite the unpatriotic scumbag.'

Moscow Mitch is yet another of Putin's little bitch(es).  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.35  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.1    2 months ago

Nixon would have been the fourth if he had not resigned.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago
Not exactly news, is it? 

Of course not. Pelosi punted her impeachment ball to Schiff and he punted it to Nadler. Now, Nadler has punted the ball back to Pelosi. Their 3+ year game looking for "impeachment charges" varied. Here are 98 wacky reasons why the left thinks Trump should be impeached:

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached

All they're left with is "abuse of power" and "obstructing Congress", neither of which any of their "witnesses" were able to prove with concrete facts and first hand evidence.

These far left Democrats have created a stain on our nation that will not be forgotten.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.2    2 months ago

That's quite a list. This last one - 

President Donald Trump seeking legal recourse in U.S. courts amounts "in and of itself [to] obstruction of justice."

Is. Insane.

The Democrats have changed the meaning of the phrase "obstruction of justice" to mean "not willingly giving us everything we want."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.2    2 months ago
Here are 98 wacky reasons why the left thinks Trump should be impeached:

Here are some of the words used in the "98" . Please tell us why you find them "wacky". 

 "creating chaos and division"

"collusion"

 "he regards himself as above the law"

disclosing classified info to Russia

"mentally unstable"

"disrespecting and disparaging women"

 "putting the health and safety of Americans at risk"

 being an "inciter" of "ethnocentrism"

 "undermining the federal judiciary"

"threatening the media"

 being "unfit" for office

violating the "emoluments clause"

-

what is "wacky" about any of that? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.1    2 months ago
The Democrats have changed the meaning of the phrase "obstruction of justice" to mean "not willingly giving us everything we want."

Trump did not allow anyone to testify to the impeachment committees and did not provide them with any documents.  No people , no documents. 

The only ones who testified were those who ignored Trumps telling them not to. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.3    2 months ago

So what? There is precedent for this. You go to court and let a judge (or justices) figure it out. You don't impeach over a thing like that. Trump is willing to use the judicial process. By definition that can't be obstruction of justice.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 months ago
what is "wacky" about any of that?

The fact that they're all either untrue, highly subjective, or not valid grounds for impeachment.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.4    2 months ago
So what? There is precedent for this. You go to court and let a judge (or justices) figure it out. You don't impeach over a thing like that. Trump is willing to use the judicial process. By definition that can't be obstruction of justice.

There is overwhelming evidence in court transcripts, that Trump is NOT willing to subject himself or his regime to the judicial process. In fact, Trump's lawyers have argued that Trump, while in office, is immune to ANY kind of investigation much less a judicial process. 

THAT by definition is obstruction of justice. 

There are many more documented instances of Trump's obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. The OLC opinion precludes DOJ prosecutors from indicting Trump for  those crimes while he is in office. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.2.7  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 months ago
Please tell us why you find them "wacky". 

The "royal [majestic] we" ... nice!  

what is "wacky" about any of that? 

If anything on my list were fact-based, the House would have had unanimous agreement to impeach Trump. It's well-known that everything on the list is based upon opinions, hearsay, presumption, and/or innuendo.

Unfortunately, these are the same things upon which quite a number of everyday Trump-haters base their "facts". 

Please feel free to prove the list wrong using facts and legal evidence (citations) ... not opinion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.2.7    2 months ago
If anything on my list were fact-based, the House would have had unanimous agreement to impeach Trump. It's well-known that everything on the list is based upon opinions, hearsay, presumption, and/or innuendo.

Never mind. I try not to talk to brick walls. 

One day history will judge Trump supporters, and it will not be pretty. 

 
 
 
lib50
6.2.9  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.4    2 months ago
There is precedent for this. You go to court and let a judge (or justices) figure it out.

The jackass didn't assert a specific executive privilege, he just told everybody not to testify.  I see you are accepting the gop lies about 'process'. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.2.6    2 months ago
In fact, Trump's lawyers have argued that Trump, while in office, is immune to ANY kind of investigation much less a judicial process.  THAT by definition is obstruction of justice. 

You might want to look up actual definitions of obstruction of justice. Making an argument doesn’t qualify.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.10    2 months ago
Making an argument doesn’t qualify.

Yet Trump has devolved to having his lawyer send out proclamations. Trump presents no 'argument', he merely proclaims executive privilege over the cosmos. Court filings are inherently specific. It's impossible to litigate against a phantom claim. 

In short, Trump is obstructing EVERYTHING, which includes justice. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.2.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @6.2.6    2 months ago
THAT by definition is obstruction of justice.

NO! What that is, is Obstruction of Injustice.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.2.13  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @6.2.11    2 months ago

No

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.4    2 months ago

There's no precedent for a lot of what the Demscare doing, but that hasn't slowed them down any.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.15  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.14    2 months ago

And you think there is precedent for what trump is doing? Hell Giuliani was in Ukraine again and at the Whitehouse today.

Holy crap, do you all just turn a blind eye? He is still doing what he is being impeached for...

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.16  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.15    2 months ago

That’s because it isn’t an impeachable offense except in the minds of the retarded morons in the house dem caucus.

on a personal note, just once try to make a comment without telling someone what they think because you are obviously always wrong!

only posters that can’t make their point pull that bullshit, it’s intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @6.2.15    2 months ago

Did I say there was a precedent for Trump? No, I did not.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.18  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.16    2 months ago

What is dishonest is making this about me when it was not.

What is dishonest is acting like trump and his cohorts using another country to try to take down a rival is normal.

What is dishonest is the constant deflection and trying to blame others for what trump himself is doing.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.19  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.17    2 months ago

So you only hold one side to a standard?

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.20  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.18    2 months ago

Like Hillary working with Russia intelligence to compile the Steele dossier? And he never asked Ukraine to investigate joe Biden, just hunters illegal activity.

Do you think running for the presidency means joe Biden shouldn’t be investigated for his quid pro quo demand for aid?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.21  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @6.2.19    2 months ago

Again, did I say that? Please refrain from attempting to put your words in my mouth.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.22  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.20    2 months ago

What is really funny is that you all never attack the actual argument or what was said about trump. Instead pivot and try to go after, blame others.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.23  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.21    2 months ago

And yet you have not denied it. Only chastise me for bringing it up.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @6.2.23    2 months ago

Not something I though needed denying, but obviously you do.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.25  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.24    2 months ago

And yet you still can't do it.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.26  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.22    2 months ago

Why would we attack the ramblings of the low functioning dickheads in the DNC caucus? One of those retards asked a general if Guam would tip over due to our military, we laugh at those retards, they aren’t worth the effort to debunk their acid induced bull crap, there is even a democrat who is bailing the party because the stench is unbearable because of all the full depends of leadership.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.2.27  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @6.2.15    2 months ago
And you think there is precedent for what trump is doing? Giuliani was in Ukraine again and at the Whitehouse today.

If you're referring to the idea of a president sort of having his own man run point on international issues, there actually is precedent for that. Nixon, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson all had people like that.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.28  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.25    2 months ago

This is exactly what I was talking about, you want him to deny something he never said or claimed. Try again! From your posts you think trump is the greatest ever! 

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.29  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.26    2 months ago

I will say some attack the members of the DNC on a daily basis. Nothing knew.

That guy is changing parties because he doesn't think he can win again in his district.

Says a lot about him right there.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.30  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.27    2 months ago

So all these people had others, in foreign countries, trying to dig up dirt on their political rivals...

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.31  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.28    2 months ago

I only wanted him to answer a question. I thought it was a simple one.

He refused.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.32  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.29    2 months ago

You have no idea why he is changing, he is changing because he thinks the democrats in Congress are worthless communist dickheads. 

Biden commuted a quid pro quo and admitted it on tape. His only defense is senility. And the democrats have him leading? The stupid fucktard said he never questioned his son because he trusted his judgment? The same kid who got kicked out of the Navy for drug, use while fucking his brothers widow, and getting hookers pregnant? This is the democrats star? And you complain about trump? And you wonder why we are always laughing and you seem miserable?

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.33  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.32    2 months ago

[deleted] Constantly bending and twisting to defend him must take a toll.

By your standards of admitting to quid pro quo, trump would be just as guilty, if not more so.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.34  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.31    2 months ago

that’s bullshit and you know it. You didn’t ask a question, be honest and admit it. You made a statement and placed a question mark at the end. Intellectually dishonest, that’s why I don’t engage with you, generally, it’s not worth it. If it had been a question it would have said.

Do you....? But instead you framed it as a statement. 

So you... you have already answered the question because you can’t handle honest debate you make a statement he never said and then demand he defend it. Which is bullshit and petty IMHO

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.35  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.33    2 months ago

Show me the tape of trump saying if you don’t do X you don’t get Y. That is exactly what Biden said. Good luck, even that retard Adam Schitt could provide it.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.36  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.33    2 months ago

Trump supporters miserable? More projection, I don’t see trump supporters needing therapy puppies and safe spaces, and whining like little bitches  on CNN and MSNBC daily.  Another failure.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.37  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.34    2 months ago

That is what you are going with?

Either way that was between me and him so it would be wise to not butt in and start making accusations.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.38  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.37    2 months ago

It’s 100 % accurate, and this is an open forum, so if you don’t like it, to bad.

so you think minority’s are inferior? 

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.39  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.38    2 months ago

WTF...Buzz off.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.40  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.39    2 months ago

That question is framed the exact same way as yours is, why won’t you answer? So you believe it’s true?

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.41  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.40    2 months ago

No, you are trying to find a new narrative to fit your mold.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.42  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.41    2 months ago

And yet you haven’t denied it, says a lot.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.43  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.42    2 months ago

Ok I will admit it. I think both sides should be held to the same standards.

See? Wasn't that hard...

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.44  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.43    2 months ago

That wasn’t my question, your avoidance has answered for me. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.45  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.44    2 months ago

All you offer is deflection. A what if or maybe that. Like I said a while ago, never once even stick to the topic at hand. Anything to change the narrative to what you want it to be.

The go to is attack other things, accuse others of things. It seems like a reflex.

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.46  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.2.45    2 months ago

Still no answer, I think we are done.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.47  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.2.46    2 months ago

You have been done as far as I am concerned.

An open book.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.48  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.2.20    2 months ago
[deleted]

On the phone call to Zelensky Trump specifically asks him to investigate JOE Biden. 

“There’s a lot talk about Biden’s son, that Biden (Joe) stopped the prosecutionand a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,”Trump said. Biden (Joe) went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/white-house-transcript-trump-asked-144510189.html

This is Trump specifically asking Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden. 

[deleted]

[Its sad.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.49  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.2.46    2 months ago
one last question, are you related to John Russell?

are you related to Elmer Fudd ? 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.50  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.2.35    2 months ago

512

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.51  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.49    2 months ago

No,  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.52  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @6.2.50    2 months ago

Morons here are given the benefit of the doubt.  There is a transcript, released by the White House itself, that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate JOE Biden, and yet we see time after time after time  MAGA types here deny it.  How the fuck can anyone deny it? it's in print , FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. 

I wish we didnt have to placate stupidty here, but it's not up to me. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.53  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.2.51    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.54  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.53    2 months ago

No,

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.55  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.52    2 months ago

I will explain it to you John but it’s obviously a hopeless endeavor because you are closed minded,

Trump asked them to investigate Hunter Biden, because the hooker fucking drug addled fool is corrupt, like his daddy, but the request was to continue the investigation that Biden admitted that he quid pro quo’d it to shut it down, he didn’t demand they investigate Biden Senior, again you won’t see this obvious fact because you can’t, which is sad, hate is worse than drugs for some.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.56  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.2.55    2 months ago

[deleted]

“There’s a lot talk about Biden’s son, that Biden (Joe) stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,” Trump said. “ Biden (Joe) went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/white-house-transcript-trump-asked-144510189.html

Trump is referring to JOE Biden in this passage. Joe Biden is the one accused of "stopping the prosecution", not Hunter. 

Everyone knows this. Why are you denying it?  Are you hoping to bamboozle everyone? 

Since you dont know what you are talking about, why are you even posting here? 

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.57  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.56    2 months ago

Yes he is, again hate is blinding you, Biden shut down the investigation into his drug addict sons corruption, period! Trump was asking them to reopen the corruption investigation into hunter! It’s perfectly clear that is what he is asking. Your hate blinds you.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.58  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @6.2.25    2 months ago

Okay, I deny I only hold one side to astandard. Does that make you happy now?

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.59  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.58    2 months ago

Actually yes. Yes it does. Thank you.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.60  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.2.57    2 months ago
Yes he is, again hate is blinding you, Biden shut down the investigation into his drug addict sons corruption, period!

Repeating the same gaslighting bullshit doesn't make it true. 

Trump was asking them to reopen the corruption investigation into hunter!

There is NO evidence that Ukraine ever had an open investigation into Hunter Biden. NONE. 

It’s perfectly clear that is what he is asking. Your hate blinds you.

It IS perfectly clear what Trump was asking for, yet your sycophancy blinds YOU. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.61  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.2.60    2 months ago

Yawn.....still nothing of value.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2.62  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @6.2.60    2 months ago
There is NO evidence that Ukraine ever had an open investigation into Hunter Biden. NONE. 

Yeah, we know.  Joe made it perfectly clear in a video that he got that shit shut down in a heartbeat.  Thanks for the inadvertent admission.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.63  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.2.62    2 months ago
Yeah, we know.  Joe made it perfectly clear in a video that he got that shit shut down in a heartbeat.  Thanks for the inadvertent admission.

Joe Biden didn't say a word about any kind of prosecutions or investigations and nothing about Burisma OR Hunter Biden in that video. 

Why post more gaslighting bullshit?

I find it disturbing that all too many here are utterly incapable of understanding plain English. Even more disturbing is that all too many think that just making shit up is an  acceptable form of interaction. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.64  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.2.61    2 months ago
Yawn.....still nothing of value.

Translation: You can't refute my comment. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.65  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.2.64    2 months ago

Yawn, still failing to add value!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.66  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @6.2.50    2 months ago

Is this the left winger talking points? 

Reads to me as the President wanted Ukraine to help the U.S. by investigating the corrupt Obama administration. Butt hurt liberals are the ones trying to read more into it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.67  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.66    2 months ago
Is this the left winger talking points? 

No. 

Reads to me as the President wanted Ukraine to help the U.S. by investigating the corrupt Obama administration.

Of course it does, even though Trump didn't say anything about corruption or Obama. 

Butt hurt liberals are the ones trying to read more into it. 

Yet you just read 'corrupt Obama administration' where it doesn't exist. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.2.68  loki12  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.66    2 months ago

It’s amazing to watch what might be considered semi-intelligent people make fools of themselves repeating the lies the media feeds them, these people actually believe Senile Sniffy Joe went to Ukraine and threatened to withhold a billion dollars to fire a prosecutor and stop an investigation that didn’t exist. It’s hysterical!!! These are the same people who bleated 17 intelligence agencies, after it was proven a lie, or bleated the dossier was true, then the FBI didn’t use it, Russia collusion, then Obstruction, Stormy Daniels, Taxes?

holy fuck it would by truly the most hysterical thing.....and then I remember that they can vote....and did for that racist shrew hitlery.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.69  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @6.2.67    2 months ago
Yet you just read 'corrupt Obama administration' where it doesn't exist. 

Well golly gee kinda like you posted something that doesn't exist ;;;;

256

 
 
 
The People's Fish
6.2.70  The People's Fish  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.69    2 months ago

Btfw don't be obtuse and prove it or I'll follow you around demanding an answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.71  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.2.68    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.72  Tessylo  replied to  The People's Fish @6.2.70    2 months ago

Why do you allow KD's off topic memes to stay?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.2.73  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  loki12 @6.2.65    2 months ago

Anything you add would just be denied or deflected anyway, so why bother?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.74  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.69    2 months ago

If I posted it, it exists. DUH. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.75  Dulay  replied to  The People's Fish @6.2.70    2 months ago

Still butt hurt about being called out I see.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.76  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 months ago
violating the "emoluments clause"

Why hasn't Trump been brought to task over it?  It is far past time to bust him for the violation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.77  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.76    2 months ago
Why hasn't Trump been brought to task over it?  It is far past time to bust him for the violation.

I know some Democrats tried to accuse him of violating that clause, but then the Democratic leadership, such as it is, chickened out.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.2.78  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.76    2 months ago
Why hasn't Trump been brought to task over it?  It is far past time to bust him for the violation.

That's a great question.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7  Raven Wing    2 months ago

Just my own opinion, but, I think we will see a similar result of the Impeachment as with Bill Clinton. Trump will be tried, but, not removed from office.

This does not mean he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with, just that it will be better for the American people to remove Trump by not re-electing him.

No matter how it turns out, the stain caused by Trump will forever remain on him and America. No matter what the Senate does, history will not treat Trump kindly, and he will be vilified throughout time as being the worst President who ever occupied the People's House, aka WH.

Some of it will be well deserved by Trumps own actions and words, and part of it will be the fault of those who chose to turn a blind eye to his more than obvious lack of qualifications for the job he actually did not really want to start with, and ran for the job mainly to promote his own reality show, The Apprentice.

It is like the old saying, "Careful what you wish for, you just might get it." And it may not be what you thought it would be.

JMOO

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Raven Wing @7    2 months ago
This does not mean he is not guilty of the crimes he has been charged with,

Would you care to explain what those "crimes" might actually be?

What Nadler and his crew came up with are nowhere to be found in any criminal code and are simply what they contrived charges to be as their feelings were hurt.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    2 months ago
Would you care to explain what those "crimes" might actually be?

I've been waiting for three years for someone ... anyone ... to state what Trump's impeachable "crimes" are and to provide constitutionally sound, legal evidence to support those claims. To date, zero ... nada.

 
 
 
charger 383
7.1.2  charger 383  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    2 months ago

he called them names and upset them so bad that some yelled at the sky

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.1.1    2 months ago

It is each person's responsibility to educate themselves, no one else's. If a person does not have the interest to educate themselves, then only they are the only one to blame. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.3    2 months ago
It is each person's responsibility to educate themselves, no one else's. If a person does not have the interest to educate themselves, then only they are the only one to blame. 

I'm well aware of this, Raven Wing. I've asked many people, and they don't have an answer based upon constitutional laws.

Perhaps you can document the constitutional laws President Trump violated that are impeachable crimes? Four well-respected constitutional lawyers couldn't, but perhaps you can.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.1.4    2 months ago
Perhaps you can document the constitutional laws President Trump violated that are impeachable crimes? Four well-respected constitutional lawyers couldn't, but perhaps you can.

Sorry....I am not your teacher here. Best if you look the information up yourself, then after I spend the time to look it up for you I won't have to have you tell me that the information I provide is of no value. Now might be a good time to review the Constitution to refresh your memory.

Good luck. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7.1.6  Jasper2529  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.5    2 months ago

So, you don't know what the impeachable crimes are either. Good to know.  jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.1.6    2 months ago

Yes I do. I watched the Impeachment proceedings, which obviously you either didn't do, or are merely trying to pull my chain to make an argument.

Sorry......not playing your game. Move along. Toodles!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.7    2 months ago
I watched the Impeachment proceedings,

I also watched the "impeachment proceedings" which I can summarize as a plethora of hearsay, innuendo, wishful thinking and vitriolic diatribes against President Trump all under the watchful gaze (when he wasn't nodding off and others were playing video games or watching golf shows) of Jerry Nadler.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.8    2 months ago

I am not at all interested in your attempt to try and start some kind of word game. I am here to learn, not engage in useless Troll games.

Have a great day. jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.7    2 months ago

In other words, you just blindly believed anything and everything the House Dems came up with. Okay, got it.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.10    2 months ago
In other words, you just blindly believed anything and everything the House Dems came up with

No, you ain't got it. Mainly as you don't want to. I don't, and won't, be led through the nose simply out of party loyalty as some do. I think for myself, do my own homework and look at all aspects of a situation and then make up my own mind.

And don't try and tell me what I think or what my own thoughts are when YOU don't have a clue what is in my own mind, just because that is what is in YOUR mind. 

I was asked what the charges were......NOT if I agreed with them or not. You just decided to try to do my thinking for me, and I do not in any way need you or anyone else to do that for me, unlike some here to only follow what their own party dictates.

So, go play with your good 'ol boys who like to talk in lock step with your party.

And.....since you seem to think you know that I am a Democrat, I am NOT, so don't try to pin that lie on me. It is your words, not mine.

Now go play with someone else who likes to play your games. Got it?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.11    2 months ago

Okay, I went a little overboard with that. My apologies.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.1.13  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.11    2 months ago
And don't try and tell me what I think

No one has to tell you we just have to look at what you post, it is that easy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.2    2 months ago

More than 500 legal scholars have signed on to an open letter asserting that President Trump committed “impeachable conduct” and that lawmakers would be acting well within their rights if they ultimately voted to remove him from office.

The signers are law professors and other academics from universities across the country, including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan and many others. The open letter was published online Friday by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.

“There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress,” the group of professors wrote. “His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that lawmakers would begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump, a day after the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from four constitutional scholars on the matter. Three law professors who were called for that hearing by Democrats argued that Trump’s behavior was impeachable, while one invited by Republicans argued that the process was moving too quickly.

Those who signed on to the letter said they “take no position on whether the President committed a crime.” Earlier this year, Protect Democracy gathered signatures for a similar letter, in which hundreds of former federal prosecutors signed on to a statement asserting that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against Trump — if he were not a sitting president.

“But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable,” the group of professors wrote. “Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public trust.”

The group noted in particular that Trump’s conduct seemed to be directed at affecting the results of the 2020 election, and thus it was not a matter that could be left to voters at the polls.

The impeachment inquiry has focused on what Democratic lawmakers say were Trump’s efforts to pressure his Ukrainian counterpart to announce an investigation into a potential 2020 rival, former vice president Joe Biden, in exchange for a White House meeting and the release of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid. Trump has rejected Democrats’ allegation that he engaged in any sort of corrupt quid pro quo.

“Put simply, if a President cheats in his effort at re-election, trusting the democratic process to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at all,” the professors wrote. “That is what impeachment is for.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/more-than-500-law-professors-say-trump-committed-impeachable-conduct/2019/12/06/35259c16-183a-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.15  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.14    2 months ago

I hope this forum doesnt continue down the path to becoming a stupidity factory. Recent days have not been encouraging along those lines. 

Abuse of power and betrayal of his oath of office ARE impeachable offenses.  There does not need to be a "crime" in the strictly legal sense. 

I get a kick out of all this hair pulling and ranting by the right here, screaming that Congress is over reaching by impeaching Trump.  

This guy, the most corrupt president in US history, has betrayed his oath of office just about every day of his three years in the job.

But the House has narrowed it down to this one scheme. And 500 legal experts say it is good enough. 

What is all the bitching from the right about again? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7.1.16  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.14    2 months ago

.00004% of the lawyer population really don't mean shyte John.

Nice try.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.17  author  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.16    2 months ago
00004% of the lawyer population really don't mean shyte John. Nice try.

Let's see the 500 law professors that think he is innocent.  The names are right on the tip of your tongue, right? 

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.18  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.17    2 months ago

The conservative professors are working and not making fools of themselves like the 500 retards on your meaningless list, who the fuck cares what 500 liberal douchebags have to say? 

HE will not get removed and Nadless and Adam Schittler will not be remembered as anything but buffoons.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.19  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @7.1.18    2 months ago

So what we have here are 500 law professors who say Trump committed impeachable offenses, and zero law professors, so far, who say he is innocent. 

Just so we can keep it tethered to reality a little. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.15    2 months ago

Does this mean you would rather NT be completely  progressive liberal left dominated with no dissent or input from conservatives? Sounds that way.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.21  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.19    2 months ago
are 500 law professors

I can be almost positive that 2 of them were idiots that "testified" in front of the Judiciary committee. Nothing but hate and bias coming from those two. The other 498 were probably lock step with those biases.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Raven Wing @7    2 months ago
and ran for the job mainly to promote his own reality show, The Apprentice.

Ah yes lets spend millions of dollars to promote NBC's reality show, not Donald Trumps. Makes sense to me....

256

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7    2 months ago

As the old saying goes, "It ain't over till it's over."

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.3.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.3    2 months ago

Indeed. So I would not be ringing the winning bell before the game is over. 

However, you are welcome to think you already know the answer, so we don't need to discuss it any further.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Raven Wing @7.3.1    2 months ago

My meaning for my statement above was not that I know the answer. It simply meant that the answer is unknown, that nobody knows, and we will just have to wait and see.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

Why is this farce still proceeding?  Are Democrats in Congress that beholden to their moon bat donors that they are willing to go forward with  a production of Kabuki theater  while the nation pays no attention? 

Even the Democratic participants can't perform their roles with a straight face.  Minutes after admonishing the nation  about how solemn the occasion is, you have a Democratic Congressman watching golf at his seat while supposedly participating in this supposedly solemn and drastic process. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

Trump wants this impeachment to go to the Senate knowing that his toadies will back him over the law.  It will also fire up his base to send more money, which according to my local news is already happening.  He will use this as a badge of honor at future rally's.  It will be up to the EC who hopefully won't make the same mistake next time.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    2 months ago
Trump wants this impeachment to go to the Senate knowing that his toadies will back him over the law. 

Here's a hint Paula.....   if the House of Representatives actually does "impeach" President Trump, what anyone "wants" is immaterial.  It's simply a matter of the law.  Nothing more.  As to what the Senators do, they will actually adhere to the law and very likely not read "parodies" of a document into official record as a certain Representative did.  

It will also fire up his base to send more money, which according to my local news is already happening. 

No need to 'fire up his base'.  They already donate to his and other Republicans campaigns to eliminate the pestilence infecting American politics called the Democrat Party.

He will use this as a badge of honor at future rally's.  It will be up to the EC who hopefully won't make the same mistake next time.

The EC (except for some asshats that don't vote the will of the people they represent) will do as they have and should.  Vote the will of the people.  And the people and the EC put Donald J. Trump into office as President.

Deal with it now, and deal with it in 2020 and 2021 when Trump is inaugurated once again.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.1  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1    2 months ago
Here's a hint Paula.....   if the House of Representatives actually does "impeach" President Trump, what anyone "wants" is immaterial.  It's simply a matter of the law.  Nothing more.  As to what the Senators do, they will actually adhere to the law and very likely not read "parodies" of a document into official record as a certain Representative did.  

Here's a hint for you XD: Impeachment doesn't have a fucking thing to do with 'the law' other than these short clauses in the Constitution: 

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
The House of Representatives shall chose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Note that the only 'law' that the Senate has to adhere to is taking a separate oath, the requirement of a two thirds super majority vote to convict and they can't 'punish' the impeached further than removal and denial of future office. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @9.1.1    2 months ago

Okay, I should not have used the word "law".

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.1.2    2 months ago

Actually, your use of the word 'law' was just fine. XD's, not so much. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    2 months ago
Trump wants this impeachment to go to the Senate

they will use the opportunity to prove the bidens corruption in ukraine.

among others... quid pro joe is not sleeping well these days.

we can thank the dems impeachment charade for that  :)

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Old Hermit
JBB
Sparty On


25 visitors