Impeachment

[loco]

Ok, my feeble minded enemy, I'm about to post something you might agree with:

Granted we don't agree on the articles used to impeach Trump. BUT, at this point, Pelosi and the dems need to send it over to the senate
 and try for the fairest trial possible.
  I agree with the dems, that Trump is guilty, but also know, politics isn't about legal points or being fair.
 
This impeachment has come down to raw, naken POLITICS. The dems had the majority of votes to impeach him and the senate as the GOP votes to find him NOT guilty.  Playing more games, is getting old.

It's politics deciding a political issue. On to 2020 and see who wins.

LOL...mentally challenged "physics teacher" calling others feeble minded. Are you a glutton for punishment, mama's boy?

[loco]

Insults and name calling won't help anyone  understand the issue.

Can we at least agree , this issue has become very partisan.

Blue team  wants Trump out and Red team wants him in.

Ok, my feeble minded enemy, I'm about to post something you might agree with:

Granted we don't agree on the articles used to impeach Trump. BUT, at this point, Pelosi and the dems need to send it over to the senate
 and try for the fairest trial possible.
  I agree with the dems, that Trump is guilty, but also know, politics isn't about legal points or being fair.
 
This impeachment has come down to raw, naken POLITICS. The dems had the majority of votes to impeach him and the senate as the GOP votes to find him NOT guilty.  Playing more games, is getting old.

It's politics deciding a political issue. On to 2020 and see who wins.

[JustPlaneJane]

[Montague]

Too bad you have no ability to recognize a metaphor.... it does not speak well of your level of intelligence.

Now, THIS is backpedaling at it's finest...
From our very own resident (self-admitted) drunkard...


Once again dousing the board with his "faux" cerebral rhetoric...
The same "man" who so vehemently DEFENDED PEDOPHILIA on this board until relentlessly called out on it...

Was that a "metaphor," too, YOU SICK FUCK??

[JustPlaneJane]

What the Democrats have really achieved:

They’ve impeached two Presidents who embarrassed Hillary Clinton.

Nothing more.

[polychronopolous]

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones may vote against convicting Trump in impeachment if 'dots aren't connected'


Sen. Doug Jones, who faces a tough 2020 reelection battle as a Democrat in Alabama, said Sunday that he is open to voting to acquit President Donald Trump on the two articles of impeachment approved last week by the House of Representatives if he feels the evidence in the case is lacking.

Trump is accused of abusing his power by withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening investigations that he thought would benefit him politically. The president has denied using the aid as leverage, and his defenders have said his push for the investigations was motivated by his concern about corruption.

Jones said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that if the allegations are proven, "I think it's an impeachable matter."

"If a president of the United States is using his office and the power of the presidency"  to "withhold aid that is there to battle Russians," and "he's doing that just to get a political advantage for his own personal campaign, that is a serious, serious matter."

Jones said he hadn't watched all of the testimony and debate in the House impeachment inquiry and was still "trying to see if the dots get connected."

"But if those dots aren't connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too," he said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/22/trump-impeachment-doug-jones-open-mind/2727625001/

[JustPlaneJane]

[SOMEPARTS]

Meanwhile both Joseph Mifsud and Christopher Steele who started the dossier are missing. Officials in Italy put Mifsud being dead at 80% probability. Steele didn't show for a hearing in UK. Wonder why?

[Skeletor]

Meanwhile both Joseph Mifsud and Christopher Steele who started the dossier are missing. Officials in Italy put Mifsud being dead at 80% probability. Steele didn't show for a hearing in UK. Wonder why?

LMAO!

[polychronopolous]

Impeachment 2? House lawyers say more charges possible




Dec. 23, 2019, 3:20 PM CST
By Dareh Gregorian

Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee floated the possibility that the panel could take up additional articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, according to a document filed in a federal appeals court Monday.

Urging the court to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, the committee's lawyers said that his testimony could lead to more revelations about the president's behavior.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the lawyers said.

In a separate filing Monday, the Department of Justice argued the appeals court should reject the House's bid to force McGahn to testify. "This court should decline the committee's request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches," the DOJ filing says.

The House sued to force McGahn to testify in August after the White House directed him not to testify before the Judiciary Committee. The White House and the Justice Department argued McGahn had "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress.

McGahn is a key figure in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He met with Mueller's investigators for over 30 hours, and his name is mentioned over 500 times in the report.

He's also a key player in what Democrats believe is one of the clearest cases of obstruction of justice outlined in Mueller's report: Trump’s directive that McGahn fire Mueller. Trump has publicly disputed the former White House lawyer’s account, placing greater importance on what McGahn would testify to publicly under oath before Congress.

A Washington federal court judge ruled in the House's favor in November, finding "absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/impeachment-2-house-lawyers-say-more-charges-possible-n1106706

[Moontrane]

Impeachment 2? House lawyers say more charges possible




Dec. 23, 2019, 3:20 PM CST
By Dareh Gregorian

Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee floated the possibility that the panel could take up additional articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, according to a document filed in a federal appeals court Monday.

Urging the court to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, the committee's lawyers said that his testimony could lead to more revelations about the president's behavior.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the lawyers said.

In a separate filing Monday, the Department of Justice argued the appeals court should reject the House's bid to force McGahn to testify. "This court should decline the committee's request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches," the DOJ filing says.

The House sued to force McGahn to testify in August after the White House directed him not to testify before the Judiciary Committee. The White House and the Justice Department argued McGahn had "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress.

McGahn is a key figure in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He met with Mueller's investigators for over 30 hours, and his name is mentioned over 500 times in the report.

He's also a key player in what Democrats believe is one of the clearest cases of obstruction of justice outlined in Mueller's report: Trump’s directive that McGahn fire Mueller. Trump has publicly disputed the former White House lawyer’s account, placing greater importance on what McGahn would testify to publicly under oath before Congress.

A Washington federal court judge ruled in the House's favor in November, finding "absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/impeachment-2-house-lawyers-say-more-charges-possible-n1106706

No limit to the Left's perfidy.  Less than 11 months to go, so expect a kitchen sink or two thrown in for "good" measure.

[SOMEPARTS]

You have to ask, why is the White House so against these folks testifying? If they (Trump) has nothing to hide, you'd think his lawyers would welcome the opportunity to produce these witnesses.   

You can start with the premise that there are no fact witnesses on the other side and go from there.

[Dos Equis]

You can start with the premise that there are no fact witnesses on the other side and go from there.

Exactly.

[Dos Equis]

You literally cannot believe anything these liberal partisan hacks say. 

Fact Check: No, Trump Admin Did Not ‘Begin’ Hold on Ukraine Funds 91 Minutes After Call with Zelensky
AARON KLEIN  24 Dec 2019

The news media and Democrats are quickly seizing on a government email to paint a misleading picture that the Trump administration requested the Pentagon withhold military aid to Ukraine just 91 minutes after President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The decision to withhold aid was actually announced seven days prior to Trump’s July 25 phone call while the email in question was part of a weeklong discussion about withholding aid and was unrelated to the call, the Trump administration explained.

The email was obtained on Friday along with 146 pages of other documents given to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.

CPI has been openly funded by billionaire activist George Soros’s Open Society, which formally listed CPI as a media “partner.”  CPI is also funded by the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.

The email being hyped by the media shows an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, contacted Pentagon officials 91 minutes after Trump’s call with Zelensky to discuss withholding aid.

“Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process,” Duffey wrote, according to the documents.

The OMB immediately pushed back explaining the aid hold was announced seven says before Trump’s July 25 phone call and that the Center for Public Integrity was harping on one line to paint an inaccurate and misleading picture of the timing of the aid hold.

The OMB strongly denied the email, one of many, had anything to do with Trump’s phone call, explaining the communication was procedural and part of a process put into place one week early.

Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for OMB, told reporters it was “reckless to tie the hold of funds to the phone call.”

“As has been established and publicly reported, the hold was announced in an interagency meeting on July 18,” she said. “To pull a line out of one email and fail to address the context is misleading and inaccurate.”

A senior administration official further said the email was part of a discussion already going on for one week between OMB and the Pentagon about withholding aid.

Despite the known timeline that the decision to withhold aid was taken on July 18, Senator Chuck Schumer already claimed the “explosive” email underscored the need to call new witnesses with new alleged impeachment evidence.

“If there was ever an argument that we need Mr Duffey to come and testify, this is that information. This email is explosive,” Schumer said.

“A top administration official, one that we requested, is saying, stop the aid 90 minutes after Trump called Zelensky and said keep it hush, hush. What more do you need to request a witness?”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/24/fact-check-no-trump-admin-did-not-begin-hold-on-ukraine-funds-91-minutes-after-call-with-zelensky/

[Dos Equis]

And you know this how? Have you spoken with/questioned Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney and John R. Bolton?

People want to know, was Mr. Pence told about a suspected link between security aid and investigations of Mr. Trump’s political opponents, as one witness testified? Did Mr. Pompeo sign off on it? Did Mr. Mulvaney facilitate the scheme? Did Mr. Bolton ever bring his objections directly to the president?

BS.

[Grape Ape]

You have to ask, why is the White House so against these folks testifying? If they (Trump) has nothing to hide, you'd think his lawyers would welcome the opportunity to produce these witnesses.   

Why did the Democrats prevent the whistleblower, Schiff, Biden, Biden's son, and all the other witnesses the Republicans called from testifying?

[Dos Equis]

I do not believe the whistle blower can be required to testify. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a law that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government organization. If you do not wish to disclose your identity, you may remain anonymous when contacting the OIG.

This is wrong.  Don't you care at all that these people keep lying to you?  The IG is the only one precluded from disclosing the whistleblower's identity. 

[Dos Equis]

What people would these people be?

The media, Adam Schiff, the person who wrote the blurb you pulled off the internet, pretty much every Democrat member of Congress. 

Do you care that they are all lying to you? 

[Dos Equis]

Why, because you say they are lying? Why should I believe you? Who are you? Why do you set yourself up as an expert and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I don't mean to be offensive here, but I have no intention of believing what you say just because you say it. I'll leave that to Trump's sheep.

You could actually read the statute yourself, which isn't that hard to do.  But you're the same person who refused to watch Joe Biden's explicit quid pro quo on video.  You probably haven't even read the transcript of the Ukraine call. 

But you should believe me, because unlike you, I don't live in a bubble.  Unlike you, I don't engage in confirmation bias.  Unlike you, I read things that are not confined to my tiny world view.  It's sad that you don't even realize how badly uninformed and misinformed you are and that the party you have a slavish addiction too repeatedly lies to you.   

In any event, here is another article for you to ignore:

ANALYSIS: Despite Schiff’s claims, whistleblower has no 'statutory right' to anonymity
by Jerry Dunleavy
Nov 21, 2019

Rep. Adam Schiff has repeatedly stated in impeachment hearings in front of the House Intelligence Committee that the Ukraine whistleblower has “a statutory right to anonymity” and blocked Republican questions about him.

The problem, many legal experts say, is that the committee chairman, a California Democrat, is wrong — no specific legal requirement to shield the whistleblower’s identity from the public exists.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act establishes rules for whistleblowers to report on waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner, and it, along with presidential directives, provides legal protections against reprisals and punishment. Anonymity, however, is not one of those guarantees.

“There is no language in the statute as written — or amended — that gives a whistleblower from the intelligence community the statutory right to anonymity,” Cully Stimson, a former Pentagon official and the head of the Heritage Foundation’s National Security Law Program, told the Washington Examiner. "That’s separate and distinct from whether Congress wants to make the decision to not provide the name — that’s at the discretion of the chairman.”

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who received the whistleblower’s complaint in August, has said he must keep the whistleblower’s name secret, but it does not appear this legal prohibition extends to President Trump, his allies, or anyone else. Atkinson said his review of the whistleblower's allegations related to a July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate."

He wrote, “Such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible."

Arthur Rizer, a former Army officer and DOJ prosecutor who leads the R Street Institute’s criminal justice team, said he doubts the law guarantees whistleblower anonymity.

“I am pretty sure on its plain reading only the individual who receives the complaint has a ‘statutory obligation’ to keep anonymity — and, I think, even then, there are circumstances where the veil of anonymity can be pierced,” Rizer told the Washington Examiner. “So, as a starting point, the chairman’s comment is vague and overbroad — and legally speaking, that makes him wrong.”

There are, however, laws against witness intimidation that could apply if the whistleblower was outed.

“In a nutshell, there’s no per se right to whistleblower anonymity,” Stephen Vladeck, a national security legal expert and law professor at the University of Texas, told the Washington Examiner. “But revealing the whistleblower’s identity here may nevertheless be unlawful.”

Both Vladeck and Ukraine whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid referred the Washington Examiner to an article in Just Security, a left-leaning online legal journal based at New York University’s Law School, that offers a lengthy analysis of whistleblower protections.

“Many of those seeking to protect the whistleblower argue that it is unlawful to publicly identify an anonymous whistleblower. Whether that is, in fact, the case is complicated and highlights a significant flaw in how the whistleblower protection laws actually apply,” wrote national security expert Kel McClanahan, who runs the D.C.-based National Security Counselors, in the journal article. “Simply put, there is no clear, unambiguous provision in either the criminal or civil law generally prohibiting the disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity.”

. . .

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-despite-schiffs-claims-whistleblower-has-no-statutory-right-to-anonymity

[Dos Equis]

Trump chats with attorney Alan Dershowitz at Mar-a-Lago
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 12/24/19

President Trump was spotted greeting attorney Alan Dershowitz at his Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Tuesday as the Harvard law professor joined the president for a Christmas Eve party.

Pictures taken by the Daily Mail showed the two men standing together in conversation, the attorney clad in a wrinkled black jacket and Trump wearing his signature red tie with a blue suit.

Trump is reportedly considering bringing Dershowitz, a vocal supporter of the president on many legal issues, onto his legal team as his attorneys battle the House's impeachment inquiry, which looks to head to the Senate for a trial in the weeks ahead.

Dershowitz, a contributor to The Hill, wrote earlier this year that he believed the Supreme Court could overturn an impeachment verdict were the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office without a fair trial.

"Were Congress to try to impeach and remove a president without alleging and proving any such crime, and were the president to refuse to leave office on the ground that Congress had acted unconstitutionally, there would indeed be such a constitutional crisis," he wrote in May.

Republican allies of the president, including Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), have publicly urged Trump to make the addition official, touting Dershowitz's prowess as a legal scholar.

“I have advocated that there needs to be one other attorney that's added to the mix for the president. And that is Alan Dershowitz,” Meadows said earlier this month on a House Freedom Caucus podcast, adding, “I think he'd be great to come in, get Alan Dershowitz in to be part of that defense team.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475892-trump-meets-with-attorney-alan-dershowitz-at-mar-a-lago

[Dos Equis]

You assume way too much. I have read the redacted transcript. I've read the statute just today. Frankly, like the way many laws are written, it is open to interpretation.

You and other's keep going on about the Bidens when we're discussing Trump's phone call. Whatever Biden did or didn't do in 2016 does not excuse what Trump did in April 2019 when he withheld funds from Ukraine in leiu of information (dirt) on Biden and his son.

You claim to have an open mind about things but your posts suggest otherwise.

Finally! Dinner is ready. Bye for now.

lol.  Ok.  It's open to interpretation, even though it says absolutely nothing about prohibiting disclosure of the identity of the whistleblower, except for the IG.  I really doubt you actually read it.  Maybe you did, but I'm not sure I believe you.  And I gave you plenty of opinions from experts to show that Schiff and others have been lying to you.  You really don't care. 

And you can keep saying the president withheld funds to get "dirt" on Biden and his son, but that is a lie.  A bald faced lie.  Unsupported by any evidence.  The transcript does not say that.  The president of Ukraine denied it.  The Ukraine ambassador denied it.  This is as bad as the Russian Manchurian Candidate crap.   

Enjoy your dinner. 

[JustPlaneJane]

You assume way too much. I have read the redacted transcript. I've read the statute just today. Frankly, like the way many laws are written, it is open to interpretation.

You and other's keep going on about the Bidens when we're discussing Trump's phone call. Whatever Biden did or didn't do in 2016 does not excuse what Trump did in April 2019 when he withheld funds from Ukraine in leiu of information (dirt) on Biden and his son.

You claim to have an open mind about things but your posts suggest otherwise.

Finally! Dinner is ready. Bye for now.

Fucking retard...

[The Scott]

Liberals.  They despise our Constitution and call its authors "white racist meanies".  And worse.

I "pray" daily for the Crapture of all of them, including that side of my family that is hollyweird hebrew (they only deserve lower case).  All you that side with these fuckwad democrats are traitors to these United States. Treasonous bitches the lot of you.

Talk about kangaroo courts...

[Thin Lizzy]

I suspect Reiner is starting to feel the heat. He is part of an organization that was investigating Russian interference. One of the advisers is Clapper. That’s  why he’s so desperate to get Trump out.


See new Tweets
Conversation

Rob Reiner
@robreiner
Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Gardner, Alexander, Porter, Sasse, McSally. Any 4 of you or any additional Republican Senator with a conscience & a beating heart has the power to insure a fair trial. For the sake of our Republic you all know what must be done.

[Dos Equis]

I suspect Reiner is starting to feel the heat. He is part of an organization that was investigating Russian interference. One of the advisers is Clapper. That’s  why he’s so desperate to get Trump out.


See new Tweets
Conversation

Rob Reiner
@robreiner
Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Gardner, Alexander, Porter, Sasse, McSally. Any 4 of you or any additional Republican Senator with a conscience & a beating heart has the power to insure a fair trial. For the sake of our Republic you all know what must be done.

Targeting RINOs.  You should see the clown of a senator from my state (Schatz).  He keeps repeating this mantra that all they need is four Republican votes for a fair trial.  The same idiot who was silent when House Democrats shredded the Constitution.