Case for Trump's impeachment stengthen with witness testimony

[Dos Equis]

Because you say I can't, not because I can't. Anyway, you'll argue it is not a crime because there is not a conviction....yet. We were discussing violating the constitution not committing crimes. There are punishments for government officials who violate the Constitution under certain circumstances, but normally, they are violating some law which is based on the Constitution, as opposed to just violating the Constitution.

Stop splitting hairs.  Crime, constitutional violation, wrongdoing, whatever you want to call it.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  You cannot identify what it is you think he did wrong and the evidence supporting what you think he did wrong.  Every time you get asked about it you refuse to answer.  Pretty obvious why you don't. 

[chaos]

Hilarious.  lol     You consistently accuse Trump of an unnamed crime.  Then when pressed you refuse to specify what that crime is or what the evidence is.  Because you can't. 

That's a typical liberal media tactic. I see it on the tv at the gym, constantly rambling about how many laws Trump has broken, but never really getting specific. It's all just a ploy to smear Trumps name until the election next year. It's been a long 3 years up to this point with the dems doing absolutely nothing for this country except wasting our tax dollars on some silly goose chase they created.

[Dos Equis]

That's a typical liberal media tactic. I see it on the tv at the gym, constantly rambling about how many laws Trump has broken, but never really getting specific. It's all just a ploy to smear Trumps name until the election next year. It's been a long 3 years up to this point with the dems doing absolutely nothing for this country except wasting our tax dollars on some silly goose chase they created.

Truth.  It really comes down them still not being able to accept the fact that Trump won in 2016. 

[TacoBell]

What's the rush? The longer the inquiry goes on, the greater likelihood of additional damming testimonies and information. Trump's proven to be very resilient, it is likely going to take a lot of indisputable accusations to bring him down.

The rush is that they might not have the Congress for very much longer.

X2
Also there is an election in one years time.... Why not let the voting public just decide?

[JustPlaneJane]

Yes.

Make a list. The original claim was disregarded the Constitution and you changed the wording to violated.

Cite the section of the Constitution Trump disregarded and give FACTUAL evidence that his disregard violated the Constitution.

Include all instances that are proven by factual information.

Obviously the PrimeRetard has no response.

Both he and Howard are nothing but leeches who spent their adult lives suckling on the government teet

[Primemuscle]

The rush is that they might not have the Congress for very much longer.

November 9, 2020 is more then a year from now. If something isn't resolved by that time, we need a new Congress.

[chaos]

November 9, 2020 is more then a year from now. If something isn't resolved by that time, we need a new Congress.

NOW you draw a line? But you were cool with them spending years and millions for some Russian "collusion" story they made up?

[Primemuscle]

NOW you draw a line? But you were cool with them spending years and millions for some Russian "collusion" story they made up?

Good point. However, this situation seems a lot less complicated since Trump, Giuliani and just yesterday, Mick Mulvaney have admitted to it because in their minds it is no big deal and it happens all the time.

Mick Mulvaney’s Ukraine Confession
He didn’t botch his talking points. He reported what he saw: a quid pro quo.

[Thin Lizzy]

Good point. However, this situation seems a lot less complicated since Trump, Giuliani and just yesterday, Mick Mulvaney have admitted to it because in their minds it is no big deal and it happens all the time.

Mick Mulvaney’s Ukraine Confession
He didn’t botch his talking points. He reported what he saw: a quid pro quo.

If it’s such a slam dunk, then take the vote. Nancy doesn’t want to because she know she’ll lose. In the end it really doesn’t matter what Trump did. It’s a matter of whether they have the votes or not. They can impeach him because they don’t like what he had for dinner last night.

[Coach is Back!]

This may go over Howard’s head but I challenge him (or any lib on here) to watch at least 10min of it.

[Coach is Back!]

Sorry Coach, I actually believe in the ideals written in the US Constitution.

That’s funny you can’t see the left is trying to strip Trump of any constitutional right he has. The last thing on the mind of an elected political leftist is the constitution

[Primemuscle]

That’s funny you can’t see the left is trying to strip Trump of any constitutional right he has. The last thing on the mind of an elected political leftist is the constitution

Maybe if Trump hadn't violated the constitution, he'd be better off today.

This is stale dated news, but that doesn't change the gist of it.

FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST SAYS TRUMP VIOLATED CONSTITUTION'S 'SEPARATION OF POWERS' THREE TIMES IN PAST WEEK
BY JASON LEMON ON 5/16/19 AT 9:11 AM EDT

Napolitano, who formerly served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, used his weekly Fox News digital episode of Judge Napolitano's Chambers on Wednesday to explain that the Constitution's framers had intended for power to be separated into three branches of government:

Napolitano outlined three recent directives from Trump and explained how they violated the Constitution. The first was the president's order to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan to not purchase a missile defense system approved by Congress and instead use the funds to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Second, the former judge cited Trump's order to send troops to secure the border, pointing out how it violated the separation of powers, because the president's oath does not allow military forces to be deployed to deal with domestic issues. Napolitano also argued that Trump's decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods was akin to levying a "national federal sales tax" on American consumers, which the president did not have power to do under the Constitution.

1. Violating the Constitution, Emoluments Clause: President Trump is violating the domestic and foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting and encouraging foreign governments to pay to stay at Trump resort properties without Congressional approval.

Appeals court revives lawsuit saying Trump is violating the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments

2. Influence Peddling: Three members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago inner circle of billionaire donors have undue influence over policy, projects and decision making by VA leadership, including impacting a $10 billion dollar contract.

3. Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/constitutional-law-expert-trump-found-two-ways-to-violate-the-constitution-in-one-week/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-revives-lawsuit-saying-trump-is-violating-the-constitution-by-doing-business-with-foreign-governments/2019/09/13/0861b010-d632-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/9419-1

[Coach is Back!]

Maybe if Trump hadn't violated the constitution, he'd be better off today.

This is stale dated news, but that doesn't change the gist of it.

FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST SAYS TRUMP VIOLATED CONSTITUTION'S 'SEPARATION OF POWERS' THREE TIMES IN PAST WEEK
BY JASON LEMON ON 5/16/19 AT 9:11 AM EDT

Napolitano, who formerly served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, used his weekly Fox News digital episode of Judge Napolitano's Chambers on Wednesday to explain that the Constitution's framers had intended for power to be separated into three branches of government:

Napolitano outlined three recent directives from Trump and explained how they violated the Constitution. The first was the president's order to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan to not purchase a missile defense system approved by Congress and instead use the funds to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Second, the former judge cited Trump's order to send troops to secure the border, pointing out how it violated the separation of powers, because the president's oath does not allow military forces to be deployed to deal with domestic issues. Napolitano also argued that Trump's decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods was akin to levying a "national federal sales tax" on American consumers, which the president did not have power to do under the Constitution.

1. Violating the Constitution, Emoluments Clause: President Trump is violating the domestic and foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting and encouraging foreign governments to pay to stay at Trump resort properties without Congressional approval.

Appeals court revives lawsuit saying Trump is violating the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments

2. Influence Peddling: Three members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago inner circle of billionaire donors have undue influence over policy, projects and decision making by VA leadership, including impacting a $10 billion dollar contract.

3. Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/constitutional-law-expert-trump-found-two-ways-to-violate-the-constitution-in-one-week/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-revives-lawsuit-saying-trump-is-violating-the-constitution-by-doing-business-with-foreign-governments/2019/09/13/0861b010-d632-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/9419-1

I’ll address this when I get back, in the meantime feel free to post the lefts take on the constitution. Start here

The Constitution. Article I Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment."

Feel free to prove any part of this wrong

Levin: Nancy Pelosi and her politburo have gone rogue and are trying to run roughshod over President Trump

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/levin-nancy-pelosi-and-her-politburo-have-gone-rogue-and-are-trying-to-run-roughshod-over-president-trump

[JustPlaneJane]

Maybe if Trump hadn't violated the constitution, he'd be better off today.

This is stale dated news, but that doesn't change the gist of it.

FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST SAYS TRUMP VIOLATED CONSTITUTION'S 'SEPARATION OF POWERS' THREE TIMES IN PAST WEEK
BY JASON LEMON ON 5/16/19 AT 9:11 AM EDT

Napolitano, who formerly served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, used his weekly Fox News digital episode of Judge Napolitano's Chambers on Wednesday to explain that the Constitution's framers had intended for power to be separated into three branches of government:

Napolitano outlined three recent directives from Trump and explained how they violated the Constitution. The first was the president's order to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan to not purchase a missile defense system approved by Congress and instead use the funds to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Second, the former judge cited Trump's order to send troops to secure the border, pointing out how it violated the separation of powers, because the president's oath does not allow military forces to be deployed to deal with domestic issues. Napolitano also argued that Trump's decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods was akin to levying a "national federal sales tax" on American consumers, which the president did not have power to do under the Constitution.

1. Violating the Constitution, Emoluments Clause: President Trump is violating the domestic and foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting and encouraging foreign governments to pay to stay at Trump resort properties without Congressional approval.

Appeals court revives lawsuit saying Trump is violating the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments

2. Influence Peddling: Three members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago inner circle of billionaire donors have undue influence over policy, projects and decision making by VA leadership, including impacting a $10 billion dollar contract.

3. Trump’s Executive Orders on immigration

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/constitutional-law-expert-trump-found-two-ways-to-violate-the-constitution-in-one-week/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-revives-lawsuit-saying-trump-is-violating-the-constitution-by-doing-business-with-foreign-governments/2019/09/13/0861b010-d632-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/9419-1

Judge Napolitano?
That closet queen is more jealous of President Trump than Hillary Clinton.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1UL2S7

Supreme Court rules President Trump was allowed to divert funds to build the wall.

Jesus Christ you’re a lying asshole. You’re as bad as Howard for making up complete bullshit.

[Primemuscle]

I’ll address this when I get back, in the meantime feel free to post the lefts take on the constitution. Start here

The Constitution. Article I Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment."

Feel free to prove any part of this wrong

Levin: Nancy Pelosi and her politburo have gone rogue and are trying to run roughshod over President Trump

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/levin-nancy-pelosi-and-her-politburo-have-gone-rogue-and-are-trying-to-run-roughshod-over-president-trump

Opinions are difficult to prove either right or wrong. What we have here is Levin's opinion. He puts a lot of emphasis on the House collectively voting on impeachment.

What if they did vote prior to completing the investigation? House Democrates have the majority. The House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. ... Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office.

Trump is taking a risk by pushing for the vote now prior to the conclusion of the inquiry. It is doubtful the vote to proceed will fail, therefore the inquiry is likely to continue until all the information is gathered. So what happens then? Does the house take a second vote to actually impeach Trump when the inquiry is concluded? Minus some unexpected shift to bipartisanism in the house, nothing will change.

It looks to me that Trump's best option is to let this take it's course in the House. Many folks feel that the Senate will not have a two-thirds vote to convict.

If you Trump supporters could just get him to 'zip it' so he does dig himself into another mess, things could go his way.
 

[Coach is Back!]

Opinions are difficult to prove either right or wrong. What we have here is Levin's opinion. He puts a lot of emphasis on the House collectively voting on impeachment.

What if they did vote prior to completing the investigation? House Democrates have the majority. The House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. ... Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office.

Trump is taking a risk by pushing for the vote now prior to the conclusion of the inquiry. It is doubtful the vote to proceed will fail, therefore the inquiry is likely to continue until all the information is gathered. So what happens then? Does the house take a second vote to actually impeach Trump when the inquiry is concluded? Minus some unexpected shift to bipartisanism in the house, nothing will change.

It looks to me that Trump's best option is to let this take it's course in the House. Many folks feel that the Senate will not have a two-thirds vote to convict.

If you Trump supporters could just get him to 'zip it' so he does dig himself into another mess, things could go his way.
 

Thanks, you didn’t read any part of that transcript, if you did you’d realize this wasn’t an opinion piece, it was fact based on the reading of the constitution and law. So here’s what I’m going to do for you. I’m going to cut and paste the transcript right from the show

[Coach is Back!]

Hello America, I'm Mark Levin. This is "Life, Liberty & Levin" Special Edition: The House Goes Rogue. So I thought I would talk to you and slowly go through this process that we're dealing with as American citizens. The Constitution. Article I Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment." In past impeachments involving inquiries into Presidents, it was a civil process, a rational process, a process that was actually bipartisan that involved both political parties.

Both political parties could call witnesses, both political parties could cross examine, both political parties can get depositions, and so forth. The goal was to get as much of the body politic involved as possible. This is the first time in American history that we have a rogue Speaker of the House and a small majority Democratic Party in the House of Representatives that's trying to drag our country in a different direction. They have rejected completely and utterly the background of the impeachment process when it comes to Presidents of the United States.

Remember this report? Remember, this? It wasn't that long ago. Remember this? This is the Mueller Report. After two and a half years of so-called Russia collusion. Remember that? Two volumes. Year-on-year and year-on- year on this, hearing after hearing, news story after news story. It doesn't matter anymore. We've moved on ladies and gentlemen. It didn't cut it. That was their first impeachment report. Then they bring Mueller in, remember that? They bring Mr. Mueller in.

That was a hell of a hearing, wasn't it? The guy didn't even know what he wrote because he didn't write it. Well, that went belly up. And they had all these subpoenas. What was it? Twenty eight hundred subpoenas, they had 19 lawyers, most of them partisans, 40 F.B.I. agents and analysts. They went to or spoke to 19 different countries in order to chase down nothing. Nothing. This is the same House of Representatives now that is bringing up Ukraine. All of a sudden Ukraine. We go from Russia to Ukraine. How did that happen?

[Coach is Back!]

The Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and six Committee Chairmen, I call them her Politburo, a running roughshod -- or trying to -- over the President of the United States, the Executive Branch and so forth, issuing letters that they call subpoenas. And if the letters aren't replied to in a certain given amount of time, they're claiming that it's obstruction of justice.

Of course, it can't be obstruction of justice. They're not a court. They mean obstruction of the House. And so they're trying to set up the President and set up the administration, and the demands are very onerous, and it's almost impossible to keep up with them. But the process you see, ladies and gentlemen, is ahistorical and the President's counsel wrote a letter as you know to the Members of the House, and they said, "You've denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present." In other words, due process. Basic due process.

Even though this isn't a criminal matter. Serial murderers get more due process than the Democrats want to give to the President of the United States. Terrorists get more due process than the Democrats want to give it to the President of the United States. In the past, the right of the minority to issue subpoenas was upheld, coequal subpoena power and so forth. So I did a little bit of research, and I found something. Look at this.

What in the world is this? Well, this is from October 7, 1998. It's report together with additional dissenting view. So what kind of report is it? It's a committee of the Judiciary. 1998. What was happening in 1998?

[Coach is Back!]

Oh, a House Impeachment Inquiry of Bill Clinton.

And this Judiciary Committee, which was run by the Republicans. The Chairman was Henry Hyde of Illinois, they decided to prepare a resolution. Now, why were they preparing a resolution for the Full House of Representatives? They said, "It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed by this resolution in the first instance, to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly."

If either declines to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened properly to consider the question." In other words, the Chairman and the Ranking Member, Democrat and the Republican will have equal ability to issue subpoenas. They could do it jointly, they can do it separately. If there's a challenge, the full Committee hears it, and it's done in public.

That's not what's happening today. The Democrats are the only ones who can issue subpoenas and call witnesses and cross examine and all the rest of it. It went on. "October 5, 1998, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported the resolution printed herein by a vote of 21 to 16." Need for the resolution," they write, "Because the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming importance. The Committee decided that it must receive authorization from the full House before proceeding on any further course of action."

Because impeachment --" this is them. "Because impeachment is delegated solely to the House of Representatives by the Constitution. The full House of Representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment."


You see how Bill Clinton was treated by a Republican House of Representatives, by a Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Republican by the name of Henry Hyde. Also a resolution authorizing an Impeachment Inquiry into the conduct of a President is consistent with past practice," they write. "According to Hind's Precedents, quote, 'the impeachment of President Johnson was set in motion by a resolution authorizing a general investigation as to the execution of the laws."


It’s a long transcript so I’ll just post the link again so you can finish (you won’t)

Levin: Nancy Pelosi and her politburo have gone rogue and are trying to run roughshod over President Trump

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/levin-nancy-pelosi-and-her-politburo-have-gone-rogue-and-are-trying-to-run-roughshod-over-president-trump

[JustPlaneJane]

A U.S. diplomat told congressional investigators this week that he raised concerns about Hunter Biden's position with a Ukrainian energy company in 2015, only to be turned away by an aide to then-Vice President Joe Biden, a person familiar with the testimony said on Friday.
https://news.yahoo.com/u-diplomat-told-congress-raised-201906252.html

"A top U.S. diplomat and expert on Ukraine testified to Congress yesterday that the Obama administration — with former Vice President Joe Biden as its point man — orchestrated the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a company connected to the Biden family, sources familiar with the testimony told The Federalist.

The testimony of George Kent, a State Department official who works on the agency’s Ukraine portfolio, directly contradicts claims that the Obama administration was merely following the lead of the so-called international community in demanding the firing of Viktor Shokin"

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/1...nity-orchestrated-ukraine-prosecutors-firing/

[Thin Lizzy]

The case has strengthened because all the Democratic candidates are insufferable even to Democrats.

[Grape Ape]

Lots of pressure mounting on Graham to start official investigation to 2016, and subpoena same folks the Democrats are in their "pre inquiry" inquiry.

[loco]

So whatever happened with the Russia collusion, pee shower investigation?  Why are Democraps not talking about that anymore?  Didn't pencil neck repeat over and over again he has proof? 

[Primemuscle]

Hello America, I'm Mark Levin. This is "Life, Liberty & Levin" Special Edition: The House Goes Rogue. So I thought I would talk to you and slowly go through this process that we're dealing with as American citizens. The Constitution. Article I Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. In past impeachments involving inquiries into Presidents, it was a civil process, a rational process, a process that was actually bipartisan that involved both political parties.

Both political parties could call witnesses, both political parties could cross examine, both political parties can get depositions, and so forth. The goal was to get as much of the body politic involved as possible. This is the first time in American history that we have a rogue Speaker of the House and a small majority Democratic Party in the House of Representatives that's trying to drag our country in a different direction. They have rejected completely and utterly the background of the impeachment process when it comes to Presidents of the United States.

Remember this report? Remember, this? It wasn't that long ago. Remember this? This is the Mueller Report. After two and a half years of so-called Russia collusion. Remember that? Two volumes. Year-on-year and year-on- year on this, hearing after hearing, news story after news story. It doesn't matter anymore. We've moved on ladies and gentlemen. It didn't cut it. That was their first impeachment report. Then they bring Mueller in, remember that? They bring Mr. Mueller in.

That was a hell of a hearing, wasn't it? The guy didn't even know what he wrote because he didn't write it. Well, that went belly up. And they had all these subpoenas. What was it? Twenty eight hundred subpoenas, they had 19 lawyers, most of them partisans, 40 F.B.I. agents and analysts. They went to or spoke to 19 different countries in order to chase down nothing. Nothing. This is the same House of Representatives now that is bringing up Ukraine. All of a sudden Ukraine. We go from Russia to Ukraine. How did that happen?

Thanks, but you really didn't need to post this for me because I read it via the link you posted. Just to be fair, I read the transcript again. I've highlighted the one indisputable fact. Most of the rest of Mark Levin's broadcast can be disputed. If for no other reason because the information is incomplete, irrelevant and distorted. From everything I've read about impeachment, the House decides on the process. So far, they've chosen to wait on a vote.

Here's a link to an article which goes into a little more detail about the differences between Clinton and Trump's impeachment process. Why Trump’s Impeachment Might Be Different Than Clinton’s https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-disapproved-of-clintons-behavior-but-not-enough-to-impeach-him/

Here is another link to an article which also examines the differences between the Nixon, Clinton and Trump impeachment proceedings. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/09/johnson-nixon-clinton-trump-9-questions-about-imp/

The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Clinton impeachment were completed, Trump's inquiry is just starting. The political climate today is markedly different than it was then. IMO, there was not such a great division between the two parties and the populous.  

[Primemuscle]

Some folks wonder if the House legally issue subpoenas? House committees, including the Judiciary Committee, have subpoena power, and the Judiciary Committee’s chair has the power to issue subpoenas on his own.