Case for Trump's impeachment stengthen with witness testimony

[Coach is Back!]

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.  

Anyone can dispute anything it’s a matter of disputing it competently. This is not an example of that.

[Coach is Back!]

US constitution ,Article 1 - section 9, clearly states why he needs to be impeached.
The house impeachment process is also run under the direction of the house rules via Article 1 .

There is absolutely NOTHING in that, that states why he should be impeached. Nothing. What the fuck are you talking about ?

Apparently you two old Stalinists couldn’t give two shits about due process. No, neither one of you read anything

[Coach is Back!]

https://www.thoughtco.com/constitution-article-i-section-9-3322344

In case you forgot to READ it, I did, so  here it is.

What part of due process are you not understanding?


“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.

[Coach is Back!]

https://www.thoughtco.com/constitution-article-i-section-9-3322344

In case you forgot to READ it, I did, so  here it is.

And if you think this what impeachment should be based on then every president in the history of this country should have beed impeached ESPECIALLY Obama. As for “emoluments” please🙄

[JustPlaneJane]

I'm not an elected official and don't decide who gets impeached.
That's up to the house of reps according to our constitution.
It looks like Trump will be impeached for abuse of power regardless of
what any of us here think.

Let's  try to stick with the constitutional requirements and avoid irrational arguments please.
Thanks.

You mean the Constitutional requirements like Due Process?

[Primemuscle]

...impeachment is a political process—not a judicial one—and the Constitution itself contains scant detail regarding how the process must unfold, save for the requirements that the House has the “sole Power” to impeach for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”; that the Chief Justice of the United States presides over a trial in the Senate; and that conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate “Members present.” The rest of the process is up to the majority parties in the respective houses of Congress.

https://thebulwark.com/impeachment-and-the-due-process-canard/

The Bulwark
https://thebulwark.com
The home for the best of American conservative opinion. Curated commentary and analysis on news, politics, public policy, and culture.

[chaos]

US constitution ,Article 1 - section 9, clearly states why he needs to be impeached.

Can you highlight (copy/paste maybe) the part you believe applies here?

[Primemuscle]

Can you highlight (copy/paste maybe) the part you believe applies here?

Again?

[chaos]

Again?

There's nothing in your link that applies here, Howards gimmick.

[mazrim]

The hate displayed by those who are willing to throw aside all semblance of normality/due process is pretty gross.

[Coach is Back!]

Ok, in simple terms it states that a President can not PERSONALLY enrich or benefit himself

when dealing with a foreign power.


Trump did that with Ukraine and it will be the basis for the main article of impeachment.

Do you mean like what Russia did on four different occasions (deposits) with Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation?

[Dos Equis]

The hate displayed by those who are willing to throw aside all semblance of normality/due process is pretty gross.

Truth.

[chaos]

Ok, in simple terms it states that a President can not PERSONALLY enrich or benefit himself

when dealing with a foreign power.


Trump did that with Ukraine and it will be the basis for the main article of impeachment.

What was his PERSONAL GAIN?

[ponal]

Team Trump !!

[Grape Ape]

What was his PERSONAL GAIN?

There wasn't one.  It's still simple:

If you believe he was investigating corruption at the highest levels of governemnt, it's fine.

If you believe he was asking to influence an elections, it's not.

It's partisan and everyone knows it.  And everyone knows it won't pass the Senate.

So, it's all just a waste of time and money.

[ponal]

There wasn't one.  It's still simple:

If you believe he was investigating corruption at the highest levels of governemnt, it's fine.

If you believe he was asking to influence an elections, it's not.

It's partisan and everyone knows it.  And everyone knows it won't pass the Senate.

So, it's all just a waste of time and money.

this

[chaos]

There wasn't one.  It's still simple:

If you believe he was investigating corruption at the highest levels of governemnt, it's fine.

If you believe he was asking to influence an elections, it's not.

It's partisan and everyone knows it.  And everyone knows it won't pass the Senate.

So, it's all just a waste of time and money.

Exactly, keep the controversy going until 2020 in an attempt to undermine how good the country is doing since they don't have a platform to run on.

[Grape Ape]

Exactly, keep the controversy going until 2020 in an attempt to undermine how good the country is doing since they don't have a platform to run on.

There's a reason Bloomberg and others are considering runs.

They all realized that giving away everything, including to illegal non citizens, will not win elections.

[Primemuscle]

There wasn't one.  It's still simple:

If you believe he was investigating corruption at the highest levels of governemnt, it's fine.

If you believe he was asking to influence an elections, it's not.

It's partisan and everyone knows it.  And everyone knows it won't pass the Senate.

So, it's all just a waste of time and money.

I tend to agree with you in that the impeachment is not likely to hold up in the Senate.

If there is corruption, this is not a waste of time and money, if there was not, it is wasteful.