Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Howard on October 17, 2019, 11:55:31 AM
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blockade-against-impeachment-crumbling-witnesses-121722283.html
-
Hmmm, I guess they left out the part where Gordon Sondland specified today in a secret hearing that no quid pro quo was ever instructed or implemented. Convenient. Secret. Hearings.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blockade-against-impeachment-crumbling-witnesses-121722283.html
::)
Howard, let's say hypothetically Trump does get removed (don't worry, it ain't gonna happen) do you realize the negative economic impact would be almost immediate not to mention the progress he's made worldwide since you read things the COMPLETE opposite of whats really going on. But that doesn't matter just as long as he's gone as doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.
-
::)
Howard, let's say hypothetically Trump does get removed (don't worry, it ain't gonna happen) do you realize the negative economic impact would be almost immediate not to mention the progress he's made worldwide since you read things the COMPLETE opposite of whats really going on. But that doesn't matter just as long as he's gone as doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.
Howard, waiting for a response
-
Hmmm, I guess they left out the part where Gordon Sondland specified today in a secret hearing that no quid pro quo was ever instructed or implemented. Convenient. Secret. Hearings.
At the end of the article you can see that it’s really a New York Times hit piece.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
© 2019 The New York Times Company
-
Hmmm, I guess they left out the part where Gordon Sondland specified today in a secret hearing that no quid pro quo was ever instructed or implemented. Convenient. Secret. Hearings.
If you know this, the hearing must have been less than secret.
-
LOL, I spend a limited amount of time on here.
Sometimes the GOV must do the right thing and follow/obey the constitution.
The economic indicators can change and Presidents come and go.
The one enduring value and guide is our US constitution .
Without that , we spiral down in chaos.
Do you ever tell the truth? You created 24 threads on the first two pages of this board.
-
LOL, I spend a limited amount of time on here.
Sometimes the GOV must do the right thing and follow/obey the constitution.
The economic indicators can change and Presidents come and go.
The one enduring value and guide is our US constitution .
Without that , we spiral down in chaos.
You literally pulling shit out of your ass, aren’t you? You think the Government is doing the right thing by trying to remove a duly elected President without cause, undermining the constitution with every move, ruining people’s lives in the process?
“The one enduring value and guide is our US Constitution”? Are you shitting me Howard? More intellectual dishonesty
-
You literally pulling shit out of your ass, aren’t you? You think the Government is doing the right thing by trying to remove a duly elected President without cause, undermining the constitution with every move, ruining people’s lives in the process?
“The one enduring value and guide is our US Constitution”? Are you shitting me Howard? More intellectual dishonesty
For many people the concern about our duly elected president is that there is plenty of cause to impeach him. One of those causes is his disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
-
For many people the concern about our duly elected president is that there is plenty of cause to impeach him. One of those causes is his disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
In what instances has Trump disregarded the U.S. Constitution?
-
In what instances has Trump disregarded the U.S. Constitution?
Do you want me to make a list? I'm not going to bother because if you don't already know how he's violated the U.S. Constitution, you are living in denial and no list no matter how long or accurate will change your thinking....so carry on.
-
Do you want me to make a list? I'm not going to bother because if you don't already know how he's violated the U.S. Constitution, you are living in denial and no list no matter how long or accurate will change your thinking....so carry on.
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.
-
Do you want me to make a list? I'm not going to bother because if you don't already know how he's violated the U.S. Constitution, you are living in denial and no list no matter how long or accurate will change your thinking....so carry on.
If he has, why haven't the Democrats impeached already?
Reminds me of when AOC was interviewed about the various crimes Trump committed, when asked what specifically, she went......uh.....collusi on....tax evasion?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Ha Ha… so what About the Clintons? utter trash
-
If he has, why haven't the Democrats impeached already?
Reminds me of when AOC was interviewed about the various crimes Trump committed, when asked what specifically, she went......uh.....collusi on....tax evasion?
The House is following the established process for impeachment. The vote to impeach follows the investigation. It does not precede it. Regardless, the House makes the rules for impeachment and not the President.
The Constitution states clearly that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
-
Ha Ha… so what About the Clintons? utter trash
What about the Clinton's? When last I checked, neither of them currently hold office.
-
What about the Clinton's? When last I checked, neither of them currently hold office.
ask George Soros. The clintons are criminals. If Killery was in power we would have WW3
-
ask George Soros. The clintons are criminals. If Killery was in power we would have WW3
She's not in power. She's not the problem. Trump is on both counts.
-
She's not in power. She's not the problem. Trump is on both counts.
You're extremely naive at best
-
The House is following the established process for impeachment. The vote to impeach follows the investigation. It does not precede it. Regardless, the House makes the rules for impeachment and not the President.
The Constitution states clearly that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
I'm aware of the process. They haven't even called for an official inquiry.
If this evidence was slam dunk they would have called for the actual vote.
-
Do you want me to make a list? I'm not going to bother because if you don't already know how he's violated the U.S. Constitution, you are living in denial and no list no matter how long or accurate will change your thinking....so carry on.
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.
-
I'm aware of the process. They haven't even called for an official inquiry.
If this evidence was slam dunk they would have called for the actual vote.
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.
-
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.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blockade-against-impeachment-crumbling-witnesses-121722283.html
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
This may go over Howard’s head but I challenge him (or any lib on here) to watch at least 10min of it.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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/
-
The case has strengthened because all the Democratic candidates are insufferable even to Democrats.
-
Lots of pressure mounting on Graham to start official investigation to 2016, and subpoena same folks the Democrats are in their "pre inquiry" inquiry.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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🙄
-
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?
-
...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.
-
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?
-
Can you highlight (copy/paste maybe) the part you believe applies here?
Again?
-
Again?
??? There's nothing in your link that applies here, Howards gimmick.
-
The hate displayed by those who are willing to throw aside all semblance of normality/due process is pretty gross.
-
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?
-
The hate displayed by those who are willing to throw aside all semblance of normality/due process is pretty gross.
Truth.
-
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?
-
Team Trump !!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.