CDZ The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

[Leo123]

The house is not included in this fake impeachment because, so far, there is no vote whether or not a vote is 'constitutional' is an empty argument. That means, the impeachment proceedings are being done by a few Democrats. Pelosi knows that impeachment is political suicide for her party but pretending to 'inquire' into an impeachment may give them political advantage.

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

Trump asked them to investigate corruption and held up assistance until it was investigated. Perfectly legal. The fact that Biden and his son are involved is of no legal consequence because Trump did not ask for help in getting rid of an opponent. That's what Joe Biden did, he held up aid until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's corruption got fired. Notice how Democrats always falsely blame others for the bad shit they themselves are doing.

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”
Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival- yes he did.
c) 'thats what Joe Biden did'- except- as you know- there is absolutely no evidence that there was any prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden- Joe Biden- along with Republican Senators, and the EU- pushed the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for not fighting corruption.
d) Notice how Trumpkins always falsely blame well anyone for anything that Trump himself is doing.

So Biden's son is now Trump's political rival? LOL I love the way you desperate TDSers tell yourself lies...it's actually funny.

Where did I say Biden's son is Trump's political rival? I pointed out that your Nervous Nancy specifically asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden- Trump's political rival- and we know that because Trump has been calling Biden his political rival for months now.

The Trumpkins swallow all of Trump's lies and all of his corruption. Because he is their Messiah, their idol, and they worship whatever corruption Trump wallows in.

The issue is the prosecutor that was after Biden's son for corruption. Biden's son is not Trump's rival. The fact that Biden is running for President doesn't absolve him of his corruption. Get it yet?

 

[Leo123]

There is not enough evidence to impeach Trump. Keep dreaming though.

Exactly how much evidence is needed?

Of course investigations are for gathering the evidence that would be used for impeachment.

Personally I think asking the Commies in China to investigate a political rival is enough evidence right there.

Not when the political rival is guilty of corruption and admittedly got a 'quid-pro-quo' for firing the prosecutor after his son. Look, I have told you this many times and you continue to discount it and blabber about 'impeachment' when there is no impeachment proceedings taking place.

 

[Syriusly]

There is not enough evidence to impeach Trump. Keep dreaming though.

Exactly how much evidence is needed?

Of course investigations are for gathering the evidence that would be used for impeachment.

Personally I think asking the Commies in China to investigate a political rival is enough evidence right there.

Not when the political rival is guilty of corruption and admittedly got a 'quid-pro-quo' for firing the prosecutor after his son. Look, I have told you this many times and you continue to discount it and blabber about 'impeachment' when there is no impeachment proceedings taking place.

What political rival is guilty of corruption? Are you already chanting 'lock him up'?
I realize you have told the same lies over and over- but no matter how many times you repeat the same lie, it still remains a lie.
Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)
John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.”

In the CFR appearance, Biden makes the comments in the context of expressing his concern that Ukraine still was not getting tough enough on corruption. “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

“The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practice,” the New York Times reported at the time.

Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor general who had worked under Shokin and resigned in frustration at his stymying of corruption investigations, told Bloomberg News (in a May 2019 interview) that the office’s probe into Burisma Holdings had been long dormant by the time Joe Biden issued his ultimatum in 2016. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against” Burisma owner Zlochevskiy, Bloomberg quoted Kasko as saying. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” Kasko said.

“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate, told the Washington Post. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”

 

[Syriusly]

There are no 'impeachment proceedings' right now- there is an impeachment investigation.
Once the investigation is complete I think we will see a vote.

So far the facts we have are:
a) The President has asked two foreign governments to investigate his political opponents
b) The President(according to his own Chief of Staff) at least in part held up Congressionally authorized military assistance to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to investigate the President's personal interest- the DNC's server- a quid pro quo.
c) We now have the President using his Presidential authority to direct business to his own business.
d) And there is still obstruction of justice on the table.

Any of those- and probably all of those- will be on the impeachment vote.

Trump asked them to investigate corruption and held up assistance until it was investigated. Perfectly legal. The fact that Biden and his son are involved is of no legal consequence because Trump did not ask for help in getting rid of an opponent. That's what Joe Biden did, he held up aid until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's corruption got fired. Notice how Democrats always falsely blame others for the bad shit they themselves are doing.

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump said in the phone call. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.”
Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate his political rival- yes he did.
c) 'thats what Joe Biden did'- except- as you know- there is absolutely no evidence that there was any prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden- Joe Biden- along with Republican Senators, and the EU- pushed the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for not fighting corruption.
d) Notice how Trumpkins always falsely blame well anyone for anything that Trump himself is doing.

So Biden's son is now Trump's political rival? LOL I love the way you desperate TDSers tell yourself lies...it's actually funny.

Where did I say Biden's son is Trump's political rival? I pointed out that your Nervous Nancy specifically asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden- Trump's political rival- and we know that because Trump has been calling Biden his political rival for months now.

The Trumpkins swallow all of Trump's lies and all of his corruption. Because he is their Messiah, their idol, and they worship whatever corruption Trump wallows in.

The issue is the prosecutor that was after Biden's son for corruption. Biden's son is not Trump's rival. The fact that Biden is running for President doesn't absolve him of his corruption. Get it yet?

I get it- you are okay with Trump asking China and Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Let us know when you have any evidence that Joe Biden actually did anything wrong or illegal.
We know Trump is calling on foreign countries to investigate his political rival.

 

[Faun]

There is not enough evidence to impeach Trump. Keep dreaming though.

Exactly how much evidence is needed?

Of course investigations are for gathering the evidence that would be used for impeachment.

Personally I think asking the Commies in China to investigate a political rival is enough evidence right there.

Not when the political rival is guilty of corruption and admittedly got a 'quid-pro-quo' for firing the prosecutor after his son. Look, I have told you this many times and you continue to discount it and blabber about 'impeachment' when there is no impeachment proceedings taking place.

For it to be quid pro quo, Biden would have had to give Ukraine something. He gave them nothing. The billion dollars we gave them came from Congress and the president.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Must have missed this vote - what was the final tally?

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

Ah - you're going with "the house website is lying".
..

Where did I say the website is lying.

You believe the house website allows for more than the two paths to impeachment it lists
The plain language of the House website says otherwise.
For there to be more than two paths, as you suggest, the house website must be wrong - which means it is lying, or it doesn't know what it is talking about.
You choose which.

Either way, the fact remains: There are two paths for impeachment.
Which one are we on?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How were the rulings unlawful?

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

Ah. You cannot answer the question.
I thought not.

I probably could answer your question

No. You can't..

Feel free to prove I can't.

You refusal to even try - and thus, back your own claim - says all that need be said.
You cannot answer the question, and are too lazy to try.

Doesn't change the fact that a person was impeached and removed from office for drunkenness.

The above is a lie of omission.
Drunknedness... and...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:

How does asking a foreign nation to assist in the investigation of potentially corrupt actions taken by a sitting VP with respect to that nation fall under the heading of "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I get it- you are okay with Trump asking China and Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Another lie of omission.

 

[Syriusly]

'or the House could'
Or the House can do it another way.

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

Ah - you're going with "the house website is lying".
..

Where did I say the website is lying.

You believe the house website allows for more than the two paths to impeachment it lists
The plain language of the House website says otherwise.
For there to be more than two paths, as you suggest, the house website must be wrong - which means it is lying, or it doesn't know what it is talking about.
You choose which.

Either way, the fact remains: There are two paths for impeachment.
Which one are we on?

The fact remains- according to the Constitution there is no limit to the path the House takes towards impeachment.

If you would like I can quote the Constitution again.

 

[Syriusly]

I look forward to your in depth investigation on this issue and reporting back to us.

Ah. You cannot answer the question.
I thought not.

I probably could answer your question

No. You can't..

Feel free to prove I can't.

You refusal to even try - and thus, back your own claim - says all that need be said.
You cannot answer the question, and are too lazy to try.

Doesn't change the fact that a person was impeached and removed from office for drunkenness.

The above is a lie of omission.
Drunknedness... and...?

Like I said- I am not going to do the research you are too lazy to do yourself.

The judge was impeached and removed from office on two accounts.
One of the accounts was drunkenness.
And if the other account had not existed, this judge would still have been impeached for drunkenness.
Doesn't change the fact that the judge was impeached and removed from office for drunkenness.

And not exactly a 'lie of omission' when I have already listed both items
in this very same thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:

How does asking a foreign nation to assist in the investigation of potentially corrupt actions taken by a sitting VP with respect to that nation fall under the heading of "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

How is the President asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival not a 'high crime or misdeameanor' worthy of impeachment?

Certainly warranted more than drunkenness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The House source lists -two- paths to an impeachment inquiry:
The introduction of a bill by a member of the house, or an inquiry resolution passed by the house.
Which path are we on?

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

Ah - you're going with "the house website is lying".
..

Where did I say the website is lying.

You believe the house website allows for more than the two paths to impeachment it lists
The plain language of the House website says otherwise.
For there to be more than two paths, as you suggest, the house website must be wrong - which means it is lying, or it doesn't know what it is talking about.
You choose which.
Either way, the fact remains: There are two paths for impeachment.
Which one are we on?

The fact remains- according to the Constitution there is no limit to the path the House takes towards impeachment.
If you would like I can quote the Constitution again.

Look at you unwilling to address the questions put to you.
Again.
No surprise.

 

[Lesh]

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:

How does asking a foreign nation to assist in the investigation of potentially corrupt actions taken by a sitting VP with respect to that nation fall under the heading of "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

How is the President asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival not a 'high crime or misdeameanor' worthy of impeachment?

Certainly warranted more than drunkenness.

It breaks election laws

It's extortion and bribery

And it's an abuse of power

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:

How does asking a foreign nation to assist in the investigation of potentially corrupt actions taken by a sitting VP with respect to that nation fall under the heading of "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

How is the President asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival not a 'high crime or misdeameanor' worthy of impeachment?

Certainly warranted more than drunkenness.

It breaks election laws
It's extortion and bribery
And it's an abuse of power

Unsupportable nonsense.
Trump asked the Ukraine to assist in an investigation of the potentially corrupt acts committed by a sitting VP.
Nothing in any of that in any way falls under the talking points you listed, above.

 

[Syriusly]

The House source lists two possible paths- the Constitution doesn't require either of those paths.

Ah - you're going with "the house website is lying".
..

Where did I say the website is lying.

You believe the house website allows for more than the two paths to impeachment it lists
The plain language of the House website says otherwise.
For there to be more than two paths, as you suggest, the house website must be wrong - which means it is lying, or it doesn't know what it is talking about.
You choose which.
Either way, the fact remains: There are two paths for impeachment.
Which one are we on?

The fact remains- according to the Constitution there is no limit to the path the House takes towards impeachment.
If you would like I can quote the Constitution again.

Look at you unwilling to address the questions put to you.
Again.
No surprise.

You just don't like my answers- and clearly you don't like what the Constitution says.

No surprise.

 

[Syriusly]

Except of course none of that is actually true.
Trump specifically asked Ukraine to investigate:
a) The wild Right wing conspiracy theory about the DNC server and
b) The Biden's- let me quote you here:

How does asking a foreign nation to assist in the investigation of potentially corrupt actions taken by a sitting VP with respect to that nation fall under the heading of "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

How is the President asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival not a 'high crime or misdeameanor' worthy of impeachment?

Certainly warranted more than drunkenness.

It breaks election laws
It's extortion and bribery
And it's an abuse of power

Unsupportable nonsense.
Trump asked the Ukraine to assist in an investigation of the potentially corrupt acts committed by a sitting VP.
Nothing in any of that in any way falls under the talking points you listed, above.

Trump secretly pressured Ukraine to make a public announcement that it was investigating his political rivals, in exchange for releasing Congressionally approved funds and a sought after meeting with the President in the Oval Office.

And yes- that does break the law- and is immoral.