When was President Trump convicted to cause impeachment?

[harmonica]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

grand jury for what?? you don't understand the question

 

[Care4all]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

 

[Moonglow]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

You missed when one of Trump's henchmen er spokesman said he definitely did do a quid pro but told everyone to mistake what he said for not doing it because he was busy walking the dog. Yeah that's the ticket...

 

[harmonica]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

 

[Care4all]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

grand jury for what?? you don't understand the question

The investigation stage, before you indict/impeach... depositions of witnesses according to Trey Gowdy and Lindsey Graham, are best done behind closed doors in the investigative stage, which is the phase the process is in... likened to the grand jury stage in a criminal process.

With Nixon and Clinton they had independent counsel's doing the investigations in private, and they turned their evidence over to the House judiciary committee, for them to decide on articles of impeachment.

Our Doj decided not to investigate Trump' s alleged illegal actions so the various related house committees are doing this investigating, and they will turn it over to the Judiciary committee...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh I wasn't confused. I know full well the process but my question still stands?
WHAT Conviction has Trump had of: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Exactly what "crimes" has he committed much less "convicted" of?

Yes, you are very confused.

The conviction comes from the Senate after a vote for impeachment in the House. Since the House is not even talking about a vote, there is no way the case went to the Senate, thus there is no possible way there can be a conviction yet.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

you mean not guilty by his fellow Dems

And 15 Repubs also. The Dems were the minority in the Senate at the time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I don't understand the confusion here.
I'm asking a very simple question.
Talk about "impeachment" requires specific "high crimes and misdemeanors. "
I'm asking what crimes? What misdemeanors"?

None yet of course, that is what the current House investigations is looking into. Until such time as they come to a conclusion and put it up for a vote we will not know.

Maybe, just maybe, if you went back and got your GED you could add in a Government class and learn how the process works.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

grand jury for what?? you don't understand the question

The question was simple, what charges has Trump been convicted of. The answer is equally simple...none

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

Joe and Hunter Biden for beginners, and because right now they don't have subpoena power THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING DEAL.

Please quote the law that states a president is not allowed to request help from a foreign gov't in possible corrupt dealings with a former vice president WHILE he was in office.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Care4all]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

alleged bribery and extortion.

Using a foreign gvt to help with your campaign.

Running a shadow gvt with his personal campaign lawyer.

WHO can Repubs subpoena to testify that could defend the president' s actions???

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

alleged bribery and extortion.

Using a foreign gvt to help with your campaign.

Running a shadow gvt with his personal campaign lawyer.

WHO can Repubs subpoena to testify that could defend the president' s actions???

How is paying Hunter Biden 50,000 a month to sit on the board of a company he knew nothing about helping the president's campaign?

 

[Synthaholic]

The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution. It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors..

What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

Would someone please tell me when President Trump was convicted?

Dumbass Poster Starts Dumbass Thread

 

[Care4all]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

 

[healthmyths]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

Yes but the simple question is:
What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

The Constitution is clear:
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
"It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A) There has been NO impeachment because
B) There has been NO conviction, because
there have been NO Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors even made about President Trump!

 

[healthmyths]

I don't understand the confusion here.
I'm asking a very simple question.
Talk about "impeachment" requires specific "high crimes and misdemeanors. "
I'm asking what crimes? What misdemeanors"?

None yet of course, that is what the current House investigations is looking into. Until such time as they come to a conclusion and put it up for a vote we will not know.

Maybe, just maybe, if you went back and got your GED you could add in a Government class and learn how the process works.

The fact is impeachment is as happened with Clinton because he lied under oath.
The specific charges against the president were lying under oath and obstruction of justice, charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones.

The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.[1]

On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the other being Andrew Johnson who was impeached in 1868),[a] when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication.
On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Consequently, Clinton remained in office for the balance of his second term.

The vote of the house was based on Starr Report which found Clinton lied under oath.
The Senate heard the prosecutors, i.e. the House and defended by the President's lawyers.
The Senate voted and Clinton was acquitted.
Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

BUT so far the House has NOT voted, much less heard the "treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.
What are they?
Take it to the House with open hearings... as the Starr report was created!

 

[HappyJoy]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

Yes but the simple question is:
What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

The Constitution is clear:
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
"It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A) There has been NO impeachment because
B) There has been NO conviction, because
there have been NO Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors even made about President Trump!

HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONVICT HIM HE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

 

[Kondor3]

The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution. It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors..

What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

Would someone please tell me when President Trump was convicted?

No prior indictment nor conviction is required to proceed with Impeachment.

The Impeachment and Trial, combined, constitute Due Process for a sitting US President.

The US House of Representatives will investigate whether such crimes are likely to have been committed.

If they find sufficient evidence to merit Impeachment, the US House of Representatives will draft Articles of Impeachment to submit as a Bill.

That Bill of Impeachment will be voted upon by the House at-large.

If the Bill of Impeachment is passed, then, for a US President, this is the equivalent of indictment by a Grand Jury.

The US Senate will then conduct a trial, with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presiding, and the US Senate serving as jurors.

Due process... entirely legal, and exactly what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned.

We will know whether or not Trump has committed such crimes when the House Impeachment Inquiry is completed.

Patience... it's coming...

 

[Care4all]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

alleged bribery and extortion.

Using a foreign gvt to help with your campaign.

Running a shadow gvt with his personal campaign lawyer.

WHO can Repubs subpoena to testify that could defend the president' s actions???

How is paying Hunter Biden 50,000 a month to sit on the board of a company he knew nothing about helping the president's campaign?

First, it was not illegal for Hunter to sit on their board, so there was NO Corruption for Giuliani and the President to look in to.

Second, the procedure of investigating an American citizen for corruption in a foreign country is done legally, through the DOJ And our Foreign Corruption agencies within the FBI or Treasury...along with the cooperation agreement with the foreign nation. NOT through the President and his personal campaign lawyer and a handful of criminal goons.

Third, if the President were truly concerned about corruption taking place in the Ukraine then why in the heck is he concerned with what might have happened 3 to 4 years ago with his rival verses the corruption that could be going on NOW, in the present?

Fourth, in June the Pentagon analyzed the Ukraine's corruption before handing over our aid and gave the Ukraine a clear Bill of health, to release the aid... but Trump held it back till the Ukraine investigated AGAIN, the Biden's and crowdstrike

And Fifth, Trump would not release the aid or put the Ukraine president on the schedule for a meeting in DC

UNTILL the Uke President made a PUBLIC announcement that he was investigating Hunter BIden/ Burisma in the media, preferably CNN....

NOW TELL ME, why was the public announcement of this newly opened Uke investigation needed before the meeting scheduled in DC or the military aid released?


WAKE UP PLEASE

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

alleged bribery and extortion.

Using a foreign gvt to help with your campaign.

Running a shadow gvt with his personal campaign lawyer.

WHO can Repubs subpoena to testify that could defend the president' s actions???

How is paying Hunter Biden 50,000 a month to sit on the board of a company he knew nothing about helping the president's campaign?

First, it was not illegal for Hunter to sit on their board, so there was NO Corruption for Giuliani and the President to look in to.

Second, the procedure of investigating an American citizen for corruption in a foreign country is done legally, through the DOJ And our Foreign Corruption agencies within the FBI or Treasury...along with the cooperation agreement with the foreign nation. NOT through the President and his personal campaign lawyer and a handful of criminal goons.

Third, if the President were truly concerned about corruption taking place in the Ukraine then why in the gecko is he concerned with what might have happened 3 to 4 years ago with his rival verses the corruption that could be going on NOW, in the present?

Fourth, in June the Pentagon analyzed the Ukraine's corruption before handing over our aid and gave the Ukraine a clear Bill of health, to release the aid... but Trump held it back till the Ukraine investigated AGAIN, the Biden's and expectations...

And Fifth, Trump would not release the aid or put the Ukraine president on the schedule for a meeting in DC

UNTILL the Uke President made a PUBLIC announcement that he was investigating Hunter BIden/ Burisma in the media, preferably CNN....

NOW TELL ME, why was the public announcement of this newly opened Uke investigation needed before the meeting scheduled in DC or the military aid released?


WAKE UP PLEASE

Cute. I asked for the law stating it was illegal not your opinion.

Thanks for playing.