Giuliani drops another Biden bomb: "Keep your eye on Romania'

[jknowgood]

If Trump answers truthfully, he has nothing to worry about. To bad Clinton couldn't do it.

There were illegal payments made to Stormy. And Trump colluded with a foreign power to help him defeat a political opponent.

He has plenty to worry about under oath. And plenty to worry about from his third wife.

Still with Russian collusion? Yep, any day now. You forget Stormy ended up paying him.

There was an illegal payment made to Stormy. You can try to toss out red herrings, but it won't work.

And I did not say Russian collusion. Trump colluded with Zelensky.

But the fact Trump had just gotten out from under the Russia investigation and immediately colluded with Zelensky make sme wonder if maybe he did directly collude with Putin after all.

I never though Trump was stupid enough to directly collude, and said so many times on this forum. His underlings most certainly did. But I didn't think Trump was that stupid.

But now...I don't know. His call to Zelensky proves he IS that stupid.

All I know is, after the Muller investigation. We know Trump is the cleanest president in history. Muller has unlimited resources and money to find anything on Trump and still couldn't do it.

The Mueller investigation revealed Russia interfered in our election and that Trump obstructed the investigation. That's your idea of clean?

And now Trump is still trying to help out his buddy Putin by chasing after a fake hoax about the DNC's emails being in the Ukraine.

It eats at Trump that he would not be president if Putin hadn't helped him. It eats and eats at him. That's why he spends so much energy showing people red maps (he never shows pictures of the popular vote) and chasing after hoaxes he believes will get Putin off the hook. That's why he dropped to his knees and sucked Putin's cock in front of the entire world in Helsinki. He has to believe he got where he is without Putin's help, and he will chase any phantom to prove it.

Lol, you and Schiff should get together and write a children' book. Because anyone who believes that crap. Has the mind of a child. Muller found out nothing, if he did. He would've used it. Lol, y'al are making up stuff Trump said and are trying to impeach him over it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mueller stated no Americans within Trump's campaign tampered with the election results.

Who gave you that phony talking point?

Besides, who accused anyone in Trumpybears campaign or not, of tampering with election results?

 

[BlindBoo]

You know, mark levin made a good point on his show yesterday. This impeachment inquiry actually is unconstitutional. The constitution says "the house of representatives have the sole power to impeach.."

It doesn't say the speaker has the power, or one party has the power, it says the house as a whole. It's almost implied that a vote is mandatory to begin an inquiry. What you have here is one party of the house denying the other party in the house their constitutional voice in what happens.

The Constitution doesn't even mention an Impeachment Inquiry much less mandate any rules for beginning one. Those rules are set at the beginning of the session and voted on by the full House at that time.

Is the House impeachment inquiry illegitimate? Three questions.

"In addition, House rules have changed. During the Nixon and Clinton eras, House committee chairmen did not have subpoena authority, and needed an inquiry-beginning vote to grant that power. Today the House majority has unilateral subpoena power, removing a big incentive for such a vote."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, you and Schiff should get together and write a children' book. Because anyone who believes that crap. Has the mind of a child. Muller found out nothing, if he did. He would've used it. Lol, y'al are making up stuff Trump said and are trying to impeach him over it.

Mind of a child, or a corrupt political hack, or a blinders wearing ideological wackjob....take your pick they all amount to the same thing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It looks like the whole damn Obama admin was on the take....

Are you surprised? The whole dayum bunch is as cooked and corrupt as a dog's hind leg and have been for a long long time.

Why would you cook a dog's hind leg? I am reporting you to the ASPCA!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You idiots are dead set on depriving Trump of his constitutional rights... Fascist!

Exactly what Rights does the Constitution give a President during an Impeachment by the House?

The constitution grants the president no special rights in regard to impeachment. His rights are exactly the same as any American. The constitution does not say that much about impeachment. However Senate rules contain the procedures which grant the accused certain rights in the trial which is basically the right to present a defense. The House Judiciary Committee draws up the charges (articles) creating the Bill of Impeachment and House votes on the bill. The House's part in impeachment is similar to a grand jury. It investigates and draws up charges.

Trump's claims about a witch hunt, unconstitutional illegal actions by the democrats, and his right to face his accusatory is just so much bullshit. He has the right to a defense once the House impeaches him. However, he does have the obligation to cooperate with the House in the inquiry.

No, he does not. His advisors do not have to testify due to executive privilege, a court-tested, tried and true part of he separation of powers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If Trump answers truthfully, he has nothing to worry about. To bad Clinton couldn't do it.

There were illegal payments made to Stormy. And Trump colluded with a foreign power to help him defeat a political opponent.

He has plenty to worry about under oath. And plenty to worry about from his third wife.

Still with Russian collusion? Yep, any day now. You forget Stormy ended up paying him.

There was an illegal payment made to Stormy. You can try to toss out red herrings, but it won't work.

And I did not say Russian collusion. Trump colluded with Zelensky.

But the fact Trump had just gotten out from under the Russia investigation and immediately colluded with Zelensky make sme wonder if maybe he did directly collude with Putin after all.

I never though Trump was stupid enough to directly collude, and said so many times on this forum. His underlings most certainly did. But I didn't think Trump was that stupid.

But now...I don't know. His call to Zelensky proves he IS that stupid.

All I know is, after the Muller investigation. We know Trump is the cleanest president in history. Muller has unlimited resources and money to find anything on Trump and still couldn't do it.

He found a lot of dirt just not a much as democrats hoped for and more than republicans wanted.

I would like the Center for Disease Control to investigate this disease running rampant amongst libtards who hallucinate things in reports. Schiff sees a quid pro quo in the whistleblower's report where there is none, and you fuckwads keep seeing dirt in the Mueller Report that does not exist either!

You people are making shit up out of whole cloth and when asked to provide proof, you run like the wind and tuck tail!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Imagine this scenario: The Dems continue their kangaroo court and eventually vote to impeach Trump. When the Senate trial begins, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declares that the impeachment vote violated the President's Constitutional rights and grants summary judgement of an acquittal. Would that knock your hat in the creek?

 

[edward37]

Imagine this scenario: The Dems continue their kangaroo court and eventually vote to impeach Trump. When the Senate trial begins, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declares that the impeachment vote violated the President's Constitutional rights and grants summary judgement of an acquittal. Would that knock your hat in the creek?

Bomb this Giuliani you sad POS
Two Giuliani Ukraine associates indicted on campaign finance charges
The duo allegedly sought to buy political influence on behalf of Ukrainian and Russian individuals.

Rudy Giuliani. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

By BEN SCHRECKINGER, DARREN SAMUELSOHN, BEN LEFEBVREand CAITLIN OPRYSKO

Link
Two foreign-born associates of Rudy Giuliani were indicted on campaign finance charges made public on Thursday over alleged schemes to buy political influence on behalf of a Ukrainian government official and a Russian businessman.

 

[basquebromance]

i'm watching romania, i'm watching china, i'm watching bahrain

these 3 countries are key. remember this post!

 

[Olde Europe]

No, your mischaracterization is the bullshit.

Every prior impeachment in the House was initiated by a vote on a bill that presented in clear detail what role each party would have and what their rights would be to include the Presidents rights.

Pelosi has short-circuited that whole process by having no bill, no vote, no rights for the President in the investigation, so this is not a legit impeachment.

It is nothing more than partisan theater made to fool dunces like you.

As has been said before, impeachment is about equivalent to the Grand Jury stage of a trial, in which the defendant-to-be has next to no rights to participate. Trial in law and in the Senate with rights to participate comes later.

That said, there is no requirement for a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. Only partisan hacks and those who would blindly, uncritically, and mindlessly re-bleat Trump's propaganda would claim otherwise. And, of course, these partisan hacks then turn around and accuse those who methodically follow the evidence of, wait for it, being partisan hacks.

Whoever thought Trump would swiftly move to slander the impeachment inquiry - that would be just about everybody with a brain - were, of course proven right. Whoever thought the brain-dead morons in Trump's base had no respect whatsoever for the Constitution - as written, not as disfigured by Trump's propaganda squad - should feel vindicated.

So far, I have seen not one of the goons disappointing my expectations. Not in their mendacity, not in their shamelessness, not in their abject subservience and their willful, belligerent ignorance. What a sight.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You know, mark levin made a good point on his show yesterday. This impeachment inquiry actually is unconstitutional. The constitution says "the house of representatives have the sole power to impeach.."

It doesn't say the speaker has the power, or one party has the power, it says the house as a whole. It's almost implied that a vote is mandatory to begin an inquiry. What you have here is one party of the house denying the other party in the house their constitutional voice in what happens.

The Constitution doesn't even mention an Impeachment Inquiry much less mandate any rules for beginning one. Those rules are set at the beginning of the session and voted on by the full House at that time.

Is the House impeachment inquiry illegitimate? Three questions.

"In addition, House rules have changed. During the Nixon and Clinton eras, House committee chairmen did not have subpoena authority, and needed an inquiry-beginning vote to grant that power. Today the House majority has unilateral subpoena power, removing a big incentive for such a vote."

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, the house rules state that an impeachment inquiry must originate from the judiciary committee. Nancy pelosi cannot unilaterally call for such an inquiry to start, as she is not a member of that comittee, it must come from the committee.

I'm going to guess that such an inquiry cannot be called for by Nadler himself, the committe as a whole would have to vote to start such an inquiry.

Also, again, if I'm not mistaken, house rules state the judiciary committee are the ones to conduct the inquiry, not an umbrella of 6 different committees, as pelosi has authorized them to do. If those are indeed the rules, then she is going against those rules by authorizing the outsourcing of the inquiry to those other committees.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives where the House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to even proceed with impeachment. Provided they do, the Chairman of the Committee proposes a resolution calling for a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.

What Are the Requirements to Impeach a President?

So, according to this, it's all up to judiciary, not the speaker. Notice it says the chairman of the committee has to call for a resolution for a formal inquiry. This means it has to be voted on

 

[Billy_Bob]

Imagine this scenario: The Dems continue their kangaroo court and eventually vote to impeach Trump. When the Senate trial begins, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declares that the impeachment vote violated the President's Constitutional rights and grants summary judgement of an acquittal. Would that knock your hat in the creek?

Can you imagine the thrashing they would receive for violating the US Constitution?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You know, mark levin made a good point on his show yesterday. This impeachment inquiry actually is unconstitutional. The constitution says "the house of representatives have the sole power to impeach.."

It doesn't say the speaker has the power, or one party has the power, it says the house as a whole. It's almost implied that a vote is mandatory to begin an inquiry. What you have here is one party of the house denying the other party in the house their constitutional voice in what happens.

The Constitution doesn't even mention an Impeachment Inquiry much less mandate any rules for beginning one. Those rules are set at the beginning of the session and voted on by the full House at that time.

Is the House impeachment inquiry illegitimate? Three questions.

"In addition, House rules have changed. During the Nixon and Clinton eras, House committee chairmen did not have subpoena authority, and needed an inquiry-beginning vote to grant that power. Today the House majority has unilateral subpoena power, removing a big incentive for such a vote."

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, the house rules state that an impeachment inquiry must originate from the judiciary committee. Nancy pelosi cannot unilaterally call for such an inquiry to start, as she is not a member of that comittee, it must come from the committee.

I'm going to guess that such an inquiry cannot be called for by Nadler himself, the committe as a whole would have to vote to start such an inquiry.

Also, again, if I'm not mistaken, house rules state the judiciary committee are the ones to conduct the inquiry, not an umbrella of 6 different committees, as pelosi has authorized them to do. If those are indeed the rules, then she is going against those rules by authorizing the outsourcing of the inquiry to those other committees.

Pelosie has violated House rules and hasn't followed even one of them. Without a vote of the Committee and then a vote from the full house no inquiry can be started. She has violated the US Constitution and needs to be removed from office.

 

[bripat9643]

!
!
!


Well, y'all might want to catch up the latest about Giuliani. He's toast. And Trump is so deep into Russian help for his elections, he couldn't get out of it now if he tried.

Two Giuliani Associates Who Helped Him on Ukraine Charged With Campaign-Finance Violations


""Two Giuliani Associates Who Helped Him on Ukraine Charged With Campaign-Finance Violations
Prosecutors say Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were part of a conspiracy to funnel a Russian donor’s money into President Trump’s campaign"""

WASHINGTON—Two Soviet-born donors to a pro- Trump fundraising committee who helped Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to investigate Democrat Joe Biden were arrested late Wednesday on criminal charges of violating campaign finance rules, including funneling Russian money into President Trump’s campaign.

""""Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Florida businessmen, have been under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, and are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday, the people said. Both men were born in former Soviet republics.

House committees issued subpoenas for documents from the two men on Thursday.

Mr. Giuliani, President Trump’s private lawyer, identified the two men in May as his clients....."


OOPSIE!

Another "Anonymous Sources say".... Gawd you people are pathetic and pathological liars...

Excuse me? My post above does not have anonymous sources quoted. It's about the actual arrest of these two Russians.
It's not from Facebook, idiot. It's from the Wall Street Journal.
Sorry reality isn't suiting you very well.

It's behind a paywall, dumbass.

 

[BlindBoo]

So, according to this, it's all up to judiciary, not the speaker.

It's all up to the majority when they set the Rules at the beginning of the Session.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, according to this, it's all up to judiciary, not the speaker.

It's all up to the majority when they set the Rules at the beginning of the Session.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

Correct, some of the rules regarding subpoenas have been amended, but as far as I can tell, there hasnt been any changes to the procedures regarding impeachment or impeachment inquiries.

I believe the house rules still stand, the judiciary committee must be the ones to initiate an impeachment inquiry via proposal of a resolution by the committee chair, which then has to be voted on by the committee.

 

[BlindBoo]

I believe the house rules still stand, the judiciary committee must be the ones to initiate an impeachment inquiry

So? Why do they need to vote on an initiative when they already have subpoena power? Sure, it would be a nice gesture to the minority party to allow them some subpoena power of there own but, like the Grimm Reaper's move to deny a nominee to the SC a hearing, it's not against the Constitution, even though it would have been a nice gesture to the minority.

 

[Lesh]

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives where the House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to even proceed with impeachment. Provided they do, the Chairman of the Committee proposes a resolution calling for a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.

What Are the Requirements to Impeach a President?

So, according to this, it's all up to judiciary, not the speaker. Notice it says the chairman of the committee has to call for a resolution for a formal inquiry. This means it has to be voted on

Nope
From NPR
Must the House vote to conduct an impeachment inquiry?

Cipollone wrote: "the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."

The House has taken such a formal step in the past, including most recently with the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton.

Pelosi has not called for such a vote but announced last month that the House is conducting "an official impeachment inquiry."

POLITICS
Why Ukraine Is At The Center Of The Impeachment Inquiry

• " style="display: flex; -webkit-box-align: center; align-items: center; min-height: 35px; width: 115px; margin-top: 14px; padding: 5px 10px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(68, 68, 68); background: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: rgb(153, 153, 153); font-size: 1.2rem; user-select: all;">

• 
  

However, a former senior House Republican aide told NPR that "there is a difference between what the House should do and what the House has to do."

The former aide, an expert on House rules who asked not to be identified because he is criticizing his own party, argued that it's best practice to have a vote of the full House.

But there is nothing in the Constitution or in the rules of the House that compel a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi is breaking with precedent but not rules or the law.