I may have gotten the impeachment thing all wrong

[progressive hunter]

Sorry, but bullshit. You are looking at the world via movie lenses, not reality.

Whatever you say man, I’ll use my voice to stand up for honesty and integrity... you can use yours to stand up for winning at all cost if that’s your thing.

Not "at any cost", but using the rules of the game as applied in the real world.

The question is do you consistently stand up for honesty and integrity, or only when you can back up a position you already approve of.

As with free speech, supporting integrity is easy when it comes to things you agree with, and not really support at all.

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

youre such a fucking hypocrite,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Whatever you say man, I’ll use my voice to stand up for honesty and integrity... you can use yours to stand up for winning at all cost if that’s your thing.

Not "at any cost", but using the rules of the game as applied in the real world.

The question is do you consistently stand up for honesty and integrity, or only when you can back up a position you already approve of.

As with free speech, supporting integrity is easy when it comes to things you agree with, and not really support at all.

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

youre such a fucking hypocrite,,,

Wow, you have such a unique way to frame an absolutely empty argument. Big waste of time.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not "at any cost", but using the rules of the game as applied in the real world.

The question is do you consistently stand up for honesty and integrity, or only when you can back up a position you already approve of.

As with free speech, supporting integrity is easy when it comes to things you agree with, and not really support at all.

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

youre such a fucking hypocrite,,,

Wow, you have such a unique way to frame an absolutely empty argument. Big waste of time.

I was making a statement not framing an argument,,,

youre such a fucking idiot too,,,

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, but bullshit. You are looking at the world via movie lenses, not reality.

Whatever you say man, I’ll use my voice to stand up for honesty and integrity... you can use yours to stand up for winning at all cost if that’s your thing.

Not "at any cost", but using the rules of the game as applied in the real world.

The question is do you consistently stand up for honesty and integrity, or only when you can back up a position you already approve of.

As with free speech, supporting integrity is easy when it comes to things you agree with, and not really support at all.

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

You can't do that in the House of Representatives because in the House Reality is set by the party in power. All rules flow from majority votes, so the majority sets the rules.

The Senate is similar by has a few brakes on majority votes and actions.

 

[Ame®icano]

WATCH: Lindsey Graham SLAMS the media for bias against Republicans, vows he will look into Biden Ukraine scandal

He better hurry up. We kinda need to know NOW. With a scandal centered on Ukraine, with Hunter and Joe Biden corruption at its center and a president getting impeached for wanting to expose it, we still don't have anyone in Congress apparently willing to even look into it!

Whatever happened to Barr?

The three previous impeachments of presidents by the House were all political acts. Only in the case of Clinton was there a real offense since he lied under oath.

However, the Senate did not regard lying about a sexual affair as “high crime” and refused to convict. With Trump impeachment, since there is no high crime, or evidence of it, Senate will not convict him and Dems know this. The question is why did the Dems go for impeachment at all?

The most likely and answer is to throw enough mud in hopes that some of their conspiracies will stick and that will reduce Trump’s reelection chances.

Another reason that we don’t hear much about, and you mentioned it above, is that a number of Dems are under investigation by the DOJ for felonies committed in their orchestration of the Russia hoax. This investigation could easily produce indictments of some high ranked Dems. Trump’s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation, and even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield against indictments because Dems can claim that charges against them are just political payback for their impeachment of Trump.

 

[Slade3200]

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

youre such a fucking hypocrite,,,

Wow, you have such a unique way to frame an absolutely empty argument. Big waste of time.

I was making a statement not framing an argument,,,

youre such a fucking idiot too,,,

Again, you’re just wasting space.... try adding something of value to the thread

 

[Slade3200]

Whatever you say man, I’ll use my voice to stand up for honesty and integrity... you can use yours to stand up for winning at all cost if that’s your thing.

Not "at any cost", but using the rules of the game as applied in the real world.

The question is do you consistently stand up for honesty and integrity, or only when you can back up a position you already approve of.

As with free speech, supporting integrity is easy when it comes to things you agree with, and not really support at all.

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

You can't do that in the House of Representatives because in the House Reality is set by the party in power. All rules flow from majority votes, so the majority sets the rules.

The Senate is similar by has a few brakes on majority votes and actions.

well perhaps we should change the system to require bipartisan agreement on the rules instead of majority rule. I’d vote for that

 

[Care4all]

WATCH: Lindsey Graham SLAMS the media for bias against Republicans, vows he will look into Biden Ukraine scandal

He better hurry up. We kinda need to know NOW. With a scandal centered on Ukraine, with Hunter and Joe Biden corruption at its center and a president getting impeached for wanting to expose it, we still don't have anyone in Congress apparently willing to even look into it!

Whatever happened to Barr?

The three previous impeachments of presidents by the House were all political acts. Only in the case of Clinton was there a real offense since he lied under oath.

However, the Senate did not regard lying about a sexual affair as “high crime” and refused to convict. With Trump impeachment, since there is no high crime, or evidence of it, Senate will not convict him and Dems know this. The question is why did the Dems go for impeachment at all?

The most likely and answer is to throw enough mud in hopes that some of their conspiracies will stick and that will reduce Trump’s reelection chances.

Another reason that we don’t hear much about, and you mentioned it above, is that a number of Dems are under investigation by the DOJ for felonies committed in their orchestration of the Russia hoax. This investigation could easily produce indictments of some high ranked Dems. Trump’s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation, and even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield against indictments because Dems can claim that charges against them are just political payback for their impeachment of Trump.

who in the democratic party, that they would impeach trump to protect, is under criminal investigation?

 

[Richard-H]

Trump is guilty and we all know it.

There are 3 views:

1. People who believe he is guilty and should be removed from office.

2. People who believe he's guilty, but do not think that what he did is serious enough to remove him from office

3. People who believe that he's guilty, but don't care how serious the crime is. They want him to be a dictator.

Most Republicans and trumpbots fall into category 3, but pretend to be in category 2.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Mark Meadows

@RepMarkMeadows

Democrats reference Gordon Sondland EVERYWHERE in their case.

“No one on this planet told you POTUS was tying aid/political investigations?” Sondland: “Yes” “So you have no evidence”

Sondland: “Other than my presumption”

Sondland: “Yes”
“So you have no evidence”
Sondland: “Other than my presumption”

Twitter

I think most americans have come to the conclusion that democrats suck eggs hard and democratic socialist are indeed complete morons and childish fags

The lot of em

 

[martybegan]

Not "at any cost", but using the rules of the game as applied in the real world.

The question is do you consistently stand up for honesty and integrity, or only when you can back up a position you already approve of.

As with free speech, supporting integrity is easy when it comes to things you agree with, and not really support at all.

I, like everybody else, have opinions on every issue. Being honest and transparent in the debate is a principle I always stand up for. I can accept differing opinions. I actually enjoy the debate and respect other points of view. But I don’t respect the petty partisan game play and trolling that more and more people are engaging in. And I do expect our legal institutions to act in a fair and impartial manner.

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

You can't do that in the House of Representatives because in the House Reality is set by the party in power. All rules flow from majority votes, so the majority sets the rules.

The Senate is similar by has a few brakes on majority votes and actions.

well perhaps we should change the system to require bipartisan agreement on the rules instead of majority rule. I’d vote for that

Good luck.

 

[progressive hunter]

If one side is fair and impartial, and the other side isn't, the other side wins.

I am not looking for Martyrs for my team, I am looking for fighters.

Wrong... you take the Dems to court for any laws or procedures they broke to hold them accountable and/or make changes to the system so that it is fair. Then you conduct yourselves in a respectable way

youre such a fucking hypocrite,,,

Wow, you have such a unique way to frame an absolutely empty argument. Big waste of time.

I was making a statement not framing an argument,,,

youre such a fucking idiot too,,,

Again, you’re just wasting space.... try adding something of value to the thread

people value things differently,,,

 

[Care4all]

Spare answered that, right above... the Senate had a better shot to get them immediately.... Trump couldn't fight them as ferociously to deny them, because they are the same party, he needs them all, to save him, from himself.

Executive Privilege is the same regarding House subpoenas and Senate subpoenas. The WH can challenge both and go to the courts for a ruling.

Once again you are trying to put the job of the House on the Senate. Your House Clowns refused to follow protocol. That's on them, not Trump, not the Senate.

He never executed his executive privilege rights in the house. NOT ONCE.... He simply defied the subpoenas and the law on everything. Another impeachment article on those unlawful actions.

The Senate, can go directly to the Supreme court in the impeachment trial, skipping years of litigation and appeals.

Trump can not stall it.

He wanted to stall being impeached, it did not work. In the Senate, he wouldn't want to stall his verdict.

If you were paying attention you would know that his lawyers explained why the subpoenas were defied.

The were not valid subpoenas since they were tied to an impeachment inquiry. There was no required vote to implement impeachment in the House, so the subpoenas are invalid.

If your House Clowns think they are valid the protocol is to go to the courts for a ruling. The refused to follow protocol. Your beef should be with your House Clowns.

they didn't break the rules of the house, voted on in January 2019.

Yes, they did.

The House rules still require a vote to start impeachment. They had none prior to conducting their 'investigation"

Rules also require the Republicans have a full day to call and question their witnesses. Dimwingers denied that.

That's just for starters. You are a clueless hack.

the majority in the house makes its own rules on impeachment, not the President.... he has no rights to object, the constitution gave them the power to choose their own method and rules.

If the house chose to go thru investigating, through their oversight powers, before choosing to make a formal impeachment inquiry, that's up to them, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

THE CONSTITUTION says, the President, has no say in the matter... unless congress decides to give him say.
the white house arguments, were bogus, and shot down as bogus, by the House.

 

[Billiejeens]

I am being honest. you are hiding behind the false curtain of neutrality.

No one is truly neutral, and those who claim to be are either lying to themselves, lying to others, or both.

ok then consider me a non-neutral player, I’m fine with that. I think the Dems are idiots and I’m still going to say things about that, but go ahead and ignore those comments and consider me as a biased actor promoting an opposing position to yourself... ok, we good now?

Fine. Why should Republicans play fair now when Dems did not during the actual impeachment process/voting?

Why should they play fair? That’s easy, because that’s what honorable people do. You do what’s right not what your opponents are doing... if you act like them then you are no better than they are

Sorry, but in a situation this important and this serious, "dying with your boots on" isn't honorable, it's retarded.

The other side will show no respect for the corpse, the people will not visit the grave, which will hold the marker "They got their asses kicked, but at least they were fair about it"

There was a time when right beat wrong and truth beat lies, and integrity beat manipulation. I still believe that can be true.

But, you would have no future.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Executive Privilege is the same regarding House subpoenas and Senate subpoenas. The WH can challenge both and go to the courts for a ruling.

Once again you are trying to put the job of the House on the Senate. Your House Clowns refused to follow protocol. That's on them, not Trump, not the Senate.

He never executed his executive privilege rights in the house. NOT ONCE.... He simply defied the subpoenas and the law on everything. Another impeachment article on those unlawful actions.

The Senate, can go directly to the Supreme court in the impeachment trial, skipping years of litigation and appeals.

Trump can not stall it.

He wanted to stall being impeached, it did not work. In the Senate, he wouldn't want to stall his verdict.

If you were paying attention you would know that his lawyers explained why the subpoenas were defied.

The were not valid subpoenas since they were tied to an impeachment inquiry. There was no required vote to implement impeachment in the House, so the subpoenas are invalid.

If your House Clowns think they are valid the protocol is to go to the courts for a ruling. The refused to follow protocol. Your beef should be with your House Clowns.

they didn't break the rules of the house, voted on in January 2019.

Yes, they did.

The House rules still require a vote to start impeachment. They had none prior to conducting their 'investigation"

Rules also require the Republicans have a full day to call and question their witnesses. Dimwingers denied that.

That's just for starters. You are a clueless hack.

the majority in the house makes its own rules on impeachment, not the President.... he has no rights to object, the constitution gave them the power to choose their own method and rules.

If the house chose to go thru investigating, through their oversight powers, before choosing to make a formal impeachment inquiry, that's up to them, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

THE CONSTITUTION says, the President, has no say in the matter... unless congress decides to give him say.
the white house arguments, were bogus, and shot down as bogus, by the House.

Dem socialists...Complete tools

 

[Ame®icano]

WATCH: Lindsey Graham SLAMS the media for bias against Republicans, vows he will look into Biden Ukraine scandal

He better hurry up. We kinda need to know NOW. With a scandal centered on Ukraine, with Hunter and Joe Biden corruption at its center and a president getting impeached for wanting to expose it, we still don't have anyone in Congress apparently willing to even look into it!

Whatever happened to Barr?

The three previous impeachments of presidents by the House were all political acts. Only in the case of Clinton was there a real offense since he lied under oath.

However, the Senate did not regard lying about a sexual affair as “high crime” and refused to convict. With Trump impeachment, since there is no high crime, or evidence of it, Senate will not convict him and Dems know this. The question is why did the Dems go for impeachment at all?

The most likely and answer is to throw enough mud in hopes that some of their conspiracies will stick and that will reduce Trump’s reelection chances.

Another reason that we don’t hear much about, and you mentioned it above, is that a number of Dems are under investigation by the DOJ for felonies committed in their orchestration of the Russia hoax. This investigation could easily produce indictments of some high ranked Dems. Trump’s conviction in the Senate could stop indictments from the Barr-Durham investigation, and even a failed impeachment can be used as a shield against indictments because Dems can claim that charges against them are just political payback for their impeachment of Trump.

who in the democratic party, that they would impeach trump to protect, is under criminal investigation?

What a hell is that?

Have I mentioned criminal investigation? I mentioned Russian hoax, Barr and Durham, you connect the dots.

 

[Ame®icano]

Trump is guilty and we all know it.

There are 3 views:

1. People who believe he is guilty and should be removed from office.

2. People who believe he's guilty, but do not think that what he did is serious enough to remove him from office

3. People who believe that he's guilty, but don't care how serious the crime is. They want him to be a dictator.

Most Republicans and trumpbots fall into category 3, but pretend to be in category 2.

"Trump is guilty and we all know it."

You just have to keep investigating to find out what Trump is guilty for.

 

[Ame®icano]

Executive Privilege is the same regarding House subpoenas and Senate subpoenas. The WH can challenge both and go to the courts for a ruling.

Once again you are trying to put the job of the House on the Senate. Your House Clowns refused to follow protocol. That's on them, not Trump, not the Senate.

He never executed his executive privilege rights in the house. NOT ONCE.... He simply defied the subpoenas and the law on everything. Another impeachment article on those unlawful actions.

The Senate, can go directly to the Supreme court in the impeachment trial, skipping years of litigation and appeals.

Trump can not stall it.

He wanted to stall being impeached, it did not work. In the Senate, he wouldn't want to stall his verdict.

If you were paying attention you would know that his lawyers explained why the subpoenas were defied.

The were not valid subpoenas since they were tied to an impeachment inquiry. There was no required vote to implement impeachment in the House, so the subpoenas are invalid.

If your House Clowns think they are valid the protocol is to go to the courts for a ruling. The refused to follow protocol. Your beef should be with your House Clowns.

they didn't break the rules of the house, voted on in January 2019.

Yes, they did.

The House rules still require a vote to start impeachment. They had none prior to conducting their 'investigation"

Rules also require the Republicans have a full day to call and question their witnesses. Dimwingers denied that.

That's just for starters. You are a clueless hack.

the majority in the house makes its own rules on impeachment, not the President.... he has no rights to object, the constitution gave them the power to choose their own method and rules.

If the house chose to go thru investigating, through their oversight powers, before choosing to make a formal impeachment inquiry, that's up to them, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

THE CONSTITUTION says, the President, has no say in the matter... unless congress decides to give him say.
the white house arguments, were bogus, and shot down as bogus, by the House.

I am not disagreeing with you here, but since you mentioned constitution, I'd like you to cite it instead of giving your interpretation.

While we're at it, House has it's own rules, Senate has theirs.

Do you think House has say in Senate rules?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He never executed his executive privilege rights in the house. NOT ONCE.... He simply defied the subpoenas and the law on everything. Another impeachment article on those unlawful actions.

The Senate, can go directly to the Supreme court in the impeachment trial, skipping years of litigation and appeals.

Trump can not stall it.

He wanted to stall being impeached, it did not work. In the Senate, he wouldn't want to stall his verdict.

If you were paying attention you would know that his lawyers explained why the subpoenas were defied.

The were not valid subpoenas since they were tied to an impeachment inquiry. There was no required vote to implement impeachment in the House, so the subpoenas are invalid.

If your House Clowns think they are valid the protocol is to go to the courts for a ruling. The refused to follow protocol. Your beef should be with your House Clowns.

The were not valid subpoenas since they were tied to an impeachment inquiry. There was no required vote to implement impeachment in the House, so the subpoenas are invalid.

That is just straight up nonsense.
Subpoenas are issued all of the time while conducting investigations. No votes are needed for those subpoenas to be valid.

Trumps legal team lied. Again. Just as you are now.

You are full of shit.

You are full of shit.

Tell us about Benghazi or fast and furious, dope.

What do you want to know?

Where the vote was for those subpoenas, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Spare answered that, right above... the Senate had a better shot to get them immediately.... Trump couldn't fight them as ferociously to deny them, because they are the same party, he needs them all, to save him, from himself.

Executive Privilege is the same regarding House subpoenas and Senate subpoenas. The WH can challenge both and go to the courts for a ruling.

Once again you are trying to put the job of the House on the Senate. Your House Clowns refused to follow protocol. That's on them, not Trump, not the Senate.

He never executed his executive privilege rights in the house. NOT ONCE.... He simply defied the subpoenas and the law on everything. Another impeachment article on those unlawful actions.

The Senate, can go directly to the Supreme court in the impeachment trial, skipping years of litigation and appeals.

Trump can not stall it.

He wanted to stall being impeached, it did not work. In the Senate, he wouldn't want to stall his verdict.

If you were paying attention you would know that his lawyers explained why the subpoenas were defied.

The were not valid subpoenas since they were tied to an impeachment inquiry. There was no required vote to implement impeachment in the House, so the subpoenas are invalid.

If your House Clowns think they are valid the protocol is to go to the courts for a ruling. The refused to follow protocol. Your beef should be with your House Clowns.

they didn't break the rules of the house, voted on in January 2019.

Yes, they did.

The House rules still require a vote to start impeachment. They had none prior to conducting their 'investigation"

Rules also require the Republicans have a full day to call and question their witnesses. Dimwingers denied that.

That's just for starters. You are a clueless hack.

The House rules still require a vote to start impeachment. They had none prior to conducting their 'investigation"

You're an idiot.
Simply because the truth is easily found.

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?

"Is it constitutionally acceptable for the House speaker to initiate an impeachment “by means of nothing more than a press conference”? In short, yes.

The constitutional text on this issue is spare. The Constitution simply says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Ultimately, if the House wants to impeach someone, it needs to muster a simple majority in support of articles of impeachment that can be presented to the Senate. How the House gets there is entirely up to the chamber itself to determine. There is no constitutional requirement that the House take two successful votes on impeachment, one to authorize some kind of inquiry and one to ratify whatever emerges from that inquiry. An impeachment inquiry is not “invalid” because there has been no vote to formally launch it, and any eventual impeachment would not be “invalid” because the process that led to it did not feature a floor vote authorizing a specific inquiry.

Of course, the House’s own rules might require such a vote, and the House must follow its own rules until it chooses to change them. But there is no rule requiring such an authorizing vote, and neither McCarthy nor Cipollone points to one. The House has changed its internal procedures dramatically over time. At one point, the House did not rely on standing committees but instead created select committees to handle many legislative tasks. Through much of its history, the House has limited the investigatory powers of its standing committees and required that those committees go to the floor to receive special authorization to issue subpoenas or spend substantial resources on staff. It no longer does so, and so it no longer needs to take such votes to specially authorize particular investigations. The House might want a select committee to pursue an impeachment inquiry, but it could also choose to rely on its standing committees to do the job with their preexisting jurisdiction and resources—and that is how the Democratic leadership has decided to approach the current impeachment inquiry. It is not up to the target of an impeachment to determine who will compose the committee that will draft the articles of impeachment or who will chair that committee."