Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Nostra]

The little commie from harvard just lied. He said Nixon sent people to do the break in, it's been proven Nixon had no foreknowledge of the break in, he got busted for trying to cover it up. Why do I think he will never face charges for his perjury?

.

Odd for a "Constitutional Scholar" to be so ignorant of such a huge Constitutionally historic event, huh?

It would seem she is lying............which would be perjury under these circumstances.

Once again, the fleemale is from sanford, not harvard. Feldman the guy on the left is from harvard.

.

I'm sorry, did I say anything about where they were indoctrinated?

Did you read the first sentence of the post you replied to? And my reference was where they teach, not where they were indoctrinated.

.

I'm sorry, did I say something about where they were indoctrinated?

 

[Slade3200]

You guys do not understand

This is not about the Bidens. Its about Tramp!!

I’ve got to disagree with you there. The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Your belief that Trump has to prove that only shows what a Stalinist douchebag you are. Dims are the only ones required to prove anything.

impeachment is a political process. I just framed the debate

 

[Nostra]

leftwing partisans always cloak their biases in the aura of professional expertise.

So what? If they make a false claim then call them on it. Their bias has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the things they say

They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.

Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?

No.

So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee

no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?

IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?

It amazes me what a bunch of ******* Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.

in a real trial? Like a court trial? What are you talking about? This is a congressional impeachment inquiry not a trial, Not a trial. You’re trying to muddy the water but you’re doing a piss poor job at it.

And yet the latest Dimwinger to pontificate just said (once again) it is their DUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAW.

Seems you clowns are trying to have it both ways..........as usual.

 

[Slade3200]

And...

No case............

Not according to Turley, the republican lawyer who acknowledged there is a quite serious case which needs to be further vetted.

He clearly said the case was weak and wrong.

Please try to keep up.

No he didn’t. He said that bribery was wrong and that they didn’t have enough proof to back up the accusations. He thinks the White House witnessed should testify and the process should not be rushed. Try and be more accurate

Yes, he did. Why lie about it when his testimony is posted?

Show me the quote where he said it was wrong. I missed it

 

[toobfreak]

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

SO, this isn't an impeachment trial, just a hearing to decide everything they can pack into their impeachment case before they've heard the testimony of evidence to even know there was any crime? And anyone that points that out is naturally a Russian? I got it.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, why is the intel committee not providing all testimony to the judiciary committee. What is shitt hiding?

.

Why aren't your scum honoring their subpoenas?? Trump have the right to interfere in their testimonies??

Deflect with someone else, if you have something on what I said, I might entertain your ignorance.

.

That's what your repub friends are doing ,,,anything BUT speaking about the evidence that falls on trumps shoulders
You've learned your lesson well

Actually the republicans are falling way short of what they should be doing in my opinion. They need to go back to the transcript of the call and not allow the commies to misrepresent it.

.

Pretty hard to do when you don't control the hearing or the clock.

Jordan just got one point in against the stanford ***** for her taking things out of context, by reading the actual transcript.

.

 

[Slade3200]

So what? If they make a false claim then call them on it. Their bias has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the things they say

They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.

Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?

No.

So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee

no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?

IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?

It amazes me what a bunch of ******* Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.

in a real trial? Like a court trial? What are you talking about? This is a congressional impeachment inquiry not a trial, Not a trial. You’re trying to muddy the water but you’re doing a piss poor job at it.

And yet the latest Dimwinger to pontificate just said (once again) it is their DUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAW.

Seems you clowns are trying to have it both ways..........as usual.

How so?

 

[sparky]

every where i went today saw >>>

~S~

 

[Nostra]

No case............

Not according to Turley, the republican lawyer who acknowledged there is a quite serious case which needs to be further vetted.

He clearly said the case was weak and wrong.

Please try to keep up.

No he didn’t. He said that bribery was wrong and that they didn’t have enough proof to back up the accusations. He thinks the White House witnessed should testify and the process should not be rushed. Try and be more accurate

Yes, he did. Why lie about it when his testimony is posted?

Show me the quote where he said it was wrong. I missed it

You miss a lot. It isn't my responsibility to hold your hand.

 

[The Original Tree]

All Government Hearings and Proceedings are required by LAW to guarantee Due Process.

leftwing partisans always cloak their biases in the aura of professional expertise.

So what? If they make a false claim then call them on it. Their bias has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the things they say

They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.

Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?

No.

So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee

no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?

IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?

It amazes me what a bunch of ******* Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.

in a real trial? Like a court trial? What are you talking about? This is a congressional impeachment inquiry not a trial, Not a trial. You’re trying to muddy the water but you’re doing a piss poor job at it.

 

[The Original Tree]

All Government Proceedings Require DUE Process. It’s the law.

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

Wrong. Read again. ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS are supposed to GUARANTEE DUE PROCESS.

Procedural due process

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

YOU STUPID CLOWN!!!

IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES NO "DUE PROCESS", BECAUSE IT IS NOT A TRIAL. THE PROCESS IS WHATEVER PELOSI AND THE HOUSE DECIDE IT TO BE. THE TRIAL TAKES PLACE IN THE SENATE WHERE TRUMP WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND CALL WITNESSES.

 

[Zorro!]

leftwing partisans always cloak their biases in the aura of professional expertise.

So what? If they make a false claim then call them on it. Their bias has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the things they say

They aren't witnesses and they aren't presenting evidence. Their very appearance is a violation of DUE PROCESS.

Is The President allowed to Call up his OWN LEGAL Experts to give their contrary opinions?

No.

So this again is an ILLEGAL Proceeding just like that one held in The Intelligence Committee

no shit, they are legal experts giving their analysis of the testimonies and evidence that’s been collected thus far. Do you not understand that?

IN a real trial, do you imagine that only the prosecution gets to call expert witnesses?

It amazes me what a bunch of ******* Stalinist douchebags all the leftwingers in this forum are.

in a real trial? Like a court trial? What are you talking about? This is a congressional impeachment inquiry not a trial, Not a trial. You’re trying to muddy the water but you’re doing a piss poor job at it.

We follow particular procedures in a trial in order TO ENSURE A FAIR OUTCOME! The Democrats involved in this nonsense are hapless blinkered clowns

NBC NEWS: The impeachment report by House Democrats is too muddled to change any minds: Impeachment is a political act that relies on making a legal case. And the lawyering in this report is atrocious.

Did National Security Council staffers convene and take notes? Check.
Did they give Trump a “standard package of talking points?” Check.
Did those talking points include “recommendations to encourage President Zelenskiy to continue to promote anti-corruption reforms?” Check.
However, the impeachment report warns ominously that after these preparatory steps took place, “this call would deviate significantly from that script.”​

These retarded Deep State Morons think it is an "impeachable offense" for the Boss not to follow the staff's script? Everyone in the federal government with this attitude needs to be terminated, right now. Look at what these self-entitled nitwits have put the Country through because of their moronic misconceptions.

If House Democrats are going to impeach Trump for that, they might as well add an article about the way he combs his hair.

After the initial pleasantries, the conversation started with Zelenskiy buttering Trump up for aid and access and saying specifically, “we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country.” One of the ways Trump suggests he do that is to look into a charge of cronyism and political leverage that, yes, involved possible future political opponent and former Vice President Joe Biden.

The report spins this into an elaborate theory about how Trump withheld money and access from Ukraine, based on what testimony Congress could muster, to benefit his 2020 re-election. The document doesn’t really have the goods.

The committee added the assertion of executive privilege as one more reason for impeachment. Asserting a Constitutional privilege is NOT an impeachable offense.

It’s these sorts of soaring logical leaps that many senators will rightly laugh at if and when the president’s fate gets to them.

 

[Slade3200]

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

 

[The Original Tree]

Again, read very carefully. Anyone that is honest will agree that these are illegal hearings that no one can be made to participate in, and therefore Subpoenas to appear before any committees which do not guarantee DUE PROCESS are invalid.

Procedural due process

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.

• An unbiased tribunal.

• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.

• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

• The right to know opposing evidence.

• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

• Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.

• Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

 

[toobfreak]

The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.

AND GUESS WHAT?

If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!

SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!

 

[ElmerMudd]

Goddamn how low can Dem's stoop attacking a 13 year old kid WTF??

When the facts are not in your favor, facts are that Trump actions warrant impeachment, you look for some issue to get away from the truth.

What she said was you can name your child Barron but you cannot appoint him a baron. A euphemism about we have a democrfact not a monarchy. It is about a name not anything to do with characteristics of young Barron.

The poor kid has had his father talking about grabbing women by the *****, about his father cheating on his mother, about having sex with a porn star. Donald Trump should start acting like a respectable father for Barron's sake. He then would, also, be a better President.

 

[ElmerMudd]

"17 Days Ago The Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi called The President an Imposter"

Just a week ago, Adam Schiff said he wanted to "send The President back to The Golden Throne he came from."

Jerry Nadler said that "we have to move forward with impeachment or we risk The President being re-elected."

These are all BIASED Statements, and there is NO NEUTRAL PERSON running these HEARINGS.

It's a GROSS VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS.

You stupid idiot, it's not mean to be an impartial process. THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. IMPEACHMENT IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING, NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS ISN'T EVEN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS HEARING TO ESTABLISH WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

Your Russian ignorance is showing.

Wrong. Read again. ALL GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS are supposed to GUARANTEE DUE PROCESS.

Procedural due process

Procedural due process requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.[25]:657 When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process requires the government to afford the person, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker.

This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials.

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares a record of the evidence presented.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepares written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

YOU STUPID CLOWN!!!

IMPEACHMENT REQUIRES NO "DUE PROCESS", BECAUSE IT IS NOT A TRIAL. THE PROCESS IS WHATEVER PELOSI AND THE HOUSE DECIDE IT TO BE. THE TRIAL TAKES PLACE IN THE SENATE WHERE TRUMP WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND CALL WITNESSES.

It is shocking how stupid the Trump supporters are.
Their world is defined by Trump. Whatever Trump says, they believe. That is because they are brainless and have no base of knowledge to disagree with what Trump says.

 

[Nostra]

Every Dimwinger on the Committee is asking the same thing:

Dimwinger Congresscritter: "Um, is what the Orange Bad Man did impeachable"?

Leftist Hack Academic: "In my opinion, I think it was".

And this is what the Dimwingers have? Really?

 

[JGalt]

Goddamn how low can Dem's stoop attacking a 13 year old kid WTF??

When the facts are not in your favor, facts are that Trump actions warrant impeachment, you look for some issue to get away from the truth.

What she said was you can name your child Barron but you cannot appoint him a baron. A euphemism about we have a democrfact not a monarchy. It is about a name not anything to do with characteristics of young Barron.

The poor kid has had his father talking about grabbing women by the *****, about his father cheating on his mother, about having sex with a porn star. Donald Trump should start acting like a respectable father for Barron's sake. He then would, also, be a better President.

Can you imagine how hysterical the media would be right now, if that was said about one of Michelle Obama's kids?


A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.

Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) December 4, 2019

 

[ElmerMudd]

They have text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondlond

They have the summary transcript

They have multiple testimonies all pointing in the same direction

They have phone recordings with Guiliani and associates

The Trump Admin fired the ambassador that was critical of the scheme

They have someone who overheard Trump asking specifically if Ukraine would conduct the investigations

Trump's own Chief of Staff's "We do this all the time" comment certainly doesn't help

There's financial records of the aid being frozen, despite having congressional approval, and now we know to avoid making it look "too" illegal, they renewed the freeze every 2-6 days


There is more than this, a lot more. Anyone making the suggestion that the case is based on flimsy evidence certainly doesn't know what they're talking about. This is a rock solid case that any defense attorney would be terrified of taking in a court of law.

Still waiting on the quote where Trump asked for anything for himself. What's wrong child, can't back your crap up?

.

Let's get Trump under oath along with Pompeo, Mulvaney and Pence and find out exactly what was said and what was intended. If they tell the truth and he did nothing, Trump will not be convicted and kicked out of office. I and others who feel he should be impeached and convicted, will shut up. If they tell the truth and he did what circumstantial evidence indicates, he is kicked out of office and you can all shut up. If they lie, they all go to jail.