Reality Check on Impeachment-Trial

[Persistence Of Memory]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

Impeachment has been great for the economy. One impeachment a year would be fine, especially to investors, TV and newspapers. Are you the one of 5 non-libs in Brooklyn?

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

"...would harm them significantly ..."

How would it be any different from this time???


"...she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22."

She just had her 79th birthday...and you must have noticed how insane the Democrat supporters on this board are.

They'd keep screaming at the sky.

The premise presented was that the democrats keep the House next year. I certainly expect the democrat supporters to keep behaving irrationally. They've shown very little inclination to do otherwise.

Same for Democrat politicians: why would anything change.

We'll simply be entertained, adding to this list:


First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, one after another lead balloons.



The Democrats provide a whole new meaning to "infinity."

You forgot the 2 scoops of ice cream.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

"...would harm them significantly ..."

How would it be any different from this time???


"...she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22."

She just had her 79th birthday...and you must have noticed how insane the Democrat supporters on this board are.

They'd keep screaming at the sky.

The premise presented was that the democrats keep the House next year. I certainly expect the democrat supporters to keep behaving irrationally. They've shown very little inclination to do otherwise.

Same for Democrat politicians: why would anything change.

We'll simply be entertained, adding to this list:


First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, one after another lead balloons.



The Democrats provide a whole new meaning to "infinity."

You forgot the 2 scoops of ice cream.

So you really have nothing to say, but this is better than conversing with your family?

 

[Papageorgio]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

I'm sorry, do you have another source. I just have a really hard time trusting CNN after that admission from Jeff Zucker. I'm sure you understand. You probably wouldn't accept the spin of shit from INFOWARS, right?

So you don't listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Infowars . Because they lie to you every day.

Nor should one listen to MSNBC, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Mother Jones and on and on because they lie as well as any you mentioned.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

"...would harm them significantly ..."

How would it be any different from this time???


"...she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22."

She just had her 79th birthday...and you must have noticed how insane the Democrat supporters on this board are.

They'd keep screaming at the sky.

The premise presented was that the democrats keep the House next year. I certainly expect the democrat supporters to keep behaving irrationally. They've shown very little inclination to do otherwise.

Same for Democrat politicians: why would anything change.

We'll simply be entertained, adding to this list:


First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, one after another lead balloons.



The Democrats provide a whole new meaning to "infinity."

You forgot the 2 scoops of ice cream.

So you really have nothing to say, but this is better than conversing with your family?

OMG. You got the personality of a dead fish.............GoodFbye

 

[Papageorgio]

This impeachment is the very first that no one takes seriously.

WINNER!!!

I'm barely even following all this garbage by the Democrats. It would be a waste of my time and it's certainly a waste of my hard earned tax dollars. Trump has my vote already for November 2020.

I won't vote for Trump however I think this is just Democrat BS designed as a revenge for Clinton, which was a revenge for Nixon. This is lowering a bar for impeachment in the future and now we can look forward to it anytime the President is one party and the House is another. Petty BS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This impeachment is the very first that no one takes seriously.

WINNER!!!

I'm barely even following all this garbage by the Democrats. It would be a waste of my time and it's certainly a waste of my hard earned tax dollars. Trump has my vote already for November 2020.

I won't vote for Trump however I think this is just Democrat BS designed as a revenge for Clinton, which was a revenge for Nixon. This is lowering a bar for impeachment in the future and now we can look forward to it anytime the President is one party and the House is another. Petty BS.

"I won't vote for Trump"


90. “CNN Poll: US economy receives its best ranking in nearly 20 years
(CNN)As 2019 comes to a close, the US economy earns its highest ratings in almost two decades, potentially boosting President Donald Trump in matchups against the Democrats vying to face him in next year's election, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.’” US economy receives its best ranking in nearly 20 years, CNN poll finds - CNNPolitics


91." Appointing conservative judges is the one objective that unites the Republican Party. It is one of the few things the Senate can do without the House.

And it is something that immediately impacts public policy because, during times of divided government, many political fights end up being resolved judicially.

Trump may not have the “best people” representing him or running his White House, but he’s picking them to be judges. Indeed, “based solely on objective legal credentials,” left-leaning Vox’s Ian Millhiser says, “the average Trump appointee has a far more impressive résumé than any past president’s nominees.”
Approximately 40 percent of Trump’s appellate nominees clerked for a Supreme Court justice, and about 80 percent clerked on a federal court of appeals. That compares to less than a quarter of Obama’s nominees who clerked on the Supreme Court, and less than half with a federal appellate clerkship."
All We Want for Christmas is More Judges: Ho, Ho, Ho


92. “China Says Economic Growth Fell to Lowest in 30 Years
China’s economy was weighed down by U.S. tariffs…” China Says Economic Growth Fell to Lowest in 30 Years | Breitbart

 

[gipper]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

I'm sorry, do you have another source. I just have a really hard time trusting CNN after that admission from Jeff Zucker. I'm sure you understand. You probably wouldn't accept the spin of shit from INFOWARS, right?

So you don't listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck & Infowars . Because they lie to you every day.

Nor should one listen to MSNBC, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Mother Jones and on and on because they lie as well as any you mentioned.

Pretty much the entire MSM is compromised. When a few billionaires control most of the MSM, it’s not surprising many Americans are completely uninformed.

 

[Zorro!]

All evidence in such a serious matter needs to be presented to the Senate, and to the People of the United States. Your reasoning is based on your concern that more incriminating evidence will be discovered, isn't that correct?

McConnell it seems has the ability to set the Calendar. I suspect he knows how to best protect The President, given his past statements, loyalty to his party, and more so to keeping his job as leader.

If the House hasn't completed their investigation, and they aren't ready for trial, then this needs to be continued.

We don't have trials in this country with evolving charges during the trial because the prosecutors are concerned that they rushed to trial so fast that they won't get a conviction!

But, ultimately it will be whatever 51 votes in the Senate determines it will be.

These crazed Democrats are doing Putin's bidding with all this division. Now there is crazy talk about continual impeachment once these silly charges are voted down. That's stupid. If they want to investigate other charges, they should do so, with the Senate taking it up once the process has properly ripened.

There should be nothing voted on in the Senate that was not voted on in the House. By that I mean that, if the democrats have something new they want to include, they should pull back the articles, present the evidence to the House, re-vote on the articles, THEN send them over for the trial. Expecting the Senate to vote on evidence that was not presented to the House for consideration is wrong.

What is wrong is to NOT admit evidence of wrong doing by The President when it is discovered, which is probative to the current two Articles of Impeachment sustained by the H. or Rep. Do you want Justice to Prevail, or not?

If they have evidence probative to the current articles, then the House should investigate. If the House needs more time to investigate, then a continuance is in order.

If they don't want a continuance, then the Senate will determine the outcome based on the House's investigation.

In the real world you can have whatever you can sell to 51 Senators.

Why? If the potential evidence is discovered, why stop and investigate what has already been uncovered? The finding will be included in Discovery, and presented to the jury in the trial. In cases of testimony, under oath, the witness will be subjected to direct examination and a cross examination, and many times to a Redirect and a Recross Examination of the Witness.

Gee, and just like with Kavanaugh, will we have the creepy porn lawyer popping up with a parade of last minute "victims" claiming the Kavanaugh was running rape boats up and down the Eastern Seaboard?

Like the Clinton trial, the Trump trial will begin with opening statements by the prosecution and defense then questions by the senators. Only then will the senators decide whether to subpoena witnesses or documents.

Good enough for Slick Willie
Good Enough for The Trumpster!

If the House is allowed to bring in additional witnesses, then the President will as well. The President favors this approach, he wants Hunter and Joe examined under oath.

The witness rules are very straightforward and line up with what we had during the Clinton impeachment trial, staying consistent with the previous precedent. The House will have 24 hours to make their case. The President will have 24 hours to make his case. Then we’ll have 16 hours of written questions from senators, any senator can write any question.

The Chief Justice will then present those to both sides. They’ll have to answer it. At that time, if we don’t have all of our questions answered, then the Senate will vote to determine if they need additional witnesses to answer unanswered questions. If everything has been answered at that point, then the vote will be that they don’t need additional witnesses to make a decision, and they’ll move to a decision.

No reasonable person can object to this congruent with precedent process.

 

[Zorro!]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

Did you read the statute that was 'violated,' dunce?


It specifies the response, and it is not impeachment.
"...the comptroller general is empowered ...to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation."
2 U.S. Code § 687 - Suits by Comptroller General


This is where you say "duhhhhhhh..."

If Trump broke that law, Biden shattered it with his Quid Pro Quo.

 

[MaryL]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well then there the alternate theory. And far more simple. Trump is a Dem apostate. They hate him so much, they want him expunged impeached or ass*nated. Whatever is easier. The Dems give sanctuary to illegal aliens illegality and then they dare say Trump broke laws...

 

[Rye Catcher]

Time will tell how the impeachment of Donald Trump plays out.

The irony of Ken Starr being named to the defense, when Justice Kavanaugh was part of his team, is very interesting indeed:


"During Starr’s grand jury inquiry, Bill Clinton initially invoked the executive privilege in response to demands for the testimony of several witnesses. The matter went before a trial court, which ruled in Starr’s favor. Clinton initially filed a notice of appeal, but—after Starr asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency basis—Clinton withdrew his effort to quash the subpoenas. And although Clinton made certain additional, more limited, privilege assertions in connection with the testimony of White House attorneys, Starr once again ultimately obtained the testimony he was seeking.

"Starr assigned Kavanaugh to play a key role in authoring Starr’s report to Congress, which included a section setting forth potential bases for impeaching the president; among them was a claim that Clinton should be impeached for going to court to assert the executive privilege in the first place. According to Starr and Kavanaugh, the privilege assertion was itself impeachable, because it was purportedly meritless and Clinton had managed to use the privilege litigation to delay Starr’s investigation. As the Starr Report put it, the temporary delay amounted to an illicit “conceal[ment]” by Clinton of his “personal misconduct.” Starr and Kavanaugh also argued that Clinton should be impeached because he refused to voluntarily testify himself, despite the fact that (unlike Trump) Clinton ultimately testified after receiving a subpoena; once again, mere delay was deemed potentially impeachable.

Brett Kavanaugh Wrote That Hiding Evidence From Congress Is an Impeachable Offense

 

[MisterBeale]

Time will tell how the impeachment of Donald Trump plays out.

The irony of Ken Starr being named to the defense, when Justice Kavanaugh was part of his team, is very interesting indeed:


"During Starr’s grand jury inquiry, Bill Clinton initially invoked the executive privilege in response to demands for the testimony of several witnesses. The matter went before a trial court, which ruled in Starr’s favor. Clinton initially filed a notice of appeal, but—after Starr asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency basis—Clinton withdrew his effort to quash the subpoenas. And although Clinton made certain additional, more limited, privilege assertions in connection with the testimony of White House attorneys, Starr once again ultimately obtained the testimony he was seeking.

"Starr assigned Kavanaugh to play a key role in authoring Starr’s report to Congress, which included a section setting forth potential bases for impeaching the president; among them was a claim that Clinton should be impeached for going to court to assert the executive privilege in the first place. According to Starr and Kavanaugh, the privilege assertion was itself impeachable, because it was purportedly meritless and Clinton had managed to use the privilege litigation to delay Starr’s investigation. As the Starr Report put it, the temporary delay amounted to an illicit “conceal[ment]” by Clinton of his “personal misconduct.” Starr and Kavanaugh also argued that Clinton should be impeached because he refused to voluntarily testify himself, despite the fact that (unlike Trump) Clinton ultimately testified after receiving a subpoena; once again, mere delay was deemed potentially impeachable.

Brett Kavanaugh Wrote That Hiding Evidence From Congress Is an Impeachable Offense

Sure, call Trump to the stand.

Let's put it on TEE VEE.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Time will tell how the impeachment of Donald Trump plays out.

The irony of Ken Starr being named to the defense, when Justice Kavanaugh was part of his team, is very interesting indeed:


"During Starr’s grand jury inquiry, Bill Clinton initially invoked the executive privilege in response to demands for the testimony of several witnesses. The matter went before a trial court, which ruled in Starr’s favor. Clinton initially filed a notice of appeal, but—after Starr asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency basis—Clinton withdrew his effort to quash the subpoenas. And although Clinton made certain additional, more limited, privilege assertions in connection with the testimony of White House attorneys, Starr once again ultimately obtained the testimony he was seeking.

"Starr assigned Kavanaugh to play a key role in authoring Starr’s report to Congress, which included a section setting forth potential bases for impeaching the president; among them was a claim that Clinton should be impeached for going to court to assert the executive privilege in the first place. According to Starr and Kavanaugh, the privilege assertion was itself impeachable, because it was purportedly meritless and Clinton had managed to use the privilege litigation to delay Starr’s investigation. As the Starr Report put it, the temporary delay amounted to an illicit “conceal[ment]” by Clinton of his “personal misconduct.” Starr and Kavanaugh also argued that Clinton should be impeached because he refused to voluntarily testify himself, despite the fact that (unlike Trump) Clinton ultimately testified after receiving a subpoena; once again, mere delay was deemed potentially impeachable.

Brett Kavanaugh Wrote That Hiding Evidence From Congress Is an Impeachable Offense

Sure, call Trump to the stand.

Let's put it on TEE VEE.

Trump's handlers will never allow him to testify under oath. But what a wonderful disaster that would be.

Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment

 

[Fang]

This impeachment is the very first that no one takes seriously.

WINNER!!!

I'm barely even following all this garbage by the Democrats. It would be a waste of my time and it's certainly a waste of my hard earned tax dollars. Trump has my vote already for November 2020.

I won't vote for Trump however I think this is just Democrat BS designed as a revenge for Clinton, which was a revenge for Nixon. This is lowering a bar for impeachment in the future and now we can look forward to it anytime the President is one party and the House is another. Petty BS.

You got that right. Democrats rued the day they used the nuclear option for health care when Republicans did it years later for Gorsuch. Now Democrats opened the door for impeachments simply because they lost an election. I have no doubt the next Democratic president will be impeached when there is a Republican majority in the House.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If Trump broke that law, Biden shattered it with his Quid Pro Quo.

How can you have a person leading the pack of democrat presidential candidates who proudly bragged before the CFR how he threatened to have all Ukraine funding stopped immediately if an investigation into Burisma, and his son's role in that oligarchic corporation, wasn't stopped instantly?

It's mind boggling the disconnect here.
The hypocrisy, the dishonesty, the ignorance and duplicity of America's
leftist journalists are stunning!

 

[blastoff]

Two impeachment articles that detail no constitional violation, no statutory violation, and no federal court order violation.

So, don’t tune in late or you’ll miss the acquittal.

 

[Zorro!]

If Trump broke that law, Biden shattered it with his Quid Pro Quo.

How can you have a person leading the pack of democrat presidential candidates who proudly bragged before the CFR how he threatened to have all Ukraine funding stopped immediately if an investigation into Burisma, and his son's role in that oligarchic corporation, wasn't stopped instantly?

It's mind boggling the disconnect here.
The hypocrisy, the dishonesty, the ignorance and duplicity of America's
leftist journalists are stunning!

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his public "service."

How to cash in on public office​

“Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite,” one particular politician — Joe Biden — emerges as the king of the sweetheart deal, with no less than five family members benefiting from his largesse, favorable access and powerful position for commercial gain. In Biden’s case, these deals include foreign partners and, in some cases, even U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The Biden family’s self-enrichment involves no less than five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie.

When this subject came up in 2019, Biden declared, “I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”

As we will see, this is far from the case…

 

[Zorro!]

Time will tell how the impeachment of Donald Trump plays out.

The irony of Ken Starr being named to the defense, when Justice Kavanaugh was part of his team, is very interesting indeed:


"During Starr’s grand jury inquiry, Bill Clinton initially invoked the executive privilege in response to demands for the testimony of several witnesses. The matter went before a trial court, which ruled in Starr’s favor. Clinton initially filed a notice of appeal, but—after Starr asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on an emergency basis—Clinton withdrew his effort to quash the subpoenas. And although Clinton made certain additional, more limited, privilege assertions in connection with the testimony of White House attorneys, Starr once again ultimately obtained the testimony he was seeking.

"Starr assigned Kavanaugh to play a key role in authoring Starr’s report to Congress, which included a section setting forth potential bases for impeaching the president; among them was a claim that Clinton should be impeached for going to court to assert the executive privilege in the first place. According to Starr and Kavanaugh, the privilege assertion was itself impeachable, because it was purportedly meritless and Clinton had managed to use the privilege litigation to delay Starr’s investigation. As the Starr Report put it, the temporary delay amounted to an illicit “conceal[ment]” by Clinton of his “personal misconduct.” Starr and Kavanaugh also argued that Clinton should be impeached because he refused to voluntarily testify himself, despite the fact that (unlike Trump) Clinton ultimately testified after receiving a subpoena; once again, mere delay was deemed potentially impeachable.

Brett Kavanaugh Wrote That Hiding Evidence From Congress Is an Impeachable Offense

Sure, call Trump to the stand.

Let's put it on TEE VEE.

Trump's handlers will never allow him to testify under oath. But what a wonderful disaster that would be.

Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment

We'll see who pays.

Investigating Biden influence peddling didn’t become illegitimate just because Joe ran for president.