Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[Faun]

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not abstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

**** your lefty source.

you dummy - that source is congress itself. why must you always prove just how poorly educated trump's base is?

Quote where it says challenging subpoenas in court is obstruction.

GO!

First you have to show where Impeached Trump challenged those impeachment-related subpoenas in court...

 

[jc456]

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used? seems odd that all you leftist fks in here have more information than the congress. interesting

vindman & hill both testified under oath... in front of congress.... stating exactly that ; you moron.

That the transcript was wrong?

Post that link

 

[protectionist]

What I saw, was a bunch of Republicans, putting on all kinds of dog and pony shows, and holy roller political scenes of nonsensed drama, and a right wing multitude of fake news propagandist repeating it was unfair, unfair, ufair..... brain washing you Trumpsters in to repeating the term 'it was unfair, a hoax' in the house, when in reality, it went just as the founders intended.

Trump, the defendant, the person being charged or indicted in a crime in the courts, does not get to tell the prosecutors and investigators, how to run their investigation in to themselves.... the House in impeachment, acts as the prosecutors and grand jury who makes the charges.... it is not a trial, nor does it have any provisions required to accommodate the defendant..

THAT is the bottom line.

And every time the showmanship Republicans asked for something from Pelosi, she caved and gave it to them..

first it was the deposition testimony of witnesses was done in the Starr chamber, in secret, behind closed doors.... WELL DUH, they were operating under the Rules the Republicans put in when THEY were in the majority, to take depositions in private... but Nancy caved, gave them the right to call PERTINENT witnesses and they refused when given the opportunity.. and she released the depositions so they were not secret any longer...

the R's complained that they had not voted on impeachment rules in the full house, so Nancy brought up the new rules, and the full house voted on them...

She has been VERY Accommodating to them....

As long as it was in the HOUSE, where she could control the big Trump bash.

 

[jc456]

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Nope, no matter how many times you want to rub your asshole with it. You can’t even describe it. Hahaha you’re a loser just admit it. Come clean

 

[jc456]

uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.

Some people have to be told twice.

Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.

 

[protectionist]

First you have to show where Impeached Trump challenged those impeachment-related subpoenas in court...

Notice how Faun says >> "Impeached Trump" ? And with a capital letter.

What's the matter Faun ? Are you afraid somebody not accept this façade as a real impeachment ? Gee, what would ever make them think that ?

 

[playtime]

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used? seems odd that all you leftist fks in here have more information than the congress. interesting

vindman & hill both testified under oath... in front of congress.... stating exactly that ; you moron.

That the transcript was wrong?

Post that link

it wasn't a transcript, & i've linked it b4 to you proving it was a memorandum.

howeverrrrrrrrrr, what i said was that they testified under oath re:

Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'.

 

[playtime]

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Nope, no matter how many times you want to rub your asshole with it. You can’t even describe it. Hahaha you’re a loser just admit it. Come clean

i don't have to do anything. it's a done deal & donny will forever have 'impeached' next to his name.

forever & ever & ever..............

 

[protectionist]

it wasn't a transcript, & i've linked it b4 to you proving it was a memorandum.

howeverrrrrrrrrr, what i said was that they testified under oath re:

Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'.

Now you get reported.

 

[Faun]

uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.

Some people have to be told twice.

Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.

He says that now. Find an article of him saying that then....

 

[jc456]

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used? seems odd that all you leftist fks in here have more information than the congress. interesting

vindman & hill both testified under oath... in front of congress.... stating exactly that ; you moron.

That the transcript was wrong?

Post that link

it wasn't a transcript, & i've linked it b4 to you proving it was a memorandum.

howeverrrrrrrrrr, what i said was that they testified under oath re:

Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'.

It was labeled transcript and I asked you did they say it was wrong. I don’t need your Symantec’s. Answer the question

 

[protectionist]

He says that now. Find an article of him saying that then....

You wanna get reported too ?

 

[protectionist]

It was labeled transcript and I asked you did they say it was wrong. I don’t need your Symantec’s. Answer the question

Please post ON TOPIC. Read the TITLE of the thread.

 

[Faun]

First you have to show where Impeached Trump challenged those impeachment-related subpoenas in court...

Notice how Faun says >> "Impeached Trump" ? And with a capital letter.

What's the matter Faun ? Are you afraid somebody not accept this façade as a real impeachment ? Gee, what would ever make them think that ?

Names are capitalized. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Nostra]

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction.

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not abstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

**** your lefty source.

you dummy - that source is congress itself. why must you always prove just how poorly educated trump's base is?

Quote where it says challenging subpoenas in court is obstruction.

GO!

i did. are you illiterate too? here... in simple terms for a simple mind:

Contempt of Congress

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Contempt of Congress

Nope. No mention of challenging subpoenas in court.

Major fail by you.

try again.

 

[jc456]

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

Nope, no matter how many times you want to rub your asshole with it. You can’t even describe it. Hahaha you’re a loser just admit it. Come clean

i don't have to do anything. it's a done deal & donny will forever have 'impeached' next to his name.

forever & ever & ever..............

Not until peloser hands them to the senate. Why do you not believe your sides scholar’s word? Facts suck for you. Peloser will never hand them over. Ever

 

[Faun]

you're wrong.

CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities


Obstruction of Congress Congressional Research Service 22 reasonably foreseeable offense committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the common plot.127As noted earlier, a number of federal statues, §§1512 and 1513 among them, include within their proscriptions a separate conspiracy feature that outlaws plots to violate the section’s substantive provisions.128 The advantage for prosecutors of these individual conspiracy provisions is that they carry the same penalties as the underlying substantive offense and that they ordinarily do not require proof of an overt act.129 Although §§1512 and 1513 provide an alternative means of prosecuting a charge of conspiracy to violate their underlying prohibitions, the government may elect to proceed under general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions.

Parsed to its elements, §192 states that
I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers V. upon any matter under inquiry

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

nope. Challenging subpoenas in court is not abstruction. It us how disputes a
re settled in our system. Nazi just didn't want to wait on rulings

**** your lefty source.

you dummy - that source is congress itself. why must you always prove just how poorly educated trump's base is?

Quote where it says challenging subpoenas in court is obstruction.

GO!

i did. are you illiterate too? here... in simple terms for a simple mind:

Contempt of Congress

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Contempt of Congress

Nope. No mention of challenging subpoenas in court.

Major fail by you.

try again.

One has to actually file in court to challenge in court, Spunky.

 

[jc456]

It was labeled transcript and I asked you did they say it was wrong. I don’t need your Symantec’s. Answer the question

Please post ON TOPIC. Read the TITLE of the thread.

I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up

 

[playtime]

uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.

Some people have to be told twice.

Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.

Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Courtney Subramanian
USA TODAY

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.
Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

 

[jc456]

uh-huh...ukraine had met all its anti corruption benchmarks in order to have that aid released to them in 2017 & 2018 & donny knew that they did.

But they did NOT, because of the Biden threat. And Trump only knew it from the video.

Some people have to be told twice.

Now getting back ON TOPIC, will this farce ever get to the Senate, Yes or No ?

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.

Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Courtney Subramanian
USA TODAY

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.
Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

Why was it relevant for the us? What happened afterwards? Who got prosecuted?