Democrats set Thursday vote on U.S. House path in Trump impeachment probe

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

 Well Im concerned with your lack of understanding of the law in general in the USA, or even the common law.

 

And its not the power that concerns me, its the excersize of it.

 

And there it is in a nutshell. There are no high crimes and misdeameanors, there is nothing more than sore losers who cant win an election tantruming. How low the Dems have sunk. And whats worse, they have not only tossed away the constituion and tradition, but guaranteed a Trump reelection and loss of the house.

Please show me where i said no law was broken. You were talking about what is impeachable. Anything congress decides is impeachable is impeachable. Doesnt mattet if dems or repubs. If you dont like it then take it up with the constitution.

 

Yet again ad nauseum. Common law has nothing to do with it. Its a POLITICAL process.

 

Aplologies as my last post linked to a subscribe only. Here is another.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20882860/house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-donald-trump-nancy-pelosi

[RideJocky]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Correct. Impeachment is political. How many times do you need to be told. Jeez.

 

Here this may help.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-basics-what-to-know-about-the-process-11570661211

Yes, I think this is very much the same as not needing an underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction of justice. 
 

That’s why I can’t for the life of me figure out why the left did not move ahead with impeachment once Mueller proved conclusively that Trump was guilty of obstruction. They can impeach him any time they like for any reason yet they sat on their hands and did nothing. 
 

How many lies must be told, how many laws must be broken, how many lives ruined and how much damage must the evil orange one do before he is removed? 

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I wonder how the Senate is going to react to that LOL. The Dems made a big mistake in this process, and you are even seeing cracks in the Democratic Media over it, as they realize that there is no there there and the Senate is going to toss it out...and I bet some vulnerable Dems join their Republican counterparts.

 

But OK dude, this is tiresome. Get back to me in November 2020 when Trump is relected. 

 

Irrelevant. Its tiresome because you are conflating a legal process with an impeachment process.

 

Congress decides whether a combover is a high crime or misdemeanor. Congress is the sole arbitrator of what is impeachable.

 

I think its stupid but thats what it is. Whether you or i agree with that doesnt matter a zot. Blame it on those that wrote the constitution.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Please show me where i said no law was broken.

Please show me what law was broken?

 

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Common law has nothing to do with it. Its a POLITICAL process.

Why have a so called investigation then. Just vote on made up articles, right? No rules of procedure, no rules of evidence. Got it.

 

[RideJocky]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I wonder how the Senate is going to react to that LOL. The Dems made a big mistake in this process, and you are even seeing cracks in the Democratic Media over it, as they realize that there is no there there and the Senate is going to toss it out...and I bet some vulnerable Dems join their Republican counterparts.

 

But OK dude, this is tiresome. Get back to me in November 2020 when Trump is relected. 

 

 No mistake on the left’s part, they’ve got nothing else and they’ll stretch this out until the election, and they’ll make hay every few weeks with more fabricated nonsense. 
 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

Just now, Sujo said:

Congress decides whether a combover is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Thats fine, we now know that the anti Trump resistance will throw away all rules, traditions, laws and procedures to invent a crime to get him. Got it.

[Nyezhov]

Just now, RideJocky said:

 No mistake on the left’s part, they’ve got nothing else and they’ll stretch this out until the election, and they’ll make hay every few weeks with more fabricated nonsense. 
 

 

 

Thats not playing very well in swing states is it ????

 

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Thats fine, we now know that the anti Trump resistance will throw away all rules, traditions, laws and procedures to invent a crime to get him. Got it.

The dems are following the rules.

 

The law is not relevant as its not a legal process. Its political. Yet again. Sigh.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The law is not relevant as its not a legal process. Its political. Yet again.

Wow. You  must be a lawyer in  a banana republic. Those are the countries where the law is irrelevant

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Please show me what law was broken?

 

Why have a so called investigation then. Just vote on made up articles, right? No rules of procedure, no rules of evidence. Got it.

 

There doesnt need to be a law broken. Again and again and again.

 

Cortect, congress makes up the rulrs. Just as the senate will do. Because its political. You still dont get it.

 

You dont like it that way. I agree and dont like it that way. But thats the way it is.

[RideJocky]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Please show me what law was broken?

 

Why have a so called investigation then. Just vote on made up articles, right? No rules of procedure, no rules of evidence. Got it.

 

Because they know it will be dismissed in the Senate without even a hearing. 
 

Their only hope is to make it last.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You dont like it that way. I agree and dont like it that way

So you oppose what the House is doing then. Good for you!

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Wow. You  must be a lawyer in  a banana republic. Those are the countries where the law is irrelevant

You are aware that Trump’s lawyers have argued in court that he is above the law!

[atyclb]

47 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

49 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Way to go AOC.

The gift that keeps on giving...

 

personally i'd rather have herpes

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Wow. You  must be a lawyer in  a banana republic. Those are the countries where the law is irrelevant

Again. Its a political matter. Not a legal one. Australia if u must know.

 

The law is not relevant to a political impeachment process. It is what congress decides and what the senate decides in the trial. 

 

Will you be complaining when the senate decides it will stop all witnesses?

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So you oppose what the House is doing then. Good for you!

No. The house is acting as it is allowed. 

 

I think the whole process of impeachment is wrong. You can be sure in the senate trial the repubs will stop it all. 

 

But that doesnt mean trump should not be investigated. Thats congress doing its job as a co equal branch.

 

How about we await the evidence. but to say the process is illegal or whatever is just plain wrong

[Sujo]

Some Repubs seem to be wavering.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Because they know it will be dismissed in the Senate without even a hearing. 
 

Their only hope is to make it last.

Thats probably true. Thats political. It doesnt matter if trump gets off in the senate. The evidence will be public.

 

Dems will know he wont be convicted. But the public will know the evidence of what was done.

 

So its a political advantage for dems to get it out in the public to sway swing voters.

[Sujo]

One of the articles of impeachment against nixon was obstruction of justice for not complying with a congressional subpoena. 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Thats probably true. Thats political. It doesnt matter if trump gets off in the senate. The evidence will be public.

 

Dems will know he wont be convicted. But the public will know the evidence of what was done.

 

So its a political advantage for dems to get it out in the public to sway swing voters.

This is why Trump tries to withold documents and prevent people from testifying.

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

[Kelsall]

Even left wing San Francisco Democrat Willie Brown knows this is going nowhere...

 

Impeachment a winner for Democrats? Don’t bet on it

"Come next year, Trump will have an impeachment victory and quite possibly a solid economy. The Democrats will have — what?"

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Impeachment-a-winner-for-Democrats-Don-t-bet-14803559.php

[Crazy Alex]

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

One of the articles of impeachment against nixon was obstruction of justice for not complying with a congressional subpoena. 

Irrelevant, given Nixon was never impeached.

[Nyezhov]

24 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How about we await the evidence. but to say the process is illegal or whatever is just plain wrong

Where do you draw the line on process then? Hearsay? Double hearsay? No authenitcation of docs?

 

Why not just make something up?

25 minutes ago, Sujo said:

But that doesnt mean trump should not be investigated. Thats congress doing its job as a co equal branch.

They have been investigating since he got elected and found nothing.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Where do you draw the line on process then? Hearsay? Double hearsay? No authenitcation of docs?

 

Why not just make something up?

They have been investigating since he got elected and found nothing.

(1) The Dems follow the same procedure as the Republicans before. In addition, why don't you complain that Trump is withholding information and preventiing officials from testifying? That would surely help authenticating information, cross-check testimonies, etc... It would be all the more easy as Republicans are also members of the commission's involved.

(2) "They have been investigating..." Who is 'they'?

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Where do you draw the line on process then? Hearsay? Double hearsay? No authenitcation of docs?

 

Why not just make something up?

They have been investigating since he got elected and found nothing.

Not true. Mueller did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice and explicitly stated so.

And he sicced his private attorney - whose first loyalty is to the interests of his client and not to the interests of the US government- on the Ukrainian government. 

[Nyezhov]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

The Dems follow the same procedure as the Republicans before.

when? You mean the Clinton Impeachment?

 

8 minutes ago, candide said:

In addition, why don't you complain that Trump is withholding information and preventiing officials from testifying? That would surely help authenticating information, cross-check testimonies, etc...

Why dont I complain? Simply because I beleive that the entire proceeding is a kangaroo star chamber soviet banana republic style put up job by the deep state and the dems to get Trump for something, anything, and they have chosen to invent a high crime and misdemeanor that they could push out information selectively from behind closed doors and get their ignorant base all worked up as well as use the proceedings in an attempt to influence the election.

 

That being said, the Dems should either:

Take him to the Courts or

Set things up exactly like they did for Clinton. Then I would complain if he didnt comply. Because accusations are valid in my book where there is due process, the thing that separates us from the troikas.

 

 

They wont do either though. They are afraid the Courts will give them short shrift plus string this out, and they are afraid if they allow due process, their machinations will be exposed.

 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Where do you draw the line on process then? Hearsay? Double hearsay? No authenitcation of docs?

 

Why not just make something up?

They have been investigating since he got elected and found nothing.

Repeat yet again. The line is drawn on whatever congress says it is.

 

Next. There are a few in jail that disagree.

[Sujo]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

when? You mean the Clinton Impeachment?

 

Why dont I complain? Simply because I beleive that the entire proceeding is a kangaroo star chamber soviet banana republic style put up job by the deep state and the dems to get Trump for something, anything, and they have chosen to invent a high crime and misdemeanor that they could push out selectively from behind closed doors.

 

That being said, the Dems should either:

Take him to the Courts or

Set things up exactly like they did for Clinton. Then I would complain if he didnt comply.

 

They wont do either though. 

 

 

So you dont like anyone following the cinstitution and house rules.

[candide]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

when? You mean the Clinton Impeachment?

 

Why dont I complain? Simply because I beleive that the entire proceeding is a kangaroo star chamber soviet banana republic style put up job by the deep state and the dems to get Trump for something, anything, and they have chosen to invent a high crime and misdemeanor that they could push out selectively from behind closed doors.

 

That being said, the Dems should either:

Take him to the Courts or

Set things up exactly like they did for Clinton. Then I would complain if he didnt comply.

 

They wont do either though. 

 

 

Most hearings have been made behind closed doors in the Clinton case. It was also the same for the Benghazi case.

 

The law does not allow them to take him to the courts. And there is no reason it should be exactly the same procedure as with Clinton. Oh, remind me, how long had Clinton been investigated before the first House vote?

[Sujo]

44 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Irrelevant, given Nixon was never impeached.

Nice try. Impeachment investigation was being done. He resigned before the vote. 

 

Claim it as a win for him. ????