The Impeachment Thread

[BigOrangeD]

Trump is really putting the Spotlight on Obama. DIMs will not like this but it is true.

 

[VolnJC]

Spin it however you want there is no hard proof of a Quid Pro Quo..
1) the Ukrainians said they were never pressured
2) holdup of money was never discussed
3) the Burisma case was reopened before the call
4) Do us a favor is not an indictment
5) Ukrainians received money without any effort to help administration
If you have proof otherwise send me a link

 

[Matt2496]

Spin it however you want there is no hard proof of a Quid Pro Quo..
1) the Ukrainians said they were never pressured
2) holdup of money was never discussed
3) the Burisma case was reopened before the call
4) Do us a favor is not an indictment
5) Ukrainians received money without any effort to help administration
If you have proof otherwise send me a link

They have no proof. Keep in mind, these are the same people who peddled the fake Russia collusion narrative for the past 3 years.

 

[BigOrangeD]

President Trump had every right to question money being sent to Ukraine...there were still rumors that there was still corruption and remember they did collude against him in 2016
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

True but DIMs don't want to acknowledge truth.

 

[roosterjbh]

IMO, if Pelosi followed procedure and did it by the book, and presented to the House, and held the vote, etc., etc., then the WH would be legally compelled to comply. Their mishandling of the process gives the WH the opportunity to flip them off. The WH is doing exactly what they should do, or any other WH would do, until she follows procedure.

You need to look up what the procedure is. She is following it.

She does not have to call a vote until she feels that she has the necessary info to write up and draft the language of the resolution.

 

[luthervol]

Not exactly, but we had a pretty good idea what kind of horror show a Hiliary election would bring.

Well then that's on you and the other Trumpers.

 

[AM64]

Good read, regardless of political stripe

You mean politicians and their families are different from the rest of us. Something like the rich are different. We've pretty much figured all that out. Why else would "successful" often lawyer types work so hard for a job that pretty much tops out below $200K/year ... and wind up multimillionaires.

 

[Matt2496]

House Dems know there's not a chance in hell that impeachment passes the Senate (Especially requiring 2/3 of the Senate). All of this talk of impeachment is purely political theater.

 

[Septic]

One of the reasons given was there was far more money going to Biden than reported 167k per month vs 50k I guess it pays to be kid of the VP

Good for Hunter, I hope it was $500k. None of anyone's business what a private business pays it's advisors or employees. When did the right suddenly decide that executives pay should be scrutinized or labeled as 'too much'?

 

[AM64]

Are you counting flowers on the wall, too?

 

[RockyTop85]

IMO, if Pelosi followed procedure and did it by the book, and presented to the House, and held the vote, etc., etc., then the WH would be legally compelled to comply. Their mishandling of the process gives the WH the opportunity to flip them off. The WH is doing exactly what they should do, or any other WH would do, until she follows procedure.

What “book” are you referring to?

Edit: nm, somebody beat me to it.

 

[AM64]

You should hold your breath.

Either 72 got the wrong guy, or he did hold his breath.

 

[VolnJC]

Good for Hunter, I hope it was $500k. None of anyone's business what a private business pays it's advisors or employees. When did the right suddenly decide that executives pay should be scrutinized or labeled as 'too much'?

When that company is being investigated for money laundering and Hunters dad is the VP who is making 13 trips there in 2 years.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Why Can’t Dems Treat Trump as Fairly as Republicans Did Bill Clinton?

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/why-cant-dems-treat-trump-as-fairly-as-republicans-did-bill-clinton/

The White House informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday that “the Executive Branch won’t play along with the lawless ‘inquiry’ that House Democrats have been engaged in,” the New York Post editorial board writes.

“White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s letter to Pelosi spells out the problems. While the Constitution clearly gives the House the power to begin impeachment proceedings, it does not give the speaker the privilege of declaring them all by herself.”

Precedent is on President Trump’s side here, the Post writes. Unlike impeachment inquiries against Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, Speaker Pelosi never called a floor vote to open proceedings. Instead, House Democrats are deposing witnesses behind closed doors, denying Republican colleagues fair time to ask questions, and “leaking negative info and withholding favorable facts — feeding fanatically anti-Trump media to repeat slanted interpretations as fact.”
...

 

[evillawyer]

You need to look up what the procedure is. She is following it.

She does not have to call a vote until she feels that she has the necessary info to write up and draft the language of the resolution.

Predicted Trump leg-humper response:

 

[zeppelin128]

Good for Hunter, I hope it was $500k. None of anyone's business what a private business pays it's advisors or employees. When did the right suddenly decide that executives pay should be scrutinized or labeled as 'too much'?

They started to care when Biden became the front-runner and is leading Trump by double digits in early polls.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Good for Hunter, I hope it was $500k. None of anyone's business what a private business pays it's advisors or employees. When did the right suddenly decide that executives pay should be scrutinized or labeled as 'too much'?

If it were Trump's son you would say just the opposite.

 

[zeppelin128]

I think a lot of people are setting themselves up for disappointment for different reasons. Nothing is going to come out of this to damage Biden, and no way in hell a GOP led Senate convicts Trump.

 

[BigOrangeD]

They started to care when Biden became the front-runner and is leading Trump by double digits in early polls.

Wrong, they started to care when the Fake Russia Hoax was used to try and over throw a duly elected President.

 

[BigOrangeD]

I think a lot of people are setting themselves up for disappointment for different reasons. Nothing is going to come out of this to damage Biden, and no way in hell a GOP led Senate convicts Trump.

Probably right.

 

[VolnJC]

 

[Orangeburst]

 

[VolnJC]

 

[zeppelin128]

Wrong, they started to care when the Fake Russia Hoax was used to try and over throw a duly elected President.

So they started to care about Hunter's salary when Mueller investigated Russian interference in our election last year? That's not how this has played out, or you misunderstood my response to septic.

 

[GVF]

They are. The wh seems to be confused on what the house does vs the Senate

I beg to differ....
1. Impeachment proceddings requested to the House by a member of HoR.
2. Present list of charges under oath OR ask for a referral to appropriate committee.
(A) If resolution to impeach an individual it goes to House Committee on the Judiciary.
(B) If resolution is to investigate impeachable conduct, it goes to HC on Rules, then to the Judiciary.
3. HC on Judiciary, by majority vote, determines if grounds for impeachment exist.
(A) If so, it will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more AI's.
(B) AI's are reported to full House with recommendations.
(C) House debates and decides to vote on AI's as a whole, or individually.
(D) If passed, House selects House Managers to present to Senate.
(E) House adopts resolution to notify Senate of its actions
(F) House Managers present to the Senate, and returns a verbal report to the House.

I think it's important to also note, that in 1973, when investigating the WH tapes, the Judiciary Committee authorized the Chairman to commence the investigation, with subpoena power. They just didn't go hog wild.

Now, I would argue the process should technically be in the Steps 1/2 range above. Only they've mixed in some step 3 ahead of the process. I also don't recall Pelosi and Schiff following much of the first 2, to the extent that they spearheaded the investigations, instead of going to the House to be referred to the appropriate committee, and that committee overseeing the investigative process, including subpoenas and witness interviews, before reaching the stage of Steps 2/3 in which the presentations are made to the house. My interpretive opinion would be that you get into steps 1&2, then fire off the investigative process.

I haven't seen that this has been followed.