Democrats Have Impeached Trump in the House.

[GotToLuveIT]

On second thoughts, I may need to do another tin foil + popcorn run down to Engen.
Not to worry I am sure they have a big box of tissues for you too.
4 more years!

Filmmaker Michael Moore says “there is no way” @BernieSanders told @ewarren that a woman could not be elected president. When that feud started on Monday, “my first thought was they will mark this day, January 13th, as the day Donald Trump was re-elected,” @MMFlint says. pic.twitter.com/5TC8peJXh5
— Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (@FiringLineShow) January 15, 2020

 

[TysonRoux]

*heroes*

The plural noun is heroes.

ROLF, maybe he meant herero's.

 

[TysonRoux]

Amazing how the Lev Parnas interview jogged his memory, Trumpet scumbag.

Devin Nunes Now Remembers Call With Lev Parnas

Nunes also claims the first time he “heard the name Yovanovitch was not until this impeachment sham started.”

www.thedailybeast.com

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Fox News on Wednesday night that he now remembers speaking on the phone with Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani actively involved in the Ukraine scheme at the heart of the president's impeachment.

Moments after Parnas told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that the president “knew exactly what was going on” with Ukraine, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum asked Nunes about phone records that show he spoke to Parnas, noting he previously said he couldn’t “recall” having a phone conversation with the Giuliani henchman. Claiming that the information was “brand new” at the time and he just didn’t “recognize the name Parnas,” the pro-Trump congressman added that he was able to recall “where he was at the time” and now “remembered that call, which was very odd and random.”

Asked whether or not they spoke about former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Nunes asserted that the first time he “heard the name Yovanovitch was not until this impeachment sham started.”

 

[TysonRoux]

ROLF

Devin Nunes’s explanations for his Parnas phone calls are getting increasingly outlandish

Devin Nunes isn’t doing a very plausible job answering questions about his involvement in the Ukraine caper.

www.vox.com

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) is going to increasingly desperate lengths to spin phone records indicating he played a more central role than previously understood in the Trump administration’s shadowy Ukraine policy — one geared toward leveraging official White House acts into political favors benefitting the president.


Those records, which were included in Intelligence Committee Democrats’ impeachment report, indicate that Nunes communicated on the phone with Rudy Giuliani’s indicted Ukraine fixer, Lev Parnas, including an eight-and-a-half minute call on April 12.


Parnas’s lawyers have said their client is prepared to testify that Nunes worked to advance the Ukrainian investigations into the Biden family that are at the center of an impeachment inquiry. But Nunes didn’t disclose those contacts when he served as the top Republican overseeing the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings last month.


Speaking to Maria Bartiromo for her Fox Business show on Sunday morning, Nunes advanced a type of alternative explanation that has gotten some play on Fox News, suggesting the aforementioned call he received from Parnas on April 12 may have been placed by Parnas’s wife, not Parnas himself.


“I got a call from a number that was Parnas’s wife,” Nunes said. “I remember talking to someone, and I did what I always do which is that if you don’t know who they are, you put them to staff, and you let staff work with that person.”

 

[TysonRoux]

OK, So maybe I didn't actually ... see the ROLF

 

[OrbitalDawn]

More revisionist history from OrbitalYawn. You said that before he made the argument and you're still not addressing the trollrot comment.

Unclear why you think I should pretend rambo hasn't posted on the forum and in these threads before. Same for rietrot, who has admitted he doesn't actually care about anything and just trolls.

Threads have been locked and people banned for less but it's only ever side doing the trolling.

What absolute drivel, Gnarls. You obviously know this isn't true.

Government regulation of prices in healthcare is nationalisation bucko.

Wait... are you serious with this...?

So Trump is nationalising healthcare. Remarkable.

That would depend on how much Pedi Helen Zille's son is able to speak whilst being on the board of a major energy company that was being investigated for corruption in Botswana. You know, just to compare things fairly.

In this hypothetical did Zille's son only join the board after the period under investigation and where Zille pushed for reform to investigate corruption, including at that specific energy company...?

Or are those inconvenient things left out... hypothetically, of course.

But it certainly has something to do with how you can fix the problem.

Congress could simply pass a bill stating that the US president cannot block any aid from congress. Of course they won't like it because when their guy is in charge, you want him to be able to do the same thing as Trump did (but probably with a bit more grace). But given how this has surfaced as a way for corruption to happen, it should be a pretty easy no-brainier for most people in congress.

The clever part is that this doesn't require Trump to actually be guilty of anything. It would be based on how his behaviour can be interpreted, which most people could at least see as being problematic. It also doesn't have to be seen as an attack on Trump

The law already does this, and he broke it anyway, because disbursing appropriations is an executive function.

Do you want to assign that function to the legislative branch? Because it has exactly zero mandate or infrastructure to do it. How are you going to chance the constitution to allow for this, and avoid usurping the executive's mandate in other areas that overlaps?

Ultimately the solution is political accountability, and there likely won't be any, because Republicans are protecting his corrupt behaviour. In turn, the solution to the Republican cover-up is electoral accountability, but if voters keep them there that won't happen either. Thus we have an ANC-type situation in the US.

 

[TysonRoux]

Trump vs. John Roberts: A 2020 battle for the Supreme Court’s reputation

President Donald Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts are on a 2020 collision course guaranteed to strain the court’s hard-fought attempts to remain above the political fray.

The relationship between Trump and Roberts has long been fraught, with the two trading pointed remarks over the president’s verbal attacks on the judiciary. But it’s only going to get more complicated when the Senate impeachment trial eventually opens. Roberts will be overseeing the political proceedings under the watchful eye of a certain Twitter handle known for its invective.

 

[TysonRoux]

Cohen delivers warning to GOP lawmakers now attacking him: Don’t ‘blindly’ follow Trump

It wasn’t that long ago that Michael Cohen and congressional Republicans were on the same side.

www.latimes.com

“I did the same thing that you’re doing now for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years,” Cohen told his former allies. “I can only warn people. The more people that follow Mr. Trump — as I did blindly — are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”

Trump vehemently defended Cohen after The New York Times published a story saying his longtime attorney may turn on him now that the FBI obtained possibly incriminating evidence during the raid.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/987679848284999680

The New York Times and a third rate reporter named Maggie Haberman, known as a Crooked H flunkie who I don’t speak to and have nothing to do with, are going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will “flip.” They use....

...non-existent “sources” and a drunk/drugged up loser who hates Michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. Michael is a businessman for his own account/lawyer who I have always liked & respected. Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if....

...it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media!

 

[TysonRoux]

Very good timeline video - see list of the Team members that dropped out when it got too hot and dirty.

WSJ News Exclusive | Rick Perry Called Rudy Giuliani at Trump’s Direction on Ukraine Concerns

Energy Secretary Rick Perry said he sought out Rudy Giuliani this spring at President Trump’s direction to address Mr. Trump’s concerns about Ukrainian corruption.

www.wsj.com

Rick Perry to resign as Donald Trump's energy secretary amid Ukraine scrutiny

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who has faced scrutiny over President Donald Trump's interactions with Ukraine, has resigned.

www.usatoday.com

 

[TysonRoux]

Parnas fired President Trump’s lawyer, John M. Dowd, during an encounter in jail, when he realized that he was involved in his arrest, and was actually not working to get him out of jail.
Trump "approved" Parnas being represented by Dowd.

Giuliani associate retains Trump lawyer John Dowd over Ukraine work

Dowd recently represented Trump as a personal attorney during the Mueller investigation.

www.politico.com

Trump’s Russia probe lawyer John Dowd resigns

The departure comes amid a larger shakeup of the legal team handling the Mueller investigation.

www.politico.com

'There's no way he could': Trump's ex-lawyer John Dowd feared the president was incapable of an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller

President Donald Trump's former lawyer John Dowd did not advise Trump to be interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller because he feared that the president was incapable of pulling it off, Dowd says on a new podcast. Dowd apparently feared that a sitdown with Mueller could end with Trump...

www.cnbc.com

 

[GotToLuveIT]

*Denial, check.
Four more stages to go.
Four more years!

*Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

 

[rietrot]

Well you really can't make this stuff up. A bunch of socialist upset that Trump didn't sent money out of the country fast enough and wanted to investigate corruption.

This is why communism always fail and always will fail.

 

[Gnarls]

Unclear why you think I should pretend rambo hasn't posted on the forum and in these threads before. Same for rietrot, who has admitted he doesn't actually care about anything and just trolls.



What absolute drivel, Gnarls. You obviously know this isn't true.

More gaslighting - I wouldn't be making the case if it wasn't but your opinion is the only one that matters eh? So you finally admit it was an ad hominem but because of their posting history it's ok? This guy!

I remember others doing the same and then there were calls of thread incivility. This is the point which you've missed again....

 

[The Free Radical]

Does anyone who wades into the Trump threads from stage-right know how impeachment works?

He's impeached. Past tense. Is now, and always will be impeached. Forever and always. Impeached.

His trial is in the Senate.

Trial.

In the Senate.

Trial, not impeachment.

Conviction or acquittal in the Senate trial has no bearing on the fact that he's been impeached... By the House. Impeached.

Again, see Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton for reference.

To the uneducated, most people on the street believe impeachment means automatically being fired (tossed out of the White house as President). It does NOT.

The United States House of Representatives (commonly referred to as 'the House') is the lower house of the United States Congress, the Senate being the upper house. Together they compose the national legislature of the United States.

Impeachment in this case is merely a formal rebuke, where charges were laid in the House. Those who voted for impeachment have alleged wrongdoing by Trump.

Personal Note: The Democrats have been on a sustained witch hunt to reverse the 2016 election results where Trump won the election, and even engaged in sustained alarmism and political indifference ever since.

Currently the House has the following representation:

Democrats (232 members)
Republicans (197 members)
Independent (1 member)
Vacancies (5 members)

To find an impeached verdict in the House, a 50% +1 vote is the legal threshold. With outraged Democrats commanding a majority in house, the impeachment was a given.

The U.S. Constitution says this about impeachment

"The President shall be removed from office on impeachment [in the House] for, and conviction [in the Senate] of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Only a guilty verdict in a trial in the Senate (currently dominated by Republicans), where the charges in articles of impeachment are tested, can the President be formally fired so to speak.

This is the phase currently being initiated.

A higher bar of a two-thirds majority is required legally in the Senate to deliver a guilty verdict and to potentially have Trump removed as the sitting President.

Currently the Senate has the following representation:

Republicans (Trumps Party) 53 members
Democrats (The Opposition) 45 members
Independents 2 members.

This means ALL of the opposition and a large segment of Trumps own Republicans will have to vote to find him guilty. This is not expected to happen as Trump has unwavering support among his party faithfuls. All of whom are are rooting for his 2020 re-election uncontested.


Two other U.S presidents in US history have been impeached, despite numerous threats on others.

(1) Bill Clinton in 1998 (He kept his job after being cleared of wrong doing by vote in the Senate).

(2) Andrew Johnson in 1868 (He kept his job and continued to complete his term)

Richard Nixon was having Articles of Impeachment drawn up against him in Congress and resigned in 1974 just before being formally charged.

 

[greg0205]

To the uneducated, most people on the street believe impeachment means automatically being fired (tossed out of the White house as President). It does NOT. Impeachment is merely a formal rebuke, and charges are laid where alleged wrongdoing is by a sitting Pesident is concerned. In this case, the opposition (un)Democratic Party has been on a sustained witch hunt ever since he took office and engaged in false alarmism continually (Meuller Report / Russia Gate etc).

The U.S. Constitution says this about impeachment

"The President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Only a guilty verdict in a trial in the Senate (currently dominated by Republicans), where the charges in articles of impeachment are tested, can the President be formally fired so to speak. A two-thirds majority is needed to deliver a guilty verdict and to have Trump removed.

Currently the Senate has the following representation:

Republicans (Trumps Party) 53 members
Democrats (The Opposition) 45 members
Independents 2 members.

This means ALL of the opposition and a large segment of Trumps own Republicans will have to vote to find him guilty. This is not expected to happen.

Two other U.S presidents in US history have been impeached, despite numerous threats on others.

(1) Bill Clinton in 1998 (He kept his job after being cleared of wrong doing by vote in the Senate).

(2) Andrew Johnson in 1868 (He kept his job and continued to complete his term)

Richard Nixon was having Articles of Impeachment drawn up against him in Congress and resigned in 1974 before being formally charged.

Very succinct Free Radical.

Your original post that drew my comment was less so:

Trump is NOT going to impeached in the upcoming trial.

I suspect that less, "(un)Democratic Party", "witch hunt" and "false alarmism" might serve you better insofar as seeming impartial in a factual post like this one, but impartiality isn't why any of us are here, is it?

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Will dementia be Trump's defense?

 

[greg0205]

Oh the irony

"I'm not an impartial juror ... This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision ... I'm not impartial about this at all." - Mitch McConnell

We will be in: "total coordination with the White House counsel" - Mitch McConnell

"I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can." - Mitch McConnell

"I have clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process." - Lindsey Graham

I'm, "not trying to pretend to be a fair juror." - Lindsey Graham

For the sake of clarity on your, "Oh the irony" statement Temujin, could you go ahead and post quotes from Democratic Senators who have said that won't be guided by the evidence and would vote according to tribal loyalty?

Thanks pal.

 

[The Free Radical]

Very succinct Free Radical.

Your original post that drew my comment was less so:



I suspect that less, "(un)Democratic Party", "witch hunt" and "false alarmism" might serve you better insofar as seeming impartial in a factual post like this one, but impartiality isn't why any of us are here, is it?

Fixed.
Edited to highlight my personal opinion in purple text.
Thanks.

 

[greg0205]

Fixed. Edited to highlight my personal opinion.
Thanks.

Removal of Donald J Trump, who was impeached, from office would result in the confirmation of Michael Richard Pence, the Vice President and Donnie's running mate, as POTUS... Precisely as the founders intended in the case of incapacity or removal from office.

... not president Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

So not a reversal of the 2016 election in any way whatsoever.

 

[Temujin]

"I'm not an impartial juror ... This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision ... I'm not impartial about this at all." - Mitch McConnell

We will be in: "total coordination with the White House counsel" - Mitch McConnell

"I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can." - Mitch McConnell

"I have clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process." - Lindsey Graham

I'm, "not trying to pretend to be a fair juror." - Lindsey Graham

For the sake of clarity on your, "Oh the irony" statement Temujin, could you go ahead and post quotes from Democratic Senators who have said that won't be guided by the evidence and would vote according to tribal loyalty?

Thanks pal.

Take your head out you arse, they've been crying 'impeach' since day one, nothing impartial about any of em

Even if impeachment were intended to be the solemn criminal trial the left says it is, the Democratic majority in the House has already tainted that process. Democrats have been trying to impeach the president for years — this was a pretext to try and smear the president in an election year. Then when they began impeachment, they failed to give the same rights to the minority that were given to the Democratic minority in the Clinton trial, exposing the partisan intent of the process.

I worked in the Senate for five years, and I know why the left is pushing this “impartial jury” narrative despite all the evidence to the contrary.

They want Republican senators to act as passive observers, unquestioningly accepting the narrative and witness testimony the left presents. The left wants these senators to stay quiet in the Capitol and in the media instead of pushing back against a partisan impeachment process.

Instead of being intimidated into pretending to be bystanders, the Senate should do what it does best: deliberate. It should treat the articles of impeachment as it would any other important piece of legislation. Senators should present and weigh evidence and arguments, debate the merits of the case, and hold the rest of the Senate to account. They should actively seek the truth and fight to protect the 2016 election, the office of the presidency, and Congress’ legitimate role in impeachment. And they should remember their obligation to fight for their constituents’ interests.

Some senators recognize this already, including Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who recently wrote: “If the Senate impeachment trial were a real court, all 100 senators would be removed as jurors for bias for or against the president.” All senators should be ready to combat the partisan impeachment articles and fight to find out the real truth — not just the story presented by the left’s impeachment managers.

Senators are politicians, not jurors — they should act like it

All senators should be ready to combat the partisan impeachment articles and fight to find out the real truth — not just the story presented by the left’s impeachment managers.

thehill.com