President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

notobtuse

This Impeachmentpalooza is incredibly boring.

So Shifty Shiff has been telling us the Democrats had an incredible case built up for impeachment against Trump when they delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but now desperately needs more witnesses and more investigations to proceed?

This guy is a walking, talking, bug-eyed piece of excrement.

So just the usual at the moment on here trump fans ignoring questions and posting statements that very much run against facts.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

More lies Schiff lies exposed:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832



Hyde was on with Fredo last night and the chap is as mad as a box of frogs. Seemed drunk or high or both.

Again, more horsesh!t. You really have no idea of what you're writing do you

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

desperately needs more witnesses and more investigations

Yeah imagine asking for documents and key witnesses for a trial.

He has some nerve all right.

*Shakes Fist*

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

This Impeachmentpalooza is incredibly boring.

So Shifty Shiff has been telling us the Democrats had an incredible case built up for impeachment against Trump when they delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but now desperately needs more witnesses and more investigations to proceed?

This guy is a walking, talking, bug-eyed piece of excrement.

I know you know this , but just to be sure..

The House does the investigation , the Senate holds the trial.

The output of the House Investigation in Irish Legal terms would be a mixture of Garda reports/interviews and the charges filed by the DPP.

The Senate then hold the trial - When have you ever heard of a trial that refused to have witnesses and refused to accept into evidence the findings of the Police investigation?

Does that sounds like a fair , real proper trial to you?

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah imagine asking for documents and key witnesses for a trial.

He has some nerve all right.

*Shakes Fist*

Why not wait till they had all their ducks in a row, then? The courts were going to render a decision on Executive Privilege in short order but the Democrats just had to rush the impeachment to save the country. Then took almost a month to deliver the articles to the Senate? WTF?

Shifting the goal posts seems to be Shifty Shiff's MO... after terminal lying about the entire impeachment process, that is.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I know you know this , but just to be sure..

The House does the investigation , the Senate holds the trial.

The output of the House Investigation in Irish Legal terms would be a mixture of Garda reports/interviews and the charges filed by the DPP.

The Senate then hold the trial - When have you ever heard of a trial that refused to have witnesses and refused to accept into evidence the findings of the Police investigation?

Does that sounds like a fair , real proper trial to you?

The Senate is not responsible for doing the Houses' job!

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Why not wait till they had all their ducks in a row, then? The courts were going to render a decision on Executive Privilege in short order but the Democrats just had to rush the impeachment to save the country. Then took almost a month to deliver them to the Senate? WTF?

Shifting the goal posts seems to be Shifty Shiff's MO... after terminal lying about the entire impeachment process, that is.

But sure Trump said he would love to see witnesses, why does it have to go through the courts at all.

The trial is on, the documents are ready as are the witnesses.

Let them testify, what's the problem?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

The Senate is not responsible for doing the Houses' job!

No one is asking the Senate to do the House job , they did their job , what's being asked is that the Senate do their job.

Which is to hold an actual trial - With Witnesses and Evidence and all the things that every trial anywhere else has.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

The Senate is not responsible for doing the Houses' job!

You mean the job they wanted to do but Trump obstructed by telling witnesses not to testify? The same witnesses he assured us would clear his name? It is very odd that he would stop them testifying.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No one is asking the Senate to do the House job , they did their job , what's being asked is that the Senate do their job.

Which is to hold an actual trial - With Witnesses and Evidence and all the things that every trial anywhere else has.

Here is how it works...

Once the trial begins, there are clear rules for each of the key players. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presides. Senators do not do the talking; they can only submit written questions.

Impeachment managers from the House will represent the Democrats' argument. The president's defense includes White House counsel, outside attorneys and a number of Republican members of the House.

It's just a show trial on the part of Democrats for the voters.

It's just a political show trial on the part of Democrats for the people.

- - - -

After the trial, the Senate votes on whether to convict or acquit the president on each article of impeachment. Convicting Trump and therefore removing him from office requires 67 votes.

- - - -

Acquitting Trump of the charges or dismissing the charges, however, takes only 51 votes.

It is the job of the House impeachment managers to represent the Democrats' argument.

If the Democrats wanted Bolton or Trump's lawyer to testify why did then not subpoena them to testify before delivering the articles of impeachment?

MeMen2_MoRi_

notobtuse wrote: »

The Senate is not responsible for doing the Houses' job!

Clearly not doing their own jobs either, ya know to up hold and protect the constitution they swore too protect. It seems in some alternate universe the constitution has transformed into trump.

pearcider

The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it.

Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.

duploelabs

pearcider wrote: »

The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it.

Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.

I'm glad you're not my political or home ownership advisor

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

If the Democrats wanted Bolton or Trump's lawyer to testify why did then not subpoena them to testify before delivering the articles of impeachment?

Because Trump like he is doing with his tax returns would have crippled it through the courts.

Why should it go to court at all, if Trump and key players have nothing to hide, why not testify and submit the documents?

Trump himself said he would love to see witnesses, all though strangely he ordered them not to testify in the house.

Odd that isn't it?

Cody montana

pearcider wrote: »

The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it.

Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.

I got as far as Killary.

Doctor Jimbob

Cody montana wrote: »

I got as far as Killary.

I read the whole thing.

You made the right call stopping where you did.

Boggles

pearcider wrote: »

The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it.

Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.

pearcider

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I read the whole thing.

You made the right call stopping where you did.

Sorry to intrude on your bubble but normal people care about three things when it comes to voting jobs jobs and jobs. On that metric Trump wins and he wins bigly.

They don’t care about all the liberal mumbo jumbo and pandering to the liberal elites that the dem candidates come out with. You only have to look at the dems listing their preferred pronouns before they speak at their debates to realize how loony these people are.

Biden, Pocahontas and the rest are literally UNELECTABLE.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You mean the job they wanted to do but Trump obstructed by telling witnesses not to testify? The same witnesses he assured us would clear his name? It is very odd that he would stop them testifying.

Apparently Schiff and Nadler forgot when they endorsed Attorney General Eric Holder’s obstruction and Barack Obama’s executive privilege claim. More than likely it’s probably the early onset of dementia.

duploelabs

pearcider wrote: »

Biden, Pocahontas and the rest are literally UNELECTABLE.

The polls tell otherwise, and look at you all cute using the nicknames like the mandarin malaise does

Sean.3516

Boggles wrote: »

Because Trump like he is doing with his tax returns would have crippled it through the courts.

Wow, you mean a court might actually make a ruling on a subpoena? That might actually go in Trump’s favor?

Also if the court did refuse to enforce the subpoena, wouldn’t that give the Dems more ammunition in their argument that a cover up is taking place?

Why they didn’t bother trying to enforce their “subpoenas” in court is beyond me. I use quotation marks because it could be said that these aren’t really subpoenas in the full legal sense of what the word means as they are not court sanctioned. A subpoena is when an actual court rules that evidence of witnesses must be handed over. When we say the House of Reps “subpoenas” the word is actually being used in a colloquial way. The subpoena has no legal standing whatsoever. Nobody has to testify in congress if they don’t want to unless ordered by a court. Really “subpoena” in this sense just means “the House of Reps asked White House employees to testify” and they said “no” or Trump said “no” as he’s entitled to under executive privilege unless these “subpoenas” become actual subpoenas when a court rules on them (which the Dems didn’t bother trying to do.)

This is also why the 2nd article of impeachment (the obstruction one) makes no sense whatsoever. No obstruction actually took place. Had the Democrats successfully pursued the subpoenas in court and had Trump still refused to waive the executive privilege, THEN the Dems would have an actual case for obstruction.

Boggles wrote: »

Why should it go to court at all, if Trump and key players have nothing to hide, why not testify and submit the documents?

Trump is under no legal obligation to prove his own innocence. It’s the Dem’s obligation to prove he’s guilty.

Also if you’re accused of a crime and you believe that you are innocent why would you willingly give the prosecution (in this case the Dems in Congress) the ammunition they want. In the impeachment case this makes even less sense since most of the legal rules that apply in a court of law don’t apply in an impeachment court as the process is purely political.

For example, there isn’t going to be a judge present to correct the Democratic congresspeople if they ask leading questions or invoke speculation or use tricks to get a witness to say something that would never be tolerated in a real court of law. What lawyer in their right mind would advise Trump to waive executive privilege under these conditions?

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Because Trump like he is doing with his tax returns would have crippled it through the courts.

Why should it go to court at all, if Trump and key players have nothing to hide, why not testify and submit the documents?

Trump himself said he would love to see witnesses, all though strangely he ordered them not to testify in the house.

Odd that isn't it?

Wrong. Courts would have fast tracked it and rendered a decision.

The courts rule on these type of things done by presidents all the time.

Nothing odd at all if you have any knowledge of US political history.

Boggles

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Also if you’re accused of a crime and you believe that you are innocent why would you willingly give the prosecution (in this case the Dems in Congress) the ammunition they want.

You'll have to ask the Donald that particular question.

Trump said the witnesses would prove his innocence, he would love to see them testify.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

You'll have to ask the Donald that particular question.

Trump said the witnesses would prove his innocence, he would love to see them testify.

He says a lot of things. Thankfully he has advisors to tell him history shows Democrats can’t be trusted.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

He says a lot of things. Thankfully he has advisors to tell him history shows Democrats can’t be trusted.

nearly all of them lies

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Wrong. Courts would have fast tracked it and rendered a decision.

Citation please? Proof, link, anything?

Call me Al

Schiff is just immense on the Senate floor right now.
Hes directly timetabling the whole schedule of events, detailing who did what, and under whose instructions.
Also detailing the lies told and blatant manipulation by Trump along the way, and emphasising the impacts all these aggressive acts have on both their country's freedom and national security.

Sean.3516

Boggles wrote: »

You'll have to ask the Donald that particular question.

Trump said the witnesses would prove his innocence, he would love to see them testify.

He might feel more comfortable about it if Republicans had been allowed by the Dems to call their own witnesses.

Again in a court of law the defence would have the right to do this. And yes, the impeachment process is purely political so the ruling party gets to decide that, I know. I’m not saying the Dems are obligated to let Republicans call whoever they want. Their House, their rules. But it’s unreasonable to expect Trump to be as accommodating as possible if the Dems don’t give him that same privilege.

A “fair trial” and “due process” aren’t mandatory in an impeachment but it sure helps one’s case if the goal is to uncover the truth.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Citation please? Proof, link, anything?

Here you go...

We think it is entirely possible—probable even—that judges would recognize the primacy of impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States and expedite consideration of such cases. The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt, but we think it reasonable to assume courts would take a similarly expeditious view in the context of a subpoena issued pursuant to impeachment proceedings. Of course, it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court has never decided a case concerning a congressional subpoena for information issued to an executive branch official where the president has asserted executive privilege. In theory, the Supreme Court could decide the issue is a political question and leave it to the other two branches to sort out in some other way.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house