Impeachment does NOT require a crime

REPUBLICANS WERE ALLOWED TO ATTEND WHAT YOU FALSELY CLAIM WERE SECRET HEARINGS. A FACT YOU CAN NOT REFUTE.

White House counsel and lead Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone falsely claimed during the Senate trial Tuesday that Republicans were barred from attending the House impeachment inquiry's closed-door hearings.

Reality check: Republicans who are members of the three committees conducting the impeachment inquiry — the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees — were invited to and did attend impeachment hearings, which took in place in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

https://www.axios.com/cipillone-sch...ump-7d580c7e-a44e-452e-b1b1-df9ed6c882b4.html

 

Many Constitutional scholars beg to differ.That the President as
Commander and head of the Executive branch holds more sway when it
comes to making a final call as to approving or removing a Congressional
budget line item.Just as a POTUS has Veto power.
Or Executive Privilidge.Plus certain Plenary Powers.
for example ... Pelosi ran around all during Bush 43 insisting the
rather new Congressionally approved approach known as >
Pay as You Go.However once Obama took office she kept quiet about
it.Causing Jim Bunning { Senator from Kentucky } to bring it up
time and again as Pelosi dismissed or Ignored.Causing Bunning to
Retire early.Because these Trouble making Democrats pulled a
Jeff Flake on Bunning.Protesting him as he was using a Senator only
elevator.

 

Only certain select GOP House members and w/o their
devices.The others had to wait outside the skiff.

 

???? What amendments?

 

REPUBLICANS WERE ALLOWED TO ATTEND WHAT YOU FALSELY CLAIM WERE SECRET HEARINGS. A FACT YOU CAN NOT REFUTE.

White House counsel and lead Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone falsely claimed during the Senate trial Tuesday that Republicans were barred from attending the House impeachment inquiry's closed-door hearings.

Reality check: Republicans who are members of the three committees conducting the impeachment inquiry — the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees — were invited to and did attend impeachment hearings, which took in place in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

https://www.axios.com/cipillone-sch...ump-7d580c7e-a44e-452e-b1b1-df9ed6c882b4.html

 

No, not at all. I merely corrected your post that said misappropriated funds was used in previous presidential impeachments -- it was not.

But then you snuck withholding funds into the mix, so yes, withholding foreign aid funds is not an impeachable offense, with or without notice.

 

REPUBLICANS WERE ALLOWED TO ATTEND WHAT YOU FALSELY CLAIM WERE SECRET HEARINGS. A FACT YOU CAN NOT REFUTE.

White House counsel and lead Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone falsely claimed during the Senate trial Tuesday that Republicans were barred from attending the House impeachment inquiry's closed-door hearings.

Reality check: Republicans who are members of the three committees conducting the impeachment inquiry — the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees — were invited to and did attend impeachment hearings, which took in place in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

https://www.axios.com/cipillone-sch...ump-7d580c7e-a44e-452e-b1b1-df9ed6c882b4.html

 

Yes, pretty much. I don't know if the process of asking for witnesses before trial is appropriate or not. It is not appropriate in normal trials but the Senate can set whatever rules they want in an impeachment trial. They evidently agreed to motions for additional witnesses. During the trial most witness calling is done by the Senate for clarification purposes. However the House and the Trump lawyers can call their own witnesses which I think would require Senate approval. I don't know but I would suppose the Senate might be more lenient with witness calling after the trial begins, assuming there is more trial after the opening statements.

 

My guess is that the president does know what the witnesses would say and the Democrats think they know (or hope, hope, hope) what they would say.

 

You are half correct. Trump is impeached, but the House proved nothing.

 

"Bribery," is not in the Articles of Impeachment.

Bribery requires an actual offer and an acceptance of the offer. Neither of these has occurred.


Perhaps you are talking about Joe Biden who did demand a certain action on the part of the Ukraine and an acceptance of Biden's terms.

 

This is true and Schiff has still not released the transcript of the testimony of the IG. The Senate is entitled to that testimony.

 

No, not really. I think their response to their made up imaginary Rush's words was probably accurate, though I didn't and won't read the whole thing.

 

Rod, are you claiming that the GOP Representatives weren't there?

---and as damning as the memo is WRT the call, it's not a transcript. It's a memo.

 

1. Trump empowered Giuliani to employ the help of various members of the US diplomatic contingent to Ukraine, and some who were not part of that contingent, to put pressure on Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden. A campaign that began in the spring of 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50492438
2. Leverage was used, at Trump's direction, as a means to get Ukraine to acquiesce to Trump's requests in the form of the withholding of military aid authorized by Congress.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/
3. Resulting from the WB complaint, a summary of the transcript of the Zelensky call was released revealing Trump speaking to Zelensky about the investigations he wanted Ukraine to announce. A transcript WH officials tried to hide from other members of the government and the public by placing it in a code level secret server typically used for keeping national security matters secret. https://apnews.com/817c0c285bc9485d88608635e0fef3e3
4. Trump and Sondland were overheard discussing the efforts to get Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Biden.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/imp...ow-he-overheard-trump-call-with-sondland.html
5. Officials in the admin and the Pentagon expressed concern the hold was illegal.
https://publicintegrity.org/nationa...rried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/
A GAO analysis of the laws pertaining to the hold found it was, in their opinion, illegal.
6. Ukrainian officials asked about the aid on the day Trump called Zelensky when he said, "I need you to do us a favor though," prior to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden (and the server).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
7. Part time, acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli...d-pro-quo-donald-trump-ukraine-aid/index.html
So did EU ambassador Sondland.
Sondland acknowledges Ukraine quid pro quo, implicates Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html
8. US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was relieved of her post by Trump as a result of a smear campaign launched against her by Giuliani because she posed on obstacle to carrying out the scheme to extort Ukraine. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-yovanovitch-impeachment-070988
Lev Parnas recently stated her removal was directed as a payoff to get a Ukrainian official to produce dirt on Biden. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...risma-biden-dirt-fire-ukraine-ambassador.html
9. All of the 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry corroborate 1-8.
10. If any of the witnesses or documentary evidence Trump has blocked as part of his obstruction of the investigation can offer a refutation of the evidence above it is his prerogative to present it.
11. The solicitation of help in a US election from a foreign person or government is illegal.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...s-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from

 

All you have to do is count the numbers of things and people. You can use your fingers if you want.

 

REPUBLICANS WERE ALLOWED TO ATTEND WHAT YOU FALSELY CLAIM WERE SECRET HEARINGS. A FACT YOU CAN NOT REFUTE.

White House counsel and lead Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone falsely claimed during the Senate trial Tuesday that Republicans were barred from attending the House impeachment inquiry's closed-door hearings.

Reality check: Republicans who are members of the three committees conducting the impeachment inquiry — the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees — were invited to and did attend impeachment hearings, which took in place in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

https://www.axios.com/cipillone-sch...ump-7d580c7e-a44e-452e-b1b1-df9ed6c882b4.html

 

You haven't the foggiest notion what "process" Bonespurs was "due" in the House; you're simply repeating a slogan.

You don't have to explain "due process" to an experienced lawyer, Rod, but you do have to explain your bogus argument.

Tell the forum what process was due to Bonespurs in the House that he did not receive. "Secret hearings"? *LOL* That's essentially sequestering witnesses--do you want me to explain why those hearings take place?

 

SO WHAT??!!?? I bet they were allowed to nod or smile at the witnesses too. You are claiming Schiff gave them the sleeves from his vest. I am neither impressed nor convinced.

 

No, they (some) were there with both hands and half their brain tied behind their back, their electronic devices checked at the door, and with orders to shut up unless OKed by the teacher..

True, but he read it like a transcript hoping that that's how everyone would take it. He was home free until much to his chagrin Trump released the actual transcript, and then he ran around yelling, "Parody! Parody! Parody!"

 

Repubs were given equal time to ask questions.

"Head impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-N.Y.) responded that he would not suggest that Cipollone would "deliberately make a false statement,” but that "he's mistaken" and that Republicans were given equal time to question witnesses during the closed-door depositions.'
https://www.axios.com/cipillone-sch...ump-7d580c7e-a44e-452e-b1b1-df9ed6c882b4.html

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Read all the transcripts from the closed-door testimony in the Trump impeachment inquiry
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ent-witness-testimony-transcripts/4163983002/

 

You mean the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction - neither of which, if the Democrats are to be believed, rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

 

Unless the President is a Democrat, of course.

 

It takes 67% to remove him.

 

Sorry. All you have to do is read the House Manual-116.