• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
He probably wrote that large so he doesn't have to put on reading glasses and misspelling proper nouns is probably the least problematic spelling mistake. Spelling mistakes themselves are fairly inconsequential anyway.

I enjoy how the GOP reasoning has become, 'They can't be Republicans or loyal non-political government officials if they are telling the truth.'
 
I hope that this was already covered here, I don't have time to read. (I'm involved in a thread on another forum that has 8,000 posts just from today...)

This soundbite that all of the Republican congressmen and Republican bubble news organizations are concentrating on. The "I WANT NOTHING! I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO" soundbite.

That is from a phone call weeks after the crime. It's even weeks after Trump knew he was was caught!

They are literally trying to get people to believe that the COVERUP INSTRUCTIONS phone call was the original phone call. It is INSANE spin.



July 25th: The crime. (The extortion phone call to the Ukraine for help setting up Biden.)

Aug 12th: The whistle-blower complaint.

Aug 28th: News breaks about the extortion phone call and aid being withheld.

Sept 9th (Day): Investigations Begin

Sept 9th (Night): Trump finds out about the investigation and then makes the "I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. NO QUID PRO QUO!" coverup phone call.

Sept 24rd (Morning): Impeachment inquiry leaked.

Sept 24rd (Afternoon): Trump phone call to Pelosi asking if she and he can "work something out" to "do something about this whole whistle-blower thing". He even tells her that he is prepared to put gun control on the table in exchange. (Her response to him was only that "He and his people should start obeying the law.")

Sept 24td (Evening): Impeachment inquiry is announced.




Again. Make note that the NO QUID PRO QUO phone call is WAY after the crime. It is during the coverup. Not during the crime as the Republicans tonight are trying to spin it tonight.
 
acbytesla said:
NO THEY CAN'T and WOULDN'T.

The Constitution clearly says

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Court has NO AUTHORITY in regards to impeachment. NONE.
Click to expand...

The Court has the power to determine whether an act is consistent with the constitution. At least since about 1803. It wouldn't be that hard to read "sole power" as simply being power within the set parameters, in this case when there is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

The same general idea that Congress could act frivolously as to what is impeachable applies to the Supreme Court hearing a case and issuing an order. The only thing that would prevent the Court from speaking is the political question doctrine, and they are the ones who get to say what that is.

The West Virginia Constitution has this exact language. Want to guess what the West Virginia Supreme Court did last year? Yup. Tossed out articles of impeachment because the house overstepped their bounds and prevented trial in the senate.

http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/fall2018/18-0816.pdf


The US supreme court declined review.

So, NO AUTHORITY might need a bigger font before it magically protects against a court with big ideas.
 
This is The End said:
I hope that this was already covered here, I don't have time to read. (I'm involved in a thread on another forum that has 8,000 posts just from today...)

This soundbite that all of the Republican congressmen and Republican bubble news organizations are concentrating on. The "I WANT NOTHING! I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO" soundbite.

That is from a phone call weeks after the crime. It's even weeks after Trump knew he was was caught!

They are literally trying to get people to believe that the COVERUP INSTRUCTIONS phone call was the original phone call. It is INSANE spin.



July 25th: The crime. (The extortion phone call to the Ukraine for help setting up Biden.)

Aug 12th: The whistle-blower complaint.

Aug 28th: News breaks about the extortion phone call and aid being withheld.

Sept 9th (Day): Investigations Begin

Sept 9th (Night): Trump finds out about the investigation and then makes the "I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. NO QUID PRO QUO!" coverup phone call.

Sept 11th Aid to Ukraine released

Sept 24rd (Morning): Impeachment inquiry leaked.

Sept 24rd (Afternoon): Trump phone call to Pelosi asking if she and he can "work something out" to "do something about this whole whistle-blower thing". He even tells her that he is prepared to put gun control on the table in exchange. (Her response to him was only that "He and his people should start obeying the law.")

Sept 24td (Evening): Impeachment inquiry is announced.




Again. Make note that the NO QUID PRO QUO phone call is WAY after the crime. It is during the coverup. Not during the crime as the Republicans tonight are trying to spin it tonight.
Click to expand...


Friendly FTFY
 
tyr_13 said:
He probably wrote that large so he doesn't have to put on reading glasses and misspelling proper nouns is probably the least problematic spelling mistake. Spelling mistakes themselves are fairly inconsequential anyway.

I enjoy how the GOP reasoning has become, 'They can't be Republicans or loyal non-political government officials if they are telling the truth.'
Click to expand...

I'd agree, in general. However.....this isn't just an ordinary, seldom seen proper noun. It's the name of the Ukrainian president at the center of the impeachment hearings. To think Trump has not seen the printed name Zelensky dozens of times by today is unrealistic. That he still can't spell it correctly is just plain weird. And rather concerning.
 
Suddenly said:
The Court has the power to determine whether an act is consistent with the constitution. At least since about 1803. It wouldn't be that hard to read "sole power" as simply being power within the set parameters, in this case when there is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

The same general idea that Congress could act frivolously as to what is impeachable applies to the Supreme Court hearing a case and issuing an order. The only thing that would prevent the Court from speaking is the political question doctrine, and they are the ones who get to say what that is.

The West Virginia Constitution has this exact language. Want to guess what the West Virginia Supreme Court did last year? Yup. Tossed out articles of impeachment because the house overstepped their bounds and prevented trial in the senate.

http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/fall2018/18-0816.pdf


The US supreme court declined review.

So, NO AUTHORITY might need a bigger font before it magically protects against a court with big ideas.
Click to expand...

It would be stunning for the court to have the temerity to exercise "judicial review" a doctrine written nowhere in the US Constitution to rule against a clearly written article of the US Constitution.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'd agree, in general. However.....this isn't just an ordinary, seldom seen proper noun. It's the name of the Ukrainian president at the center of the impeachment hearings. To think Trump has not seen the printed name Zelensky dozens of times by today is unrealistic. That he still can't spell it correctly is just plain weird. And rather concerning.
Click to expand...
It is well known Trump doesn't read
 
acbytesla said:
It would be stunning for the court to have the temerity to exercise "judicial review" a doctrine written nowhere in the US Constitution to rule against a clearly written article of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


You mean like when they use it on a regular basis to find duly passed legislation to be contrary to the document and thus void?

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Click to expand...

Seems clearly written.

Judicial review is part of the judicial power they go on about in Article III. This has been settled for 216 years.

After Bush v. Gore I sort of got out of the incredulity business when the political chips are down.
 
Suddenly said:
You mean like when they use it on a regular basis to find duly passed legislation to be contrary to the document and thus void?



Seems clearly written.

Judicial review is part of the judicial power they go on about in Article III. This has been settled for 216 years.

After Bush v. Gore I sort of got out of the incredulity business when the political chips are down.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Segnosaur said:
Its already been released.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_the_Affairs_of_British_North_America

Wait, you mean there's another Durham report?
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
Yes, and it's coming out any day now,and will show that Trump and the GOP are innocent of all wrong doing, and it's the Dems who are evil and corrupt.
Or so the Trumpies have been saying endlessly for the last two months.
Durham is the name of the Justice Department official who is allegedly investigating FBI/Justice Department "Deep State" interference in the 2016 election. Endlessly cited by Trump supporters whenever anything damaging to Trump comes out. "Just wait until the Durham report comes out".
Click to expand...

Presumably it will be released on D4.
 
Remember the silly stupid GOP argument that Ukraine didn't even know that aid was delayed?

A certainly stupid claim if I ever heard one. Just imagine knowing that a half a billion dollars is coming your way and not being curious about when.

Well, it seems as if that wasn't so. I see the shock on your faces.
Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry that some members of her staff recalled receiving queries about the aid from Ukrainian officials on July 25th.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/20/politics/david-hale-laura-cooper-public-hearing/index.html
Click to expand...
 
Trump Tweets

If this were a prizefight, they’d stop it!

“All four of Gordon Sondland’s lawyers are Democrat Donors.” @TuckerCarlson
Despite this, big win today for Republicans!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

If this were a prizefight, they’d stop it!

“All four of Gordon Sondland’s lawyers are Democrat Donors.” @TuckerCarlson
Despite this, big win today for Republicans!
Click to expand...

I agree that if this were a prizefight, they'd stop it. Jordan, Radcliffe, Nunes et al. are getting hammered!

And Gordon Sondland donated a MILLION DOLLARS to Trump's inaugural fund. What's your point, Tucker?
 
This is The End said:
...
So two months ago the Republicans realized that OH CRAP The President was involved in extortion. What they did was absolutely genius. They tricked the entire country, including the news media, into using a completely different term "quid pro quo"; which for appearances sake is a much less damaging term than the actual term "extortion". And as an added bonus they hid doing that in an attempt to act like it was required to make the act illegal, which it isn't.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder why they didn't go for "tit for tat". (Even though that's just as incorrect.)

Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

I WANT NOTHING!
Click to expand...

"And you shall receive it.... IN ABUNDANCE!" (Head toss, sashay out)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

If this were a prizefight, they’d stop it!

“All four of Gordon Sondland’s lawyers are Democrat Donors.” @TuckerCarlson
Despite this, big win today for Republicans!
Click to expand...

Which is another way to say that Sondland's lawyers are loyal Americans. You can't be loyal to Trump and still be loyal to the nation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom