House Speaker PELOSI and MSM Conspire to Dupe the American Public with a FAKE Trump Impeachment.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: carewemust

Talk about your stacked decks. You cant even cross examine. What a crock of poop.

Countermeasures are being prepared for deployment. I've heard they range from possibly revealing crimes committed by top democrats in the House, to lawsuits filed against individual House members who are depriving President Trump of his right to "face his accuser".

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

Can't imagine WHY Atkinson can't "seem to" explain that 😃

That is a strange choice of words, isn't it? One of the Republicans who came out of the closed session IG interview to make a quick phone call, told the hoard of reporters that the Inspector General appeared to be "politically influenced".

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

How do you fake an impeachment process?

I mean, really?

Has there been an official vote to start the impeachment process officially? No? Well then what you see is a charade. Is a charade real or fake? There is your answer....TROLL

a reply to: carewemust
What needs to be done is to activate the military and send them to congress and arrest Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, Cummings, Waters and the rest of the Marxist filth for treason and sedition. Not only would it send a message to our leftist members but a hard message to the Chinese. Free speech goes so far. If they want to live like commies then buy some land and live communally with those tenants. But try to fundamentally change our Constitution they are tip toeing in a landmine area. Cant stand shifty skulking Communists. They are zombies of society.

BTW this goes for the weak Republicans as well. Their silence is worse than the mouths of the Democrats. Mitt Romney comes to mind. The OP named some others.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: xuenchen
I'm confident that if the Supreme Court agrees to hear any cases connected to this, they will read the facts before making decisions 😎

I don't think the House Democrat superiors will like those facts 😎

McConnell just went public that he is going to shut it down if it reaches the Senate.

That is why there is no house vote. The Dems are using a fake impeachment to fool the public as an election campaign strategy. Yep, they are going after a political opponent to influence an election - once again. The irony on this is very amusing.

This was a non-starter from the get-go re: actual attempt at impeachment. Pelosi and all the Dems know that this issue wouldn't even get a hearing in the Senate, let alone a "Yay" vote. It's a joke and it's all done for the media...

They are banking on the "stupidity" of the american people. Not stupidity actually, more the fact that most are misinformed or uninformed.

Most people don't really pay attention until they get bit in the ass by an issue. Then they're all over it...but by then that ship has sailed.

Sometimes people learn their lesson for the next time. But most times it's the same old, same old...

Wash, rinse, repeat....ad infinitum.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

How do you fake an impeachment process?

I mean, really?

Has there been an official vote to start the impeachment process officially? No? Well then what you see is a charade. Is a charade real or fake? There is your answer....TROLL

Does there have to be be an official vote? I thought any Congressional committee can begin an investigation of anything that falls under its purview.

Besides, there has been majority Congressional assent to the investigation. Majority of House members now back some type of impeachment action against Trump - NBC News

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

How do you fake an impeachment process?

I mean, really?

Has there been an official vote to start the impeachment process officially? No? Well then what you see is a charade. Is a charade real or fake? There is your answer....TROLL

Does there have to be be an official vote? I thought any Congressional committee can begin an investigation of anything that falls under its purview.

Besides, there has been majority Congressional assent to the investigation. Majority of House members now back some type of impeachment action against Trump - NBC News

Well as of today it appears the White House has submitted a letter to Pelosi and friends calling their bluff on what the White House considers a BS investigation. In the letter they make clear they won't be cooperating unless there is an official vote. So good luck with them getting anything done with the stonewall until they make it official. If they really thought there was any merit to their claims then why don't they get their vote on?

Besides don't the Democrats need a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to impeach? Do you think that will happen with a Republican controlled senate with Pelosi obviously trying to side step an official vote in the house for political reasons? Yeah that's frickin laughable if you believe that.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked everyone else that claims that President Trump broke the law. The conversation in question is the one between President Trump and the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. In this conversation Democrats are claiming that President Trump committed crimes. Well as you undoubtedly know by now, President Trump has released the full un-redacted unedited transcript.

Will you please quote directly from that transcript where President Trump committed the crimes you are accusing him of?

So far I have gotten zero responses out of 4 attempts. Lets see if you can make it 0/5

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

How do you fake an impeachment process?

I mean, really?

Has there been an official vote to start the impeachment process officially? No? Well then what you see is a charade. Is a charade real or fake? There is your answer....TROLL

Does there have to be be an official vote? I thought any Congressional committee can begin an investigation of anything that falls under its purview.

Besides, there has been majority Congressional assent to the investigation. Majority of House members now back some type of impeachment action against Trump - NBC News

Well as of today it appears the White House has submitted a letter to Pelosi and friends calling their bluff on what the White House considers a BS investigation. In the letter they make clear they won't be cooperating unless there is an official vote. So good luck with them getting anything done with the stonewall until they make it official. If they really thought there was any merit to their claims then why don't they get their vote on?

Sure, they can still take a vote but since they already have majority assent, it is just a formality, a delaying tactic. As far as I know, there is nothing about getting Congressional majority before committing to an impeachment inquiry because that is an entirely peremptory stage for determining the charges for articles of impeachment.

The Congressional vote comes at the end to determine if they will accept the articles and impeach.

In Nixon's case, the articles of impeachment were drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee entirely before any vote, which they didn't do anyway as Nixon resigned before they could vote.

Besides don't the Democrats need a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to impeach? Do you think that will happen with a Republican controlled senate with Pelosi obviously trying to side step an official vote in the house for political reasons? Yeah that's frickin laughable if you believe that.

The charge that they are impeaching for political reasons is entirely spurious. I can't see how you could define the removal of the President from office by impeachment as anything but political. The political nature of the impeachment is a non-argument. What is at issue is 'did the President do something impeachably wrong', such as using his status of public office for personal gain, and also not in the national interest.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked everyone else that claims that President Trump broke the law. The conversation in question is the one between President Trump and the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. In this conversation Democrats are claiming that President Trump committed crimes. Well as you undoubtedly know by now, President Trump has released the full un-redacted unedited transcript.

Trump did say it was that. But I have not seen such a transcript. From the footnote of the memo that was released: "CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear."

So, the 5 page document tells you it was not a verbatim transcript, as would have been made from the recording of the 'phone call, kept for archival purposes.

Will you please quote directly from that transcript where President Trump committed the crimes you are accusing him of?

So far I have gotten zero responses out of 4 attempts. Lets see if you can make it 0/5

I no-one here can quote from the transcript of the 'phone call because it has not been released.

The memo itself is part of a sequence of actions and events and its evidentiary nature is part that sequence of those events.

If we look at the memo in the absence of who was being spoken to, and of preceding and subsequent events, we could easily convince ourselves that it is innocuous. However, Trump twice said that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son (which was untrue) and asked Zelinsky to "do whatever you can do with the attorney general" (the AG is Barr) and also "so, if you can look into it" (from page 4).

Biden was cleared by the previous investigations in both the Ukraine and in the US. Hunter Biden was welcomed into the Ukranian gas company as a sign that they were clearing themselves of any previous corruption and Biden senior requested the removal of a corrupt Ukranian prosecutor, who was stalling anti-corruption efforts, and the new Ukranian prosecutor completed the anti-corruption investigation, prosecuted those doing wrong and cleared Hunter Biden and the rest of the board of the Ukranian gas company.

Of course if you accept the memo in place of full transcript and if you ignore what actually occurred and the political advantage Trump gains in maligning his opponent, of course it looks like he has done nothing wrong.

Then there are also now two whistle blowers and we don't yet have the full details of what they claim. So we don't know if Trump is innocent or guilty at this stage. In that case, an investigation is warranted, but only if we want to get to the truth.

Clearly, from the 'phone call, and many other times, Trump is careless with the facts. I neither believe nor disbelieve him at this juncture. In my view, an investigation is warranted based upon the questions raised by the released memo alone, regardless of what the whistle blowers may say.

originally posted by: chr0naut
How do you fake an impeachment process?

I mean, really?

So are you suggesting we should run a "process" anytime we feel like it? Maybe we actually need something for impeachment. This is just an old tactic to keep Trump in the cross hairs of impeachment to suggest at the end of the day "well he must have done something wrong for a impeachment process to even happen".

If you can't see that this is a 100% 2020 political move then I don't know what to say. The funny part is every time the left tries stuff like this it ends up biting them in the ass.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

0/5

What a surprise

“Well no, of course I can’t point to anything whatsoever in the transcript that is a ‘crime’ or an ‘offense’ in any way, shape or form. But but but the real transcript, just wait till that comes out because there’s definitely proof in that one. cNn told me so”

The President will not be impeached. This is hurting the dEms. Bigly.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So are you suggesting we should run a "process" anytime we feel like it?

If you're a member of Congress, yes. It's actually part of the job description. Checks. Balances. Oversight.

The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times but less than a third have led to full impeachments. Just eight—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, two Presidents (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton in 1998), a cabinet secretary (William Belknap in 1876), and a U.S. Senator (William Blount of North Carolina in 1797) have also been impeached.

history.house.gov...

If you can't see that this is a 100% 2020 political move then I don't know what to say.

Since impeachment is a congressional process rather than a judicial one, yes. This is correct, impeachment by definition is a political process since it is undertaken by elected officials.

Lindsay Graham:

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

www.msn.com...

Your turn.

originally posted by: Phage

Your turn.

There is no "your turn"... I would kind of like Congress to actually do things we voted them in office to do and I don't think a process for impeachment that just keeps going is what we really want Congress to work on.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I would kind of like Congress to actually do things we voted them in office to do and I don't think a process for impeachment that just keeps going is what we really want Congress to work on.

As far as I know, this is the first time the process has actually been undertaken under this administration. And, as I've said before, I'm not convinced it's a good idea right now. But the process is what it is. I might change my mind as we learn more but the stonewalling by the administration is not going to expedite the process.

Impeachment is in the job description. Checks, balances, oversight. What other body is there to hold the administration accountable?

Or do you think that the president is above the law. That he can refuse to respond to oversight? Graham doesn't think so, or didn't.

a reply to: chr0naut

Aside from forcing those sitting in Trump territories that stand to lose their seats, for the Republicans to gain, here is another good reason to force a vote.

Beneath the heated argument of whether the House should have a formal resolution to open an impeachment inquiry is a potential benefit for Republicans, if they can force a vote: the chance to subpoena their own witnesses and information.
In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiry resolutions, the minority party on the investigating committee was granted the power to subpoena — something the minority party does not normally have. 

source

a reply to: Phage

"Presidents need to be held accountable."

Is there a better way to express what that means?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Re: www.latimes.com...

GOOD FIND! That would (potentially) undo the sabotage that Pelosi implemented by making rule changes earlier this year.

originally posted by: Phage

As far as I know, this is the first time the process has actually been undertaken under this administration. And, as I've said before, I'm not convinced it's a good idea right now. But the process is what it is. I might change my mind as we learn more but the stonewalling by the administration is not going to expedite the process.

Impeachment is in the job description. Checks, balances, oversight. What other body is there to hold the administration accountable?

Or do you think that the president is above the law. That he can refuse to respond to oversight? Graham doesn't think so, or didn't.

Can we both agree that the word impeachment has been used since before his first day? Nancy has said over and over that "right now is not the best time for impeachment" and that tells us that impeachment has always been on their mind from day one and they been just waiting, most likely to align it with the 2020 elections to keep it fresh and not much more to that. The stonewalling is that Trump said put up or shut up, he gave the full transcripts and so far everyone that the panels have talked to has shown that Trump did nothing wrong to the point he was following up with events put in motion many months before the call.

So far what do we have.... We have the complete transcripts that speaks for itself once people stop paraphrasing it to death for their own agendas, and what I have read about this whole thing is that Trump was following up with actions already in place many months before about opening up all past investigations that were closed by the Obama administration with their idea to hold back 1 billion in aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor within 6 hours, something that Biden gloats about.

So far what do we know from Ukraine.... They opened up all those past investigations. Were never aware of any threat to hold back 400 million, so this seems to be at best an internal discussing that was never brought forth to Ukraine. We are now seeing that old Hunter not only got 50k per month, but records are showing much higher amounts as he got 50k up to 250k for many months now.

There is much more to follow and I don't think the findings will be in the Democrats favor in the end.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut
How do you fake an impeachment process?

I mean, really?

So are you suggesting we should run a "process" anytime we feel like it? Maybe we actually need something for impeachment. This is just an old tactic to keep Trump in the cross hairs of impeachment to suggest at the end of the day "well he must have done something wrong for a impeachment process to even happen".

If you can't see that this is a 100% 2020 political move then I don't know what to say. The funny part is every time the left tries stuff like this it ends up biting them in the ass.

The thing that made the American Constitution special is that the citizens have the power to remove a bad leader without revolution.

Other than that, the US Constitution was much like the governing paradigms of most other nations.

The President represents a very particular position of power and so it is incumbent upon the citizenry to ensure that the President is compliant with all law and regulation and that the President does no wrong.

You cannot know if the President is compliant with the law and all regulation other than by examining their conduct.

It would be pointless to have a process by which a bad President can be removed, without an interrelated process to judge the words and actions of the President.

It goes with the territory. If a President does not want to be under the microscope of public scrutiny, perhaps they shouldn't have put themselves in for the job.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The thing that made the American Constitution special is that the citizens have the power to remove a bad leader without revolution.

We also seem to live in a world now where if one group doesn't like the outcome of an election with votes they work to change that outcome with non-voting methods. Yelling for Trump's impeachment before his first day in office is not good and not what the framers of the Constitution ever wanted.

It should not be used as a weapon nor as a way to go around our electoral process. I find it so funny with the left today screaming "The Constitution" when they have done very little in the past BUT to want to change the Constitution to only their liking. Don't get the election results you want change the method that makes us a republic and what the founders wanted, done like certain constitutional freedoms then just do away with them...
When the left spouts about protection of the Constitution I'm not sure if I want to laugh or puke

The President represents a very particular position of power and so it is incumbent upon the citizenry to ensure that the President is compliant with all law and regulation and that the President does no wrong.

So Nancy and Adam are the people? There will be no vote...not going to happen, this will drag on with just labeling until the election. The House can not afford a up/down vote as no matter which way they vote the Dems will lose the house next election and they know it. All they can do is their never ending dog and pony show while doing nothing else but the I hate Trump show..Is that really what "The People" want?

You cannot know if the President is compliant with the law and all regulation other than by examining their conduct.

This sounds so righteous...lol another one.. The Righteous Left! Never heard that before...

So what happen with Obama and all the crap he pulled well beyond anything Trump can dream of, or Bush for that matter. Seems a few years ago everything the left screams about Trump was just fine with Obama. Even the whole Steel Report/FISA etc etc and that was all good even after we now know Hillary DNC, Obama, Biden all had their roles in it.

Just one thought of caution...

So far every time the left has weaponized something to attack the right it has not gone very well for them in the future. Look at the whole #metoo movement, Kavanaugh fiasco, relentless attacks on the President from day one... The left ends up eating their own and set themselves up for the same fun...

As President Trump leaves office and Democrat takes over...good luck on that....lol God I hope its Warren...that should be fun.