Strategy to avoid impeachment .

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Perfect summary.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
i would take precedent over your "However they choose to" every day of the week.

That's because you're emotionally attached to the situation and are ignoring how the Congress functions. They set their own rules and precedent is not a required consideration.

a reply to: shooterbrody

what committee is that?

The one that is questioning witnesses and issuing subpoenas. The one that trump is ignoring and telling those people to ignore.
Then later he will want those same people to come speak in his defense not thinking that congress will then have the opportunity to ask them the questions they have now.

I now feel dumber for having read all 7 pages of this thread.

a reply to: shooterbrody

You mean presidential impeachments. Presidents are not the only people subject to the process.
The action includes judges, congressmen and senators, any elected official in the federal government.
Should I look and see how many of those impeachments had a vote on whether to investigate the defendant before
calling for a vote to impeach.

A quick look reveals that every one of these presidents had an investigation for impeachment and three had actual proceedings started.
How many had votes before they were investigated?

1.1 John Tyler (Democratic-Republican turned Whig)
1.2 James Buchanan (Democrat)
1.3 Andrew Johnson (National Union; formerly Democrat)
1.4 Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)
1.5 Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1.6 Harry S. Truman (Democrat)
1.7 Richard M. Nixon (Republican)
1.8 Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1.9 George H. W. Bush (Republican)
1.10 Bill Clinton (Democrat)
1.11 George W. Bush (Republican)
1.12 Barack Obama (Democrat)
1.13 Donald Trump (Republican)

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's because you're emotionally attached to the situation and are ignoring how the Congress functions.

nope, if trump broke the law burn him down
day to day functions of congress are different than impeachment

a reply to: Sillyolme

The one that is questioning witnesses and issuing subpoenas.

the impeachment committee?

a reply to: Sillyolme
presidential impeachments are different
they are out of the norm

1.8 Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1.9 George H. W. Bush (Republican)
1.11 George W. Bush (Republican)
1.12 Barack Obama (Democrat)

could you site the specific impeachment investigations for such
I am unfamiliar with them
thanks in advance

originally posted by: shooterbrody
day to day functions of congress are different than impeachment.

It doesn't change the fact that Congress sets the rules/process on impeachment that is not enumerated in the Constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
sure it does;
congress investigating waste and fraud at the department of education is vastly different than investigating the president for carrying out his constitutional duties

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm not talking about the investigation, I'm talking about who makes the rules on how the process functions.

And if you don't like the current rules thank the Republicans.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
of course

I don't think anyone will be thanking the gop any time soon
well perhaps potus

The trap we'll all fall into is trying to debate the evidence.

Did the political outsider who ran on an anti corruption ticket, Zelenski, need any inducement to want to pursue Burisma?

Or did he just need a green light? (Such as the president of the USA expressing interest in seeing his own citizens' actions investigated. And therefore having zero likelihood of getting mad about it if Zelensky finds something?)



But that doesn't matter.

The question is : Can it EVER be wrong to investigate corruption?

Do we want it to be illegal to enlist aid of a foreign government in investigating the theft of tax payer dollars in that government's country, unless the target of the investigation is a political ally of the one doing the investigating?

(Would any acts of corruption EVER be investigated, if that were a requirement???)

originally posted by: Oraculi
I guess following the Constitution and getting to the truth is out of the question?

Do you actually believe that is what is happening in closed session?

If so, then why doesn't Schiff want the public to see it?

Do you honestly believe the "whistleblower" is in ANY DANGER WHATSOEVER, were his/her identity to be known?

I think they're playing up the "put self in personal danger" issue in order to make this "brave whistleblower" sound just so very brave!!!!!

Because we all know it takes courage to jump on the bandwagon! Schiff is brave too! So is Pelosi!! Those courageous champions of freedom and democracy! And their unknown but heroic "whistleblower"!!!!

We should keep all their names secret! And put them all in federal witness protection after this is over!

originally posted by: JustJohnny

And just because I’m sure you believe the Fox News propaganda concerning the muller report..

Muller from the start said there were 2 possible conclusions since the president cannot be prosecuted until out of office..

1) he finds no evidence of wrong doing and comes out and clears trumps name..


2) he does find evidence of wrong doing and will compile that evidence for after trump is no longer in office. If someone wants to persue prosecution then...


He came out and did #2..

Yes, ... but you can indict a ham sandwich.

It would be inaccurate, from a legal standpoint, for Mueller to say there is nothing to indict on unless he had been presented with zero evidence whatsoever.

You realize by not respecting all precedent and norms, that the Dems are only dividing this country further and bringing us closer and closer to another civil war right? The way they are going about this behind closed doors with zero appearance of impartiality and fairness, nothing positive can come of that right?

originally posted by: Oraculi
I guess following the Constitution and getting to the truth is out of the question?
...

As i wrote in another thread...

"Riiight, you mean how democrats/socialists are doing a closed door impeachment? Not allowing Republicans to cross examine witnesses? Not allowing witnesses from Republicans/POTUS Trump? Not allowing Republicans to even have a transcript of the witnesses' testimony? Not allowing the POTUS due process, etc?... Is that what you call "a Constitutional process"?... Even during Clinton's impeachment he was allowed all due process, for his defense to cross examine witnesses, democrats had an equal voice to Republicans, but now?... Democrats/socialists don't want even to open a vote because they know they would not get the votes,, as it has happened in the three times they called for a vote for impeachment in which even several democrats voted NO... "

The socialists(no longer democrats) are NOT following the U.S. Constitution. They already had 3 votes for impeachment and even several democrats voted NO for impeachment... So they have been using dirty tactics not allowing Republicans access to the "evidence", and barring Republicans from cross examining witnesses. Plus they are denying due process to the POTUS... They are not even allowing Republicans to be part of the impeachment, and this is unConstitutional... Several Republicans had to barge in as they were being denied to be in the fake impeachment proceedings...

The socialists are so unhinged that New York just passed a law in which "double jeopardy" does no longer apply to anyone involved with POTUS Trump...

New York Legislators Approve Double Jeopardy for Trump Cronies to Protect 'the Rule of Law'

Under the law those accused have a right to face their accusers, except that now demoncrats/socialists are not following the law...

Demoncrats/socialists are changing the law to prosecute people simply for not being democrat/socialists...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's because you're emotionally attached to the situation and are ignoring how the Congress functions.

nope, if trump broke the law burn him down
day to day functions of congress are different than impeachment

That's a big "if". What law forbids a president from targeting his opposition in an investigation? Or trying to deliver on his promises (such as "drain the swamp" or go after corruption.)

Even if there were a formal quid pro quo, it would be highly debatable that anything had been done wrong, if Trump believes there is real corruption hidden in the Burisma thing.

If the fact someone is your opposition means you can't investigate them for corruption, and so you can only investigate people who are your allies, then do you realistically think ANYONE would EVER get investigated for corruption?