Impeachment

[Garmel]

You do understand that this doesn't discredit anything he said, right?

It also doesn't look good either (if the story is true).

 

[Mr. Deez]

It also doesn't look good either (if the story is true).

Lots of things don't look good. It's pretty inconsequential.

 

[mchammer]

You do understand that this doesn't discredit anything he said, right?

Well, they said the same thing about Comey. It turns out he was nuts. Taylor appears to be in cahoots with McCain and Soros.

 

[Garmel]

It's pretty inconsequential.

Explain that to me please.

 

[OrngNugz]

Lock him up, lmfao

 

[horninchicago]

NASDAQ hits record high today and 2 days removed from the ISIS leader ben killed Pelosi announces there will be a formal impeachment inquiry vote.

The timing is always impeccable.

 

[Horn6721]

Haven't they had votes in the House for impeachment inquiry already?

 

[I35]

The President and the Astros ruined their night.

 

[Joe Fan]

Steve Bannon thinks Pelosi is well-organized has been planning to take back the House and impeach since Nov 9, 2016. He admires their work ethic on this. He says Pelosi has the process mapped out and has already drawn up two articles of impeachment (1) abuse of power, and (2) obstruction of justice. And perhaps some other theories. He thinks the whole process will be 6 to 8 weeks. There will be a vote in the House to impeach before or around Thanksgiving (requiring only a simple majority of those present). And then a Senate trial before Christmas (requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present). He thinks the Admin has either been too busy to deal with them effectively or perhaps was not taking it very seriously.

Bannon also thinks the Dems have no 'smoking gun,' that there is no 'smoking gun' and they are going to try to get Trump using the process itself. He thinks the Dems already know they cannot actually remove Trump from office. So what it is really about is the process itself. They will just pile on everything they can pile on, every day.

So it is a little ironic how the Dems look at Trump versus the way some Republicans look at him, especially the Never-Trumpers. The Dems recognize that Trump is a transformative President. The federal judges are a big part of it but its everything really - fighting the globalists, getting rid of bad trade deals, fighting China, immigration, deconstruction of the administrative state, getting us out of endless wars. The Dems know Trump is going to be in their their lives in a meaningful way not just for the next 5 years, but for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. So what they are really after is to stop the arc of his presidency. They want to affect the 2020 election too, but the main goal is to blunt the direction of Trump presidency. So while the Never-Trumpers may not be smart enough to see the big picture, Pelosi is and she is willing to do anything she can to gut Trump and nullify the results of the 2016 election.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Explain that to me please.

Everything here is pretty attenuated and out of context. The article makes it look like the groups Taylor worked with were Soros or Burisma front groups without actually establishing that.

 

[mchammer]

Lots of things don't look good. It's pretty inconsequential.

 

[mchammer]

The “T” word.

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is David Rivkin on the question of the constitutionality of what is going on here

This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution

 

[Mr. Deez]

Zeldin may be right. We have to see when the evidence is presented rather than leaked - if that ever happens.

 

[OUBubba]

Steve Bannon thinks Pelosi is well-organized has been planning to take back the House and impeach since Nov 9, 2016. He admires their work ethic on this. He says Pelosi has the process mapped out and has already drawn up two articles of impeachment (1) abuse of power, and (2) obstruction of justice. And perhaps some other theories. He thinks the whole process will be 6 to 8 weeks. There will be a vote in the House to impeach before or around Thanksgiving (requiring only a simple majority of those present). And then a Senate trial before Christmas (requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present). He thinks the Admin has either been too busy to deal with them effectively or perhaps was not taking it very seriously.

Bannon also thinks the Dems have no 'smoking gun,' that there is no 'smoking gun' and they are going to try to get Trump using the process itself. He thinks the Dems already know they cannot actually remove Trump from office. So what it is really about is the process itself. They will just pile on everything they can pile on, every day.

So it is a little ironic how the Dems look at Trump versus the way some Republicans look at him, especially the Never-Trumpers. The Dems recognize that Trump is a transformative President. The federal judges are a big part of it but its everything really - fighting the globalists, getting rid of bad trade deals, fighting China, immigration, deconstruction of the administrative state, getting us out of endless wars. The Dems know Trump is going to be in their their lives in a meaningful way not just for the next 5 years, but for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. So what they are really after is to stop the arc of his presidency. They want to affect the 2020 election too, but the main goal is to blunt the direction of Trump presidency. So while the Never-Trumpers may not be smart enough to see the big picture, Pelosi is and she is willing to do anything she can to gut Trump and nullify the results of the 2016 election.

I kind of agree with this. I mean he could literally gun down someone on 5th Avenue or grab someone by the poontang and the Senate would not impeach him. The only thing I disagree with is that it won't go that fast. The GOP wants to get past it. The left wants to take their time so he's leaking fluids come next summer. The impeachment process for Clinton took almost a year. I can't see it being over in two months.

 

[Joe Fan]

I kind of agree with this. I mean he could literally gun down someone on 5th Avenue or grab someone by the poontang and the Senate would not impeach him. The only thing I disagree with is that it won't go that fast. The GOP wants to get past it. The left wants to take their time so he's leaking fluids come next summer. The impeachment process for Clinton took almost a year. I can't see it being over in two months.

A trial would be in the Senate, you get that, right?

 

[Joe Fan]

Is Brennan encouraging a military coup in the US?

 

[Horn6721]

If this is an impeachment proceeding allowed under our Constitution why are the Dems ignoring the procedure as allowed under it?
Why are they having secret hearings and not allowing Republicans subpoena authority? And full access to the transcripts?

 

[I35]

If this is an impeachment proceeding allowed under our Constitution why are the Dems ignoring the procedure as allowed under it?
Why are they having secret hearings and not allowing Republicans subpoena authority? And full access to the transcripts?

and due process to defend himself.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If this is an impeachment proceeding allowed under our Constitution why are the Dems ignoring the procedure as allowed under it?

Which procedure are the Democrats ignoring that is spelled out in the Constitution?

Why are they having secret hearings and not allowing Republicans subpoena authority? And full access to the transcripts?

As I posted above, the Republicans changed the House rules in 2015 that these hearings are operating within. Yes, those rules were implemented to prevent the Democrats from calling their own witnesses in investigations like Benghazi. Not surprisingly, Democrat cries then mirrored Republican whining now.

47 Republicans not only have access to the transcripts but can actually sit in the depositions and question the witnesses as members of the 3 committees. That is nearly 20% of the entirety of Republican seats in the House.

Pelosi reportedly plans to put foward a formal impeachment bill for a vote that I'd expect reinforce the current House rules they are following.

The Republicans get what they want, a full house vote putting Democrats from Purple districts on record to be used for the 2020 elections. Democrats get to reinforce their legal argument in court for judges to enforce subpoenas.

 

[Horn6721]

What impeachable offense has been committed?

 

[Seattle Husker]

and due process to defend himself.

Some people need to more closely read the constitution. It very specifically says the House investigates and brings the charges and the Senate is where the trial takes place with the Chief Justice of the SC presiding.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What impeachable offense has been committed?

You didn't answer this question.

Which procedure are the Democrats ignoring that is spelled out in the Constitution?

 

[Horn6721]

Thus far the House has not authorized an impeachment inquiry but have held secret meetings.
Now You answer
What impeachable offense has been committed ?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Thus far the House has not authorized an impeachment inquiry but have held secret meetings.

Which procedure in the Constitution is being violated? Here is some basic information on impeachment, the powers dictated by the Constitution, and what are impeachable offenses.

Now You answer
What impeachable offense has been committed ?

This answers your specific question. The emphasis is mine.

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[2] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[3] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[4][1]

 

[Horn6721]

That looks like an opinion piece
but to send an impeachment charge to the Senate what will be the offense?

 

[I35]

Some people need to more closely read the constitution. It very specifically says the House investigates and brings the charges and the Senate is where the trial takes place with the Chief Justice of the SC presiding.

You said the house? You mean a select few democrats in the house right?

 

[iatrogenic]

SH,

That doesn't answer the question. Specifics?

 

[Seattle Husker]

That looks like an opinion piece
but to send an impeachment charge to the Senate what will be the offense?

Yes, the Federalist papers are an opinion piece that have been referenced over and over by the SCOTUS and Constitionalists to give life to our Founding Fathers when attempting to interpret the meaning behind the constitution.

The House will have to draft the articles of impeachment. We can both guess what those might be but I'm not sure a discussion will be fruitful until we see the charges. The indictment occurs after the grand jury process.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You said the house? You mean a select few democrats in the house right?

Yes, the House. Not a "few democrats" but the whole House will vote in order to get the charges over to the Senate.