Will we impeach him this time?

Said 'blow job' on the charges submitted to congress did it

And what law would that be?

 

No, the real issue is if this is all going to backfire and cause the Dems to lose an election they should have won.

No rule of law under the impeachment process if he has zero chance of ever getting convicted

 

You’ll find out in a few weeks when the articles of impeachment are voted on before the full house –

But my guess, abuse of power, obstruction of justice related to Ukraine. and witness tampering and intimidation which is a crime.

We'll soon be calling that tweeting SOB The "Birdman of Alcatraz"

 

Well, look at all the charges in the iran contra thing as an example. All either given a year or two probation, or pardoned by Bush

 

There will be private depositions today and the public hearings will resume on Tuesday. Here's the schedule: Impeachment Hearings Schedule: What’s Coming Up

 

That is not true at all. Clinton's impeachment was not for his affair (confirmed), instead it was for his perjury and obstruction of justice for concealing that affair from the American people and the federal courts.

The same standard COULD be applied to Trump, he's so new to the game that he surely has broken some matter of protocol while trying to keep a lid on all the white house leaks. Instead the democrats are trying to impeach him for sheer spite. Which is why they're tangling with all these bullshit "witnesses" who didn't see shit and didn't hear shit.

But the greedy democrats don't want to get him on the equivalent of a postage violation (or several of them). Nope, they will only settle for an absolute home run. Which is why they so regularly have egg on their faces. I think they might have succeeded IF they had their shit together that first year. But they didn't, and it dragged out and the momentum was lost. Same as the Japanese in the early 40s.

 

How is Donald Trump accelerating Global Warming?

A: He keeps making snowflakes melt

 

The aid was witheld, and only resumed after it was reported.

I'm no fancy city lawyer, but stealing something and giving it back is still a crime.

 

I must have listened to a different NPR when I heard the host struggling to keep a guest on task (hating Trump). He kept repeatedly correcting the host who was constantly trying to deflect the conversation and steer it back to a guilty conclusion, no matter what. It was almost comical to watch the standard NPR snark get washed out so easily.

How many ways can they bark up the wrong tree. It's like watching a group of nearsighted bloodhounds. Even the latest school shooting is taking a back seat to this impeachment circus. Does anybody know the California shooter's name?

 

bribery. it's in the constitution, but you haven't read that, have you?

you are probably correct, but trump better watch what he says. there are at least three republican, if not more, senators that might vote to impeach.

 

See you dont even understand the impeachment process

 

"Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution provides that: "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."

 

Incorrect

 

So? It explicitly mentions bribery. Nobody is arguing that the President can be removed without conviction. But he can be impeached by a vote of the House of Representatives. Impeachment is bringing the charge.

 

Saw something on twitter as well. safe travels

 

Let's fact check this:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...stration-released-aid-ukraine/?outputType=amp

 

Easy to say. Harder to explain and prove. Why don't you try?

 

I'm still wondering why they dragged for former ambassador in for an examination of her "feelings". She had zero new information and managed to make it obvious that her being pulled in May would make it impossible for her to witness anything in July.

But at least we now know how it "feels" to be reassigned (she was not fired, she still has a job) as a government employee.

But when Schiff decided to read Twitter during the proceedings, it didn't matter at all because Trump has every right to reassign whatever personnel he sees fit. And it has been alleged that her caliber of service was not up to standard, but nobody brought it up during her testimony.

In fact, it's being portrayed in the opposite context, as if she was doing an adequate job. But the paperwork for March and April came in and they reassigned her in May. This is no "mystery" and there is no impeachable issue with this ambassador.

Washington Week covers it fairly well, from a hard left perspective. But at least it's covered: