Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

As long as you realize it is a game i.e. the President has done nothing wrong so it's just Democrats playing a game trying to undo the election. That's sedition.

    I realize that it is a game of screw you from one party to the other. I sure as hell don't think the President has done nothing wrong. He's admitted it.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

You keep saying that part about changed rules and so forth and you’ve posted nothing to substantiate it. Do you have a link? And how about something where a republican on one of the applicable committees wasn’t allowed to take part? I’d agree that would be suspect if true, but I really doubt the veracity of these claims (and so should you)

https://www.scribd.com/document/396700100/Pelosi-House-Rules-for-New-Congressional-Session-2019

 

[The Observer 641]

2 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

As long as you realize it is a game i.e. the President has done nothing wrong so it's just Democrats playing a game trying to undo the election. That's sedition.

Are you conceding that the republicans were just trying to undo the election when they impeached Bill Clinton? For a freaking blowjob?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

I sure as hell don't think the President has done nothing wrong.

Thanks for the concession and my new sig. 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

Thanks for the concession and my new sig. 

Uhhh, you might want to slowly read what I typed.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/396700100/Pelosi-House-Rules-for-New-Congressional-Session-2019

 

Yeah I don’t see that anywhere in there (you’ve posted it before) but I’m admittedly not well-versed in those kind of documents. Do you have a media link from something other than conservative sandbox? I mean you’d think house republicans would be raising holy hell and this would be all over Fox News if it were true 

[Mr. Hand 482]

4 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Are you conceding that the republicans were just trying to undo the election when they impeached Bill Clinton? For a freaking blowjob?

That wasn't why he was impeached. You are wrong a lot today.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yeah I don’t see that anywhere in there (you’ve posted it before) but I’m admittedly not well-versed in those kind of documents. Do you have a media link from something other than conservative sandbox? I mean you’d think house republicans would be raising holy hell and this would be all over Fox News if it were true 

You think CNN is going to cover that?  And the Republicans have been raising hell about it. Why do you think Gaetz was trying to get into that meeting but ultimately removed?

Why are the Dems doing this closed door and NOT releasing entire transcripts? Why exclude the minority party?

[MDC 5,892]

What’s the over/under on Filthy Fernandez posts in this thread?

Has he eclipsed 200 yet?

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

You think CNN is going to cover that?  And the Republicans have been raising hell about it. Why do you think Gaetz was trying to get into that meeting but ultimately removed?

Why are the Dems doing this closed door and NOT releasing entire transcripts? Why exclude the minority party?

Gaetz is on the House Judiciary Committee, the Committee that oversees impeachment. These closed door meetings is a kangaroo court.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/14/matt-gaetz-republican-judiciary-committee-member-n/

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Mr. Hand said:

Gaetz is on the House Judiciary Committee, the Committee that oversees impeachment. These closed door meetings is a kangaroo court.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/14/matt-gaetz-republican-judiciary-committee-member-n/

Not one of the committees involved. Therefore, he's out on his ass.  hth

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

Not one of the committees involved. Therefore, he's out on his ass.  hth

Of course he is out, he's not a Democrat. HTH

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

Not one of the committees involved. Therefore, he's out on his ass.  hth

By your own admission, there isn't an impeachment inquiry as that's done in the Judiciary, not the Intel committee.

Thus without Judiciary, the House can't issue a subpoena. 

Thanks for proving our point zippy.  

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/02/speaker-nancy-pelosi-outlines-new-rules-for-116th-congressional-session-includes-schedule-for-process-of-trump-impeachment/

There's a breakdown of the rules Nancy changed. Done so months prior to the whistleblower the so called 'impeachment inquiry" was set in motion before the justification.

They didn't count on Trump declassifying that call and the paper trail to lead back to Schiff staff so quickly.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

By your own admission, there isn't an impeachment inquiry as that's done in the Judiciary, not the Intel committee.

Thus without Judiciary, the House can't issue a subpoena. 

Thanks for proving our point zippy.  

During the Benghazi deposition, Trey Gowdy kicked Darrell Issa out of a meeting because he wasn't a member of the Select-Committee.  this isn't new. It is known beforehand who can and cannot attend. Goetz is just a moron who thinks he has a separate rulebook.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, The Observer said:

During the Benghazi deposition, Trey Gowdy kicked Darrell Issa out of a meeting because he wasn't a member of the Select-Committee.  this isn't new. It is known beforehand who can and cannot attend. Goetz is just a moron who thinks he has a separate rulebook.

But the minority party was still allowed to attend that. Now they can be excluded.

[RLLD 3,455]

So tired of the rules debate, lets just gt after it. If the Dems are so certain and insistent...p!ss or get of the pot people, unless you have some OTHER motive....

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

So tired of the rules debate, lets just gt after it. If the Dems are so certain and insistent...p!ss or get of the pot people, unless you have some OTHER motive....

I believe they are in the act of pis*ing. They are conducting interviews with key players.. Watch something other than Fox.  Just for one day. You'll educate yourself.

[Mr. Hand 482]

2 minutes ago, The Observer said:

I believe they are in the act of pis*ing. They are conducting interviews with key players.. Watch something other than Fox.  Just for one day. You'll educate yourself.

Is this where you tell us again that you don't take shots at people first?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

3 minutes ago, The Observer said:

I believe they are in the act of pis*ing. They are conducting interviews with key players.. Watch something other than Fox.  Just for one day. You'll educate yourself.

How's the cross examining of the key players supposed to happen without both sides present?

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

How's the cross examining of the key players supposed to happen without both sides present?

There will be hearings ounce the investigation is over and voted on. They will have their chance.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, The Observer said:

There will be hearings ounce the investigation is over and voted on. They will have their chance.

How does one investigate thoroughly when only side gets to ask questions?

[The Observer 641]

2 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

How does one investigate thoroughly when only side gets to ask questions?

Sorry that you don't like the rules.  I didn't create them.  It still sounds like you're confusing a hearing with an investigation. When a police department investigates a crime, they bring people into a room and interrogate them. If they decide to press charges, a defendant then has a lawyer and can cross examine.  Do you think he has one present during the police investigation?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, The Observer said:

Sorry that you don't like the rules.  I didn't create them.  It still sounds like you're confusing a hearing with an investigation. When a police department investigates a crime, they bring people into a room and interrogate them. If they decide to press charges, a defendant then has a lawyer and can cross examine.  Do you think he has one present during the police investigation?

The problem with your analogy is that you liken the Dems to cops and the Repubs to defense attorneys. They're equal and both are necessary to get to the bottom of what happened. The Dems have no desire for the truth to ever come out, hence the need for secrecy and narrative control.

[Mr. Hand 482]

3 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Sorry that you don't like the rules.  I didn't create them.  It still sounds like you're confusing a hearing with an investigation. When a police department investigates a crime, they bring people into a room and interrogate them. If they decide to press charges, a defendant then has a lawyer and can cross examine.  Do you think he has one present during the police investigation?

Wrong again

"If you do decide to speak to the police, the statements can be used against you in a court of law. You may stop answering at any time and all questioning by police must stop as well. You have the right to have your attorney present if you decide to answer any questions. The request to have an attorney present must be clear and direct."

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/police-questioning-before-an-arrest.html

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

The problem with your analogy is that you liken the Dems to cops and the Repubs to defense attorneys. They're equal and both are necessary to get to the bottom of what happened. The Dems have no desire for the truth to ever come out, hence the need for secrecy and narrative control.

The Democrats are the cops in this instance. They are the majority and must decide whether or not to proceed with impeachment.  Why are you so worried about the investigation stage?  This is all about a decision Pelosi and the Democrats have to make. They don't need a single republican vote.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson details he was hired in fall of 2015 to dig up dirt on Trump and memos went back to Obama. Rats leaving a sinking ship/narrative.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, The Observer said:

The Democrats are the cops in this instance. They are the majority and must decide whether or not to proceed with impeachment.  Why are you so worried about the investigation stage?  This is all about a decision Pelosi and the Democrats have to make. They don't need a single republican vote.

So they could vote right now.  Right?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Hand said:

Wrong again

"If you do decide to speak to the police, the statements can be used against you in a court of law. You may stop answering at any time and all questioning by police must stop as well. You have the right to have your attorney present if you decide to answer any questions. The request to have an attorney present must be clear and direct."

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/police-questioning-before-an-arrest.html

It's as if Newbie doesn't know how anything works. 

[The Observer 641]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Hand said:

Wrong again

"If you do decide to speak to the police, the statements can be used against you in a court of law. You may stop answering at any time and all questioning by police must stop as well. You have the right to have your attorney present if you decide to answer any questions. The request to have an attorney present must be clear and direct."

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/police-questioning-before-an-arrest.html

Sweet.  That is talking about the suspect wanting to talk to the police. Not the witnesses the cops decide to interview. I'm sure congress would be more than happy to interview Trump and would allow an attorney. Especially if it's Rudy.  Bwahahaha

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

So they could vote right now.  Right?

They can vote whenever Pelosi decides to hold it. She's the majority leader.  She holds the cards.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

The Democrats are the cops in this instance. They are the majority and must decide whether or not to proceed with impeachment.  Why are you so worried about the investigation stage?  This is all about a decision Pelosi and the Democrats have to make. They don't need a single republican vote.

Schiff running the committee where he admits having contact with the whistleblower prior to complaint being filed? That's your chief investigator? 

Dems and Repubs both equal both needed to seek the truth. I would feel the same if the Repubs did the same.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It's as if Newbie doesn't know how anything works. 

Still waiting for someone to tell me where I'm wrong.  You're invited.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, The Observer said:

Still waiting for someone to tell me where I'm wrong.  You're invited.

Still waiting for you to be right...................about anything.   

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

Schiff running the committee where he admits having contact with the whistleblower prior to complaint being filed? That's your chief investigator? 

Dems and Repubs both equal both needed to seek the truth. I would feel the same if the Repubs did the same.

Elections have consequences. Trump caused the Blue Wave, ironically enough.  lol  Sorry bud

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Filthy Fernadez said:

Still waiting for you to be right...................about anything.   

Sick burn brah

[Mr. Hand 482]

3 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Sweet.  That is talking about the suspect wanting to talk to the police. Not the witnesses the cops decide to interview. I'm sure congress would be more than happy to interview Trump and would allow an attorney. Especially if it's Rudy.  Bwahahaha

Witnesses can have an attorney as well.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

Still waiting for someone to tell me where I'm wrong.  You're invited.

You said people getting interview by police don't get to have a lawyer. You are wrong. I win again. 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Mr. Hand said:

Witnesses can have an attorney as well.

What does that have to do with the Trumpsters whining about cross examination?

[Mr. Hand 482]

Just now, The Observer said:

What does that have to do with the Trumpsters whining about cross examination?

Such a meathead.