Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

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

Nothing. 

You cross-examine at trial.

We aren’t at trial yet. This is akin to the grand jury phase where typically everything is done in secret. 

[The Observer 641]

Again, if anyone else doesn't know the difference between an investigation and a hearing, I suggest Google. This isn't rocket science.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Just now, The Observer said:

Again, if anyone else doesn't know the difference between an investigation and a hearing, I suggest Google. This isn't rocket science.

To these guys, putting on their pants is rocket science

[The Observer 641]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Nothing. 

You cross-examine at trial.

We aren’t at trial yet. This is akin to the grand jury phase where typically everything is done in secret. 

At this point, I believe they are all smart enough to know the difference but are just pretending to be stupid. I refuse to believe functioning human beings could possibly be this thick.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

So worms and Newb concede it's okay for Dems to have a kangaroo court. Got it.

[Mr. Hand 482]

4 minutes ago, The Observer said:

At this point, I believe they are all smart enough to know the difference but are just pretending to be stupid. I refuse to believe functioning human beings could possibly be this thick.

LMAO......talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

So worms and Newb concede it's okay for Dems to have a kangaroo court. Got it.

I concede they’re working on the articles of impeachment and once drafted and approved the whole thing moves to the Senate for an actual trial. At which point, I concede, confrontation should occur and everything should happen in full view of the public.

Why do you hate the framers and the Constitution? They’re the ones that set it up that way.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,513]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

I concede they’re working on the articles of impeachment and once drafted and approved the whole thing moves to the Senate for an actual trial. At which point, I concede, confrontation should occur and everything should happen in full view of the public.

Why do you hate the framers and the Constitution? They’re the ones that set it up that way.

The house has to vote on it first. 

[The Observer 641]

4 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

So worms and Newb concede it's okay for Dems to have a kangaroo court. Got it.

Pssst.  It's not court and it's not a hearing. I may have been wrong in saying you were just playing dumb.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I concede they’re working on the articles of impeachment and once drafted and approved the whole thing moves to the Senate for an actual trial. At which point, I concede, confrontation should occur and everything should happen in full view of the public.

Why do you hate the framers and the Constitution? They’re the ones that set it up that way.

When has the House Intel Committee ever had anything to do with an Impeachment? In the 200+ years of our great country?

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

The house has to vote on it first. 

Yes hence my saying “approved.” HTH

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I concede they’re working on the articles of impeachment and once drafted and approved the whole thing moves to the Senate for an actual trial. At which point, I concede, confrontation should occur and everything should happen in full view of the public.

Why do you hate the framers and the Constitution? They’re the ones that set it up that way.

If they cared about the constitution, they'd have wanted Trump removed two years ago.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

 

Why do you hate the framers and the Constitution? They’re the ones that set it up that way.

They didn't set it up the way the Dems are doing it now.

[SUXBNME 1,516]

You might just learn something. 

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6094576903001/#sp=show-clips

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, The Observer said:

Pssst.  It's not court and it's not a hearing. I may have been wrong in saying you were just playing dumb.

I've offered proof of the sham this is. You've just talked sh!t but given your diet, it's something we've come to expect.

[Mr. Hand 482]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/08/white-house-formally-tells-democrats-it-wont-cooperate-with-impeachment-probe-000279

“All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue,” Cipollone added.

In particular, Cipollone took issue with the fact that the House has not formally voted to authorize the establishment of an impeachment inquiry, calling it a violation of due process.

“In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step,” he wrote.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

List of journalists the fired Ambassador to Ukraine monitored.

Freedom of the Press doesn't apply to Dems.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

I've offered proof of the sham this is. You've just talked sh!t but given your diet, it's something we've come to expect.

You've been acting confused for two hours as to why there is no cross examination during the interview process. I have clearly explained the answer to you but you insist on playing dumb. I even suggested you look up the definitions of investigation and hearing. If you insist on remaining uninformed, that's on you. I've done my best.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,513]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yes hence my saying “approved.” HTH

Ok. But Pelosi doesn't want to subject her vulnerable members to a vote. Thats why there hasn't been one. This is all political, which it isn't supposed to be about, hence the lack of transparency. A secret impeachment. Just replace impeachment with coup and it shows what a lefitist banana republic the democrats have in store for us. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, The Observer said:

You've been acting confused for two hours as to why there is no cross examination during the interview process. I have clearly explained the answer to you but you insist on playing dumb. I even suggested you look up the definitions of investigation and hearing. If you insist on remaining uninformed, that's on you. I've done my best.

When has an investigation been done in the House Intel Committee where both sides weren't permitted to question witness? That this is part of the so call Impeachment investigation should make the need to allow that all the more important.

[The Observer 641]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok. But Pelosi doesn't want to subject her vulnerable memebers to a vote. Thats why there hasn't been one. This is all political, which it isn't supposed to be about, hence the lack of transparency. A secret impeachment. Just replace impeachment with coup and it shows what a lefitist banana republic the democrats have in store for us. 

Why hasn't Mitch brought the gun bill to a vote? Of course it's politics. It's never been dirtier than it's been recently. Most specifically, after McConnell changed history by not allow a vote for Supreme\ Court with Obama in office. It's all politics. Both sides. Or Boff sides. It sucks but it is what it is. Trump s=could have prevented this by not breaking the law.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok. But Pelosi doesn't want to subject her vulnerable members to a vote. Thats why there hasn't been one. This is all political, which it isn't supposed to be about, hence the lack of transparency. A secret impeachment. Just replace impeachment with coup and it shows what a lefitist banana republic the democrats have in store for us. 

What’s there to vote on? You’ve got to do the investigation (in progress) and the articles of impeachment first. You’re basically asking a grand jury to vote on returning an indictment before the evidence has been presented to them and the indictment drafted

[Hardcore troubadour 15,513]

Just now, The Observer said:

Why hasn't Mitch brought the gun bill to a vote? Of course it's politics. It's never been dirtier than it's been recently. Most specifically, after McConnell changed history by not allow a vote for Supreme\ Court with Obama in office. It's all politics. Both sides. Or Boff sides. It sucks but it is what it is. Trump s=could have prevented this by not breaking the law.

McConnell invoked the Biden rule. Look it up. Besides, McConnell was saving everyone from wasting time. Do you think the republican controlled senate was going to confirm him? Hell, Joe Manchin probably couldn't have voted for him without being thrown out of office. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,513]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

What’s there to vote on? You’ve got to do the investigation (in progress) and the articles of impeachment first. You’re basically asking a grand jury to vote on returning an indictment before the evidence has been presented to them and the indictment drafted

I'm saying that they are killing the clock. If he's being impeached for the Ukraine nonsense and it's all about this call, it shouldn't take long to have a vote. It's a dog and pony show. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What’s there to vote on? You’ve got to do the investigation (in progress) and the articles of impeachment first. You’re basically asking a grand jury to vote on returning an indictment before the evidence has been presented to them and the indictment drafted

Vote on an inquiry maybe?     They could do that. 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Just now, TimmySmith said:

Vote on an inquiry maybe?     They could do that. 

Are they required to do that? My impression is no — do you have something to the contrary?

[IGotWorms 4,059]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I'm saying that they are killing the clock. If he's being impeached for the Ukraine nonsense and it's all about this call, it shouldn't take long to have a vote. It's a dog and pony show. 

They just announced the investigation a few weeks ago! Still gathering documents and trying to interview key witnesses (where the White House doesn’t order them not to appear anyways).

If they did rush to a vote a) it would be stupid without having the evidence and b) y’all would be screaming how they’d rushed to judgment. 
 

Get fockin’ real.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Are they required to do that? My impression is no — do you have something to the contrary?

Dunno.  Don't think so, but it would force Trumps hand.  Not that it matters.  Impeachment is going nowhere, and Trump wouldn't cooperate if they did vote for inquiry.  Stalemate.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Are they required to do that? My impression is no — do you have something to the contrary?

To open an official investigation and garner actual subpoena power, yes.

What they're doing now has no force of law behind it and is therefore illegitimate. That's why the W.H. can ignore the requests for testimony and not face punishment for doing so.

[The Observer 641]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

They just announced the investigation a few weeks ago! Still gathering documents and trying to interview key witnesses (where the White House doesn’t order them not to appear anyways).

If they did rush to a vote a) it would be stupid without having the evidence and b) y’all would be screaming how they’d rushed to judgment. 
 

Get fockin’ real.

And keep in mind, they are doing fact gathering without any cooperation from Trump and the administration. If they want to speed up the process, cooperation would help immensely. But instead, we have Trumptards saying there's stalling and that it's political.  Unreal

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

To open an official investigation and garner actual subpoena power, yes.

What they're doing now has no force of law behind it and is therefore illegitimate. That's why the W.H. can ignore the requests for testimony and not face punishment for doing so.

You got a link? And again, no conservative sandbox bullsh1t

[The Observer 641]

2 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Dunno.  Don't think so, but it would force Trumps hand.  Not that it matters.  Impeachment is going nowhere, and Trump wouldn't cooperate if they did vote for inquiry.  Stalemate.

His lack of cooperation, in front of the American people, is not going to play well for him.  It won't matter to the crooked senators and I agree there's no way they would vote him out, but there's an election coming up and Trump's behavior will look like a refused breathalyzer test to the 65% of the public who aren't already locked into voting for Trump.  He can't win reelection with only his base.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

I was curious so I looked it up in the constitution. Article One, b1tch. They have to vote to impeach but it says nothing about how the process is initiated.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

They just announced the investigation a few weeks ago! Still gathering documents and trying to interview key witnesses (where the White House doesn’t order them not to appear anyways).

If they did rush to a vote a) it would be stupid without having the evidence and b) y’all would be screaming how they’d rushed to judgment. 
 

Get fockin’ real.

Haven't you been listening to the Democrats? They already have enough evidence to impeach; a thousand times over. And while the just announced the investigation a few weeks ago, the Dems have been working on it for months. Which you and Newbs are okay with.

Investigation in search of anything to legitimize it.    

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

His lack of cooperation, in front of the American people, is not going to play well for him.  It won't matter to the crooked senators and I agree there's no way they would vote him out, but there's an election coming up and Trump's behavior will look like a refused breathalyzer test to the 65% of the public who aren't already locked into voting for Trump.  He can't win reelection with only his base.

If the Dems would have decent candidate it should be an easy win but too many people feel there are no better options.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You got a link? And again, no conservative sandbox bullsh1t

https://www.thoughtco.com/impeachment-the-unthinkable-process-3322171

"The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do..."

"The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment."

"Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another resolution composed of one or more "Articles of Impeachment" to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why or that impeachment is not called for."

Simply put, the Dems used the Intel Committee to hide the testimony i.e. frame the narrative. Combined with the rules change, they can selectively leak whatever they want, without context and exclude the minority party from those testimonies. 

[The Observer 641]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If the Dems would have decent candidate it should be an easy win but too many people feel there are no better options.

As we speak, our allies are being slaughtered because of a "secret phone call" Trump made with Erdogen. ISIS prisoners are being released back out into the world, and the US has lost any trust our allies still had left in us. This is on top of brown babies dying in cages and immigration at a 17 year high, after Obama had it at a 50 year low. Every single Democratic candidate is a better option than Trump, as are the few Republican candidates.

[Gladiators 1,995]

2 minutes ago, The Observer said:

As we speak, our allies are being slaughtered because of a "secret phone call" Trump made with Erdogen. ISIS prisoners are being released back out into the world, and the US has lost any trust our allies still had left in us. This is on top of brown babies dying in cages and immigration at a 17 year high, after Obama had it at a 50 year low. Every single Democratic candidate is a better option than Trump, as are the few Republican candidates.

[Hawkeye21 2,400]

3 minutes ago, The Observer said:

As we speak, our allies are being slaughtered because of a "secret phone call" Trump made with Erdogen. ISIS prisoners are being released back out into the world, and the US has lost any trust our allies still had left in us. This is on top of brown babies dying in cages and immigration at a 17 year high, after Obama had it at a 50 year low. Every single Democratic candidate is a better option than Trump, as are the few Republican candidates.

I agree that they are better but I'm afraid that's not how everyone else sees it.  Most Trump supporters are dug in deep on Trump's side.  There are far too many people who still don't think there is a better option than Trump.  It's pretty sad, really.

[The Observer 641]

Still waiting on Filthy to answer the question he accused Dems of. If this impeachment hearing is simply Dems trying to reverse election results, is he admitting that Clinton's impeachment was also trying to reverse election results. And if so, should we just eliminate impeachment from the constitution?