Sexual assault allegations next, watch.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

As good a guess as any.

Dems aren't picky.  They'll jump on any accusation that can push their agenda -- evidence not required.

The only agenda they have at the moment seems to be impeachment.

BTW, we are all paying them to do this, and paying them quite well I might add.   

What Process???

Secret meetings?
Excluding everyone in the other party from hearings, reading transcripts, knowing who the whistleblower is?
Refusing to hold a House vote to formally open the inquiry?

This is a "process" the way the Star Chamber was a process.  If you don't understand the reference, it was a Michael Douglas movie.  If you still don't understand the parallel, Google is your friend.

The process of how a whistleblower complaint is handled.

Not sure which secret meeting you are talking about. The hearing that a handful of republican senators came in on? As I understand it there were republicans on that committee and at the meeting so it wasn't a democrat only secret meeting. Are you referent to a different meeting?

Lindsey Graham is wrong in the video, the vote to impeach does not have the same protections he references as does someone in a trial. The house votes to impeach and then a trial is held in the senate. An impeachment is like an indictment, the accused does not have all the rights mentioned before they can be indicted. So Trump does not get to confront witnesses before an impeachment can be voted upon. That suggestion is like saying an accused person gets to know everything about an investigation before the prosecutor's even file charges. In fact there is nothing in the constitution that states the president has any of those rights that Trump and his lawyers are claiming. The constitution specifies no such protections and since it isn't a criminal prosecution normal criminally accused protections don't apply.

I do think Trump should be allowed to call witnesses and question them as a matter of principle and because both Clinton and Nixon got to but it isn't a guaranteed right and he definitely doesn't get it at this point in the process.

The process of how a whistleblower complaint is handled.

Not sure which secret meeting you are talking about. The hearing that a handful of republican senators came in on? As I understand it there were republicans on that committee and at the meeting so it wasn't a democrat only secret meeting. Are you referent to a different meeting?

Lindsey Graham is wrong in the video, the vote to impeach does not have the same protections he references as does someone in a trial. The house votes to impeach and then a trial is held in the senate. An impeachment is like an indictment, the accused does not have all the rights mentioned before they can be indicted. So Trump does not get to confront witnesses before an impeachment can be voted upon. That suggestion is like saying an accused person gets to know everything about an investigation before the prosecutor's even file charges. In fact there is nothing in the constitution that states the president has any of those rights that Trump and his lawyers are claiming. The constitution specifies no such protections and since it isn't a criminal prosecution normal criminally accused protections don't apply.

I do think Trump should be allowed to call witnesses and question them as a matter of principle and because both Clinton and Nixon got to but it isn't a guaranteed right and he definitely doesn't get it at this point in the process.

I know you don't pay attention to the actual news, so I'm not going to spend my time educating you.

You really believe the Republicans "stormed" the hearing because they were already being given access to the previous hearings?

 

The process can't be 100% one-sided.  Right now, only Dems can call witnesses, nobody can cross examine any witnesses, GOP members can't subpoena witnesses to compel testimony unless Schiff allows it, etc.

Once the impeachment inquiry is voted on and the rules are established, it becomes a more fair and even process.  Otherwise, Schiff is playing the role of the Special Council.  That's not his job.  "The House" is supposed to include ALL of the House members, not just one party on one committee.  The Constitution doesn't afford one party the right to impeach anyone.  It has to be voted on by THE HOUSE. That includes allowing the Judicial Committee to vote on whether an inquiry can be started at all.

What is Schiff hiding?  He's hiding the facts. If the public were able to see these hearings, they'd know there's nothing to impeach Trump for -- just like the Russia scam.  I guarantee, if Schiff thought for a second he had the evidence to impeach, he'd be inviting the camera crews into the hearings and serving cake and ice cream!

I know you don't pay attention to the actual news, so I'm not going to spend my time educating you.

You really believe the Republicans "stormed" the hearing because they were already being given access to the previous hearings?

 

The process can't be 100% one-sided.  Right now, only Dems can call witnesses, nobody can cross examine any witnesses, GOP members can't subpoena witnesses to compel testimony unless Schiff allows it, etc.

Once the impeachment inquiry is voted on and the rules are established, it becomes a more fair and even process.  Otherwise, Schiff is playing the role of the Special Council.  That's not his job.  "The House" is supposed to include ALL of the House members, not just one party on one committee.  The Constitution doesn't afford one party the right to impeach anyone.  It has to be voted on by THE HOUSE. That includes allowing the Judicial Committee to vote on whether an inquiry can be started at all.

What is Schiff hiding?  He's hiding the facts. If the public were able to see these hearings, they'd know there's nothing to impeach Trump for -- just like the Russia scam.  I guarantee, if Schiff thought for a second he had the evidence to impeach, he'd be inviting the camera crews into the hearings and serving cake and ice cream!

Not sure why you still bother with this guy?

You are 100% correct with what you said here. The House of Representatives is also known as The Peoples House. Meaning this branch of government directly represents all of the citizens of this republic compared to the Senate and Executive Branch. And dare I say that if the whole House of Representatives is not included in Impeachment proceedings then the people are not being properly represented by the House. I totally resent these closed door hearings. I completely resent an attempt to run an impeachment inquiry without first voting on it by the ENTIRE House. I’m sure you know this but it bears repeating. The House has already voted 3 times to start an impeachment inquiry on Trump, and in all 3 cases there was not enough votes to start an official inquiry. I suspect that there still are not enough votes to start an official inquiry. Otherwise, there is no good reason not to vote for it and make it transparent. As long as the Democrats keep up with these closed door meetings where they purposely control and leak out only one side of the story, naive persons like the one you are wasting your time with are not going to go to news sources that tell the truth in order to know what is really happening here. This is a political stunt, kabuki theater. It is a shit show being put on by the democrats.

The thing that bothers me the most about this process, is not only not having transparency, but the lack of due process afforded by our constitution for the president to face his accusers and given the right to cross examine witnesses and present his own evidence. The few republicans that are allowed into these closed door meetings can only do so much because their hands are being tied in these meetings. This is being done purposely in order to control the narrative and what the MSM is reporting on. I’ll give you a great example of this. Schiff made a speech about the conversation with Ukraine and the WB complaint. Then Trump released the transcript of the phone call. I read the transcript. All 5 pages. It was quite boring as nothing was talked about that was really interesting except maybe a couple of sentences. The point of all of this is that Schiff lied about what was in the conversation that the WB complained about because he never suspected that the president would release the transcript. There was not one ounce of truth in what Schiff said about the conversation and lied about never speaking to the WB. If the republicans had the votes Schiff would have been censured. And this is the guy who the democrats are hanging their hat on to push for secret meeting impeachment? Ridiculous.

Personally, I want complete transparency. I want to know if the president did something worthy of impeachment. And I want to know if he has done nothing worthy of impeachment. I just want to know the truth. But I cannot know the full truth while these secret back door meetings are going on and one sided leaking is going on being run by a shit show clown.

I know you don't pay attention to the actual news, so I'm not going to spend my time educating you.

You really believe the Republicans "stormed" the hearing because they were already being given access to the previous hearings?

 

The process can't be 100% one-sided.  Right now, only Dems can call witnesses, nobody can cross examine any witnesses, GOP members can't subpoena witnesses to compel testimony unless Schiff allows it, etc.

Once the impeachment inquiry is voted on and the rules are established, it becomes a more fair and even process.  Otherwise, Schiff is playing the role of the Special Council.  That's not his job.  "The House" is supposed to include ALL of the House members, not just one party on one committee.  The Constitution doesn't afford one party the right to impeach anyone.  It has to be voted on by THE HOUSE. That includes allowing the Judicial Committee to vote on whether an inquiry can be started at all.

What is Schiff hiding?  He's hiding the facts. If the public were able to see these hearings, they'd know there's nothing to impeach Trump for -- just like the Russia scam.  I guarantee, if Schiff thought for a second he had the evidence to impeach, he'd be inviting the camera crews into the hearings and serving cake and ice cream!

The hearing they "stormed" had republicans inside already. They tried to suggest republicans were being shut out but there are republicans on that committee. It wasn't one sided. Whatever media you were consuming was feeding you a lie.

The hearing was not an impeachment vote and as far as I have researched, there is no rule saying the impeachment investigation has to be bipartisan or even fair. Nonetheless it was a committee hearing and there are republicans on the committee.  If the dems want to impeach they will still have to call a vote which will include the entire house.

Demanding complete transparency before an actual vote to impeach is ridiculous. Would a police detective tell the suspect everything he had and the identity of all the witnesses before an indictment? Of course not. People like Lindsey Graham are making a claim that sounds good but rests upon people not understanding the process. The Trump lovers eat it up because it confirms what they want to believe and they never bother to look deeper.

The hearing they "stormed" had republicans inside already. They tried to suggest republicans were being shut out but there are republicans on that committee. It wasn't one sided. Whatever media you were consuming was feeding you a lie.

The hearing was not an impeachment vote and as far as I have researched, there is no rule saying the impeachment investigation has to be bipartisan or even fair. Nonetheless it was a committee hearing and there are republicans on the committee.  If the dems want to impeach they will still have to call a vote which will include the entire house.

Demanding complete transparency before an actual vote to impeach is ridiculous. Would a police detective tell the suspect everything he had and the identity of all the witnesses before an indictment? Of course not. People like Lindsey Graham are making a claim that sounds good but rests upon people not understanding the process. The Trump lovers eat it up because it confirms what they want to believe and they never bother to look deeper.

Ridiculous?

The Dems in the House started impeachment proceedings within 2 months of the so-called complaint.

In the 70s, before the impeachment articles were written, the judicial committee TOOK A VOTE on opening an inquiry -- and that was AFTER more than a year long investigation by independent counsel.

In the 90s, before the impeachment articles were written, the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings based on the Starr report -- it took 4 years to get from Paula Jones' lawsuit to the impeachment vote.

In both cases, there was a vote to BEGIN the impeachment inquiry. Only after that was there a vote on the articles of impeachment.

The PURPOSE for the initial vote is to DISCUSS AND DEBATE the RULES of the inquiry -- who gets to issue subpoenas, what limits there may be on subpoenas, etc.

The only thing ridiculous is that ONE MAJORITY PARTY is initiating an impeachment inquiry without holding a single vote -- not in committee and not in the chamber.

Pelosi is ignoring precedent -- the same Pelosi who cries "Trump is going against precedent" time and again.

Impeachment is not an automatic "We have a complaint. Let's start an impeachment inquiry to see if it's bad enough to impeach" process.  It's supposed to be "We have a complaint. let's investigate. **IF** there is anything impeachable in the findings, then we'll initiate an impeachment inquiry."

Pelosi and Schiff are skipping the investigation and going straight to the impeachment process WITHOUT EVIDENCE BEYOND THE DEM'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT.  That's not how any of this is supposed to be done.

Before you call our comments ridiculous, you should spend time reading history of previous impeachments.  The contrast should make everyone uneasy.

This is not an impeachment.  It's a coup.

I'm kinda digging these impeachment nothing burgers.
It's keeping the democrats occupied with nonsense, and limiting their abillity to cause damage, for the time being...

I'm kinda digging these impeachment nothing burgers.
It's keeping the democrats occupied with nonsense, and limiting their abillity to cause damage, for the time being...

The problem is there are a lot of morons who take what ever the dnc does like its the word of god. TDS is legit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The problem is there are a lot of morons who take what ever the dnc does like its the word of god. TDS is legit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

True.  The divide grows

I'm kinda digging these impeachment nothing burgers.
It's keeping the democrats occupied with nonsense, and limiting their abillity to cause damage, for the time being...

While I agree these nothing burgers are keeping the democrats busy, I disagree that they are not causing damage. Of course this is just my opinion. Impeachment is a political process for which there is no written steps to achieve the desired results of overturning the vote of the people. I think we can both agree that there is very little chance that the president will be removed from office. And I think we can agree that there is a very good chance the president wins reelection. But I believe impeachment is very much a reality here at the worst. And a censure of the president is going to occur at the very least. I believe either one will occur. These nothing burgers are being created to create a precedent as a way to impeach a president in the future. Not just as a political game to try and win the next election. Just remember this is my opinion only.

Pelosi is a smart cookie. She understands that they are not required to follow precedent here. She can create her own precedent and she is. This is the damage these nothing burgers are causing. While I am not the biggest fan of president Trump, we would be lucky to get another conservative president in the future. The day will come when the democrats have the votes in the house and the senate with a conservative president. What better way to get rid of a president who opposes you? Just follow the precedent from the 2019-2020 impeachment proceedings. Make shit up, keep it behind closed doors so the people and the majority of the House of Representatives cannot see the entire truth. Then present your one sided evidence to the people and the House of Representatives and ask for a vote to impeach.

As an example, there is a particular person I see here that is not standing up against these closed door hearings. And from what little I have read, they see nothing wrong with them. And they seem to see value to these nothing burgers. This to me is the damage these nothing burgers cause. Just the fact that these nothing burgers place doubt in the minds of naive people is enough for those who are not capable of seeing these nothing burgers for what they truly are, nothing. So in some minds who are not open enough to see the bigger picture, these nothing burgers are something. And if properly controlled and presented by House controllers and the MSM there will be enough nothing burgers to impeach their political opponent now and in the future.

I believe we are in a constitutional crisis. This is all about power and control for now and in the future. It the bigger picture here. A new history book is being written by Pelosi and Schiff on how to rid yourself of your political opponent within the framework of the constitution. All using nothing burgers. Guaranteed the Republicans will use this playbook someday as well. It is just a matter of time. If this isn’t the greatest argument that we are progressively moving to socialism, I don’t know what is?

Again, this is JMHO.

I don’t know this website but I like this article about following precedent for impeachment.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/rodino-precedent-matters

I agree with you Inspector.   And agree these politicians have strayed very far from the Constitution.   

If they are not put in check very soon, and a reformation of the core values are not accomplished, then this country, and the great experiment in personal freedom will be done.

Decades of slow and steady indoctrination of young minds, in all these huge cities, have come to a tipping point.  One side of this nation still believes in freedom, the rest in a false freedom of do whatever you please with little moral compass, and even less belief in personal freedom of anyone else with any opposing view.  They clamor to suck on the teet of socialist "freebies" and that false sense of security government must provide to them.


Maybe what I was trying to say was the damage has already been done, and any more damage they might cause will either solidify belief in freedom, or cause an irreversible spiral into some sick form of forced socialism.


The day they outlaw our arms is they day they will try to take over

The problem is there are a lot of morons who take what ever the dnc does like its the word of god. TDS is legit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

But no one ever does that with what Trump says...

Ridiculous?

The Dems in the House started impeachment proceedings within 2 months of the so-called complaint.

In the 70s, before the impeachment articles were written, the judicial committee TOOK A VOTE on opening an inquiry -- and that was AFTER more than a year long investigation by independent counsel.

In the 90s, before the impeachment articles were written, the House voted to commence impeachment proceedings based on the Starr report -- it took 4 years to get from Paula Jones' lawsuit to the impeachment vote.

In both cases, there was a vote to BEGIN the impeachment inquiry. Only after that was there a vote on the articles of impeachment.

The PURPOSE for the initial vote is to DISCUSS AND DEBATE the RULES of the inquiry -- who gets to issue subpoenas, what limits there may be on subpoenas, etc.

The only thing ridiculous is that ONE MAJORITY PARTY is initiating an impeachment inquiry without holding a single vote -- not in committee and not in the chamber.

Pelosi is ignoring precedent -- the same Pelosi who cries "Trump is going against precedent" time and again.

Impeachment is not an automatic "We have a complaint. Let's start an impeachment inquiry to see if it's bad enough to impeach" process.  It's supposed to be "We have a complaint. let's investigate. **IF** there is anything impeachable in the findings, then we'll initiate an impeachment inquiry."

Pelosi and Schiff are skipping the investigation and going straight to the impeachment process WITHOUT EVIDENCE BEYOND THE DEM'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT.  That's not how any of this is supposed to be done.

Before you call our comments ridiculous, you should spend time reading history of previous impeachments.  The contrast should make everyone uneasy.
This is not an impeachment.  It's a coup.

"The House Judiciary Committee voted to formally begin an impeachment inquiry on September 12, along party lines."
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20882860/house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-donald-trump-nancy-pelosi

There is no real book or much of a precedent on how long these things should take.

"In past presidential impeachments, the House has formally voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings. But this step has been skipped on occasion in the impeachment of judges, and it’s entirely the product of custom and internal House rules (themselves interpreted and controlled by the House majority at a given time)."
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-impeachment-process.html

So we have custom to go off of and an interpretation by the majority of house rules.

But lets say Dems did put the vote for an impeachment inquiry to vote for the whole house, then what? They control the house and they would have approved it. Then you would have been fine with the decision to hold an impeachment inquiry? You are really just being a rule hawk here and it has nothing to do with whether Trump is involved?

Nothing changes, no injustice was done, and quite frankly it seems like a waste of time to take a vote on whether to look into something. It's like voting to decide whether to think about voting for approval to introduce a law to vote on (government bureaucracy).

This is definitively not what a coup looks like.

There have been impeachments votes twice by sen green. 1st one had 15 yea and 140 nays. 2nd one had 28 yeas and 120nays or something.

So the fact that no vote was done, proves they wouldnt have the yeas and wanted to bypass the process.

Add in the fake news reporting, paid protestors, police orders to stand down, phony intel,  etc...and the coup all comes together. Only things stopping it is a strong leader, results and patriots.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There have been impeachments votes twice by sen green. 1st one had 15 yea and 140 nays. 2nd one had 28 yeas and 120nays or something.

So the fact that no vote was done, proves they wouldnt have the yeas and wanted to bypass the process.

Add in the fake news reporting, paid protestors, police orders to stand down, phony intel,  etc...and the coup all comes together. Only things stopping it is a strong leader, results and patriots.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

How does any of what the dems done so far bypass the process? In the end they still will need to have a vote with all the house to impeach before it can go to the Senate. Plus the republicans control the Senate anyway so realistically what are the chances Trump could actually get removed?

How does any of what the dems done so far bypass the process? In the end they still will need to have a vote with all the house to impeach before it can go to the Senate. Plus the republicans control the Senate anyway so realistically what are the chances Trump could actually get removed?

Why are the Dems only now having a vote for the inquiry -- AFTER they've called all their "witnesses" who were never in on the phone call?  Do you think Schiff will approve the Republicans recalling all of those witnesses now that they can hear the testimony and ask their own questions?  If you think that, you're not paying attention.

The FIRST and ONLY witness subpoenaed so far that has FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of the call refused to appear today.  Of course Schiff for brains, being a highly ethical attorney, gave the news his thoughts. "His refusal to appear indicates his testimony has to be damaging to President Trump."  What's fair about that statement?  It indicates the impeachment inquiry is bogus and not being handled properly.  Schiff is biased.  He's putting himself (or Pelosi is) in place of a special counsel.  This is completely WRONG.

The failure to coerce a witness to testify is exactly why they needed to debate the rules and vote.  That's why Pelosi is calling a vote. She knows Trump's WH staff can't be coerced unless the inquiry is legit.  Without a vote, it isn't.  And the only remedy she has without a vote is to take it to the Supreme Court.  You KNOW she's not about to do that!

Also, this is supposed to be done in the House Judiciary committee, not the House Intelligence Committee.  Another break with proper protocol.

So many things wrong with this cluster fuck.

Pelosi and scum are going to vote on Thursday to have due process for the president. But 80%-90% of all the witnesses have been called and questioned already. And it has been leaked that today’s witness was not allowed (By Schiff) to answer certain questions that the Republicans were asking of cross examination.

Retroactive Due Process is not Due Process at all. It is only meaningful if the Democrat scum decides to do the right thing and start the inquiry all over again and keep it transparent and allow due process to the president from the start. But we all know this won’t happen with this Clown/Shit Show. The Republicans better keep their word to not even bring up the impeachment trial as long as this travesty is still in process and they don’t start anew.

Our congress is the laughing stock of the world. 

Dems in the House:  "We're going to allow Republicans in the hearings and depositions, and they can even ask questions of witnesses.  Look how fair and transparent we are!!"

Shifty Schiff:  "The witness will not answer the Republican House Member's questions."

Other House Committee Chairs:  "Let's schedule our hearings at the exact same time as the impeachment hearings so Republicans on our committees can't attend them."

Yeah.  Fair.

Like I said Flappier, I am in agreement with you that Schiff's actions look very suspicious.

Yes, he is clearly bias, but realistically speaking, who isn't biased? Any committee chairs who are 3rd party who could serve in that role?

Ultimately though I am not that worried and I will tell you why. If Schiff doesn't give equal time and question asking ability to the republicans then I think he is hurting his own cause. If Schiff puts together a strong argument with actual transparency then he may get more people to vote for impeachment, but if he acts all shady and doesn't make a convincing argument of criminal action then his case is weaker and he will find less support. Plus if they vote to impeach then all of it is going to come out at the Senate trial anyway so if Schiff is going something really wrong then he is really screwing himself.

Just to be clear, even though I thought what was in the transcript was bad, I didn't believe it justified impeaching him over it.