[W:148]Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

[ocean515]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

She is the Speaker of the House. She is well within her purview to ask the relevant committee to "proceed with Articles of Impeachment". Proceed in this case requires the process of determining and drafting Articles of Impeachment. Apparently under the guidance of wet noodle and only option the GOP had for Speaker when they were in the Majority, Paul Ryan, some of us have lost sight of the power held in that position. Paul Ryan was the worst Speaker in my memory. He never wanted the job AND IT SHOWED.

Lets try this again.

My question was, what vote prompted Pelosi to go ahead and instruct her members to draft articles of impeachment.

 

[jnug]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Lets try this again.

My question was, what vote prompted Pelosi to go ahead and instruct her members to draft articles of impeachment.

No vote. She didn't need a vote. You clearly did not read my post in response to you. Try reading my post again, this time with your eyes open as you put it in the quote block of your post.

Again, Pelosi instructed House Judiciary to proceed. "Draft" is part of the process of proceeding but Pelosi did not use the term "draft" in her statement.

 

[HumblePi]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Conspiracy forum is further down. You posted in the wrong section.

What's your problem? I just stated the opinion I've had all along.

 

[TomFitz]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So now you're saying that they are still being bribed? Hey, that's a good one. I hadn't heard that one yet. Thanks for making me laugh.

My understanding is that not all funds have been released. This may be procedural. Or deliberate.

I doubt too many people would be surprised to learn that Trump is still trying to gum up the works.

Rudy is running around Ukraine right now.

After all, the last thing his friend Vlad wants is for any significant US military aid to go to Ukraine.

Rudy can keep them both up to date on the bat phone!

 

[ocean515]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Can you describe why he won't be removed, regardless of what goes on in the House?

Might shed some light on why others see the effort as worthwhile.

It requires actual high crimes and misdemeanors to remove the President of the United States.

Impressions, presumptions, hearsay, and dislike, is not, and should never be, sufficient grounds to remove the President from office.

 

[jnug]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

It requires actual high crimes and misdemeanors to remove the President of the United States.

Impressions, presumptions, hearsay, and dislike, is not, and should never be, sufficient grounds to remove the President from office.

According to you! Your opinion which contradicts the plain language of the Constitution is accepted as such.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

So you're mad that trump is too stupid to do it the legal way, huh?

Try coming up with an intelligent reply. It makes the effort to reply to it a little more palpable.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Which would be why Turley was talking about the speed of all of this.

Gotta get the lies in line, the supporting narratives disseminated.

Correct. The Dem witnesses need to get the lies in line, and supporting narratives disseminated. More important, the deflection sound believable.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Speaking of hiding, where is Barr, where is Trump, where is Guiliana, where is Mulvaney? Please, lets not talk about 'hiding' behind majority power, when you have every witness that could provide real insight to what, when and where, are hiding behind Trump's "no to subpoenas" approach.

Where is Schiff?

By the way, who is Guiliana?

Maybe you need to get better prepared when you engage in a discussion on a topic like this.

 

[Excast]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Where is Schiff?

By the way, who is Guiliana?

Maybe you need to get better prepared when you engage in a discussion on a topic like this.

Someone hit "A" instead of "I". Oh no, the horror. Let's play grammar police instead of acknowledging the reality of the situation.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

No vote. She didn't need a vote. You clearly did not read my post in response to you. Try reading my post again, this time with your eyes open as you put it in the quote block of your post.

Again, Pelosi instructed House Judiciary to proceed. "Draft" is part of the process of proceeding but Pelosi did not use the term "draft" in her statement.

Stop wasting peoples time.

I wrote this in a post you responded to:

Pelosi has already demanded article of Impeachment be drafted. The vote is in.

So explain what today is all about.​

You asked if the vote had taken place, and I thanked you for making my point. No vote has taken place, but apparently to Pelosi, the vote is in.

 

[TomFitz]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Where is Schiff?

By the way, who is Guiliana?

Maybe you need to get better prepared when you engage in a discussion on a topic like this.

What does Schiff have to do with it. It’s a Judiciary Committee hearing.

 

[TomFitz]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Lets try this again.

My question was, what vote prompted Pelosi to go ahead and instruct her members to draft articles of impeachment.

October 31st. Try and keep up.

I realize that you have a built in handicap due to your devotion to right wing media, but we’ll continue to refresh your convenient memory losses.

 

[Excast]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

You have to wonder if Republicans are concerned about being struck down by a bolt of lightning if they even make an attempt at an intellectually honest statement during these hearings.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Really Caster:
1) Does Zalinsky have his WH meeting even YET TODAY?
2) Witnesses not testifying to the nature of an Impeachable offense or a Crime is a red herring. Its not for Fact Witnesses to "testify" to those things. That is the job of the Committees, and eventually the House to determine the nature of Charges.

Caster is sooooo left without an argument of any merit. He is left with word salad and irrelevance.

Halfway there; he had a meeting with Putin today

 

[jnug]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Stop wasting peoples time.

I wrote this in a post you responded to:

Pelosi has already demanded article of Impeachment be drafted. The vote is in.

So explain what today is all about.​

You asked if the vote had taken place, and I thanked you for making my point. No vote has taken place, but apparently to Pelosi, the vote is in.

No she didn't. You should listen to the video you yourself linked to your initial post.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Did Castor just throw Rudy under the bus? He said that there is not evidence that Rudy was acting on the Presidents authority.

How is that possible when the president personally invited his counterpart to contact Rudy or the AG for further discussion

 

[justabubba]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Name the crime the constitution calls for high crimes and misdemeanors.
i have still not heard you name a crime.
nor have i seen you post any evidence to support it.

again typical failed leftist nonsense.

make accusations without evidence or support.

They are whatever a majority of the House of representatives say they are

 

[jnug]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

October 31st. Try and keep up.

I realize that you have a built in handicap due to your devotion to right wing media, but we’ll continue to refresh your convenient memory losses.

Thank you....your response was better than mine. You are correct. The Oct 31st vote to move to an Impeachment process was all Pelosi really needed. All she subsequently did was tell the Committee that it was time to PROCEED with the next step in the process. Neither the word "demand" or "draft" were in the statement she made that is encompassed in the youtube video attached to post 88 of this thread no matter how many times the poster JAMS them into his accompanying and subsequent posts.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

How does Castor keep his job?

The guy has nothing to work with

 

[Rexedgar]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

The guy has nothing to work with

I know, but he comes across as someone I couldn’t trust to litigate a parking ticket.....

 

[Superfly]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

That it is, Tres. However, the way a Constitutional power gets used and the purpose for that use can absolutely constitute abuse.

Emoluments Clause. See Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.

 

[PLizzy]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Emoluments Clause. See Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.

He was a businessman before he was President, so that doesn't count! :soap

 

[Excast]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

Apparently it's impossible for a politician to do something wrong as long as their are decent economic numbers.

 

[WillyPete]

Re: Mon. 12/9 Judiciary Hearing Today

It requires actual high crimes and misdemeanors to remove the President of the United States.

Impressions, presumptions, hearsay, and dislike, is not, and should never be, sufficient grounds to remove the President from office.

And that standard is very vague and arbitrary, and is determined by the legislators in the event. We do know the founders had foreign interference in mind.

I'd say that the potential here is greater than it was in the last go-round, when it was perjury over a non-official act.

By all means, let your reps know how you feel so as to flavor their decision, but let's not pretend there's some rigorous standard that must be met. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever the members of Congress say it is.

You think differently, cite precedent.