☆☆☆☆OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THREAD☆☆☆☆

[atlboiler2156]

What happened to your mind when you posted the question for Republicans in KHC? When you get that angry again, Jared, just stay in your comfort zone on this board where all five of your zombie comrades can make you feel good about all 7,000 of your completely disconnected and delusional posts. It’s fine. Everybody else is moving forward while you spin your wheels screaming in an echo chamber. Trump has broken your brain. Completely broken.

I think you may be more disturbed than the regular Trump cult posters here. That’s saying something.[/QUOTE]
Cult? He’s over emotional at times, tweets way too much and is extremely flawed as a human being. Again, political figures aren’t supposed to be beacons of morality. Doubt “cult” members would ever criticize a leader. I have no issue criticizing him because he’s not perfect and I think for myself.

You, on the other hand, can’t even acknowledge the name Eric Ciaramella. And you would never, ever say anything negative about Schiff, Pelosi, Ed Buck, and the honorable Jerrald Nadler or the Democratic Party.

Who’s in the cult?

 

[atlboiler2156]

Except I bet some Bernie voters will cross over and vote Trump if Bernie is denied again

The smallest sample size known to man but a few family members who have voted Democrat their entire lives will be voting for Trump in 2020. They are just shocked how left the party has gone and find zero redeeming qualities about the circus clowns running.

 

[BSIT]

The smallest sample size known to man but a few family members who have voted Democrat their entire lives will be voting for Trump in 2020. They are just shocked how left the party has gone and find zero redeeming qualities about the circus clowns running.

Yep and I heard about Bernie supporter(s) indicate they’ll vote Trump if Bernie gets “robbed “ this year too

 

[atlboiler2156]

Yep and I heard about Bernie supporter(s) indicate they’ll vote Trump if Bernie gets “robbed “ this year too

And, uh, it’s pretty safe to say the robbery is in progress...

 

[BSIT]

And, uh, it’s pretty safe to say the robbery is in progress...

Sad how CNN treated him during last debate

 

[atlboiler2156]

Sad how CNN treated him during last debate

Even for their very low standards, that was bad. Really bad.

 

[atlboiler2156]

You know it’s over when Jeffrey Toobin says that the Republicans and the President are winning. Yikes.

 

[doubleyous]

You know it’s over when Jeffrey Toobin says that the Republicans and the President are winning. Yikes.

"Winning" in the sense that it's unlikely that there will be 4 GOP-ers eventually voting for participation of additional witnesses.
Surely to God you don't think Toobin or anybody on the left thinks that the Impeachment would result in removal….or that public polling on Trump's removal has moved an inch toward "no"...

The Donald: goes into the 2020 campaign with the big, red, imaginary "I" plastered on his forehead.
All about November.

 

[glidresquirrel]

"Winning" in the sense that it's unlikely that there will be 4 GOP-ers eventually voting for participation of additional witnesses.
Surely to God you don't think Toobin or anybody on the left thinks that the Impeachment would result in removal….or that public polling on Trump's removal has moved an inch toward "no"...

The Donald: goes into the 2020 campaign with the big, red, imaginary "I" plastered on his forehead.
All about November.

Holy crap are you drunk? What in the hell was that supposed to say?

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I’m able to see things from different sides. It seems as the Democratic Party for the most part won’t cross party lines. Democrats want Republicans to cross over and some do. It appears the party of compassion and tolerance is anything but that.

Does that take in to account the years 2008-2016? Because if so, I think you need to go look at how the GOP failed to work at all with President Obama and the Dems in Congress.

 

[SKYDOG]

Does that take in to account the years 2008-2016? Because if so, I think you need to go look at how the GOP failed to work at all with President Obama and the Dems in Congress.

I agree for the most part. Maybe the Republicans didn’t like the idea of passing the ACA without being able to read it. It was put through in a New York minute. Maybe they didn’t like the giveaway programs like free cell phones and plans, cash for clunkers, and others.

There are issues both sides agree with, but won’t work together like immigration. Why did the democrats march against Trump less than 24 hours in office? This is not seeing both sides on issues in working for us all. Both sides are at fault, but many won’t recognize it.

 

[doubleyous]

I agree for the most part. Maybe the Republicans didn’t like the idea of passing the ACA without being able to read it. It was put through in a New York minute. Maybe they didn’t like the giveaway programs like free cell phones and plans, cash for clunkers, and others.

There are issues both sides agree with, but won’t work together like immigration. Why did the democrats march against Trump less than 24 hours in office? This is not seeing both sides on issues in working for us all. Both sides are at fault, but many won’t recognize it.

The ACA involved interviews with all stakeholders in the American Health Care System, for the better part of a year. In addition to an enormous number of Congressional debates. " New York minute, my ass.
At 2,500 pages...the ACA wasn't destined to wait until every single GOP member got around to reading each and every page, while 20,000,000 Americans waited for an opportunity to obtain coverage

"Cash for Clunkers" was a federal subsidy program that helped to jumpstart the automobile sales industry, coming out of the worst US recession in seventy years. Many Republicans, to their credit, recognized the necessity of the Stimulus Package passed by Congress, to likewise energize the entire economy - at that time.
As to your last bit of misinformation, the huge March on Washington - the day after the inauguration -was
the WOMENS MARCH, if you recall. Issue- driven masses marched....NOT a political party march.

 

[doubleyous]

The smallest sample size known to man but a few family members who have voted Democrat their entire lives will be voting for Trump in 2020. They are just shocked how left the party has gone and find zero redeeming qualities about the circus clowns running.

There AIN'T no clown , ever, like the Orange Clown with the Saturday morning cartoon show haircut.
As long as he's on the ballot......it's up for grabs....

 

[doubleyous]

Holy crap are you drunk? What in the hell was that supposed to say?

Keep tellin' ya: don't read them. Don't bother posting about them. Share your incomparable insight with commentary on others' posts.

 

[SKYDOG]

The ACA involved interviews with all stakeholders in the American Health Care System, for the better part of a year. In addition to an enormous number of Congressional debates. " New York minute, my ass.
At 2,500 pages...the ACA wasn't destined to wait until every single GOP member got around to reading each and every page, while 20,000,000 Americans waited for an opportunity to obtain coverage

"Cash for Clunkers" was a federal subsidy program that helped to jumpstart the automobile sales industry, coming out of the worst US recession in seventy years. Many Republicans, to their credit, recognized the necessity of the Stimulus Package passed by Congress, to likewise energize the entire economy - at that time.
As to your last bit of misinformation, the huge March on Washington - the day after the inauguration -was
the WOMENS MARCH, if you recall. Issue- driven masses marched....NOT a political party march.

Yeah right! That must be it.

 

[indy35]

I’m able to see things from different sides. It seems as the Democratic Party for the most part won’t cross party lines. Democrats want Republicans to cross over and some do. It appears the party of compassion and tolerance is anything but that.

There isn't any "both sides" to the Republicans lying about being allowed in the SCIF and being allowed to ask questions. There's no "well maybe" or "what if" to it. There's no grey area. There's no spin to be had.

The politicians and media that are saying that are outright lying. Not just the regular politician spin or half-truths, these are complete falsehoods. They don't even need to lie about that stuff, there are a thousand other lies they could and are using to obscure the truth, why even lie about something that is so black and white and has incontrovertible evidence showing that they are being dishonest? It just shows how ingrained dishonesty is in the Republican party right now.

 

[atlboiler2156]

I think you may be more disturbed than the regular Trump cult posters here. That’s saying something.

Cult? He’s over emotional at times, tweets way too much and is extremely flawed as a human being. Again, political figures aren’t supposed to be beacons of morality. Doubt “cult” members would ever criticize a leader. I have no issue criticizing him because he’s not perfect and I think for myself.

You, on the other hand, can’t even acknowledge the name Eric Ciaramella. And you would never, ever say anything negative about Schiff, Pelosi, Ed Buck, and the honorable Jerrald Nadler or the Democratic Party.

Who’s in the cult?[/QUOTE]
Any thoughts on this, Indy? I know you like chasing other posters when they don’t reply to you.

Will the state you worship let you respond?

 

[doubleyous]

Yeah right! That must be it.

Just about as a magnificent, detailed rebuttal to a post...EVER seen here !!!
If you can take the time, SKYDOG, to post your 2 paragraph statement that prompted a rebuttal....
Why can't your respond with a stretch more than the SIX words you managed ??
You've got the ACA......the Stimulus Package conversation, and the Jan. 21, 2017 march in Washington.
Absolutely deserving of more than 6 words....

 

[glidresquirrel]

Just about as a magnificent, detailed rebuttal to a post...EVER seen here !!!
If you can take the time, SKYDOG, to post your 2 paragraph statement that prompted a rebuttal....
Why can't your respond with a stretch more than the SIX words you managed ??
You've got the ACA......the Stimulus Package conversation, and the Jan. 21, 2017 march in Washington.
Absolutely deserving of more than 6 words....

Why are you and your twin 35 always a$$holes ?

 

[BuilderBob6]

Bondi was a train wreck .

But only because the house managers brought up Hunter, she thought she would talk about it too.

If the Hunter was as dirty as she implies (while talking mostly about how dirty Burisma was), why didn't the US investigate him in 2017, 18, or 19?
She also defended corrupt former prosecutor Shokin, saying he was investigating Hunter before we Joe delivered the message he had to go. Shokin was a huge part of the true corruption problem in Ukraine and Bondi thinks he should have stayed........because he says he was investigating Hunter.

 

[miksta]

Bondi was a train wreck .

But only because the house managers brought up Hunter, she thought she would talk about it too.

If the Hunter was as dirty as she implies (while talking mostly about how dirty Burisma was), why didn't the US investigate him in 2017, 18, or 19?
She also defended corrupt former prosecutor Shokin, saying he was investigating Hunter before we Joe delivered the message he had to go. Shokin was a huge part of the true corruption problem in Ukraine and Bondi thinks he should have stayed........because he says he was investigating Hunter.

Also, does "America First" imply encouraging foreign governments to investigate US citizens?

 

[BuilderBob6]

 

[BuilderBob6]

 

[doubleyous]

Why are you and your twin 35 always a$$holes ?

Because, a few months ago, we saw a Sally Struthers Infomercial - at 2:30 in the morning - that had a special promotion available : a two-for-one "always be assholes" deal...….that only cost us 3 installments of $ 29.95 each.
Now go away, fool.

 

[ecouch]

GUYS!!!

Daniel Dale tweeted!

Who the **** is Danny Dale?

 

[miksta]

GUYS!!!

Daniel Dale tweeted!

Who the **** is Danny Dale?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=daniel+dale

 

[ecouch]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=daniel+dale

That meme started in 2008.

 

[miksta]

That meme started in 2008.

Laziness started well before that.

 

[ecouch]

Laziness started well before that.

Legalize it. Fed level.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Actually spoken by a Trump attorney in the Senate today.

"Mr. Giuliani is just a minor player."

 

[glidresquirrel]

Actually spoken by a Trump attorney in the Senate today.

"Mr. Giuliani is just a minor player."

Actually spoken by a Democrat, Drump! Take your crap out of here and go home

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Bondi was a train wreck .

But only because the house managers brought up Hunter, she thought she would talk about it too.

If the Hunter was as dirty as she implies (while talking mostly about how dirty Burisma was), why didn't the US investigate him in 2017, 18, or 19?
She also defended corrupt former prosecutor Shokin, saying he was investigating Hunter before we Joe delivered the message he had to go. Shokin was a huge part of the true corruption problem in Ukraine and Bondi thinks he should have stayed........because he says he was investigating Hunter.

You know, for once I agree with you somewhat. While I don't think she was a total train wreck, she appeared to be the least prepared. I know she's smart, that she was a great AG in Florida, and is a favorite of the Trump folks, but she seemed to be very nervous. But she looked so much better than Zoe

 

[doubleyous]

You know, for once I agree with you somewhat. While I don't think she was a total train wreck, she appeared to be the least prepared. I know she's smart, that she was a great AG in Florida, and is a favorite of the Trump folks, but she seemed to be very nervous. But she looked so much better than Zoe

It would be difficult to over- estimate the strength of a rebuttal available to counter your assertion that Pam Bondi "was a great AG in Florida ". ( Unless, of course, one is a MAGA type.)....Refusing to join the large group of Attorneys General in states across the political divide....in the national fraud case of Trump University.....kind of set her apart from those A.G.'s who have been afforded respect, among their peers,
following the eventual judgement in that case. Other examples abound.

 

[Mr_Scott]

It would be difficult to over- estimate the strength of a rebuttal available to counter your assertion that Pam Bondi "was a great AG in Florida ". ( Unless, of course, one is a MAGA type.)....Refusing to join the large group of Attorneys General in states across the political divide....in the national fraud case of Trump University.....kind of set her apart from those A.G.'s who have been afforded respect, among their peers,
following the eventual judgement in that case. Other examples abound.

She only cost Trump $25,000 to look the other way, too. That's pretty cheap for an AG.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Bondi was a train wreck .

But only because the house managers brought up Hunter, she thought she would talk about it too.

If the Hunter was as dirty as she implies (while talking mostly about how dirty Burisma was), why didn't the US investigate him in 2017, 18, or 19?
She also defended corrupt former prosecutor Shokin, saying he was investigating Hunter before we Joe delivered the message he had to go. Shokin was a huge part of the true corruption problem in Ukraine and Bondi thinks he should have stayed........because he says he was investigating Hunter.

I guess she's just window dressing. Good Lord.

 

[BuilderBob6]

So help me out here counselor. @70boiler

Am I understanding Dershowitz correctly? Is he saying that as long as the president believes his re-election is in the best interest of the country, he can take any legal action he chooses and shouldn't be able to be impeached for it?

 

[70boiler]

So help me out here counselor. @70boiler

Am I understanding Dershowitz correctly? Is he saying that as long as the president believes his re-election is in the best interest of the country, he can take any legal action he chooses and shouldn't be able to be impeached for it?

Sorry, I have been in a trial this week and haven't heard all of the presentations. I saw enough blurbs of his comments to recognize his ultimate position to be that impeachment proceedings must be premised upon either an actual statutory criminal violation or at least significantly similar and akin to one. I would clearly think that a corollary to that position would necessarily be what you inquired about unless it was violative of some criminal statute, but having not heard that portion, cannot be completely certain. I also heard a bit of his comments about actions based upon multiple rationales that suggested as long as one rationale was permissible the remaining reasons would become irrelevant, but unfortunately didn't hear enough to determine what his view would be if one of the rationales was criminal.
Sorry that I can't be of more help, today.
EDIT: I looked around a bit and assume that you are referring to this quote "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
EDIT 2: Given that his additional comment is quoted as ""The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal," I would believe that absent specific criminal violations, Prof. Dershowitz is saying what you understand.

 

[70boiler]

I personally find what Prof. Dershowitz to be saying in the immediately previous posts and what I have heard this evening as totally unhinged and have never read anything consistent with the views being espoused.

 

[70boiler]

If one were to accept Prof. Dershowitz' postulations, then, a number of comments in the Federalist Papers as well as the very concept of impeachment would be emasculated and rendered valueless. I find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Federalist Papers were casual and indifferent in their choice of language.

 

[BuilderBob6]

If one were to accept Prof. Dershowitz' postulations, then, a number of comments in the Federalist Papers as well as the very concept of impeachment would be emasculated and rendered valueless. I find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Federalist Papers were casual and indifferent in their choice of language.

It's interesting to consider what the framers intended when it comes to grounds for impeachment.
It seems to me they left them intentionally vague. From a practical standpoint , how would they possibly be able to list ALL the offenses for which the president should be impeached?

AD seems to take the opposite position. If they didn't list it, you can't impeach for it.