House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures

[tres borrachos]

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Stop congratulating Obama for killing Bin Laden. The Navy Seals killed Bin Laden. #debate"

I've been rubbing Trump Fan Nation's noses in that Tweet (and it wasn't Trump's only "do not congratulate or give credit to Obama" Tweets from 2012) and they ignore it.

Blatant ignorance and cult like behavior.

 

[zimmer]

fake news.

Your words in the polls thread and here make it unambiguous... You prefer the Soviet system.

You’re and “Independent”... “Independent Communist” is more like it... but that’s oxymoronic... so you’re simply a Commi... or do you prefer “Soviet”?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Your words in the polls thread and here make it unambiguous... You prefer the Soviet system.

You’re and “Independent”... “Independent Communist” is more like it... but that’s oxymoronic... so you’re simply a Commi... or do you prefer “Soviet”?

Why do you promote and support a Marxist USA?

 

[JasperL]

They get it when it goes to a vote.

And it’s a public process.

Interesting. You've seen the rules they're voting on I guess. Didn't know they'd been released! Cite?

 

[Helix]

Your words in the polls thread and here make it unambiguous... You prefer the Soviet system.

You’re and “Independent”... “Independent Communist” is more like it... but that’s oxymoronic... so you’re simply a Commi... or do you prefer “Soviet”?

your dishonesty is both boring and terminal. consider this to be my response to any subsequent posts.

 

[zimmer]

I've been rubbing Trump Fan Nation's noses in that Tweet (and it wasn't Trump's only "do not congratulate or give credit to Obama" Tweets from 2012) and they ignore it.

Blatant ignorance and cult like behavior.

Well... you really should think a little before posting. Then you might prevent yourself from doing things like smearing homosexuals in your anger... and making silly posts like the above... and making a complete fool of yourself.

Your hatred of Trump and his supporters like me has blinded you.

Now... if you would slow down and think for just one second, this is what you would have found and concluded:

Trump tweeted that out on Oct. 22, 2012.

Obama was using the “I killed Osama” during the election.

Osama was killed when? 17-months BEFORE Trump tweeted the tweet you so orgasmically posted... thinking you got him now!!!



Celebrating the mother****er’s death 24-hours after it being announced... perfect... let’s celebrate the death of that ****head.. Al Baghead.

Now... if Trump is doing the same as Obama during the election... then you can squeal.

But he won’t... why?

Because Trump has tons and tons of accomplishments to run on... and he’s not seen as an effeminate girly-man who draws “red lines” and then runs away from them.

Sorry to **** up your day... but it seems someone has to do your thinking for you.

You can thank me later.

 

[JasperL]

how do we know.... it's a secret process

Read any of 100 accounts on the committee process, who can attend, who's BEEN asking questions for the GOP, etc. I don't know if you're trying to gaslight me, but I know 100% that the GOP on the three committees are invited to attend, and have equal time for questioning all the witnesses, so you can quit trying to push this dishonest narrative with me.

Take it up with Trump defenders if you want. Lots of them seem to believe this bull****, because they're idiots or are being misled by GOP hacks and liars and don't know better.

 

[zimmer]

your dishonesty is both boring and terminal. consider this to be my response to any subsequent posts.

Your words in two posts, not hours apart reveal your sympathy for Soviet styled kangaroo courts.

 

[Perotista]

Finally, thank god. Sure she was only holding up the vote to protect moderate Democrats from having to go on record but that isn't going to hurt Democrats like she feared and if anything it was helping Trump. Now Republicans will have to defend him on substance, a proposition they might find difficult during damning public hearings from career officials in the intelligence community and DOJ.

Pelosi knows that 31 of the 40 seats the Democrats picked up in 2018 were in districts Trump won in 2016. Even so, I don't think voting aye to an impeachment inquiry this far out would hurt them much. Now if this comes to voting on impeachment articles to send over to the senate for trial, that could very well be a different case. That probably won't take place if it does until next year.

Even without the vote, most for being the Democrats now have the most seats to defend, they have 36 seats at risk of switching, races that will be very competitive to the Republicans 18. Currently the Democrats have 233 seats, the GOP 199 with 4 seats vacant. The Republicans need a net gain of 19 seats to retake control of the House.

 

[Gaius46]

Editor’s corrections in red:



Normally impeachment is about “High crimes and misdemeanors”... but Democrat Impeachment... or as Pelosi says.. Impeeschmnt... sinks to the level of... we hate Orange Man.

Do not edit my words.

Impeachment does not require a crime to be committed. High Crimes and Misdemeanors is not a legal term - it is meaningless with respect to criminal law.

You might try educating yourself on the matter. For a start here’s a link to Federalist 65 which is all about impeachment. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 65

Only about 1/3 of the articles of impeachment that the House has drafted has actually dealt with violations of criminal law. At least 6 of the articles against Andrew Johnson had nothing to do with actual crimes. And one was for his bringing “disgrace to the office of the Presidency”.

I know thinking for yourself is hard but you really should try it.

 

[American]

Nancy caved...yeah





good to see a vote

You think Durham sent her a text? :lamo

 

[The Mark]

Impeachment doesn’t require a crime.

Yet in this case we have crimes.

 

[zimmer]

Do not edit my words.

Impeachment does not require a crime to be committed. High Crimes and Misdemeanors is not a legal term - it is meaningless with respect to criminal law.

You might try educating yourself on the matter. For a start here’s a link to Federalist 65 which is all about impeachment. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 65

Only about 1/3 of the articles of impeachment that the House has drafted has actually dealt with violations of criminal law. At least 6 of the articles against Andrew Johnson had nothing to do with actual crimes. And one was for his bringing “disgrace to the office of the Presidency”.

I know thinking for yourself is hard but you really should try it.

I’ll post as I like... and threats don’t work with me. Quite the opposite.
###

Thinking, yes... you should... even do a little research... ahhh educate thyself.

We have something called The Constitution. What does it say?

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To repeat so you understand:

The specific grounds for impeachment set by the Constitution are, “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Orange Man Bad doesn’t qualify... so my correction of your post is correct...

“Democrat Impeachment does not require a crime”.
(Editor’s correction in red)

So... try again.

 

[Master Debator]

Pelosi knows that 31 of the 40 seats the Democrats picked up in 2018 were in districts Trump won in 2016. Even so, I don't think voting aye to an impeachment inquiry this far out would hurt them much. Now if this comes to voting on impeachment articles to send over to the senate for trial, that could very well be a different case. That probably won't take place if it does until next year.

Even without the vote, most for being the Democrats now have the most seats to defend, they have 36 seats at risk of switching, races that will be very competitive to the Republicans 18. Currently the Democrats have 233 seats, the GOP 199 with 4 seats vacant. The Republicans need a net gain of 19 seats to retake control of the House.

:shrug:


That only tells me two years in and those voter's were already regretting voting for Trump. Either way I'd prefer if right or wrong took precedence over what was politically expedient.

 

[Gaius46]

I’ll post as I like... and threats don’t work with me. Quite the opposite.
###

Thinking, yes... you should... even do a little research... ahhh educate thyself.

We have something called The Constitution. What does it say?

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

To repeat so you understand:

The specific grounds for impeachment set by the Constitution are, “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Orange Man Bad doesn’t qualify... so my correction of your post is correct...

“Democrat Impeachment does not require a crime”.
(Editor’s correction in red)

So... try again.

Except that one of the authors of the Constitution whoee writing in the Frderalist is a primary source for interpreting the Constitution disagrees with you. As does the actual history of impeachment.

So since you claim to know the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors what exactly is it? And why should anyone believe you over Alexander Hamilton and the history of the country?

Thinking is hard. Apparently so is reading.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

I don't think you understand the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Great Britain has never had a written constitution. And Parliament has never sat down to write an impeachment statute with a neat definition of the behavior that could get a royal minister impeached. Rather, Parliament has carefully kept impeachment open-ended, recognizing that one never knew in advance what form the royal urge to autocracy might take or what sort of devilry corrupt or ambitious officials might be up to. Over the centuries, Parliament impeached a good many people for a wide variety of misconduct. When it did, the articles of impeachment tended to describe the defendant’s behavior as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a usage that dates back to 1386. Critically, a great deal of the misconduct Parliament deemed impeachable wasn’t criminal at all, at least in the sense of violating any preexisting criminal statute or constituting any judge-created common-law crime.

I could provide examples in eye-glazing antiquarian detail. Suffice it to say that Parliament has impeached high officials for military mismanagement (Lord Latimer, 1376; the Earl of Suffolk, 1386; the Duke of Buckingham, 1626; and the Earl of Strafford, 1640), neglect of duty or sheer ineptitude (Attorney General Henry Yelverton; Lord Treasurer Middlesex, 1624; the Earl of Clarendon, 1667; Lord Danby, 1678; and Edward Seymour, treasurer of the Navy, 1680), and giving the sovereign bad advice, especially about foreign affairs (William de la Pole, 1450; Lords Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Strafford, 1715).

Parliament has also impeached a good many officers for abuse of power, sometimes criminal, but oftentimes not. When the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, the English-speaking world was riveted by the commencement of impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings, governor general of Bengal, on just such grounds. Few if any of the charges against Hastings were indictable crimes, but that was immaterial to Edmund Burke, the principal parliamentary prosecutor of Hastings. He said the charges “were crimes, not against forms, but against those eternal laws of justice, which are our rule and our birthright: his offenses are not in formal, technical language, but in reality, in substance and effect, High Crimes and High Misdemeanors.”

What Does ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ Actually Mean? - The Atlantic

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

More:

The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.860

The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.861 Treason is defined in the Constitution.862 Bribery is not, but it had a clear common law meaning and is now well covered by statute.863 “High crimes and misdemeanors,” however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.864 Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning.865

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase866 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions867 were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress’s “removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton dismissal of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.868 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior.869 The scope of the power has been the subject of continuing debate.870

Impeachable Offenses :: Article II. Executive Department :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia

This is probably the only thing you'd pay attention to though:

Is Lindsey Graham really a hypocrite on impeachment? A look at the record

 

[American]

Rudy Giuliani claims Joe Biden got $900K lobbying fees from Burisma | Daily Mail Online

I wonder if this rumor lit a fire under Pelosi. :lol:

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Rudy Giuliani claims Joe Biden got $900K lobbying fees from Burisma | Daily Mail Online

I wonder if this rumor lit a fire under Pelosi. :lol:

I sincerely doubt it.

The latest came Wednesday, when Ukrainian lawmaker Andriy Derkach announced he has evidence that Burisma paid Joe Biden himself for lobbying. Derkach claimed his source for this information was a journalist; he didn't name him. The Kyiv Post, an English-language newspaper, called Derkach "dubious."

Trump's Biden-Ukraine natural gas conspiracy theory: False, but alive

Derkach claimed Biden had received about $1 million in consulting fees from Burisma, the Ukrainan gas company at the heart of the impeachment investigation. Biden’s son, Hunter, previously served on Burisma’s board, and Trump and his supporters continue to repeat debunked accusations that Joe Biden blocked Ukraine from investigating Burisma to protect his son.

Derkach said the proof of these payments to Biden are documents that show Burisma transferring $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a company that Hunter Biden co-founded with Christopher Heinz, former Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson, in 2009.

But that’s all there is. The documents Derkach produced don’t show that Rosemont Seneca then making payments to Joe Biden, so these allegations are lacking in evidence.

Factchecking Andrei Derkach’s claims that Burisma paid Joe Biden almost $1 million – Big If True

Two days later Mr Giuliani met Mr Lutsenko. Again according to Mr Giuliani’s notes, Mr Lutsenko produced a document from Latvia appearing to show transfers of several million dollars from a Burisma bank account, including $1.15m to Mr Kwasnewski and undisclosed sums to Mr Biden and Mr Archer. He also spoke of a payment of $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a consultancy co-founded by Hunter Biden, in return for lobbying services by Mr Biden’s father. On October 9th Andriy Derkach, a former member of the Ukrainian secret service who has now become an mp, repeated that allegation. Mr Derkach has close ties to Mr Lutsenko. There is no evidence that this claim is true.

From Paul Manafort to Donald Trump’s fateful phonecall - The backstory to impeachment

 

[dcsports]

Zelensky asked for missles. Trump said I need a favor first.


Bribery

If it happened (and there seems to be a lot of questions about that) it would be closer to extortion, not bribery. And we still need a law.

 

[dcsports]

Impeachment doesn’t require a crime.

Technically no, but that's the clear standard that's been set and endorsed by Democrats. (And given the precedent of Bill Clinton, it would have to be a very serious crime). Unless, of course, they are being hypocritical.

 

[apdst]

i would have advised against it solely on the grounds of not letting the cultists direct the narrative. of course, i would have also advised against impeachment at all, as it is next to impossible, and Pence is the prize in the unlikely scenario in which the Senate convicts.

That's the chance you take. The truth will come out and that's probably what y'all are afraid of...lol

 

[apdst]

Impeachment doesn’t require a crime.

The Constitution says it does.

 

[dcsports]

Crime is crime is crime. I think William Shakespeare said that.... or something close to it.

A procedural crime, using a concept which has never been prosecuted. Even there it fails because no information ('thing of value') was exchanged.

 

[dcsports]

The Constitution says it does.

Technically, it doesn't. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a concept that is essentially 'conduct unbecoming' - abuses that are not necessarily crimes. For example, there was a proposal floated to impeach Obama for deliberately lying in order to pass the ACA. However, the precedent used is that it needs to be an actual crime.