Oh Donnie, You're invited
 

The Judiciary Committee scheduled the hearing, “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” for Dec. 4.

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Trump and his legal team to participate in its first public impeachment hearing next week, when lawmakers plan to convene a panel of constitutional scholars to inform the panel’s debate over whether the president’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Judiciary Committee convened a similar panel of expert witnesses in 1998 when it began debate over whether to impeach President Bill Clinton.

BREAKING NEWS: Trump Administration Lied About Wanting to Be Involved in Impeachment Process
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BREAKING NEWS:
PeteF is now wearing diapers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Projecting again, I see.

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps,but I can’t be sure. Projecting would be more along the lines of the giant poop you will make in your diaper after the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look down, I'm sure you could tell. Or look at the box, if it says Depends, they ain't tighty whiteys

1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.

It is if done for a personal favor and to hurt a political opponent in the upcoming election, not to mention it impacts our national security and probably cost lives. Personal gains are NOT the same as gains to help our national interest or security. Keep spinning, don’t you get dizzy doing it day in and day out, must hurt your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am anxious to see justice prevail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Abuse of power is cause for impeachment, as is obstruction.

Floridaman has told us repeatedly, he will seek and use information from foreign governments and agents to pervert our next presidential election to his personal, political, and financial benefit.

The facts—at least the broad outlines and necessary highlights—are already well known, so the question is not: What did the president say and when did he say it?

1) Sondland actually did directly tell a top Ukrainian official that military aid was conditioned, and did this after taking direction from Trump for months.

2) Many officials testified meeting was conditioned.

Those are smoking guns. The call itself is a smoking gun.

And there is a remedy............

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to … yield[ing] up the emoluments he enjoyed … might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients.

An ambitious man, too, when … seated on the summit of his country’s honors, … would be … violently tempted to embrace a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at every personal hazard.

And it is moving forward, Floridaman has chosen to continually obstruct in every manner possible short of sending the troops to invade Congress, though he did send his stooges to storm the SCIF (which most of the members had failed to attend in any case) and conduct a sit-in or something, for the purported reason that they were not public.
When the meetings were public, he cried because he felt he had inadequate representation.
When they say OK you can have representation and can appear, he claims executive privilege without precedent.
The only claim to executive privilege during impeachment was made by Nixon and decided unanimously against the Presidency by the Supreme Court sixteen days before he resigned.

Presidents from Washington on down have acknowledged that executive privilege is inapplicable--or in any event outweighed by congressional need as a co-equal branch of government--in impeachment inquiries. Polk's 1846 statement is representative. He “cheerfully admitted” that with “a view to the exercise of [the impeachment] power,” the House “has the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the Government,” and its power “in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, & to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.” In such cases, said Polk, “all the archives and papers of the Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to the inspection and control of a committee of [Congress] and every facility in the power of the Executive be afforded them to enable them to prosecute an investigation.”

That's a lot of dancing around the edges. In the meantime, in the center of it all, Zelensky said he didn't know of a quid pro quo, and that Trump did nothing wrong. It would have to be proved that he is lying.

The money was given.

Trump had a history of being concerned with Ukrainian corruption and that he wanted some assurance that the money wasn't going to be more money wasted on corruption.

Burisma was a part of the corruption. Unqualified Hunter Biden was possibly (probably in fact) hired for influence. The Prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was fired at the behest of Joe Biden and replaced by another prosecutor who had the same reputation of corruption as the fired one. And the investigation of Burisma was dropped. The hiring of Hunter Biden paid off.

The notion that Trump asked for the investigations into corruption to be reopened or to continue, including the hiring of Biden, strictly for personal gain is open to interpretation, opinion, assumption, but difficult to prove, even with circumstantial evidence. When circumstantial evidence can be interpreted in different ways it is not strong enough to prove guilt and not important enough to overcome direct evidence or other circumstantial evidence that contradict it.

Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're wrong on both counts.

Just block him.

I was pointing out that PeteF's party line narrative was only one side of what will be presented in the Senate trial. It will not be a cut and dry presentation of what Pete considers irrefutable "evidence." The other side, or other party line, can be derived from direct and circumstantial evidence as well. It's not the inevitable cake walk of indisputable testimony that Pete seems to think will happen. The notion that Pete's evidence is so overwhelming and without rebuttal and contradicting narrative supported by credible evidence is a pipe dream.

Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After being asked directly, Sondland said he had zero direct evidence of a quad pro quo, in his own words, he made a presumption. But he admitted to having zero evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?

Did you sip a few Manhattan cocktails before you wrote this?

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a presumption, not direct evidence.

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

Hell last week they were all Corrupt Ukraines now there evidence of innocence :faga:

The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you claiming it’s false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^

Pretty sad that on the world stage at the Nato meeting, our presidential leader whines like a spoiled brat about the Impeachment and airing our dirty laundry for the world to see. In contrast Nancy attends a climate change summit in spite of a Trumps desire to pull out of any agreement to address the fake science and when asked about the impeachment, she said while overseas its policy not to speak ill of the president or discuss our internal issues. One is respectful and the other childish, not to mention he is expending the trade war and now suggest a deal with China might have to wait until after the 2020 election. Manufacturing is taking the hit and farmers will get coal for Xmas, it’s what Trump has been collecting from every stocking he has had since birth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah....remember when pelosi went to syria to kiss assad's ass...I guess you don't....proceed with your gibberish

Syrian civil war Started in March 2015 she visited in april 2007

your getting so desperate you dont even take the time to check the Facts.. Did you miss Trump handing Syria back to Assad russia and Turkey you're ok with that, and its not surprising :faga:

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haters gonna hate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so??

nancy is pretty childish....she tries to sound adult but she's not fooling anyone...well, you I guess

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should learn to pay attention, instead of reciting baloney.
We spent years and millions training and equipping Ukrainian forces and they are now able to use the Javelin systems.
They are missiles, not magic spells

Fiona Hill: (13:54)
I was not initially in 2015 before I joined the government. And I’m sure that many people on the committee have seen that I wrote an opinion piece with a colleague at the Brookings Institution in that juncture. Because I was very worried at that particular point in time that the Ukrainian military was not in a fit state to really take on board sophisticated weapons, be they defensive or offensive weapons. And I worried that there was not a longterm sustainable plan given the overwhelming force that the Russians could apply against the Ukrainians. However, when I came into government in 2017 and started to interact with all of my colleagues in the Pentagon and you had Laura Cooper here yesterday, I realized in fact that there’d been an awful lot of work done on this. And that there was a clear and consistent plan for the sustainability long term of the Ukrainian military so I changed my mind.

Steve Castor: (14:45)
Okay. And you’re in fact, one of the, I believe the only witness that we’ve spoken to that has been able to articulate the opposition to providing the javelins. And as we understand it during the Obama administration, the interagency consensus was in fact to provide the javelins but they were not provided. Are you aware of the decision back then?

Fiona Hill: (15:05)
I was, and I think it was very much made on a political basis about concerns that this would provoke the Russians depending on how this was presented. And we were very mindful of that also when there were the discussions internally about the lethal defensive weapons inside of the administration.

Steve Castor: (15:22)
And Mr. Holmes, you’re on the ground in Kiev and the javelins have now been authorized, provided. What’s the view from the field, the U.S. embassy as to the effectiveness of the javelins?

David Holmes: (15:39)
They’re an important strategic deterrent. They’re not actively employed in combat operations right now, but the mere idea that were the Russians to advance substantially using certain kinds of armor that the Ukrainians would have this capability deters them from doing so. And it also thereby sends a very important symbolic message to the Ukrainian military that they have access to these high end technology and that we trust them to do it. I would only add also they’ve offered to buy some using their own funds. The initial traunch was provided through basically a program to do that, but they’ve now offered to spend their own money to buy more, so I think they think they’re important

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device