Oh Donnie, You're invited

[Pete F.]

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

Projecting again, I see.

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

For impeachment, you only need enough votes in the House of Representatives to do it.

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

Abuse of power is a vague enough concept that convincing sounding narratives of all sorts can be concocted to appear to be an "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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Got Stripers]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

Just block him.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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^^^

[Got Stripers]

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