About this "It is not impeachable" nonsense!

My comment was that EVERY witness testified to conduct that is impeachable...and EVERY witness did.

As for sources...Mick Mulvaney and Donald Trump have both testified to impeachable conduct.

You tire too easily then. Perhaps this kind of thing is not for you.

 

Congress soon will study what are impeachable offenses. So how can the witness call the shots?

 

How do any of them know what is impeachable???? Did you tell them???? Or do they just by happenstance believe the same thing you do and so it wouldn't matter if it was accurate or not.

For the record IIRC every witness at the public hearing was asked if they witnessed any crime by the president. All said they did not.

 

Whatever the House says is impeachable...IS IMPEACHABLE.

The testifiers do not have to know it is impeachable...they just have to testify.

You are getting out of sorts. Perhaps you ought to take a short break.

I DOESN'T matter. All they do is to testify...and the House determines the rest.

Try to grasp that concept.

Their responsibility was to TESTIFY...not make a determination of whether they witnessed a crime or not.

In any case, it does not have to be a crime to be an impeachable offense.

 

So you see no issue with the Senate Majority Leader committing himself to nothing other than stymieing the President at every turn and having as his ONLY real agenda..."to make Obama a one term President"

And exactly what makes Schiff an "outlaw" again?

 

Wait...they refused to make that judgement and instead stated facts as they occurred...

You use that refusal as vindication and now return to it?

Welcome to pretzel logic folks

 

Schiff is damaging our election process far more than the Russians ever could have. He has the tools to try to defeat Trump in 2020 and it is called impeachment.

 

You missed this exchange with Ambassador Taylor.

 

Not constitutionally.

Your claim was that they testified that it was impeachable. But nice try at a dodge.

 

Oh, yes it is.

If the House decides to impeach...you are impeached. If the House decides that something is a high crime, a misdemeanor, treason, or bribery...

...it can impeach.

The House decides...and if the House says it is impeachable...it is.

I never said that. In fact, I specifically said that the testifiers are not qualified to decided it a thing is impeachable or not. That is up to the House. The testifiers job is to testify.

Try to get your story straight.

 

The claim was that the witnesses testified to impeachable offenses. (Of course now the claimant is back peddling and dodging the point.) And only one testified to facts (before offering his opinion.) All the others testified to what they were told was fact by someone else's opinion. Is pretzel logic the same as twisted feinting and dodging?

 

Well, no it is not, not constitutionally. But if you believe the moon is made of green cheese, be my guest.

Is my quoting you getting the story straight?
Frank said: ↑
My comment was that EVERY witness testified to conduct that is impeachable...and EVERY witness did.

 

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Mrs. Clinton’s personal office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

 

USA Today reports, "House Republicans drafted a report to counter Democratic arguments for the impeachment of President Donald Trump for his dealings with Ukraine.

"Republicans wrote in a 123-page draft report that the evidence doesn’t support accusations of pressure or that Trump tried to cover up his conversation with Zelensky. Trump released a summary of the July 25 call on Sept. 25 and has argued that he was justified in encouraging an investigation because of widespread corruption in Ukraine."

The only problem with that is that in his April 21 phone call and his July 25 phone call, Trump never mentioned general corruption in Ukraine, only the possible, unexplained corruption of Hunter Biden, his main rival's son. https://apnews.com/92fd8a4743e8447a8f8a7ec301ebe993

The GOP report largely claims there is no evidence of Trump's crimes. “The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” said the draft report from Republican Reps. Devin Nunes of California on the Intelligence Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Oversight and Reform Committee and Michael McCaul of Texas on the Foreign Affairs Committee. "The fundamental disagreement apparent in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is a difference of world views and a discomfort with President Trump’s policy decisions."

The last is a crock. The House Intelligence Committee has been very specific in its charges against Trump, and none of it has to do with Trump's policies.

Also, Trump incriminated himself when he held up the military aid approved by Congress days before the July 25 call. Then, when Zelensky expressed interest in buying Javelins, Trump immediately replied, "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

The GOP defense is ridiculous, although I agree with them in one instance. Trump did not say, "President Zelensky, I am going to ask your government to interfere in our Presidential election for my personal benefit, then I will bribe you to provide incentive."

The report said there was nothing wrong with this request.

"None of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.” That is a lie. Several witnesses corroborated the extortion, but they didn't have to. Trump's chief of staff admitted that the money was held up to get Zelensky to investigate what Trump wanted investigated. The he told the nation, "Get over it." The GOP report made no mention of Mulvaney.

USA Today continues, "The report noted that Trump has a right to block witnesses and documents from being provided because the inquiry has been “an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.'"

Republicans say this a lot. There is only one problem. They never say why the impeachment inquiry "does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry." Neither does this report. Trump Republicans just say it, and we are supposed to believe it on their say so alone.

This is a perfunctory defense of Trump because Nunes, Jordan, and McCall all know Trump is guilty as charged, and they are relying on Trump's flunkies in the Senate to exonerate him. Trump isn't even sending his lawyers to the hearings to defend him. Why bother? He is guilty.

 

What does finding Hillary Emails have to do with our elections????

NOTHING!!!!!!

 

Many watched Rep. Adam Schiff and his summary of the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment report. He was calm, professional, informative, and convincing. He was competent and skillful in his presentation.

This is our President:

“I learn nothing from Adam Schiff, I think he’s a maniac. I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew up with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he’s a very sick man, and he lies.”

Trump's press secretary said "Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing.”

Trump's fans love this in their President.