Pelosi lodging threats?

There was plenty of indirect evidence presented during the Impeachment Inquiry, by some 17 witnesses. Direct witnesses were prevented from testifying under the guise of an interpretation of "executive privilege" that extended beyond that claimed by any other President, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, whose claim was struck down by the Courts. No trial prevents the introduction of new evidence related to the charges...whether the Senate trial on impeachment or a criminal trial in a court of law. Republicans, IMO, have used a stupid circular argument - i.e. you can't have witnesses in the investigative process and you can't call witnesses at the trial that weren't called in the investigative process. It's the "Catch 22" scenario of the "open door policy" of squadron commander Major Major Major. Anyone may see the Major at any time, on any subject, provided he isn't there. One premise contradicts the other resulting in the impossibility of forming any logical conclusion. But, maybe if a majority of the electorate believes that, then they deserve what they get...I just doubt they will.

 

Giggle giggle, snort. He wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

 

That's just what it boils down to! Democrats are cursed with making precedent that always come back to bite them in the ass so why change to a more intelligent solution now? The only thing a Democrat can do is create chaos and bad policy! Now the only one that will qualify to be President is God, no mortal man can qualify! And if he/she does, we can just resort to the leftist play book and have party patriots lie and and use hearsay to invent a reason to throw them out

 

In mid 19th century terms, sure.
Not today's.
Odd how you don't understand this.

 

Here is the important exchange during the testimony of Amb. Sondland:

Rep. Mike Turner: "Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?"

Sondland: "No."

Rep. Mike Turner: "OK. So, the president never told you about any preconditions for the aid to be released?"

Sondland: "No."

Rep. Mike Turner: "If you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says 'Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid.' Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? Because I don’t think you’re saying that."

Sondland: "I’ve said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming."

Rep. Mike Turner: "So no one heard. Not just the president. Giuliani didn’t tell you. Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

Sondland: "I think I already testified..."

Rep. Mike Turner: "No! Answer the question. No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?"

Sondland: "Yes."

Rep. Mike Turner: "So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations."

Sondland: "Other than my own presumption."

The reason why so many people have latched onto this false assumption that "President Trump engaged in a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden," was because idiots like Sondland and Vindman speculated as to what nefarious motives they think Trump wanted, then made up their own assumptions, and then spread these false assumptions all around Washington DC, as if they were fact.

 

It's pointing out the giant hypocrisy the makes the fauxrage of the left, impossible to take seriously. Obama was a warhawk who did whatever he wanted, Congress be damned.

 

I've followed it closely enough to conclude that in fact the articles of impeachment are true and that he deserves to be removed from office AND prevented from ever running for public office again. Neither you, me, or the Supreme Court defines what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, other than the vote of a simple majority by the House. That's been done. Whether or not enough of the Senate agree with his impeachment will determine whether or not he's removed from office. A "high crime and misdemeanor" need not be a statutory crime, but a political crime against the State and, consequently, against the people, who convey their sovereignty via the State and the "legal authority" of the State rests with the Legislative Branch...and no other. The Legislative branch determines "law." The Executive Branch only carries that law out, while the Judiciary interprets the law if there is a conflict between parties. This is the reason that while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate trial, the CJ does not have the power over the Senate that a judge would have over a jury in a criminal case...because the people who make the law are sitting in judgement. The judge "presides" only in the sense of ensuring that the Senate observe its own rules and to maintain order and decorum. There its no appeal to the final vote.

 

Even if Mother Teresa were the president, if she were a Republican, the dems in the House would just start an impeachment inquiry. It would not matter if she was squeaky clean, the dems know that by sending a flurry of subpoenas for executive branch documents, personnel and her personal advisors, friends and family, that eventually she would balk, at the abuse of power from house overreach, and when she appealed to the SCOTUS, the dems would impeach her for "obstructing Congress."

That's the new precedent here, no crime is needed any more to impeach a president. Just impeach the president for asserting his right to appeal to the SCOTUS over executive privilege once the House crosses the line.

 

Never was necessary. Impeachment, conviction and removal from office is a political process, not a criminal one. Congress represents the sovereignty of the people. Not the President (who is elected via the state electors, determined by State law) and not the Judiciary (who is appointed via Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation). That was the principal point of "liberal democracy." Republics composed of sovereign electorates, who delegated their sovereignty to their electoral representatives, called "legislatures," or in our case, Congress. That was the reason for the Revolution...not against the King, but against being taxed while being excluded from Parliament.

 

Obstruction of congress, is not an impeachable offense, especially when it only involved the House impeachment inquiry. Nowhere does the Constitution say that once the house starts their inquiry, that the president is now subservient to the House, and must submit and assist their impeachment of him.

On the one hand people say that impeachment is a political matter. Then in the next breath they want to pretend the inquiry is a legal proceeding, and they apply terms and conditions to it as if it's a grand jury criminal investigation.

It's still a partisan, Pelosi controlled House, engaging in partisan political matters to try in prevent Trump from being reelected by impeaching him and removing him from office, so he cannot be reelected in one way or another.

Well it sure as hell should not be whatever it takes to remove the opposition party's president from office. Which is what the Democrats have reduced it to.

Bill Clinton lied under oath, and encouraged others to do so too, in order to cover up an inappropriate sexual affair. That type of conduct, while definitely inappropriate and illegal, it did not rise to the level of treason, or other high crimes and high misdemeanors, according to the definitions of those crimes as defined back in the late 1700s.

But if we allow the terms for impeachment to become justified, simply because a president is appealing House impeachment inquiry overreach to the SCOTUS, then we will always be impeaching presidents for any politically contrived notion.

 

You completely missed my point. The dems are using the inquiry as a stand alone tool to impeach a president for "obstruction of Congress." Just start the inquiry, and send out subpoenas for everything, and everyone, and simply wait until the president objects due to House overreach, then impeach him for it.

 

Impeachment by the House doesn't remove the President from office, but may be accomplished by a simple majority. Conviction on impeachment via the Senate trial does, but it requires a much higher bar, with 2/3rds of the Senate. The Founders made it relatively easy for the House to impeach, but countered that with a high bar for the Senate to convict. And, yes....as the voting franchise expands, House impeachment may become similar to a "no confidence vote" in parliamentary systems, but would you do to change it?

 

Pretty much. It's a new day now, circumstantial evidence is now the new leftist norm for conviction, only problem they have is that bullshit plays both ways ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

You're missing the letters sent to Congress, by the WH, claiming executive privilege on a "blanket basis" covering all private Presidential conversations. Although he came close, even Nixon didn't make such a claim, and the Courts overruled him on his claim of "national security." There is an executive privilege which applies to private consultations regarding the performance of Presidential duties. The President may think that reelection is a "presidential duty," but it is not. Additionally, the Courts have ruled that a President may not use executive privilege to cover up a crime. When he ordered the appropriation of aid to Ukraine withheld pending the Ukrainian President's public announcement of investigations into Biden and Crowdstrike (a conspiracy theory debunked by his own administration) and went outside of regular government channels, via his private attorney, he forfeited executive privilege on conversations related to the impeachable acts of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which are "high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

Mother Teresa died. She was never President of the United States, but if she had been it would not have been as a Republican. She spent a lifetime in the slums, caring for the poor. Trump spent a lifetime as a spoiled rich kid, gaming the system to his personal advantage and conning people from Condo purchases, to University degrees, to contributions to his fake Foundation.

 

I did not get the impression anyone but Pelosi said them. The one way or another thing was a threat and a call to arms to every Trump deranged leftist who is armed and believes they have a chance to take out Trump. On one hand she was talking about a lawful process and on the other there is no other option but something of a violent nature. Make no mistake about this, these actions are those of a cabal who agreed to the stakes when they threw their lot together to get Trump even before the election. Since they have no regard for the law with what they have been doing to Trump during his entire term so far it isn't a stretch that they will try to kill him if all else fails. A bloodless coup refers to a a coup that does not involve an assassination or a domestic military show-of-force. A bloodless coup involves unconstitutional or illegal activities in order to seize power from a democratically-elected government. Sound familiar? The Democrats are way past that now and the trick bag is empty so what else is there?

 

You should report them to the FBI.

 

Two and a half years into his first term, Barack Obama's approval rating was at 42%. That means his "disapproval" was running at 58%.

But you know who else had those exact same numbers two and a half years into his first term as President?

Donald Trump...

 

Her and her Democrats have their goose cooked.Undercooked and
left sitting out to spoil.No stuffing or gravy.Even the pet dog is making
faces.This is what to expect from the New Democrat Party.
Just loose lips and even looser talk.Nothing that makes sense or helps
Joe American.Now it's all about this Lev Parnas guy who is talking.
Yeah,because he's under Indictment.Spilling beans that don't exist.
He actually had a site with the word " Fake " in it.
MSNBC all over themselves trying to make political hay over
what this Lev guy has to say.
Whatever happened to MSNBC Number one big mouth storyteller
Michael Avenatti.He's sitting in an L.A. jail denied bail.
A verifiable Liar,Cheat,Crook and Bully.

 

But you don’t want to see the evidence. I watched the hearings from end to end. Your descriptions of the the testimony, and of the evidence does not square with what is publicly known. Plain and simple. You can deny until the cows home but it doesn’t change the facts.

There is a reason that Trump has been refusing to cooperate with Congress. The Federal government is in the business of creating a whole lot of paperwork. Everything everyone does is recorded. If everything was on the up and up, it would be an easy matter to show how everything proceeded step by step. And all the paperwork would be in order. But it isn’t and he can’t.

It seems that Trump and the Republicans feel that they can’t win without help from foreigners. What does that say about Republicans.

 

Not necessarily. There tends to be a gap in the middle of those undecided.

 

Mount Rushmore has two liberals, the original progressive, and the only truly bipartisan president.

 

In mid 19th century terms, sure.
Not today's.
Odd how you don't understand this.

 

You live in Portland, so... yes you do.