Articles of impeachment.........so far.

I posted in post #60...but here it is again: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

 

And let's not pretend that Trump would cooperate under ANY circumstance....ok?

I mean don't insult the intelligence of the reader here or make yourself out to be "less than truthful"

 

OK...now point to the part that supports your nonsense...because it's explained here

https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...ouses-role-in-the-impeachment-inquiry-process

And you're flat out wrong

 

Your link is discussing mine....and I'll quote your link for you:
“The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment,” it said.

Speaker Pelosi’s announcement started the first part of that process on Tuesday, but she didn’t introduce a resolution formally launching an impeachment inquiry. "

 

I think it would like it better if this was grounds for a new cartoon
series.We already have the House Democrats acting like Little
Mafia Dons.But that don't make for good cartoons.
Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck may require contract bonus and
added perks.Not so much with Elmer Fudd.
Definitely not at all with The Road Runner.
We already gots a good cartoon character in a pencilneck pol.
And the less than morbid blubbery antics of a guy who
literally waddles down the halls of congress and had to lose
over 100 pounds in order to keep his Docked Yacht from taking
water if he sat to long on the wrong side of the boat.

 

Just a big zero on collusion, the reason for the investigation to begin with

 

Bee ess. I guess you didn't read it.

Volume I detailed the conspiracy investigation, and in that Mueller found that although plenty of evidence existed, there wasn't ebnough to make an ironclad case, so he chose not to indict anyone. IMHO, he should have at least indicted Junior, Kushner, and Manafort for that Trump Tower meeting.

Volume II detailed about a dozen instances of Trump's attempts to obstruct the investigation, and at least eight of those instances met all criteria for an obstruction case.

Read the report for yourself, because until you do, you have no credibility on the subject.

 

No, sorry, you're the one making the claim, so proof is on you. If you can't or won't cite the rule, you (again!) have no credibility.

 

Cite the rule, please.

 

See post 76 and 79

 

True, but there is no House rule that says an impeachment inquiry requires a vote of the full House.

Nice try, but Nancy will decide when the House votes, not Trump.

 

That is a very strong possibility if the House leadership decides that a failed impeachment is Trump's only chance for reelection. As things stand right now, the Republican Senate will acquit. If that doesn't change, and if the American people oppose impeachment, it is likely the House will not impeach.

However, they will continue their investigations with an appropriate amount of publicity to ensure Trump's defeat in 2020.

 

President Trump's term is almost over. Why would anyone bother doing this now, unless they were desperate?? It would be better for the country to put opinions out there and then let the voters decide. If Dems are certain they are right, they will win the 2020 election, right? So, what is the worry and the purpose of putting the country through this impeachment spectacle? Which makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

Al Green said it best, that without removing Trump by force (which would likely start a civil war), he will win a second term.

 

Did you read your own post? It says:

“The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.”

The full House votes on the articles of impeachment -- we all knew that -- not on an impeachment inquiry.

 

Exactly. Pelosi is very aware of all of that. So is Trump.

Why else is he begging to be impeached? Why else has made such stupid decisions? Why else does he sound like the village idiot? Impeachment is Trump's only chance.

 

There isn't even an official impeachment inquiry. Dems are afraid to vote to start one.

 

What "makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the world" is having elected someone like Trump in the first place. He made people afraid and angry, the only thing he's good at as far as politics is concerned.

First you say his term is almost over, them you claim he'll be reelected if impeachment proceeds. I disagree with that. The impeachment is congress doing their constitutional duty, which IMO they should have started when the Mueller report came out. Unfortunately, even half of congress didn't read the thing, very disappointing.

All these months, Pelosi has sublimated the rule of law for the sake of political expediency. This time, Trump did it, he confessed to it publicly (because he's too ignorant to know right from wrong),and he's getting impeached for it.

Even if the Senate won't convict and remove him from office, the "scarlet letter" of the impeachment process will keep him from winning another election. And once out if office, those 8 or so counts of obstruction detailed in the Mueller report will have handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit waiting for him. His desperation is due to that ... the statute of limitations on those charges is 5 years. Reelection would allow him to skate.

 

Mueller and his team reviewed millions of documents, all of which was supplied, without any hindrance. Everyone that Mueller wanted to question was provided, with absolutely no hindrance. Not once was executive privilege invoked during the entire investigation. Even Mueller admits that he was not hindered in any way by Trump or his administration.

If solicitation of assistance from a foreign government is not allowed during an upcoming election then ALL Presidents would have had to been impeached. IE: You might want to refine your "charge" there a bit. It's about as broad as a football stadium with no roof.

 

"In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it." if said by President Trump would this be a crime? If so can some one explain why?

 

Yes Nancy’s never taken the vote the quote in 79

 

And there you have it, they will use the house for political campaign purposes

 

Just to throw in a late-breaking factual report on the manure pile you are building...

Shiff and the Dems are now looking for ways to keep the identity of the whistleblower from being revealed to republicans on the congressional committee.

Seems they want to try to prosecute for impeachment with an anonymous witness.....

Exactly what we have come to expect them to see as fair play.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...-identity-from-republicans-in-congress-report

 

So???

 

No, sorry, I have credibility and also the sense not to waste my time showing you self-evident stuff.

 

You should have actually read the link then

The Constitution doesn’t offer specific guidance on rules for impeachment inquiries and the House determines its own rules of parliamentary conduct. According to the CRS, the House’s rules allow for an impeachment inquiry to go forward without an initial resolution but the matter would move on the Judiciary Committee at some point. (The website Axios reported on Tuesday night that Pelosi told House members in a closed-door meeting that any potential charges from the five other committees would be sent to the Judiciary Committee.)