Reply With Quote
When is she still afraid of egg on her face
She knows right now she has nothing
you think he was gonna come out and confirm he was thinking about resigning?... you give so much weight to these public denials
When is she still afraid of egg on her face
She knows right now she has nothing
How many pages will this one get before the president walks away with nary a blemish again? It'll pick up once Johnny boy stops jacking off to his Westbrook poster
She knows she doesn't have the votes. It's not now or never.
TSA still thinks the Q arrests are going to happen, for example.
If A of I will include
obstruction from Mueller report
soliciting campaign aid from a foreign country
should also include
secret meetings with foreign active enemy country
Trash University fraud, $25M fine
etc, etc
could go on for pages.
Impeachment is political, not legal.
Set up a trap for Senate Repugs to vote it down, if Dems even send it to the Senate
it's awesome watching you cry daily over orange man bad! another 5 years of this will be the cherry on top.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-25-2019 at 04:59 PM.
lol "founding fathers"... yeah, we needed the obvious because it wasn't clear. well, maybe not obvious to the left because yall are brain dead tbh.
ps: when were glass beer mugs invented?
The Trump-Zelensky Phone Call: Key Takeaways From Two New Do ents
Both do ents should be treated with caution.
A footnote in the five-page reconstructed transcript says it is not verbatim, and its text contains ellipses.
a footnote in the office of legal counsel memo says it is a rewritten version and that “we have changed the prior version to avoid references to certain details that remain classified.”
Notably,
the revised memo talks only about a single phone call,
but the inspector general told Congress the whistle-blower’s complaint concerned more than one action.
1. Trump asked for an investigation into the Bidens.
2. Trump alluded to American aid, while not explicitly linking his request to unfreezing it, the do ent shows.
3. Zelensky agreed to pursue an inquiry into the Bidens.
4. White House officials, the whistle-blower, and the intelligence community inspector general were concerned that Trump may have broken the law.
5. The whistle-blower did not have direct knowledge of the call and may not like Trump, but the Trump-appointed inspector general still found the information credible.
6. Trump said Barr would call the Ukrainian president about another investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/ukraine-phone-call-transcript.html?emc=rss&partner=rss
here's a question to all those up in arms over that call whether or not trump tried to get dirt on his opposition from a foreign leader/nation....
why would yall push so hard for fake news russiagate but not for ukrainegate involving hunter and joe biden? i thought yall wanted more transparency within our gov?
Man, this dude is always involved in some
What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?
for the purposes of carrying out further investigation, the House’s hand would be strengthened significantly if it initiated impeachment proceedings.
Several experts have argued that the House might have a stronger legal position in disputes with the executive branch over information and witness appearances if it were undertaking impeachment proceedings rather than investigations
“the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations.
From the beginning of the Federal Government, presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might with‐hold in a legislative investigation.”
today’s judiciary committee may not need the same kind of special powers it was granted as part of previous impeachment inquiries.
the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its cons utional power to impeach” the president in question.
In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.
First, the authorizing resolutions outlined procedures for issuing subpoenas. Second, the measures laid out a process for taking staff depositions.
Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly.
Yet while today’s judiciary committee already has some of the useful powers for impeachment proceedings available, it could pursue additional procedural items if the House chooses to specifically authorize impeachment.
the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings,
The current judiciary committee would not be bound by precedents to afford the president these same procedural rights,
Impeachment proceedings may also give the judiciary committee a stronger case for obtaining certain materials protected from disclosure by statute,
like the grand jury materials from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
there is some historical precedent for the House judiciary committee to obtain such information from the court—most notably in the context of the Watergate impeachment proceedings.
the power to impeach is contained in an entirely separate and discrete section of the U.S. Cons ution.
The decision of whether to impeach requires the development of a detailed, backward-looking factual record of specific conduct by the president.
We think it is entirely possible—probable even—that judges would recognize the primacy of impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States and expedite consideration of such cases.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-pow...iry-give-house
Dems should get the IRS to release Trash's tax returns, which IS THE LAW for nearly 100 years
what are you saying the Bidens did that was illegal?
still with her
Trump attacks whistleblower’s lawyer’s past Biden donations despite also having donated to Biden
Jake Tapper
✔@jaketapper
You know who else donated to Biden?
Donald J. Trump, in 2001.
https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&page=5&q=donald+trump++&sort=D&t ype=donors …https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176922746976178178 …
OpenSecrets
opensecrets.org
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Wow! “Ukraine Whistleblower’s lead attorney donated to Biden.” @FreeBeacon
2:45 PM - Sep 25, 2019
https://occupydemocrats.com/2019/09/25/trump-attacks-whistleblowers-lawyers-past-biden-donations-despite-also-having-donated-to-biden/
too easy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
