House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures to impeach Crooked Donald

let's see what happens when the Senate calls the whistleblower to testify. under oath. in public. and ICIG Atkinson. they can even call Adam Schiff. oh yeah .. they can. and everyone in his staff. only the Senate are they jury in an impeachment. not anyone in the House.

all public. all under oath.


BAHHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The whistleblower will not be called in to testify....Jesus. That is like calling in the person who reported a dead body when it turns out in fact there is a dead body.

They are going to call in people like they have in today. Someone who went up the chain of command because Trump was putting personal politics a head of national security.

from what I am hearing, it is a real inquiry vote, that if passed (and it will pass), will give Republicans right to question, listen in, obtain Counsel, and other good stuff. you strongly imply that will not occur, even if this passes.

IF you are right, I will join you in saying the process is a sham. I expect you to retract your statement, if the process continues as I outlined. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

And if you are right in that it is a real inquiry vote(we will see by the language finally presented), the I will join you in saying they are making strides in the process.

Now will the left be willing to re-adjudicate all they have done behind closed doors up until now under the new rules?

So the dims admit that what they are doing now is not an impeachment inquiry...lol

I want Trump to be impeached so his lawyers can put Joe and Hunter Biden on the stand and interrogate them. Hell, while we are at it, Hilary and Odumbo can testify.

What's the over/under on each's taking the 5th???!!!!!

The filth should be careful what they wish for...

They are still at the INQUIRY ( Investigational ) stage , SOOO they still have done NOTHING ,
Just more investigating nothing burgers Be hell they both Binden / and Big-T need investigating the Hypocrisy is the dims only want it one way.......

I don't know why you guys keep repeating that the Senate will not convict.. can we say "no shit Sherlock"? I don't know of a single person who ever thought they would.

the Republicans have been theatrically begging for an inquiry vote, now they are getting one, and will vote against it, in near unanimous fashion. I think Pelosi played them like a fiddle. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Yep, the odds are the fat lying bastard will be acquitted by the Senate but that isn’t chiseled in stone.

I understand once the Bi-Partisan vote is taken and passed the public introduction to testimony can begin by hearings. I also have read that FBI agents can be assigned to investigate the players who are refusing congressional subpoenas. That should bring more cooperation. I still believe there’s enough GOP members left in the Senate who haven’t been cowered by the Freedumb caucus who will look at the evidence and see the truth.

In the immortal words of the self proclaimed chosen one “ we’ll have to see what happens “

Yep, the odds are the fat lying bastard will be acquitted by the Senate but that isn’t chiseled in stone.

I understand once the Bi-Partisan vote is taken and passed the public introduction to testimony can begin by hearings. I also have read that FBI agents can be assigned to investigate the players who are refusing congressional subpoenas. That should bring more cooperation. I still believe there’s enough GOP members left in the Senate who haven’t been cowered by the Freedumb caucus who will look at the evidence and see the truth.

In the immortal words of the self proclaimed chosen one “ we’ll have to see what happens “ Originally Posted by Jaxson66

what exactly would the FBI be investigating? refusing a subpoena isn't a matter for them. that's a court issue. as Yussp Rider would say .. if he could ..



where's the link?

Vote? What vote? A vote to formalize procedures? That's not a vote for impeachment. And btw, procedures already exist. So a vote to change procedures? Geez, get it over with. Why is that a news item every day? Are we stuck in a Bill Murray movie?

They don't have anything concrete to tie to Donnie's ankles, so they just keep on talking. How about dealing with the Fed budget for the fiscal year just started.

Bring it. Why haven't they done it yet? I wanna see Joe Biden up on that stand. And a few other people too. Those Dems can't think it thru. It's gonna be a shit show...big time.

I'm amused that Pelosi finally had to give up trying to keep a handle on the squakers. I seriously think she's letting them out to get their noses burned by fire.
Even Schiff from her home state has gotten his nose toasted lightly just a couple days ago. And his rope-a-dope comment was laughable. It's as if they keep trying to light wet matches, but they themselves put the matches into water.

So that whole High Crimes and Misdemeanors thingy was just a clever ruse?? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

"The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)"

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...procedure.html

Yes an amendment to the big "C" that will go no where.
Similar discussion to the claimed missing comma in 2nd amendment.

The DPST House can vote to impeach Trmup for 'Breathing" - it is a political impeachment, not based on criminal conduct of high crimes or misdemeanors as defined by Federal Law.

Pelosi is running a political show determined the moment Trump was elected and the 2018 election results for the House of Representatives came in. Tlaib and others have been blathering about "Impeach the MF" from Day One. Even before Bartender Sandy came to DC to be :inaugurated and sign bills"!!

Yep, the odds are the fat lying bastard will be acquitted by the Senate but that isn’t chiseled in stone.

I understand once the Bi-Partisan vote is taken and passed the public introduction to testimony can begin by hearings. I also have read that FBI agents can be assigned to investigate the players who are refusing congressional subpoenas. That should bring more cooperation. I still believe there’s enough GOP members left in the Senate who haven’t been cowered by the Freedumb caucus who will look at the evidence and see the truth.

In the immortal words of the self proclaimed chosen one “ we’ll have to see what happens “ Originally Posted by Jaxson66

If I'm not mistaken Lindsey Graham currently has 50 co-sponsors to his resolution to condemn the House Impeachment proceedings.

Can you say nowhere near 2/3rds to convict Trump.

If I'm not mistaken Lindsey Graham currently has 50 co-sponsors to his resolution to condemn the House Impeachment proceedings.

Can you say nowhere near 2/3rds to convict Trump. Originally Posted by eccielover

snowe and murkowski refused to co-sign the resolution.

snowe and murkowski refused to co-sign the resolution. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

let's see how they vote for impeachment. or not.


"what we do in life, echoes in eternity" Maximus Decimus Meridius