Impeachment -- Secret Senate Vote?

[lyman]

Here's the video of Joe bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. Yovanovich refused to approve visas for Ukrainian officials who wanted to talk to Congress about it.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...EEC8&FORM=VIRE

apparently she (Yavanovich) has already 'misspoke' over her knowledge of Biden and his son during testimony,

[pmclaine]

If you repeat story long enough will it be true? Umm no.

There is much irony in your words Mr Schiff.........

[togor]

There is much irony in your words Mr Schiff.........

The story he's telling is a simple one--Trump leveraged foreign policy and Congressional appropriations for personal political purposes. Do you deny that there is evidence to that effect? Does anyone?

[pmclaine]

The story he's telling is a simple one--Trump leveraged foreign policy and Congressional appropriations for personal political purposes. Do you deny that there is evidence to that effect? Does anyone?

I do deny.

...as do others here. Are you not reading the posts?

Question for you.

You are charged with a crime.

Would you find it foul the prosecution refused your defense to ask questions of witnesses or prohibited you from confronting your accuser?

[togor]

In your denial you are putting your personal preference for a certain outcome ahead of the testimony of multiple people who had a much better view of the situation than you do. That's your right but it's not persuasive outside your bubble.

Re: Your Question. In a criminal or civil trial proceeding where people are giving testimony under oath, my representative gets his shot. Impeachment is a political process, but the GOP gets equal time. If they're blowing it, that's on them for doing a crappy job representing Trump. No pity.

If it gets to a Senate trial, more rights accrue to the President. The House is more like a Grand Jury, and no, targets of the Grand Jury investigations don't get to cross examine witnesses.

[Gun Smoke]

Would you find it foul the prosecution refused your defense to ask questions of witnesses or prohibited you from confronting your accuser?

By definition, a kangaroo court.

[Roadkingtrax]

These were the house rules put in place by the Republican majority during the Obama years, correct?

[Gun Smoke]

These were the house rules put in place by the Republican majority during the Obama years, correct?

I doubt that whoever made the rules indicated that the procedures could be made up as they went along, no proof of anything, witnesses couldn't be disclosed or questioned and everything would run along party lines with no bipartisanship involvement.

However, Trump asked the Ukrainian president for info on Biden per the rules signed by bill clinton.

[S.A. Boggs]

There is a parallel to the current Congressional "investigation" and that was the "trials" of those who tried to remove Hitler.
Sam

[togor]

Question to anyone with a complaint about process: is there any process you'd support that would also make top level people like Pompeo, Barr and Mulvaney available to Congressional questioning, under oath? I'm guessing the answer is "no", in which case why complain about process at all? Process is clearly not the problem.

[Gun Smoke]

The "process" should only begin with an actual, proven, impeachable offense such as was the case with bill clinton.

There should be no "process" or preceding's just because you want someone out of office, scared of the corruption he is exposing in the political parties, want him out to secure the upcoming election or to get rid of someone simply because they aren't a part of the swamp "system".

All we and the world are seeing now is a lawless kangaroo court which will come back and bite them good.

Ha ha.

[Vern Humphrey]

It's funny how the Constitution goes out the window when the Democrats come in.

I note at least one judge has ruled Trump has to turn over his tax returns. Why?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of what offense is he suspected? What is the "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation?"

[Gun Smoke]

It's funny how the Constitution goes out the window when the Democrats come in.

I note at least one judge has ruled Trump has to turn over his tax returns. Why?



Of what offense is he suspected? What is the "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation?"

Perhaps it's because they can't use the race card that they benefitted obama with on a daily basis and the media completely wore out the issue of Trump having a bone spur while giving bill clinton a free ride on avoiding the draft.

Since publically disclosing your taxes is NOT a requirement to run for office and the IRS has no issues that we know of then the subject never should have come up.

But again, why the taxes? Why not something more important like how many pairs of socks he owns? Owning socks is not a constitutional right. This would have more merit on the democrats impeachment reasonings than what they have come up with so far.

[Vern Humphrey]

Perhaps it's because they can't use the race card that they benefitted obama with on a daily basis and the media completely wore out the issue of Trump having a bone spur while giving bill clinton a free ride on avoiding the draft.

Since publically disclosing your taxes is NOT a requirement to run for office and the IRS has no issues that we know of then the subject never should have come up.

But again, why the taxes? Why not something more important like how many pairs of socks he owns? Owning socks is not a constitutional right. This would have more merit on the democrats impeachment reasonings than what they have come up with so far.

The Democrats have openly said the Constitution doesn't matter any more. So let them go home -- the Congress is a creature of that same Constitution.

[togor]

The "process" should only begin with an actual, proven, impeachable offense such as was the case with bill clinton.

There should be no "process" or preceding's just because you want someone out of office, scared of the corruption he is exposing in the political parties, want him out to secure the upcoming election or to get rid of someone simply because they aren't a part of the swamp "system".

All we and the world are seeing now is a lawless kangaroo court which will come back and bite them good.

Ha ha.

The impeachable offense under consideration is that Trump focused on the theme of "corruption" not in any tangible broad sense, as a priority for the State Department, but rather for a very specific Biden-oriented purpose, through an irregular channel of non-employees (Giuliani, Volker), and Political Ambassadors (Sondland) who were working outside their portfolio.

I've given you a starting point for your "process", which is an investigation. You mentioned that investigations should start with "proven" offenses, which is how things go in totalitarian states. I do not believe for a moment that you want to know what really happened with Trump, Giuliani, etc. and the Ukraine aid. Probably you'll tell me that you know enough and it's fine. But aside from Mulvaney's press conference, where he admitted it was political, you really haven't heard the principals say much. None of us have.

So again, having demonstrated that there is no impartial process that could satisfy, it's time to admit that process is not the issue here. The issue here for you is that there is a remote chance that something bad could happen to Trump.