Impeachment: Judge Napolitano explains it all to you morons

[Micawber]

"the House rules, which were adopted in 2015, when Republicans had the majority, clearly authorize the process that Schiff, D-Calif., is utilizing."


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight

1. The secret hearings were the Rules YOU adopted and WE followed.
2. You morons stormed proceedings because you were mad WE were following YOUR rules.
3. Initial witness interviews are ALWAYS secret.
4. You opposed Pelosi in her attempt to assuage YOUR stupidity by opposing a resolution for PUBLIC hearings despite that we did not have to.
5. There are no contested facts, in fact Trump admits the salient facts and the evidence of them is conclusive.
6. The only bona fide issue is whether the agreed upon facts amount to an impeachable offense.
7. Instead you attack YOUR processes, attack our acceding to your amended process due to your complaint about your own rules, and smear witnesses.


Very dumb.

 

[StoneByStone]

I always liked Napolitano. He never cucked out for the establishment like all of the other Republicans are doing now.

 

[Stretch]

You can start as many dozen threads as you like on the same topic daily. Facts don't change.
You can play impeachment all you want. You have no impeachable charges. You're still fishing.
We have transcript OK'd by a majority of those on the call plus a supervisory committee.
It would be DOA at Senate anyway.

 

[Sailor]

You can start as many dozen threads as you like on the same topic daily. Facts don't change.
You can play impeachment all you want. You have no impeachable charges. You're still fishing.
We have transcript OK'd by a majority of those on the call plus a supervisory committee.
It would be DOA at Senate anyway.

I just think its funny as hell that a "seasoned" supposed lawyer like Micabwer needs to find things on TV and media to make any kind of legal point. Hmmmmmm.

 

[reagansghost]

quid pro quo confirmed......……..again


White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine

WASHINGTON — A National Security Council aide testified on Thursday that a top diplomat who was close to President Trump told him that a package of military assistance for Ukraine would not be released until the country committed to investigating Mr. Trump’s political rivals, corroborating a key episode at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

The closed-door deposition by Timothy Morrison, who announced his resignation on Wednesday on the eve of his appearance before impeachment investigators, suggests that a Trump-appointed ambassador proposed a quid pro quo in which security assistance money allocated by Congress would be provided only in exchange for the political investigations the president was seeking. His account confirmed the one given last week by Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, during his private testimony.

Mr. Morrison briefed Mr. Taylor on a series of communications involving the president and his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon D. Sondland, according to his prepared remarks for Thursday’s appearance, which was reviewed by The New York Times. “I can confirm that the substance of the statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate,” he said.

Mr. Taylor testified last week that Mr. Morrison, a top Russia and Europe expert, had informed him in early September of a meeting in Warsaw between Mr. Sondland and a top aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Mr. Sondland told the Ukrainian aide that the United States would only provide a package of $391 million in security assistance that Congress had allocated for the country if Mr. Zelensky committed to investigate allegations related to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, who sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.



Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/morrison-testimony-impeachment.html

 

[Sailor]

quid pro quo confirmed......……..again


White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine

WASHINGTON — A National Security Council aide testified on Thursday that a top diplomat who was close to President Trump told him that a package of military assistance for Ukraine would not be released until the country committed to investigating Mr. Trump’s political rivals, corroborating a key episode at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

The closed-door deposition by Timothy Morrison, who announced his resignation on Wednesday on the eve of his appearance before impeachment investigators, suggests that a Trump-appointed ambassador proposed a quid pro quo in which security assistance money allocated by Congress would be provided only in exchange for the political investigations the president was seeking. His account confirmed the one given last week by Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, during his private testimony.

Mr. Morrison briefed Mr. Taylor on a series of communications involving the president and his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon D. Sondland, according to his prepared remarks for Thursday’s appearance, which was reviewed by The New York Times. “I can confirm that the substance of the statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate,” he said.

Mr. Taylor testified last week that Mr. Morrison, a top Russia and Europe expert, had informed him in early September of a meeting in Warsaw between Mr. Sondland and a top aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Mr. Sondland told the Ukrainian aide that the United States would only provide a package of $391 million in security assistance that Congress had allocated for the country if Mr. Zelensky committed to investigate allegations related to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, who sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.



Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/morrison-testimony-impeachment.html

NY Times. HA! They rely on the stupid the keep them going. Folks like you never disappoint.

 

[Gonzomin]

"the House rules, which were adopted in 2015, when Republicans had the majority, clearly authorize the process that Schiff, D-Calif., is utilizing."


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight

1. The secret hearings were the Rules YOU adopted and WE followed.
2. You morons stormed proceedings because you were mad WE were following YOUR rules.
3. Initial witness interviews are ALWAYS secret.
4. You opposed Pelosi in her attempt to assuage YOUR stupidity by opposing a resolution for PUBLIC hearings despite that we did not have to.
5. There are no contested facts, in fact Trump admits the salient facts and the evidence of them is conclusive.
6. The only bona fide issue is whether the agreed upon facts amount to an impeachable offense.
7. Instead you attack YOUR processes, attack our acceding to your amended process due to your complaint about your own rules, and smear witnesses.


Very dumb.

When you cannot win the argument with facts and evidence, you attack the investigators , those questioned, and the processes. That is where we are. problem is it will be televised.

 

[Sailor]

When you cannot win the argument with facts and evidence, you attack the investigators , those questioned, and the processes. That is where we are. problem is it will be televised.

If you are implying the Democrats have any of that, please post the unrefuted facts and evidence. Now would be good. You would indeed be the first Democrat able to do so.

 

[Truth Detector]

"the House rules, which were adopted in 2015, when Republicans had the majority, clearly authorize the process that Schiff, D-Calif., is utilizing."


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sight

1. The secret hearings were the Rules YOU adopted and WE followed.
2. You morons stormed proceedings because you were mad WE were following YOUR rules.
3. Initial witness interviews are ALWAYS secret.
4. You opposed Pelosi in her attempt to assuage YOUR stupidity by opposing a resolution for PUBLIC hearings despite that we did not have to.
5. There are no contested facts, in fact Trump admits the salient facts and the evidence of them is conclusive.
6. The only bona fide issue is whether the agreed upon facts amount to an impeachable offense.
7. Instead you attack YOUR processes, attack our acceding to your amended process due to your complaint about your own rules, and smear witnesses.


Very dumb.

Two words; BULL SHIT!

 

[Noking]

You can start as many dozen threads as you like on the same topic daily. Facts don't change.
You can play impeachment all you want. You have no impeachable charges. You're still fishing.
We have transcript OK'd by a majority of those on the call plus a supervisory committee.
It would be DOA at Senate anyway.

Nothing like keeping your head buried in the sand.

 

[Truth Detector]

"the House rules, which were adopted in 2015, when Republicans had the majority, clearly authorize the process that Schiff, D-Calif., is utilizing."

Napolitano is full of bull.

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

(1) Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.

(2) The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.

(3) If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.

(4) If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.

(5) If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).

(6) The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.

(7) The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.

(8) The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.

(9) After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/

 

[archives]

Napolitano is full of bull.

Modern Impeachment Procedure:

(1) Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.

(2) The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.

(3) If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.

(4) If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.

(5) If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).

(6) The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.

(7) The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.

(8) The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.

(9) After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/

Not entirely accurate, shocking coming from "truthie," no where in the Constitution does it specify any of what the author listed at that offset, just that fact that your copy and paste is entitled "Modern Impeachment Procedure" tells the reader it is one person's view

And all that copy and pasting for nothing

 

[Truth Detector]

Not entirely accurate, shocking coming from "truthie," no where in the Constitution does it specify any of what the author listed at that offset, just that fact that your copy and paste is entitled "Modern Impeachment Procedure" tells the reader it is one person's view

And all that copy and pasting for nothing

It's called precedent you boorish fool. I do wish you had a brain Arsecheese. Then you wouldn't play the forum idiot every damned day.

 

[archives]

It's called precedent you boorish fool. I do wish you had a brain Arsecheese. Then you wouldn't play the forum idiot every damned day.

Ah, as we have seen too many times to count when Trump does something that undermines tradition, "ain't against the law is it," the law in this case being the Constitution, and nothing occurring today stands in violation of the Constitution

And how do you get procedure when there has been only two impeachments in "modern" times and both were just as dissimilar as similar. There is no established procedure, if any, the standing rules governing the House which is what Napolitano is referring to apply, and we can thank the past GOP Houses for providing them

Once again the "truthie" strikes out

 

[Truth Detector]

Ah, as we have seen too many times to count when Trump does something that undermines tradition, "ain't against the law is it," the law in this case being the Constitution, and nothing occurring today stands in violation of the Constitution

What has Trump done to "undermine tradition?" I said PRECEDENT not tradition you goofy twat.

And how do you get procedure when there has been only two impeachments in "modern" times and both were just as dissimilar as similar. There is no established procedure, if any, the standing rules governing the House which is what Napolitano is referring to apply, and we can thank the past GOP Houses for providing them

The previous TWO were conducted in a SIMILAR manner by DIFFERENT parties. It is called precedent and the intent is to ensure the people who elected the President believe that the process is fair and without bias. Bi-partisan in nature.

None of which they are seeing here. That is why this will be a miserable failure; not to mention Trump has done nothing wrong or untoward.

Once again the "truthie" strikes out

Once again Arsecheese looks like a goofy know-nothing with a low IQ.

 

[archives]

What has Trump done to "undermine tradition?" I said PRECEDENT not tradition you goofy twat.

The previous TWO were conducted in a SIMILAR manner by DIFFERENT parties. It is called precedent and the intent is to ensure the people who elected the President believe that the process is fair and without bias. Bi-partisan in nature.

None of which they are seeing here. That is why this will be a miserable failure; not to mention Trump has done nothing wrong or untoward.

Once again Arsecheese looks like a goofy know-nothing with a low IQ.

What has Trump done, where to begin, just off the top of my hear: refused to release tax records, refused to set aside business interests, questioned the legitimacy of judges whose rulings he disagreed with, promoted conspiracies in his own government, labeled Americans that criticize him as traitors, evil, enemies of the Country, personally attempts to sway Federal Reserve decisions, and most of all, lies to the American people at an Olympian record pace

As I said, the two were as dissimilar as similar and more so compared to today, one started with the findings of a four year independent council, the other a special prosecutor appointed by the investigating Congressional Committee, neither which are present today.

And it was the same in past impeachment inquiries, the majority party controlled the hearings, had final say on who was called and where testimonies would be taken, and with the GOP's revision to the House rules, these guidelines gave the majority even more power

Your procedure argument is lame, neither the illegal nor unprecedented rationale is applicable

 

[Sailor]

What has Trump done, where to begin, just off the top of my hear: refused to release tax records, refused to set aside business interests, questioned the legitimacy of judges whose rulings he disagreed with, promoted conspiracies in his own government, labeled Americans that criticize him as traitors, evil, enemies of the Country, personally attempts to sway Federal Reserve decisions, and most of all, lies to the American people at an Olympian record pace

As I said, the two were as dissimilar as similar and more so compared to today, one started with the findings of a four year independent council, the other a special prosecutor appointed by the investigating Congressional Committee, neither which are present today.

And it was the same in past impeachment inquiries, the majority party controlled the hearings, had final say on who was called and where testimonies would be taken, and with the GOP's revision to the House rules, these guidelines gave the majority even more power

Your procedure argument is lame, neither the illegal nor unprecedented rationale is applicable

And of course, not one of those allegations has been proven. Democrat fail.

 

[reagansghost]

GOP:


House hearings were secret, process is flawed

….Repub reps were present at every hearing


House hearings denied Trump's attorney's (whoever the fuck that is) participation, process is flawed

….Pelosi is merely following rules enacted by repub Speaker of the House John Bohner in 2015


ok, so what's next GOP scumbags?

how's about Donny simply explaining why he extorted Zelensky, demanded dirt on his opponent for desperately needed (and Congressionally approved) military aid to fight Putin?

 

[Sailor]

GOP:


House hearings were secret, process is flawed

….Repub reps were present at every hearing


House hearings denied Trump's attorney's (whoever the fuck that is) participation, process is flawed

….Pelosi is merely following rules enacted by repub Speaker of the House John Bohner in 2015


ok, so what's next GOP scumbags?

how's about Donny simply explaining why he extorted Zelensky, demanded dirt on his opponent for desperately needed (and Congressionally approved) military aid to fight Putin?

How about Democrats prove any of that. What a concept huh? How fucking stupid are you.

 

[Micawber]

That is where we are. problem is it will be televised*.

*A six month long, made for TV government paid negative campaign ad, with all the pomp, circumstance, pageantry and sobriety important hearing of the United States Government produce.

Hear ye hear ye. Unfurl the scrolls already. Can't wait!