Shokin was shaking down Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma. Shokin used the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team. Ziochevsky is a corrupt official from the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Shokin was actually undercutting the UK investigation per Shokin's deputy Kasko, and the US diplomatic corps wanted Shokin out. Kasko resigned because of lawlessness in the Prosecutor's office. Shokin's resignation was spurred by protests and Joe Biden's threat.


The Impeachment is a de facto sealed indictment. Pelosi may hold on it through most or all of 2020, which increases the possibility of a Biden election.


If we had cut bait on Trump a long time ago, Dems would be nominating Warren, and Pence would prevail. The longer this drags on the greater potential of Trump fatigue

Nothing to see here, folks.

Here is the Democratic Party.

They have introduced Articles of impeachment on every elected Republican President since Nixon.

Our impeachment defenders must be really proud of the Andrew Weissman style tactics used by the House Majority.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

---

Not very bright are you? Inciting hate? Really, from a supporter of the biggest hate group in the US? Pot meet kettle...

---

^
|
A Deep State Truther.

---

Thanks for proving my point for me!

Prognightmare said:

---

---

Told ya. The LIV's the Dems count on think impeachment means removal from office. Yet, there Trump is...still President. At some point the Dems will have to explain that until the Senate is sure to convict even before they refer the articles there can't be.....wait for it.....a fair trial.

DukeMu said:

---

Shokin was shaking down Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma. Shokin used the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team. Ziochevsky is a corrupt official from the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Shokin was actually undercutting the UK investigation per Shokin's deputy Kasko, and the US diplomatic corps wanted Shokin out. Kasko resigned because of lawlessness in the Prosecutor's office. Shokin's resignation was spurred by protests and Joe Biden's threat.


The Impeachment is a de facto sealed indictment. Pelosi may hold on it through most or all of 2020, which increases the possibility of a Biden election.


If we had cut bait on Trump a long time ago, Dems would be nominating Warren, and Pence would prevail. The longer this drags on the greater potential of Trump fatigue

---

Just how many times are you going to be wrong?

backintexas2013 said:

---

DukeMu said:

---

Shokin was shaking down Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma. Shokin used the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team. Ziochevsky is a corrupt official from the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Shokin was actually undercutting the UK investigation per Shokin's deputy Kasko, and the US diplomatic corps wanted Shokin out. Kasko resigned because of lawlessness in the Prosecutor's office. Shokin's resignation was spurred by protests and Joe Biden's threat.


The Impeachment is a de facto sealed indictment. Pelosi may hold on it through most or all of 2020, which increases the possibility of a Biden election.


If we had cut bait on Trump a long time ago, Dems would be nominating Warren, and Pence would prevail. The longer this drags on the greater potential of Trump fatigue

---

Just how many times are you going to be wrong?

---

Every word in that post makes it seem like he was all in for Jeb!

Gary Johnson said:

---

I'm a liar huh? Just cause I'm not a gullible idiot like Trump or Giuliani?

He got impeached for being dumb because Hillary lost. I hope you guys find the mythical Ukrainian server and get to question it at trial.

---

HTH & FIFY

backintexas2013 said:

---

Tulsi even said the impeachment was a partisan job. Now Nancy is throwing a hissy fit while Trump laughs. You got played by a guy who wanted naked pictures of Trump. Let that sink in.

---

I can't help but wonder if we will look back at this as her "Sister Soldja" moment. Time will tell, I suppose.

It's 8:45 AM on December 19, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is still your POTUS!

Always like to come back and check in this thread to see what GJ is getting beat down for this time as a result of being wrong again. Didn't disappoint.

What's so funny? That liberals are so incredibly stupid that they've committed political suicide? 2020 is going to be a bloodbath and when liberals lose, America wins!

War Turtle is doing a hell of a job.

Hhmm. The Senate does get to vote first whether they accept each article for trial in the Senate.

Is he signalling he'll call that vote and then rejects both articles there will be no trial? Sounds like it to me.

"Lying under oath" was an article of impeachment for Clinton. The entire Congress and public all accepted, that he lied under oath (a felony, not misdemeanor). The Senate still did not convict.

I don't think adultery or even lying about it is a reason to remove a POTUS. But at least an actual crime was presented to Senate.

Nobody cares about this impeachment. Dems made impeachment meaningless. Seems like the only one crying is you since conservatives aren't melting down like you would've hoped.

Yes I'm going to cry....

Are you 12?

Definitely come off as a low information voter.

Come back to talk with the big boys after your social studies class is complete.

Moron

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

If he did these things, commit actually crimes, why is there no mention of it in the Articles of Impeachment?

I dare you to answer honestly!

MetoliusAg said:

---

Nothing to see here, folks.

---

When you are investigating criminal activity and corruption, you have to interact with scumbags. One of Mueller's key witnesses has been arrested for sex trafficking and child porn. I'm not sure what you guys think you have here.

Agnzona said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

If he did these things, commit actually crimes, why is there no mention of it in the Articles of Impeachment?

I dare you to answer honestly!

---

VERY fair question ...

I'm curious what his answer will be ...

MetoliusAg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

Interesting that your two names crimes aren't actual articles of impeachment. Par for the course for the lib brain trust.

aggiehawg-

Can the Senate call the vote without the articles formally delivered? What's the rule here?

FireAg said:

---

aggiehawg-

Can the Senate call the vote without the articles formally delivered? What's the rule here?

---

I don't think so unless it is a "sense of the Senate" type of resolution like a censure.

Quote:

---

Trump supporters in this forum don't care that Trump committed bribery, obstruction of justice, and other impeachable offenses. They've said it hundreds of times. Believe them.

---

Then by all means, call Nancy up and have her charge Trump with those statutory crimes.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

---

Not very bright are you? Inciting hate? Really, from a supporter of the biggest hate group in the US? Pot meet kettle...

---

^
|
A Deep State Truther.

---

Let's see...at a minimum Liberals hate:

2nd A
6th A
9th A
Babies
Capitalism
Free Trade
State's' Sovereignty and the Republic
Private Property
Biology or Legitimate Science for that matter
Christianity
Objectivity
Hard work
Personal responsibility
And so on
And so on
And so on

But this raises an interesting question in the suit to obtain the grand jury material from the Mueller investigation.

Te House Judiciary Committee's counsel, Mr. Letter, just this past week or so argued they needed it for the impeachment trial. Several legal questions are in play in that argument.

Under the DC Circuit Court of Appeals McKeever decision, federal judges no longer have what was termed inherent authority to release grand jury materials if the request does not fall specifically under one of the statutory exceptions to the grand jury secrecy rules.

One of those exceptions is for use in another judicial proceeding. Argument being that a formal impeachment inquiry and Senate trial is close enough to a quasi "judicial" proceeding to fall under that exception.

First, the House never formally voted on opening an impeachment inquiry. Now, it appears there will not be a trial in the Senate, ending whatever impeachment effort there was.

In my view, that weakens the Dems case for release of the Mueller materials. Not to mention the Court can look at the actual articles that were passed, which have zero mention of anything Mueller related and rule that the material requested is irrelevant and immaterial to impeachment and deny on that basis as well.

aggiehawg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

aggiehawg-

Can the Senate call the vote without the articles formally delivered? What's the rule here?

---

I don't think so unless it is a "sense of the Senate" type of resolution like a censure.

---

I don't think we know the answer to this. Nancy's approach effectively gives the speaker veto power over the impeachment ..no trial until the speaker says so. I don't think that's the correct answer.

I think the Senate decides for itself when the Articles passed by the House are at issue, regardless of when the Article is "transmitted". At that point, the Chief Justice begins to "preside" so that the trial is conducted fairly (House given adequate time to appoint managers, etc).

ETA. If I'm Trump and she does nothing for a month, I file a motion for an order transmitting the Articles. The CJ can say "no", but everyone might get some guidance on how to proceed in an orderly fashion.

Quote:

---

I don't think we know the answer to this. Nancy's approach effectively gives the speaker veto power over the impeachment ..no trial until the speaker says so. I don't think that's the correct answer.

---

There is no precedent for what Pelosi has done here, thus the question of how does the Senate proceed, if at all?

And it is that fact, the lack of precedent being followed in the House which raises this question as to whether these articles of impeachment are valid enough for the Senate to take them up?

Wonder if Barr has asked the OLC for an advisory opinion on this precise question?

Two possible remedies I see:

Senate takes congress to court on impeding its constitutional duties.

Trump takes congress to court for violating his constitutional rights to a fast and fair trial.

But senate Rs would be very dumb to let the lower house dictate terms of a trial when they are the ones tasked with that power.