backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

agsfan said:

---

Your assertion that because the House doesn't require a vote to initiate impeachment the House is always engaged in impeachment, is idiotic.

The constitution doesn't differentiate between impeachment of Presidents and Federal Judges in the House, and we've impeached a bunch of federal judges without a house vote initiating the process.

Asking a judge to hold up grand jury material waiting for a house vote to initiate impeachment would be asking them to uphold a law that doesn't exist.

---

The law preventing the sharing of grand jury material was passed by a majority of congress. Overriding that law should require a majority of congress.

Your standard remains that congress is always in a judicial process...

And how many of those impeachment of judges required the release of grand jury material not involved in a crime?

(E) The court may authorize disclosureat a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directsof a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

So 6e gives the exception to judicial proceedings, and all the precedent states that the impeachment hearings fits under the judicial proceedings exception.
The argument from there, and the one that got it through the previous court, is that the impeachment inquiry in the House qualifies as being preliminary to or in connection with that impeachment proceeding.

Knew this was coming - Its their only gambit. Good luck with that

backintexas2013 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

---

Well, maybe. Either they're incompetent, they intentionally doctored it it to make Trump look like he wasnt asking for quid pro quo, or the Lt. Col is lying.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

---

All 4 of them were in on it

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

---

Well, maybe. Either they're incompetent, they intentionally doctored it it to make Trump look like he wasnt asking for quid pro quo, or the Lt. Col is lying.

---

Occum's razor

At least one, Alcee Hastings.
Clinton grand jury materials were released to congress 4 months before a formal inquiry vote.

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

---

Well, maybe. Either they're incompetent, they intentionally doctored it it to make Trump look like he wasnt asking for quid pro quo, or the Lt. Col is lying.

---

Doesn't matter if trump asked for a quid pro quo. It's in the interest of the United states to punish corruption.

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

---

Well, maybe. Either they're incompetent, they intentionally doctored it it to make Trump look like he wasnt asking for quid pro quo, or the Lt. Col is lying.

---

Occum's razor

---

Well, obviously Occams razor is that a moral learned man who is a Patriot like Trump is as pure as the driven snow and would never play fast and loose with foreign policy for political gain.

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So his truth is what you are going with. Not the actual summary. Got it.

---

Theres the summary, the testimony, and the actual conversation. Only one of those three things is the truth.

---

Sure but are you saying the people that did the summary were wrong and bad at their job?

---

Well, maybe. Either they're incompetent, they intentionally doctored it it to make Trump look like he wasnt asking for quid pro quo, or the Lt. Col is lying.

---

Occum's razor

---

Well, obviously Occams razor is that a moral learned man who is a Patriot like Trump is as pure as the driven snow and would never play fast and loose with foreign policy for political gain.

---

No its that the 4 people who independently summarized the call were part of a conspiracy

not worth it.

agsfan said:

---

(E) The court may authorize disclosureat a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directsof a grand-jury matter:

(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;

So 6e gives the exception to judicial proceedings, and all the precedent states that the impeachment hearings fits under the judicial proceedings exception.
The argument from there, and the one that got it through the previous court, is that the impeachment inquiry in the House qualifies as being preliminary to or in connection with that impeachment proceeding.

---

So what you are saying is...

When the speaker and committee heads deem fit, they can change the house into impeachment mode with no vote at all? Just voila, we are in impeachment mode? Doesn't sound right.

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

It's what the constitution and historical precedent say.

HE WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO END WORLDWIDE CORRUPTION. IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE THE ONLY SHAKY CASES HE WAS INTERESTED IN INVOLVE HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS.

He's long been known as a champion of the anti-corruption movement.

agsfan said:

---

Didn't claim I had one, just pretty clear I can read better than you. You were citing a case that worked against you.

---

You really think you can read better than her? Really?

No and no

agsfan said:

---

At least one, Alcee Hastings.
Clinton grand jury materials were released to congress 4 months before a formal inquiry vote.

---

Alcee Hastings was indicted by that GJ.

No crime has been alleged by a GJ or federal prosecutor against Trump.

Gary Johnson said:

---

HE WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO END WORLDWIDE CORRUPTION. IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE THE ONLY SHAKY CASES HE WAS INTERESTED IN INVOLVE HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS.

He's long been known as a champion of the anti-corruption movement.

---

Good luck on the impeachment

They can't he's the president.

Gary Johnson said:

---

HE WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO END WORLDWIDE CORRUPTION. IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE THE ONLY SHAKY CASES HE WAS INTERESTED IN INVOLVE HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS.

He's long been known as a champion of the anti-corruption movement.

---

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

Good luck to you libs thinking your going to impeach a president on the "opinions" of Trump haters. Go talk to the Ukrainians. They flat out said no pressure.

agsfan said:

---

Didn't claim I had one, just pretty clear I can read better than you. You were citing a case that worked against you.

---

That's the problem with laymen trying to decipher legal speak. You read it incorrectly. Because you don't understand how statutory construction operates.

But by all means, continue to show us your ignorance on that front. Keep making up lies. Heaven knows Pelosi and Schiff are.

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Didn't claim I had one, just pretty clear I can read better than you. You were citing a case that worked against you.

---

You really think you can read better than her? Really?

---

Based on her posts, I know it. She didn't even know the case she cited specifically validated impeachment proceedings as an exception for the release of grand jury materials.

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

agsfan said:

---

They can't he's the president.

---

False, Ken Starr report clearly states Clinton committed crimes. SC office, nor GJ claims crime was committed.

agsfan said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Didn't claim I had one, just pretty clear I can read better than you. You were citing a case that worked against you.

---

You really think you can read better than her? Really?

---

Based on her posts, I know it. She didn't even know the case she cited specifically validated impeachment proceedings as an exception for the release of grand jury materials.

---

I have specifically seen aggiehawg talk about that. She has been saying for months that the only way that the house will get grand jury material is if they launch and impeachment inquiry. Which everyone seems to disagree on. So I guess we will see what the judiciary thinks. And then one side will be riggt, the other not so much. So I guess we are in wait and see mode.

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

Zero evidence of that

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

Steele dossier says hello. Dem letter to Ukraine says hello.

It's bull***** The president has the legal authority to tie aid to cooperation in possible criminal investigation.

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

Zero evidence of that

---

Minus the weeks of testimony stating otherwise, of course none.

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

Zero evidence of that

---

Minus the weeks of testimony stating otherwise, of course none.

---

I've read the transcript and listened to Zelinsky's statements. Some Obama holdover's "feelings" about the call and 3rd and 4th hand accounts are of no interest to me

Malibu said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

So a few questions ...

Is a quid pro quo a high crime or misdemeanor? And did that alleged quid pro quo ever come to fruition? Did it actually occur?

---

Yes, using witholding military aid as a tactic to get foreign governments to investigate political rivals is extreme abuse of office. They certainly attempted to make it happen. Get Trump out of there and install Pence.

---

So they attempted to do that. So that's the high crime Got it. Thanks.

Fyi ... it's going to be a long next 5 years for you with Trump as your POTUS.