[Wondergirl]

JL, tal explained it!!!!

The impeachment process in U.S. government was first suggested by Benjamin Franklin during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Noting that the traditional mechanism for removing “obnoxious” chief executives — like kings — from power had been assassination, Franklin glibly suggested the impeachment process as a more rational and preferable method.

• The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
• The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
• If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
• If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.

https://www.thoughtco.com/impeachmen...rocess-3322171

This was real easy to find, JL. Be sure to fist-bump your reference librarian!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jlisenbe]

The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.
The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.
If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office.

Thank you for repeating what I had already said. The difference is that I wrote mine without having to go to some cheesy website and was thus able to write my own summary. You just copied what someone else wrote. And you really think you warrant a fist bump for that?

I'd still like to know if you seriously believe that the House should bring impeachment charges against a sitting president because they simply don't like him and want to impede his chances of reelection, and do so with no serious evidence to show a crime. Others on this board were loudly proclaiming that there were five witnesses who had testified and had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump. When pressed for names, they came up with zilch-o. That's the pathetic place we find ourselves in.

[Wondergirl]

Thank you for repeating what I had already said. The difference is that I wrote mine without having to go to some cheesy website and was thus able to write my own summary. You just copied what someone else wrote. And you really think you warrant a fist bump for that?

I'm not your reference librarian. Plus I'm retired.

I'd still like to know if you seriously believe that the House should bring impeachment charges against a sitting president because they simply don't like him and want to impede his chances of reelection, and do so with no serious evidence to show a crime. Others on this board were loudly proclaiming that there were five witnesses who had testified and had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump. When pressed for names, they came up with zilch-o. That's the pathetic place we find ourselves in.

You apparently didn't watch the excellent summary today as to Trump's crimes. A Republican threw in, "Facts be damned!"

[jlisenbe]

You apparently didn't watch the excellent summary today as to Trump's crimes. A Republican threw in, "Facts be damned!"

OK, I'll ask you. Which witnesses had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump? Something more than, "I think he wanted to...", or "My brother said he heard my friend say that Trump might have..." I'd also like to know if you think the fact the both the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said there was no quid-pro-quo should be considered pretty weighty evidence. Hmmm?

And talk about just throwing your ethics and honesty out the window, your "Facts be damned" quote was taken so far out of context, and so dishonestly, that you just lost a couple of weeks worth of fist bumps. Rep. Collins was saying, and this is very clear, that the dems, "don't care...facts be damned." You really should be ashamed to have so completely misrepresented the truth.

Pick up this video at about the one minute mark. Maybe this is why you are not my reference librarian. Do I have to do all the work around here???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSH62Wmbli0

[talaniman]

The Mueller report was serious evidence of obstruction, so not cooperating with congress for investigation into wrong doing backed by the testimony of 17 government workers. Likes got nothing to do with it, nor deserves. Dems investigation and hearings are as valid as the Kavanaugh hearings to be sure and now it's time to vote and vote we will.

In addition and more importantly as there is a lawful process to investigate an American working for a foreign company where is the evidence for investigating HIM. You saying a phone call from a president can start with a phone call asking for a favor? Really? Read the law, as outlined in a treaty with Ukraine.

Now if skirting your own laws is not abuse of power then I really don't know what is. I'm always doing my homework, you should too, but you are correct I don't like the dufus because he lies and cheats, and doesn't mind accepting the help of foreign governments in his elections. Chew on that for starters.

[Wondergirl]

OK, I'll ask you. Which witnesses had direct knowledge of a crime by Trump? Something more than, "I think he wanted to...", or "My brother said he heard my friend say that Trump might have..." I'd also like to know if you think the fact the both the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said there was no quid-pro-quo should be considered pretty weighty evidence. Hmmm?

And talk about just throwing your ethics and honesty out the window, your "Facts be damned" quote was taken so far out of context, and so dishonestly, that you just lost a couple of weeks worth of fist bumps. Rep. Collins was saying, and this is very clear, that the dems, "don't care...facts be damned." You really should be ashamed to have so completely misrepresented the truth.

Pick up this video at about the one minute mark. Maybe this is why you are not my reference librarian. Do I have to do all the work around here???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSH62Wmbli0

I was wondering if you were paying attention. Then you did hear the excellent summary!!!!!!

Do you like this website?????

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...all-to-ukraine

[jlisenbe]

The Mueller report was serious evidence of obstruction, so not cooperating with congress for investigation into wrong doing backed by the testimony of 17 government workers. Likes got nothing to do with it, nor deserves. Dems investigation and hearings are as valid as the Kavanaugh hearings to be sure and now it's time to vote and vote we will.

In addition and more importantly as there is a lawful process to investigate an American working for a foreign company where is the evidence for investigating HIM. You saying a phone call from a president can start with a phone call asking for a favor? Really? Read the law, as outlined in a treaty with Ukraine.

Now if skirting your own laws is not abuse of power then I really don't know what is. I'm always doing my homework, you should too, but you are correct I don't like the dufus because he lies and cheats, and doesn't mind accepting the help of foreign governments in his elections. Chew on that for starters.

Yeah. The evidence in the Mueller report was so convincing that Mueller declined to recommend taking legal action against the pres. Oh well.

When you can give the name of a single witness who testified of having direct evidence concerning Trump's supposed guilt, then maybe we can go from there.

I was wondering if you were paying attention. Then you did hear the excellent summary!!!!!!

I'm sure that's how it was.

Do you like this website?????

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...all-to-ukraine

The one that is a mouthpiece for the democrat party and is dated 9/25? That one?

You must start paying much, much better attention.

[Wondergirl]

You must start paying much, much better attention.

My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.

[jlisenbe]

My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.

Very sorry you are having difficulties. I always encourage people to post, but be prepared to have your material challenged.

[paraclete]

My aplastic anemia is taking me on a very rough road right now. I'll stop posting.

Sorry to hear that WG, look after yourself and don't let the bastards get to you

[Wondergirl]

Very sorry you are having difficulties. I always encourage people to post, but be prepared to have your material challenged.

This isn't my first rodeo on AMHD....

[Vacuum7]

W.G.: Sorry to hear you are having a rough stretch....get some rest....believe me: We'll still be arguing when you get back! You won't miss much! Get well, W.G.!

Hamilton did warn us about the perils of Impeachment being "weaponized"! He know that potential existed.

[jlisenbe]

This isn't my first rodeo on AMHD....

Yes indeed. You know how to give and take.

Hope you feel better soon and that God's healing virtue will be yours.

[talaniman]

Yeah. The evidence in the Mueller report was so convincing that Mueller declined to recommend taking legal action against the pres. Oh well.

We have been over this before. Mueller was expressly prevented for taking any legal action by policy for anything to do with the prez. His attack dog Barr had two weeks to spin his yarn we know now is not only grossly inaccurate but obviously deceptive. Unfortunately Mueller's lackluster hearing performance didn't catch everybody's attention either, and was further spun by the right as nothing to see here and taken as no collusion, no obstruction by the liar in chief to his masses.

Obstruction was laid out as dull as it was, as was Russian interference, but what was missed is Mueller's decline to dig any further into the dufus's alleged conspiracy citing obstruction, destroying documents and non cooperation by his inner circle to explain all those mysterious contacts with Russian government agents. Barr did the same thing with the WB testimony, and the latest justice department report from last week aided by his handpicked special investigator in spinning everything in the dufus's favor. Of course only the right ignores those facts to parrot the dufus version of events and allows him to not just get away with it but keep doing it, fine by you right? You get to holler no evidence and ignoring the evidence against him, while at the same time smearing the dufus opponents without any evidence at all. As my evidence against the right wing loony allegation of smear tactics I submit the obvious hollering about the Bidens yet no formal charges or call for investigation by DOJ, even after Ukraine has said a formal request is needed as per the Treaty between the USA and Ukraine. That just let's me know that all that the dufus wanted was political talking points against his political foe. The right wing noise machine has embraced this wholeheartedly, and quite willingly, and without ANY evidence which only points out the utter HYPOCRISY of you and the rest of your loons.

When you can give the name of a single witness who testified of having direct evidence concerning Trump's supposed guilt, then maybe we can go from there.

All the witnesses have testified something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy but the real witnesses, those actually INVOLVED have been barred from being questioned, and REPUBS don't want them question because the gig would be up for the dufus. Of course you guys can have that can you?

Yes indeed. You know how to give and take.

Hope you feel better soon and that God's healing virtue will be yours.

I echo that sentiment.

WG's link has not been proved false at all and continues to be factually true as evidenced by the articles of impeachment, so I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss it. I know that suggestion falls on deaf ears.

[jlisenbe]

We have been over this before. Mueller was expressly prevented for taking any legal action by policy for anything to do with the prez

All the liberal dems were excited about Mueller UNTIL his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken, and then it was time to bring in the First Army of Excuses.

All the witnesses have testified something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy

So that's it? "Your honor, something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy." How far do you think that would get you in a real court of law as opposed to this democrat kangaroo court?

but the real witnesses, those actually INVOLVED have been barred from being questioned,

It's the never ending plea of those with nothing. "We might not have any real evidence, but if we could just get a different group of witnesses, then you'd really see something!" And again, in a court of honorable people, that would elicit howls of laughter and a dismissal of all charges. When all you really have is, "We hate Trump, and we don't want him to be reelected," then you are in serious trouble, and the American people are seeing through this charade.

[talaniman]

All the liberal dems were excited about Mueller UNTIL his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken, and then it was time to bring in the First Army of Excuses.

False. Show me where he recommended no further actions be taken You cannot nor have you read what you claim.

So that's it? "Your honor, something wasn't right with what was going on with Ukraine policy." How far do you think that would get you in a real court of law as opposed to this democrat kangaroo court?

The testimony by 17 government workers gets you probable cause to investigate deeper and lays the predicate for subpoena for more testimony and documents which the prez BLOCKS which in a real court of law constitutes obstruction. Geez my friend are you that shallow or cannot comprehend such a concept as the rule of law? The constitution gives the House that power, of investigation and oversight, and the dufus and repubs are obstructing the process.

It's the never ending plea of those with nothing. "We might not have any real evidence, but if we could just get a different group of witnesses, then you'd really see something!" And again, in a court of honorable people, that would elicit howls of laughter and a dismissal of all charges. When all you really have is, "We hate Trump, and we don't want him to be reelected," then you are in serious trouble, and the American people are seeing through this charade.

You righties love your spin which ignores and dismisses the whole process of the law. You prefer to ignore the obvious and look deeper into an issue and lie to yourselves and yes the American people do see through those lies which is why there is this public political conflict that you can only OBSTRUCT the finding of FACT, subvert the TRUTH, and deny the country JUSTICE, by screwing up the process.

As evidence Moscow Mitch has announced he will cooperate with the WH to guarantee the dufus cannot be removed. Under what rule of law are the accused and the JURY allowed to fix the outcome of a trial? Only in right wing loony land of course.

[jlisenbe]

The testimony by 17 government workers gets you probable cause to investigate deeper and lays the predicate for subpoena for more testimony and documents which the prez BLOCKS which in a real court of law constitutes obstruction. Geez my friend are you that shallow or cannot comprehend such a concept as the rule of law? The constitution gives the House that power, of investigation and oversight, and the dufus and repubs are obstructing the process.

"Your honor, on the basis of the weak and paltry "evidence" we have thus far presented, we are now absolutely certain that if we could just bring in some more witnesses to say who knows what, that we could prove our case." Please pardon me for laughing.

False. Show me where he recommended no further actions be taken You cannot nor have you read what you claim.

I did not say he recommended no further actions be taken. I said, "his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken," which is absolutely true. The LA Times summed it up in this manner, "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election. But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice."

They go on to offer three reasons for him not charging Trump with obstruction, not the least of which concerns the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with obstruction when the underlying legal charge turns out to be false.

You righties love your spin which ignores and dismisses the whole process of the law.

Says the man who does not have the slightest understanding of the necessity of evidence in order to demonstrate guilt, and just breezes right by it by claiming that those famous unheard witnesses would surely be able to show guilt.

[talaniman]

"Your honor, on the basis of the weak and paltry "evidence" we have thus far presented, we are now absolutely certain that if we could just bring in some more witnesses to say who knows what, that we could prove our case." Please pardon me for laughing.

It is I who is doing the laughing at your paltry parroting of right wing spin. An excuse for the dufus to obstruct and I sorely wish the dems would call the dufus bluff and take time to proceed through the court system as any reasonable prosecutor would do. I understand though given this artificial time line the dems have made though to just add that as obstruction since any REASONABLE person who had EVIDENCE of his innocents would certainly want everyone and his mama to know and end this case. That's NOT what the dufus is doing. What's he hiding, and if he has the TRUTH why hide it?

I did not say he recommended no further actions be taken. I said, "his report came back not recommending any legal action be taken," which is absolutely true. The LA Times summed it up in this manner, "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election. But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government’s Russia probe. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice."

Mueller cannot charge a sitting president of anything because of DOJ policy and has said so MANY times, and why he did NOT recommend charges. Without LINKS to back up what you say I will dismiss YOUR opinion of what the Times has written! I will point out he convicted everybody he DID charge since they had NO such DOJ executive protection. That should tell you something dude, along with the fact there are a few pending and active court cases still open.

They go on to offer three reasons for him not charging Trump with obstruction, not the least of which concerns the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with obstruction when the underlying legal charge turns out to be false.

NO LINK? DISMISSED, AND IGNORED! Hardly evidence of anything and dubious as an informed opinion so add REJECTED to my analysis.

Says the man who does not have the slightest understanding of the necessity of evidence in order to demonstrate guilt, and just breezes right by it by claiming that those famous unheard witnesses would surely be able to show guilt.

I didn't say they would show guilt but we will never know if they cannot be called which makes you loonies and repubs complicit in obstructing not just a lawful investigation, but also of obstructing JUSTICE. What are you wingers so afraid of that you have no curiosity for the TRUTH?

[jlisenbe]

NO LINK? DISMISSED, AND IGNORED! Hardly evidence of anything and dubious as an informed opinion so add REJECTED to my analysis.

My apologies. I intended to include the link and just failed to do so. Here you are. It's also true that Mueller could have simply said there was overwhelming evidence of obstruction, but then explain that he declined to prosecute per DOJ policies. Wonder why he didn't do that??? Also note that you lib dems spent a year and a half loudly hollering that Trump had colluded with the Russkies to win the election. After Mueller shot you down on that, then you picked another pig trail to go down. You might as well just admit that you hate the guy because he beat your liberal darling and will do practically anything, ethical or not, to be rid of him.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...419-story.html

I didn't say they would show guilt but we will never know if they cannot be called which makes you loonies and repubs complicit in obstructing not just a lawful investigation, but also of obstructing JUSTICE. What are you wingers so afraid of that you have no curiosity for the TRUTH?

So if they can't show guilt, by your own admission, then why are they proceeding? "Your honor, we plainly cannot prove the accused to be guilty, but we hate him and want to cause him discomfort, so we intend to proceed with the trial." What do you suppose any decent judge would then do? You know what that person would do and so do I. "Case dismissed!"

[talaniman]

Thanks for the links and I read it differently with the added details they provide and I think it's a shame Mueller presented evidence but did NOT deem to comment or pursue it, and we know Barr said nothing to see here so it's dead. The same argument he makes for not investigating the referall fron the IG about the WB, and boohooing IG Horowitz findings in that report. Some pattern has emerged that clearly shows his protection of the exec instead of doing his job. That's as bad as Moscow Mitch saying he will work with the WH to protect the dufus no mattter what.

The dufus subverted our government and took it over without firing a shot. As to how far the courts can go with what is before them...we'll see. No I doubt the case can be dismissed unless you guys retake the house. Weboth can agree we are in full scale civil war though I bet. Glad I don't have to shoot my right wing fellow Americans though so that's a good thing.