Impeachment hearings

They really cherry picked those law experts eh? Seems every one of them has a long history of political activism and bias. The one woman even worked in Obamas justice department and has donated the Obama, Clinton, and now Warren, her and at least one of the other witnesses have been calling for Trumps removal on day one. Lmao, they went out and got themselves activists that would say whatever they wanted to say, not the unbiased apolitical, impartial constitutional law experts they said they were.

It's backfiring so hard now at the level of dishonesty and political motivation being made more and more apparent by the day.

@burntbyhellfire: "I was watching the house judiciary committee hearing today, it was streamed live. "

Great, then you'll have no trouble showing a clip of what you're referring to. I work, so I wasn't able to watch the whole thing live.

Two forced to admit they donated to Hillary and Obama, hardly impartial

Turley shreds them completely with fact

And Feldman was caught perjuring himself when he claimed to be an impeachment skeptic until he heard about this phone call, and his own Twitter count shows him calling for impeachment, and claiming everything Trump has done (even firing Comey) was impeachable.

@burntbyhellfire: I don't know how you can watch that clip of Gaetz and see it as anything other than a series of questions and attacks that have nothing to do with the issues of the impeachment at hand. It's so blatant that you'd have to be completely blind not to see and hear.

Turley destroyed this whole trial. Wow.

Facts aren't important to the trump base.

Spoken like a true hypocrite.

Point out where Gaetz was wrong about something. He has clearly shown that they were cherry picked for their political leanings and not brought in to be credible experts. And again, none of them had anything that could substantiate any of the claims put forward by Schiffs report. Maybe you think it's okay for one branch of the government to remove the elected head of another because they don't like them, or abuse the process in a desperate attempt to improve their odds going into an election year, but for the rest of the country, it's a clear abuse of power by the house.

No I pay attention to the Constitution first. Not a cult leader.

This whole impeachment is because of Joe Biden.

No the whole impeachment is because of trump.

You posted a few days ago that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong. What you are missing is why was Hunter Biden hired by Burisma Gas Co. and paid $83,000 a month when he had know knowledge of gas or oil, the Ukraine or the language. He had nothing to offer, but his dad Joe Biden did, he could be bribed and he was. Hunter was hired to get his dad to influence the president of Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian Prosecutor that was investigating them, and Joe Biden got him fired and the investigations stopped.

how so? theres nothing wrong with trump asking a foreign government to aid in an investigation.. in fact, the US has a treaty with ukraine for that very thing.. and lets get real, biden isnt a political rival, and the situation around them and burisma is highly suspicious at best. what is the DNC afraid an investigation will uncover?

the reality is, this isnt about trump or biden, its about an upcoming election that the dems are likely to get destroyed in, and they're hoping an impeachment would hurt trumps odds of being re-elected

No stop making things up. I said there is NO evidence Hunter Biden did anything wrong. To date their is no law against family members benefitting from political standing. If so the entire trump family is benefitting, including Donnie dumbass, who should NOT benefit from foreign interests in his job.

Biden was a small part of the removal of the prosecutor. The US itself and other countries were against him because he was NOT doing anything to attack corruption.

You trumpers cannot be taken seriously when you either lie or are ignorant of actual facts. Honestly stop thinking in terms of party and start thinking in terms of country. The US is far more important than any one individual serving a few years in the grand scheme of the democracy.

Dear komrade, here in America it's considered at best to be deeply unethical for a president to directly ask for assistance in a political investigation, even one he isn't directly involved in, instead of operating through his proper channels in the FBI, CIA, and/ or DOJ. However in this case, the president did so not just directly, but also by ordering holds on congressional funding beyond the legal limit and working through a backchannel to force a political shitshow in exchange for the hold's release. A majority of Americans agree in recent polling what he did was wrong, if they don't also agree it's worth impeachment and removal. Moreover, it has already been stated in witness testimony from those working directly with him and in text conversations that he didn't give a shit about an actual investigation, he just wanted Ukraine to hold a public press conference on it over major American news networks so it would look bad for an opponent in an upcoming election.

Also, the frontrunning primary candidates are beating Trump in nearly all preliminary polling so the idea that they're worried about "getting destroyed" is nonsense. At worst, he is going to win in an extremely tight race.

This whole impeachment is unravelling. Watch the actual hearings.

I have and the whataboutisms of the republicans don't dissuade me from putting the country and the Constitution first.

So you think impeaching a president for the first time without a law being broken is a good thing?

You do know the founders included impeachment as a result of the possibility of a president getting foreign governments involved...……..right? Also impeachment does not need to be about a legal statute. Though we have evidence of obstruction which is a crime.

One billion five hundred dollars is no small thing. If you read my post I ask a question why did Hunter Biden get the job with Burisma Gas not that he did anything wrong, which is the real question. It is on video Joe Biden bragging that if the Ukrainian President did not fire the prosecutor with in six hours he was leaving the Ukraine and they were not going to get the 1.5 billion dollars. Joe Biden was bribed by Burisma to end an investigation, and this what the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump with or it was the narrative and charges change every day. You are the one who is ignorant of the facts.

Ok let me ask you this. If they have a fair trial, and Trump is in the clear, will you accept the outcome?

Requesting foreign aid in an election is illegal. Withholding lawfully issued funds beyond a certain duration is illegal. Obstruction of Congress is illegal. Falsifying a national weather report is illegal.

Where is the evidence? It has not been presented in any hearing.

This is about politics. He should end up impeached. Will you accept that he did wrong? Removal is another thing and the GOP dug in it's heels supporting this train wreck. It is hurting the party. They are just too stupid to see it.

Technically he can be impeached without having broken any laws I believe...

No proof of anything he is accused of, illegal.

I will accept the results if he did things wrong and there is proof, will you accept the results if they find out he didn't do anything wrong and this was a witch hunt for political gain?

The problem with your stance is the testimony is public. And he did do something wrong. The rest is political and not about the county.

So you preach country before party, but when you asked if you would accept the results of a fair hearing, you only want it one way.

The facts are out there. It was fair. Why are you denying them?

They aren't. One sides narrative is.

I repeat, if you get a fair trial and they prove he's innocent, will you accept the results?

Don't be an idiot.

Obstruction is literally as concrete as evidence can get. Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas you are legally required to comply with. White house ordered people to defy them. That is illegal, not even up for debate.

As for the rest, you'd have to be straight up delusional to say there's no evidence. The president's own transcript, funding records, recorded emails and phone conversations, texts, a concrete timeline of events and meetings, near a dozen solid witnesses, most with first hand accounts and hours of public deposition. Not to mention, admission of events live on television by both him and his chief of staff.

The only way there could be more evidence of what went down would be if the white house and state were complying like they're supposed to, which they won't, because they're guilty as ****.

How hilariously hypocritical that the right is, demanding more evidence out of one corner of their mouth while refusing to offer evidence out of the other.

If he was proven innocent, would you accept the results?

If you are referring to a Senate trial choosing not to remove him, that is not proof of innocence.

If you are just talking about actual evidence that draws a provable conclusion, sure, but can you provide an equivalent level of evidence that points towards innocence as there is pointing towards guilt, most of which I already outlined above? And can you somehow prove that the orders to defy lawful subpoenas didn't happen? I would accept it if it were there.

Additionally, if such evidence exists, the president and his cabinet are free to comply at any time and prove how totally innocent they are.

No it's not one sides. It's trump's own people that were witnesses.

The other side wouldn't let anyone testify.

That's like saying you never lost a baseball game because you refused to show up an play

Yet, you were okay with it when Clinton employed Ukrainians to dig up dirt on Trump before the election. And nothing Trump has asked Ukraine to do is interfering with an election, nor does participation in an election hold one exempt from investigation. And as far as foreign aid goes, the president can deny funds to whoever he wants for whatever reasons he wants, that's 100% the jurisdiction of the executive branch.

Guilty until proven innocent is not how this country works.

@burntbyhellfire: and this is why they’re morally bankrupt. They can’t even accept anything but a guilty verdict in a fair trial.

You guys are mad you lost so you wanna take your ball and go home.

Not even Republicans are going along with the Ukraine 2016 conspiracy anymore. Quit your bullshit. Not to mention, Clinton isn't being impeached so thanks for a whataboutism, nor would I be okay with her doing such a thing.

Also fucking wat mate? Legislative has the power of the purse, not the executive. It is not constitutional for the president to withhold veto-proof funding, and there are legal statutes that were violated to make it happen.

https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter

"Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation."

No, that's how this works if he's in a courtroom before a jury. Demonstrable facts pointing to a single, clear conclusion is how reality in general works. lol "this country." Which country is that, I wonder?

Also can you provide evidence of innocence then? If he's innocent it should be a fairly simple matter of providing information and documentation that he didn't order subpoena blocks, didn't order funding holds, didn't request a political opponent's investigation over the phone, and didn't move private citizens in place to hold secret conversations about these subjects.

No, in a jury trial a juror is supposed to be absolutely certain beyond reasonable doubt that the individual committed a crime. This means that it's the prosecutors job to provide enough fact and evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt. Innocent until the prosecution can PROVE guilt. I'm guessing you do not live in the US because even small children know this.

Trump is well within his rights to deny any country foreign aid for any reason he so chooses. He is in control of foreign policy, not congress, and certainly not ambassadors.

@burntbyhellfire: Don’t you love how the left calls the right facists, but want to convict people before the trial?

Before the trial, and without evidence. I'm willing to be if one of them was sitting in a court room right now, wasn't allowed to have witnesses with exculpatory evidence testify on their behalf, and the prosecution came out with a group of people who weren't even there to testify that they presume you committed the crime and that juries didn't even need evidence to convict, they'd be screaming rights violations at the top of their lungs. They have absolutely no understanding of how government is work, they know nothing of the constitutions, nothing of the founders, and tout the antithesis of democracy, as a hallmark of democracy.

What's cute, is they think they're being "progressive" by rallying against basic individual rights and the rule of law. Sometimes it's like trying to explain calculus to a 4-year-old, but at least that 4-year-old might have a desire to actually learn.

@n64dd: you do understand this is not a criminal trial right?

And the Senate doesn't have a criminal trial either right?

No they clearly don't understand that at all.

It's not a trial at all, it's a coup attempt by the DNC.

I suggest a class in government.

That much is obvious.

All they do is repeat the same canned replies.

Nothing matters to them except that their teams wins by any means necessary.

lol cute that the bot's trying to lecture in civics.

None of what you stated applies to impeachment, or reality, only to being legally guilty insofar as being deemed worth lawful punishment. The impeachment trial simply needs to convince the senate he needs removal, and doesn't mean he's absolved of any such guilt. And facts do not become unfacts just because you haven't indicted and unanimously voted to be guilty by a jury. For example, if a cop lets you off with a warning for speeding, you didn't suddenly not-speed. Pretty much everyone accepts OJ got away with his murders, he literally wrote a book talking about it with a wink and nod. If you assume he didn't do it you're basically just being an idiot. Same concept, all the facts, all the statements, all the timelines, records, memos, all point to one thing. The dumbass excuse that "he hasn't been tried in court yet so we must assume what all evidence says happened, didn't," is a shit troll attempt. It's not like we're about to make a citizens arrest here, but if you want to state he didn't do what he did because he hasn't been to jail yet, you're out of your goddamn bot mind.

Also you can't just say he's within his right to withhold funding when I presented the law that clearly says he's not. The constitution 100% states it is congress that has the power of taxing and spending, and the power to appropriate funding. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Article 1, Second 9, Clause 7. Both state congress has power over taxations, funding, and appropriation. They hold power of the purse. Per the Impoundment Act, POTUS cannot deny or hold funding without prior informed knowledge given to congress and, if such knowledge is given, there is a limit on length of such a hold. Both were violated.

Please provide some evidence the president is allowed by law to deny the constitution and impoundment act. Otherwise shut up.

Yup, and whenever you point out their hypocrisy or the crimes they conveniently ignored in the past they scream "whataboutism" to try to shut down the discussion and prevent anyone from looking further into the crimes and hypocrisy from the left. I mean FFS, for all the times they try to invoke Nixon, you'd think one, just one of them would be intelligent to realize Nixon was impeached for spying on his opponent, the EXACT crime committed against Trump.