The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

[txradioguy]

You linked to a thread that got locked because your premises were shot to death so badly it actually made the readers' minds bleed.  Why'd you have to dredge up that dreck?

@txradioguy lol....Toldja.

Yup you called it!

[OfTheCross]

They were addressed repeatedly, and you just didn't like the responses you got so you just kept repeating yourself.  That stuff pisses me off, because it bores the Members of this forum to tears.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,37

Who addressed it?

Everyone just dismissed it.

Anyway, back to this topic, will you accept the results of the inquiry?

[Cyber Liberty]

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,37

Who addressed it?

Everyone just dismissed it. 

Anyway, back to this topic, will you accept the results of the inquiry?

Are you suggesting I would act like a Democrat? 

And, stop posting links to locked threads.  Consider yourself warned.

[Hoodat]

To answer you, I'll link you to this:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378

Citing a law is pointless without demonstrating how said law was violated.  Take extortion for example.  You cited the code - 18 U.S. Code § 872.  But you failed to explain how Trump committed extortion, which is defined as "an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person".

Or how about 2 U.S. Code § 192?  Trump has not been summoned as a witness to an investigation.  And considering that he is the target of the investigation, he enjoys the Constitutional right against self incrimination as well as Executive Privilege.

Here's some friendly advice for you.  This forum is made up of members who possess the ability to think critically and apply deductive reasoning.  We don't fall for nonsense like throwing some US Code against the wall and pretending it sticks.  We don't assume Trump/Clinton/etc to be guilty simply because our emotions want him to be guilty.  We want to see the factual evidence and render a decision based on that evidence.

So if you believe Trump committed an impeachable offense, then state your case.  But in order to convince the rest of us, you better be able to articulate your case and back it up with facts.  Because in the absence of that, you come across as someone who is not able to think for his/herself.

I hope that helps.

[OfTheCross]

Are you suggesting I would act like a Democrat? 

And, stop posting links to locked threads.  Consider yourself warned.

Seems to me like you're being a bit of an obstructionist re: me posting a link to a thread on this board.

I wonder why 


Anyway, would you accept the results of the inquiry? Yay, or Nay?

I didn't understand your answer re: you acting like a Democrat

[OfTheCross]

Citing a law is pointless without demonstrating how said law was violated.  Take extortion for example.  You cited the code - 18 U.S. Code § 872.  But you failed to explain how Trump committed extortion, which is defined as "an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person".

Or how about 2 U.S. Code § 192?  Trump has not been summoned as a witness to an investigation.  And considering that he is the target of the investigation, he enjoys the Constitutional right against self incrimination as well as Executive Privilege.

Here's some friendly advice for you.  This forum is made up of members who possess the ability to think critically and apply deductive reasoning.  We don't fall for nonsense like throwing some US Code against the wall and pretending it sticks.  We don't assume Trump/Clinton/etc to be guilty simply because our emotions want him to be guilty.  We want to see the factual evidence and render a decision based on that evidence.

So if you believe Trump committed an impeachable offense, then state your case.  But in order to convince the rest of us, you better be able to articulate your case and back it up with facts.  Because in the absence of that, you come across as someone who is not able to think for his/herself.

I hope that helps.

Thanks.

Well, I do believe, as I've stated in this thread, that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. I've explained that impeachment doesn't have to simply occur because of a broken law, it can be due to a political violation.

It appears, based on what we know with regard to the telephone call and the text messages released, that Donald was soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our elections by finding or manufacturing dirt on a political opponent.

To me, that's impeachable. That's the current narrative. If it holds weight, he should be impeached. If it doesn't he shouldn't. We'll know more once the inquiry is done.

And, not to get too into the weeds in responding to you about the specific laws that the article says were broken, since that thread for that was locked by @Cyber Liberty for no good reason, I'll just say that it could be argued that 18 U.S. Code § 872 was broken when the Administration tried to extract politically valuable information from Ukraine while threatening to withhold military aid from them.

That's for the politicians to debate. When we get all the information we can debate it as well.

[Hoodat]

Just to be thorough, might as well address the other two.

18 U.S. Code § 610 - Coercion of political activity.  I have yet to hear of any federal employee who was intimidated, threatened, commanded, or coerced into engaging or in political activity.  Your article mentions Bill Taylor right after it tosses out the word 'IF'.  Anyone actually reading the article would see the flaw in that.  IF Trump slept with a goat for money, then he committed an impeachable offense according to US Code blah blah blah.  IF Trump stole a tie from the men's department at Macy's, then he committed an impeachable offense according to state law blah blah blah.  That's beautiful and all, EXCEPT Trump didn't do those things.  So to cite this code that Trump did not violate is just plain dishonest, which it is why it is important to read the article first and scrutinize the facts instead of simply linking to something someone posted on DU.

This applies to your fourth 'violation' [sic] as well.  18 U.S. Code § 607 - Place of solicitation.  In the height of intellectual negligence, the article does not even make an attempt at identifying any such solicitation.  Yet you would have us believe that Trump violated the solicitation statute?

[Hoodat]

Thanks.

Well, I do believe, as I've stated in this thread, that Trump has committed impeachable offenses.

Again, what are these impeachable offenses?  Please be specific.

I've explained that impeachment doesn't have to simply occur because of a broken law, it can be due to a political violation.

Please define 'political violation'.  Because Hamilton does not address it that way.  Instead, he describes it as "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust", and as "injuries done immediately to the society itself".  So based on Hamilton's actual words, what public trust was violated, and how was society injured.  Please be specific.

It appears, based on what we know with regard to the telephone call and the text messages released, that Donald was soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our elections by finding or manufacturing dirt on a political opponent.

Uh, no.  It does not appear that way at all.  Not even close.   If anything, the President was asking Ukraine to address corruption in its own country.  The dirt was already common knowledge.  The former Vice President even bragged about his role in it.  Nothing was manufactured.

To me, that's impeachable. That's the current narrative.

I don't deal in narratives.  I deal in facts.  If you ever come up with some facts that support the narrative, let me know.  But without them, the narrative becomes a demonstration of what happens when one lacks the ability to reason and think critically.  It is nothing more than an emotion-driven substitute for reality.

And, not to get too into the weeds in responding to you about the specific laws that the article says were broken, since that thread for that was locked by @Cyber Liberty for no good reason, I'll just say that it could be argued that 18 U.S. Code § 872 was broken when the Administration tried to extract politically valuable information from Ukraine while threatening to withhold military aid from them.

Considering that Hunter Biden's dealings were already public knowledge, what politically valuable information did the Administration try to extract?  Please be specific.

[txradioguy]

Considering that Hunter Biden's dealings were already public knowledge, what politically valuable information did the Administration try to extract?  Please be specific.

@Hoodat

Hell his dad bragged about what he’d done in the Ukraine.