Joe Biden should be arrested and charged

[Mick]

Hell, Dimwingers aren't even giving the Republicans on the Committee a chance to question their so-called witnesses.

It is definitely a sham.

Yep, like Adam Schiff not releasing Volker's testimony that blew Democrats up.

 

[middleview]

Hell, Dimwingers aren't even giving the Republicans on the Committee a chance to question their so-called witnesses.

It is definitely a sham.

Prior to the vote by the judiciary committee on accepting Articles of impeachment...both democrats and republicans had the opportunity to question witnesses. Ken Starr and Linda Tripp both testified in 1998 and were questioned by members of the committee. The same thing will happen with Trump. After the vote members of the House will debate moving forward with impeachment.

Trump is asking for something no other president has gotten...the right to steer impeachment proceedings in a direction favorable to him. This is not a trial in a court of law. The constitution is very specific about who sets the rules.

 

[middleview]

Then it's not an impeachment inquiry, gimp. They need to stop lying about it. This is the whole point. Christ almighty. Lol.

You have no point.

This is the process followed in 1998. Clinton did not have the chance to have his lawyers cross examine witnesses in hearings leading up to the articles of impeachment in committee. Hearings held after the articles passed in committee were largely debates between the democrats who spoke for Clinton and the republicans who wanted him impeached. The trial takes place in the Senate.

 

[Nostra]

Prior to the vote by the judiciary committee on accepting Articles of impeachment...both democrats and republicans had the opportunity to question witnesses. .

Schifferbrains isn't allowing Republicans to question witnesses now.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Are you now saying the request by congress for documents from Holder (Fast and Furious) was something Holder was right to deny?

So you admit you don't even know what I think or thought, have never seen me take a position, yet also claim my opinion has changed?

 

[Mick]

You have no point.

This is the process followed in 1998.

No, it isn't. The beginning of the impeachment inquiry against Clinton did not start until it was formally adopted and Clinton was given his due process rights. That has not happened with this impeachment inquiry. Democrats are wielding the impeachment process without affording due process to the President to present exculpatory evidence.

Therefore, it is not an impeachment inquiry at all. Impeachment proceedings are an extraordinary step that require basic elements of fairness and due process afforded to the POTUS. The fact you can't accept such basic ideas of fairness and integrity refect poorly on who you are and what you stand for.

 

[Mick]

Schifferbrains isn't allowing Republicans to question witnesses now.

Right. Anyone who would pretend that such shenanigans are not corrupt and not a sham is mentally ill.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

No, it isn't. The beginning of the impeachment inquiry against Clinton did not start until it was formally adopted and Clinton was given his due process rights. That has not happened with this impeachment inquiry. Democrats are wielding the impeachment process without affording due process to the President to present exculpatory evidence.

Therefore, it is not an impeachment inquiry at all. Impeachment proceedings are an extraordinary step that require basic elements of fairness and due process afforded to the POTUS. The fact you can't accept such basic ideas of fairness and integrity refect poorly on who you are and what you stand for.

It appears we have *middleview* on record as thinking anonymous accusers and secret hearings are legitimate means of persecution, er, prosecution.

These people are amazing.

 

[Mick]

It appears we have *middleview* on record as thinking anonymous accusers and secret hearings are legitimate means of persecution, er, prosecution.

These people are amazing.

How dare due process be demanded! The gall of these people!

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Nope. That's your fiction.

Your lacks of speaking out against Red Don's actions of telling congress to lb sand speaks different.

 

[middleview]

So you admit you don't even know what I think or thought, have never seen me take a position, yet also claim my opinion has changed?

I can predict what your response would have been because of what you've posted here. I notice that you dodge the question.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I can predict what your response would have been because of what you've posted here. I notice that you dodge the question.

So now you're upset I won't go along with your dodge? Yer funny.

 

[PhilFish]

Your lacks of speaking out against Red Don's actions of telling congress to lb sand speaks different.

I have consistently said that if they want to prove it, then prove it, and remove him from office. Now what

 

[Jen]

I have consistently said that if they want to prove it, then prove it, and remove him from office. Now what

Somehow they have realized that all they can do is talk about removing him. There is not adequate evidence of any wrong doing to remove him or they would have done it already.

 

[middleview]

It appears we have *middleview* on record as thinking anonymous accusers and secret hearings are legitimate means of persecution, er, prosecution.

These people are amazing.

And now we have "The Thinker" on record as wanting to setup whistle blowers for retaliation.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

And now we have "The Thinker" on record as wanting to setup whistle blowers for retaliation.

No, you're lying. Ever heard of the Sixth Amendment? You may want to brush up on that. Or are you cool with an anonymous source accusing you of rape and secret hearings being held to determine your guilt?

Me? I'll stick with the Constitution.

 

[middleview]

Name them.

Sarah Palin to GOP: I’m calling your bluff! Impeach Obama

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sarah-palin-gop-im-calling-your-bluff-impeach-obama

 

[middleview]

No, you're lying. Ever heard of the Sixth Amendment? You may want to brush up on that. Or are you cool with an anonymous source accusing you of rape and secret hearings being held to determine your guilt?

Me? I'll stick with the Constitution.

You'll stick with the parts you like. The 6th amendment is about someone accused of a crime and standing trial.

It would seem you want to do away with any protection for whistle blowers as well as the current accepted practice of investigating claims made by one.

What did the Whistle blower accuse Trump of that Trump's own memo on the call didn't confirm?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

You'll stick with the parts you like. The 6th amendment is about someone accused of a crime and standing trial.

It would seem you want to do away with any protection for whistle blowers as well as the current accepted practice of investigating claims made by one.

What did the Whistle blower accuse Trump of that Trump's own memo on the call didn't confirm?

So Trump isn't accused of any crime. Then what's all the screeching from leftists about?

As for the whistleblower: irrelevant nonsense. The Sixth Amendment trumps.

 

[Colorforms]

With interfering with a Presidential election.
He is preaching to the House to impeach his opponent, President Trump.

I think Schiff and Nadler should be investigated. Schiff has already lied so often that I don't think he's capable of telling the truth without bursting into flames. Nadler as well for his lies during the impeachment inquiry.