I assure you, the impeachment proceeding will occur in the open and in plain view.

That's post #35.

So no answer from the lib about my post?

Post #35 has the answer you are looking for. There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that mandates what you perceive to be the procedure. In short, you are mistaken or have been misinformed.
 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/article

So you said that it would be out in the open "when the time comes".  You also talked about the "process".  What has always been the normal "process" any time an impeachment inquiry was started?  Has it always been in secret behind closed doors where members of the opposing political party are not able to participate?  When does the "time come" for it to be made public?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I assure you, the impeachment proceeding will occur in the open and in plain view.

That's post #35.

Post #35 has the answer you are looking for. There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that mandates what you perceive to be the procedure. In short, you are mistaken or have been misinformed.
 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/article

So you said that it would be out in the open "when the time comes".  You also talked about the "process".  What has always been the normal "process" any time an impeachment inquiry was started?  Has it always been in secret behind closed doors where members of the opposing political party are not able to participate?  When does the "time come" for it to be made public?

Historically, many impeachment inquiry proceedings have taken place behind closed doors. Don't know historically about opposing political party members specifically NOT being able to participate...but that's not the case here as there are GOP and DEM members on the House investigative committee. 12 of the GOP members that hijacked today's proceedings were actually privy to the hearing. Gaetz, the loudest voice outside of Jordan, was not one of them.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Let's see. Under Clinton, the inquiry was held in private under special council Ken Starr. Likewise, the Russia probe, was conducted privately by special council Mueller.  On the subject of obstruction of justice, Mueller said he had been prohibited by Justice Department policy from charging the president with a crime and that any potential wrongdoing by a president must be addressed by a "process other than the criminal justice system."

When Trump released the partial transcript of the phone call with the president of the Ukraine, the house began an inquiry, which is being conducted as prescribed by Article II. Nothing in that document details any blueprint for the proceeding, only that it must occur.

We have had exactly three instances of this in US history, as Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

Interestingly, just because Mueller was forbidden by Justice Department policy from charging the president with a crime, this does not mean that it is a law. The very concept of this was discussed today in the Second District Court of appeals in Trump v. Vance, and might possibly be addressed within the decision on that case, which pertains to the release of Trump's tax returns.
 
The hearing was broadcast live and can be heard HERE:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465172-1/c...audio-only

Anything else you need clarification on, please don't hesitate to ask.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Let's see. Under Clinton, the inquiry was held in private under special council Ken Starr. Likewise, the Russia probe, was conducted privately by special council Mueller.  On the subject of obstruction of justice, Mueller said he had been prohibited by Justice Department policy from charging the president with a crime and that any potential wrongdoing by a president must be addressed by a "process other than the criminal justice system."

When Trump released the partial transcript of the phone call with the president of the Ukraine, the house began an inquiry, which is being conducted as prescribed by Article II. Nothing in that document details any blueprint for the proceeding, only that it must occur.

We have had exactly three instances of this in US history, as Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

Interestingly, just because Mueller was forbidden by Justice Department policy from charging the president with a crime, this does not mean that it is a law. The very concept of this was discussed today in the Second District Court of appeals in Trump v. Vance, and might possibly be addressed within the decision on that case, which pertains to the release of Trump's tax returns.
 
The hearing was broadcast live and can be heard HERE:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465172-1/c...audio-only

Anything else you need clarification on, please don't hesitate to ask.

...  I'm just dissapointed

---

I agree with you, jj. I too am disappointed with our president.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

“Mr. Taylor neither described any direct conversation with Mr. Trump himself nor made any reference to documents or recordings that would explicitly implicate the president. Instead, he provided a road map for investigators by quoting others around Mr. Trump describing his actions and statements,”

https://www.westernjournal.com/turns-dam...-fcYnmXFSI

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

I assure you, the impeachment proceeding will occur in the open and in plain view.

That's post #35.

Post #35 has the answer you are looking for. There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that mandates what you perceive to be the procedure. In short, you are mistaken or have been misinformed.
 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/article

So you said that it would be out in the open "when the time comes".  You also talked about the "process".  What has always been the normal "process" any time an impeachment inquiry was started?  Has it always been in secret behind closed doors where members of the opposing political party are not able to participate?  When does the "time come" for it to be made public?

They are able to participate.
each of the three committees has Republican members and every single witness has been answering questions from those members.
The meetings are in secret because sensitive topics are being discussed.
once everything is squared away some of the witnesses will be called to testify in a public hearing where a more limited set of questions will be asked.
If the house does not do that prior to the impeachment vote, the Senate definitely will.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

“Mr. Taylor neither described any direct conversation with Mr. Trump himself nor made any reference to documents or recordings that would explicitly implicate the president. Instead, he provided a road map for investigators by quoting others around Mr. Trump describing his actions and statements,”

https://www.westernjournal.com/turns-dam...-fcYnmXFSI

I read the article you posted the link to, which suggested I refer to the original NY Times article, should I choose to wade through it. I chose to. here is the exact quote from the actual article.

"The chain of events that Mr. Taylor laid out in his testimony suggested a clear quid pro quo between the $391 million in suspended assistance and Mr. Trump’s demands that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as well as a debunked conspiracy theory involving Ukrainian help for Democrats in the 2016 election.

Yet in the publicly released portion of his testimony, Mr. Taylor neither described any direct conversation with Mr. Trump himself nor made any reference to documents or recordings that would explicitly implicate the president. Instead, he provided a road map for investigators by quoting others around Mr. Trump describing his actions and statements."

That is to say, the lawmakers present were aghast, and we are not yet privy to what Mr. Taylor told them behind closed doors, in TEN HOURS of testimony.

The article goes on to describe the White House response to the released statement, then goes on to say that "Taylor’s testimony once again focused attention on Mr. Trump’s unusual relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia."

The article closes by saying that

"In his 14-page opening statement, bristling with indignation yet chock-full of dates, facts and quotes, Mr. Taylor on Tuesday described “two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular,” run largely by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, as well as others like Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union.

Those who would like to can read the actual article that the op-ed article linked to above was referring to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/po...aylor.html

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

“Mr. Taylor neither described any direct conversation with Mr. Trump himself nor made any reference to documents or recordings that would explicitly implicate the president. Instead, he provided a road map for investigators by quoting others around Mr. Trump describing his actions and statements,”

https://www.westernjournal.com/turns-dam...-fcYnmXFSI

I read the article you posted the link to, which suggested I refer to the original NY Times article, should I choose to wade through it. I chose to. here is the exact quote from the actual article.

"The chain of events that Mr. Taylor laid out in his testimony suggested a clear quid pro quo between the $391 million in suspended assistance and Mr. Trump’s demands that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as well as a debunked conspiracy theory involving Ukrainian help for Democrats in the 2016 election.

Yet in the publicly released portion of his testimony, Mr. Taylor neither described any direct conversation with Mr. Trump himself nor made any reference to documents or recordings that would explicitly implicate the president. Instead, he provided a road map for investigators by quoting others around Mr. Trump describing his actions and statements."

That is to say, the lawmakers present were aghast, and we are not yet privy to what Mr. Taylor told them behind closed doors, in TEN HOURS of testimony.

The article goes on to describe the White House response to the released statement, then goes on to say that "Taylor’s testimony once again focused attention on Mr. Trump’s unusual relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia."

The article closes by saying that

"In his 14-page opening statement, bristling with indignation yet chock-full of dates, facts and quotes, Mr. Taylor on Tuesday described “two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular,” run largely by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, as well as others like Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union.

Those who would like to can read the actual article that the op-ed article linked to above was referring to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/po...aylor.html

The level of ignorance is getting pretty ridiculous.  How many times, in how many languages do we have to keep telling you That there is no evidence that the Ukrainians actually knew that the aid was being withheld.  

"Mr. Taylor Says you killed your wife"

"No I didn't she's standing right here.  Honey tell him your still alive."

"SILENCE, OUT OF ORDER!  STRIKE THAT FROM THE RECORD.  YOU CANNOT CONTRADICT MR. TAYLOR!!!"

On Other news, it has been learned that William Tayloy neglected to mention that he worked for nearly a Decade with an NGO that hosted, worked with, and was allowed to publish work through "The Atlantic Group,"  Which is primarily funded by, wait for it...  Burisma Holdings...  

This would last 3 seconds at trial.  Just long enough for the judge to hold the prosecutor in contempt.  

As for "Debunked the Conspiracy theory?"  Huh...  Tell that to Paul Manafort and the Ukrainians that were convicted of INTERFERING IN THE 2016 ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#TDS
#HEADINTHESAND
#WHAT'SITGOINGTOTAKE
#READINGCOMPREHENSION
#FAKESOAPOPERA
#GETONOURLEVEL

---

I read the article you posted the link to, which suggested I refer to the original NY Times article, should I choose to wade through it. I chose to. here is the exact quote from the actual article.

"The chain of events that Mr. Taylor laid out in his testimony suggested a clear quid pro quo between the $391 million in suspended assistance and Mr. Trump’s demands that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as well as a debunked conspiracy theory involving Ukrainian help for Democrats in the 2016 election.

Yet in the publicly released portion of his testimony, Mr. Taylor neither described any direct conversation with Mr. Trump himself nor made any reference to documents or recordings that would explicitly implicate the president. Instead, he provided a road map for investigators by quoting others around Mr. Trump describing his actions and statements."

That is to say, the lawmakers present were aghast, and we are not yet privy to what Mr. Taylor told them behind closed doors, in TEN HOURS of testimony.

The article goes on to describe the White House response to the released statement, then goes on to say that "Taylor’s testimony once again focused attention on Mr. Trump’s unusual relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia."

The article closes by saying that

"In his 14-page opening statement, bristling with indignation yet chock-full of dates, facts and quotes, Mr. Taylor on Tuesday described “two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular,” run largely by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, as well as others like Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union.

Those who would like to can read the actual article that the op-ed article linked to above was referring to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/po...aylor.html

The level of ignorance is getting pretty ridiculous.  How many times, in how many languages do we have to keep telling you That there is no evidence that the Ukrainians actually knew that the aid was being withheld.  

Maybe you're right that there's no evidence that the Ukrainians realized aid was withheld, but what the Ukrainians thought is immaterial to the question of if power was abused.
The question is, were we trying to influence the Ukrainians in an abusive way? Whether or not we succeeded is besides the point.
To take your example, if I accuse you of hiring a hitman to kill your own wife, saying "look! She's still alive!" isn't much of a defense.  Trying to hire a hitman is illegal whether or not the hitman takes your money, and whether or not the hitman actually kills the target.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The level of ignorance is getting pretty ridiculous.  How many times, in how many languages do we have to keep telling you That there is no evidence that the Ukrainians actually knew that the aid was being withheld.  

Maybe you're right that there's no evidence that the Ukrainians realized aid was withheld, but what the Ukrainians thought is immaterial to the question of if power was abused.
The question is, were we trying to influence the Ukrainians in an abusive way? Whether or not we succeeded is besides the point.
To take your example, if I accuse you of hiring a hitman to kill your own wife, saying "look! She's still alive!" isn't much of a defense.  Trying to hire a hitman is illegal whether or not the hitman takes your money, and whether or not the hitman actually kills the target.

Here we go again.  

Trump did x.

Completely empirically and verifiably disprove it.  

Well he WANTED TO.  

In determining an extortive act you have to demonstrate that the subject felt pressure, they didnt.  

To demonstrate corrupt intent you have to demonstrate that there is no evidence that the Ukrainian or bidens past behavior could conceivably meet the reasonable suspicion standard for corrupt illicit or illegal activity.  There is evidence.  Moreover, the witnesses who are testifying their interpretations of corrupt intent are demonstrating consistent ignorance of the evidence.  

So to carry out the analogy because a guy got into a fight with his wife u accuse him of conspiring to kill her but THERE WAS NO HITMAN!  

How do we know this?  Because all of the illicit flashpoints by the left have been disproven: 

Schiff said he tried to get the ukrainians to fabricate information. LIE

they say he mentioned a quid pro quo 7 or 8 times Never mentioned military aid ONCE on the entire phone call.  The left is falsely conflating Ukrainian purchase of arms with the transaction in question.  

Already mentioned the Ukrainians didnt know.  

They say Giuliani was doing oppo research, this was all born out of his work on Trumps defense against Mueller.  

They said the investigation into hunter was over when the guy was fired.  We know that's a lie.  

They said Joe Biden didnt know.  Open source reporting shows thats a lie.  

But hey, when its Republican evidence be darned let's endlessly investigate and subpoena because of the SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE.  

when a Democrat loses a billion dollars to a ukrainian oligarch who happens to be paying his son  million dollars a year, nothing to see here.  Joe's just fighting corruption.  

Give me a break.

---

Maybe you're right that there's no evidence that the Ukrainians realized aid was withheld, but what the Ukrainians thought is immaterial to the question of if power was abused.
The question is, were we trying to influence the Ukrainians in an abusive way? Whether or not we succeeded is besides the point.
To take your example, if I accuse you of hiring a hitman to kill your own wife, saying "look! She's still alive!" isn't much of a defense.  Trying to hire a hitman is illegal whether or not the hitman takes your money, and whether or not the hitman actually kills the target.

Here we go again.  

Trump did x.

Completely empirically and verifiably disprove it.  

Well he WANTED TO.  

In determining an extortive act you have to demonstrate that the subject felt pressure, they didnt.  

To demonstrate corrupt intent you have to demonstrate that there is no evidence that the Ukrainian or bidens past behavior could conceivably meet the reasonable suspicion standard for corrupt illicit or illegal activity.  There is evidence.  Moreover, the witnesses who are testifying their interpretations of corrupt intent are demonstrating consistent ignorance of the evidence.  

To establish attempt to extort, all you need are statements or testimony that illuminate the suspects intents and motives.  We're getting that more and more every day.

If the intent was actually to investigate either Biden for violations of US law, DoJ would have handled that.  Rudy of course has a right to play the role of private investigator to investigate his own suspicions, but you can't use the carrots and sticks of government if you're only wearing the hat of a private citizen.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here we go again.  

Trump did x.

Completely empirically and verifiably disprove it.  

Well he WANTED TO.  

In determining an extortive act you have to demonstrate that the subject felt pressure, they didnt.  

To demonstrate corrupt intent you have to demonstrate that there is no evidence that the Ukrainian or bidens past behavior could conceivably meet the reasonable suspicion standard for corrupt illicit or illegal activity.  There is evidence.  Moreover, the witnesses who are testifying their interpretations of corrupt intent are demonstrating consistent ignorance of the evidence.  

To establish attempt to extort, all you need are statements or testimony that illuminate the suspects intents and motives.  We're getting that more and more every day.

If the intent was actually to investigate either Biden for violations of US law, DoJ would have handled that.  Rudy of course has a right to play the role of private investigator to investigate his own suspicions, but you can't use the carrots and sticks of government if you're only wearing the hat of a private citizen.

1.) What attempt?  He never mentioned it once.  We have the damn transcript.  All the testimony is renderednfslse because of the transcript.  

2.) Its been two weeks.  What part of I want the ag to call you dont u understand.  I'll say it again I'll keep saying it until u get it, the function of introducing or facilitating cooperation between officers of separate nations is a diplomatic function of the executive, ESPECIALLY with a new administration coming in!  

The alternate reality u people try to imagine to make something seem illicit is like something out of inception.  

Billion dollars for a no show job?  With a proven money trail and admitted extortion?   No one cares Bout that. 

But GASP people were gossiping about what trump might have dreamt of last night.  It must be true!

#TDS
#FANTASIA
#GRASPING@PLASTICSTRAWS
#CANUSPELLEXCULPATE

---

#jjgettingnervous

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

A brief history lesson:
From 1789 to 1793, French politics was a struggle between "the King should decide everything" vs. "the legislature should decide everything."
In 1791, they compromised and wrote a constitution laying out how they would share power.
But in 1793, the legislature finds the king guilty of treason and he is guillotined the next day.
What was he doing?
Coordinating with a foreign government (Austria) to try to undermine his domestic political opponents.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

A brief history lesson:
From 1789 to 1793, French politics was a struggle between "the King should decide everything" vs. "the legislature should decide everything."
In 1791, they compromised and wrote a constitution laying out how they would share power.  
But in 1793, the legislature finds the king guilty of treason and he is guillotined the next day.
What was he doing?
Coordinating with a foreign government (Austria) to try to undermine his domestic political opponents.

A brief history lesson.  In 2014 Joe biden coordinated 1 billion dollars of us aid to be deposited in the bank of a ukrainian oligarch.  5 days later, hunter biden is appointed to a post paying 83k/month or 1million/year in a country and industry he had no experience in.  We are still missing the billion dollars.  The former prosecutor general of Ukraine was investigating said oligarch.  Joe Biden extorted the government of ukraine to fire the prosecutor.  

French revolution?  Lolz

#trymeifuwantto
#whybringsuchweakgametosuchastrongman

---

On the subject of whether the Ukrainians knew and when they knew, that aid was being held up, here is an explanatory article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/po...e=Homepage

"In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times."

"The timing of the communications, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than acknowledged.

It also means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations."

---

On the subject of whether the Ukrainians knew and when they knew, that aid was being held up, here is an explanatory article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/po...e=Homepage

"In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times."

"The timing of the communications, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than acknowledged.

It also means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations."

So after the july 25 call?  

When did the state department learn that ukraine had already started investigating burisma in march?

ILL WAIT!!!!!!
#ISHOUKDCHARGE4THIS

---

On the subject of whether the Ukrainians knew and when they knew, that aid was being held up, here is an explanatory article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/po...e=Homepage

"In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times."

"The timing of the communications, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than acknowledged.

It also means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations."

So after the july 25 call?  

When did the state department learn that ukraine had already started investigating burisma in march?

ILL WAIT!!!!!!
#ISHOUKDCHARGE4THIS

I'm not sure what the underlined part means.  Please explain your point there.  

Also, the Ukrainians are saying they are not investigating Hunter Biden; that what they are investigating happened before he joined the board. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKBN1WC1LV

---

I'm just gonna throw this out there...

The Ukraine is a nothing country that matters zero in the world.

That is all.

---