Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I beg to differ, the decision has been made and charges have been made public. What is pending is the vote. The Democrats have finished investigations and called their witnesses. Now, should they vote to impeach, the Senate will examine the case and elect to try it or not. Regardless, after they (House) vote the House is done, with the exception of the "impeachment manager" who presents the case which was voted. According to Senate rules first established for Johnson’s 1868 impeachment trial, everyone in the Senate chamber is required to keep absolute silence, “on pain of imprisonment,” as the House managers make their case against the president. Then the Defense Team gives their opening statements. Both sides can call witnesses to include the President. But the president does not have to appear. According to Senate rules, if the president refuses to testify, the “trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty.” (Neither Johnson nor Clinton appeared at their impeachment trials). As jurors, Senators sit quietly and observe the proceedings, but they are allowed to submit written questions to both the prosecution and defense, and also to witnesses. When both sides have finished presenting their arguments, the Senate adjourns behind closed doors to deliberate.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

If we are giving them our tax money, we care. In fact, for Ukraine, elimination of curruption or significant progress toward that goal was a condition in the pledge to provide them aid.

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

[quote=Pennylynn]I beg to differ, the decision has been made and charges have been made public. What is pending is the vote. The Democrats have finished investigations and called their witnesses. Now, should they vote to impeach, the Senate will examine the case and elect to try it or not. Regardless, after they (House) vote the House is done, with the exception of the "impeachment manager" who presents the case which was voted. According to Senate rules first established for Johnson’s 1868 impeachment trial, everyone in the Senate chamber is required to keep absolute silence, “on pain of imprisonment,” as the House managers make their case against the president. Then the Defense Team gives their opening statements. Both sides can call witnesses to include the President. But the president does not have to appear. According to Senate rules, if the president refuses to testify, the “trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty.” (Neither Johnson nor Clinton appeared at their impeachment trials). As jurors, Senators sit quietly and observe the proceedings, but they are allowed to submit written questions to both the prosecution and defense, and also to witnesses. When both sides have finished presenting their arguments, the Senate adjourns behind closed doors to deliberate.[/quwote]

At the time I posted I had not heard the announcement
Wednesday at 7:pm EST
WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

The articles – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – are charges of wrongdoing that lay out specific assertions of how the president violated the U.S. Constitution and the oath of his office.

Each of the articles will be voted on separately by the Judiciary Committee with deliberations starting Wednesday at 7 p.m. and a vote expected on Thursday. The panel has 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans.

Those articles the committee approves will go to the full House for a vote, probably with a simple majority in the Democratic-controlled body on each article.

Those that pass will be sent on to the Senate, which must hold a trial. If two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, vote to convict, Trump would be removed from office and Vice President Mike Pence would become commander in chief.

dongreen76

His words to Zenlensky was" he wanted them to do him a favor,and that was to investigate Biden".Biden is his closes competitor so far as his retaining his presidency.So far as his committing High Crimes and misdemeanors are concerned,the founders specified of high crimes, whether they meant misdemeanors as crimes you can be certain they meant something for some kind of an affect, other wise they would not have mentioned it.At a minimum misdemeanors would have meant mischievousness.If you had read the debates as I recommended you do ,you would have noted they used the word mal -conduct,which would have meant disorderly conduct or conduct un-befitting and unbecoming a president. Keeping in mind what they were discussing ,and that was to determine the grounds in which a president should be removed from office;these would be known as articles of impeachment...Where in this countrys history does this country have a prerequisite that has to be met by a potential ally whom are requiring our assistance for helping them to become free and independent and expounding those concepts as we have been doing since the revolutionary war ,and ever since.We also had assistance without any prerequisites to be met,such as favors done for the assistors.(which by the way,we were supported by France,and Spain,whom at that time were powers of the world,and required nothing in return) now what part of that are you denying he did or did not do (the Zen,part or the Fa_ _ _ part.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Forgive me for embarrassing you in a public forum, but it is apparent that you have not read the unclassified transcript of the 25 Jul phone call. Please run a web search and pick your media outlet which links or embeds the document. I have read it a number of times from CBS to Politico. My quotes are directly from the document, cross-referenced to ensure that there was no mistake on my part.

Second, George Mason's recommendation was to expand the impeachment clause to include "maladministration" not "mal-conduct". Here is his quote “Why is the [impeachment] provision restrained to treason and bribery?” He answered himself “extend the power of impeachments…to add maladministration.”

The three debaters at the Philadelphia Convention (May 1787); Madison, Mason, and Randolph agreed that an impeachable offense was "—that a president should be impeached for abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law." These men used the Virginia Plan as the starting point, and in this plan the word "malpractice." Here is a link to the Virginia Plan https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=7&page=transcript

At least two founding fathers believed that the Impeachment Clause should be removed: Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania. They argued: “[If the president] should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence,” Morris argued. “[Impeachment] will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.”

These argument went back and forth until September when actual "offences" were named; treason and bribery. But, Mason was concerned that this was too limiting and he used the case of Warren Hastings the Governor of India's "crimes" to set the American standard. Hastings was accused of confiscating land and provoking a revolt in parts of India. Hastings’ trial by the House of Lords was pending while the American delegates were debating in Philadelphia. Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings. (Of note, The House of Lords acquitted Hastings in 1795.) So, now you have an idea of what Mason had in mind as an example of Abuse of Power.

Mason, at this point recommended "maladministration" and Madison objected "So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate." In other words, Madison feared the Senate would use the word “maladministration” as an excuse to remove the president whenever it wanted. So Mason offered a substitute: “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State.” The English Parliament had included a similarly worded phrase in its articles of impeachment since 1450. This compromise satisfied Madison and most of the other Convention delegates. They approved Mason’s amendment without further debate, 8 states to 3, but added “against the United States,” to avoid ambiguity. The qualifier "against the United States" sadly was omitted when the document was sent the convention’s Committee on Style and Revision, which was supposed to improve the draft Constitution’s language without changing its meaning. Without that phrase, which explained what constitutes “high crimes,” many Americans came to believe that “high crimes” literally meant only crimes identified in criminal law.

We will skip Jackson's impeachment and almost removal from office, escaping by 1 (one) vote because it has nothing to do with high crimes or misdemeanors against the USA, he was impeached but not convicted for firing a secretary. Instead, I will move forward to Watergate and Nixon.

The 1974 House Judiciary Committee put the British example favored by Mason to use during Nixon’s Watergate scandal. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” the committee’s staff report argued, originally referred to “damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament’s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust,” allegations that “were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.”

Do notice, not one time did these gentlemen use the term "mal-conduct."

On to your next misunderstanding. The United States engages in quid pro quos all the time when it comes to foreign assistance. Our aid is not charity; Americans expect to get something in return for it.

We have leveraged U.S. assistance in exchange for a host of objectives: economic reform, democratic reform, better pursuit of corruption, access to strategically important areas and so on.

Here is a limited list of "conditional" aid:

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter agreed to provide Egypt with billions of dollars in foreign aid in exchange for making peace with Israel, as part of the Camp David Accords.

In 2004, President George W. Bush created the Millennium Challenge Account, which required countries to meet a host of eligibility requirements -- free speech, free assembly, rule of law, property rights, transparency -- before they could receive a grant of aid.

Central America, If you look at the appropriations bill that actually provided the president with the money to give assistance to Central America, there are 15 different reasons you might suspend the aid there.

And the Appropriations Bill for the Ukraine has a clause about eliminating or significant progress on eliminating "corruption in the government."

Simply put, the world has moved on from the simplicities of the 1700s.

Radiance3

=============
I think yours is a statement of either a very ignorant person or a LIAR. Nothing else could justify your assertions.

The facts in the Court of Law, the only viable, credible or acceptable evidence are the 1. Original transcript of the president's phone call. 2. The original statement of the Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, stating that there was no QUID PRO QUO, that there was NO PRESSURE made by the president during their conversation.

The CLAIMS of SCHITT are all HERSIES, from a 2nd, 3rd, gossips or whispers of parties used on their Impeachment justification. Those are bogus, must be thrown out, must never be accepted as credible but gossips of 3rd democrat parties who are part of wanting to impeach the president.

There are NO justifications or any valid reasons to justify impeachment but all HOAXES from the beginning. These democrats in Congress are wasting so much taxpayers' money for hundreds of millions of dollars, for almost 3.5 years now, time wasted. Instead of serving the American people for the jobs they were elected to do. Even before winning, the radical DEMS already had plans to impeach him. FBI Officers stated so. They were so desperate to take over power to corrupt the system because they all depend on corruption to get ahead. They used the Federal agencies as weapons to attacking the republicans, which started during the Barack Obama tenure, using the IRS. Later the DEEP STATE was created, and the most powerful agencies are used like the FBI, CIA Clapper, and the IG, and foreign countries like Italy, Spain, Ukraine.

Prosecutor Durnham will soon release the whole contents of this sophisticated hoax of the Deep State from the Obama administration.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Maybe because it's what you would do? So you suspect it of others? That's called projection.

Wonttakeitanymore

In that case ovomit the fraud should be in prison!

Wonttakeitanymore

He, like the demonrats can’t back up anything they say with facts!!

Wonttakeitanymore

Moses was not a polished orator either, but God used him nonetheless!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I appreciate plain talk. I also understand President Trump's brand of humor.

You are right, from all accounts Moses stuttered.

Lonewolf

Why didn't he care in 2017 or 18 never said a word about corruption and funds were released immediately. Only when biden decided to run did it become important !

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

2017... that authorization was approved by the Obama administration. 2018, Petro Poroshenko was president of Ukraine and the country was in the process of electing a new president. Also, there was urgency in releasing the funds, Petro Poroshenko had refused Russia's request for peace talks. Russia was moving more tanks toward the border, putting Ukraine in a very vulnerable position. In fact, President Trump released an emergency appropriations to them. Also, the US provided the Ukraine with Javelins (tank killers) This year (2019), Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine. He ran on a promise to rid his government of corruption. He was not a politician, he was a comedian. An unknown other than his portrayal of an "idealistic" school teacher. So, it was prudent to send representatives to meet with him to determine if he really had intention of fulfilling his promise to rid his nation, as described by the Obama administration as the "world's most corrupt nation", of corruption.

It is also worth noting, Biden announced his intent to run for President on 23 April and the video of him admitting he and Obama withheld aid to Ukraine..a quid pro quo only surfaced this summer. So, pursuit to the comprehensive treaty agreement between the Ukraine and the USA, signed by Bill Clinton, https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf, the request made by President Trump is entirely appropriate. Biden is quoted: "I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money."

Lonewolf

he wanted the prosecutor gone because he wasent prosecutig anyone

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Reading minds again I see. People like you are more dangerous to our Republic than Trump could ever be. Take out the nose ring even if you have to rip it out. Ultimately it will be the less painful tract than the one you are now on.