Jump to content

TheWorldNewsOrg

US House of Representatives Impeachment Hearings Over President Donald Trump

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TheWorldNewsOrg -
JW Insider -
11
299

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


What is that? Third or fourth hand testimony?

Congressman Jim Jordan in Wednesday's impeachment  fiasco got to the heart of the matter of the 6 hours and four minutes of useless testimony when questioning Ambassador Taylor,  in less than eight minutes ...  for factually determining if Trump was guilty of any "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" ... the ONLY reason a U.S. sitting President can be Impeached.and removed from office.

The Democrats' STAR WITNESS was totally destroyed by Representative Jordan's questioning!

END OF STORY!

JIM JORDAN FIRED UP_ During President Trump Impeachment Hearing.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Friday they had SEVEN HOURS interrogating ONE witness, the former ambassador to the Ukraine .... and ONLY two minutes or so had any significance to WHY these hearings were being held .... to determine if Donald Trump had committed any offense worthy of the Constitutional reasons he COULD be impeached... High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

THE DEMOCRAT'S DOG AND PONY SHOW GOT ... NOTHING! ... except that Trump committed the ULTIMATE SIN ... he beat Hillary in a fair election.

Impeachment Friday Killer Conclusion .mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John H Slaughter said:

Democratic's were able to show what the nation has known since 1970 about Trump a white nationalist that cares for no one but his evil deeds. A good reason the devil picked him for President of a free country. Maga lovers and evangelicals support the downfall of the USA. Come to think of it, true Christians can’t wait to see this old system end.

John:

Except for your last sentence, NOTHING you said is true.

It appears that you have a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that has infected the entire Democrat Party, where the only thing they can think of, day and night, is how to get rid of Trump.  It has made them totally insane, bat-crap crazy, and mortally crippled them.

If you don't believe me, go to YouTube, and watch Wednesday's six hour session and Friday's seven hour session of the Impeachment hearings. 

It's embarrassing to see adults who cripple themselves, trying to wound someone else, who was fairly and honestly elected President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without any further ado, submitted for your inspection the November 16, 2019, 38 minute episode of "Justice With Judge Jeanine" ...

If you have been too busy to keep up with what is going on ... this is a VERY good synopsis..

 

 

 

 

9PM Justice With Judge Jeanine 11_16_19 _ Jeanine Pirro Fox News November 16, 2019.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you have been too busy to keep up with what is going on ... this is a VERY good synopsis.

And if you have been able to keep up . . . this is a VERY predictable synopsis, with several good points but also biased and misleading in several places.

I skimmed bits of it all the way through and can see that she is definitely picking at the weakest (legally questionable) and most hypocritical of the statements made by Democrats. These hearings are a grandstanding show, produced by the Democrats, that shoots them in the foot at every other turn. But they don't seem to notice because they are, as Jeanine says, shortsighted and blinded by hatred of the President. Of course, it's more of a hatred of the fact that they might not be able to keep a foothold in the White House for another 4 years. But they are only making it worse for themselves, at this rate. 

Still, it's very early in an inquiry process, where all the expected rules of law don't kick in yet. But the Democrats still try to pretend they have the upper hand, legally, and this has made for some stupidly funny statements by Democrats, like the ones Jeanine Pirro points out. (e.g., "Hearsay can be better than direct evidence.")

The Democrats' stupidity and hypocrisy does not mean that Trump is not a racist, and I think he showed himself to be a racist by how quickly he used racist "hooks" to get involved in politics, starting back with the Central Park Five. And he used racist "hooks" for attention a few times again in the years before a racist "hook" about Mexicans that kicked off his 2016 campaign. But his racism is not what is on trial here.

What's supposedly on trial is that Trump's concern over some potential political corruption will quite probably, if investigated, simultaneously help his election chances, because the corruption was tied to a Democratic opponent. And perhaps he used an opportunity to test a new foreign president's loyalty to the current US administration in asking for a public statement about that new president's findings after a requested investigation into this political corruption by Democrat opponents in the country of that new president. And then of course a "quid pro quo" of holding back a weapons deal until that new president complied with the investigation and the public box announcement. Even if all this turns out to be true, how is that so different from the long attempt by Democrats to investigate potential politically related corruption tied to Trump, which also initially involved foreign agents to gather the investigative materials/dossiers? If one was so important to national security (per Democrats) then why wouldn't the other be tied to national security? And since we're talking about Ukraine, we can note that Biden bragged about HIS role in the "quid pro quo" on camera which he also tied to the investigation of corruption going on in Ukraine. They hypocrisy is astounding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Constitution ONLY allows impeaching a sitting President for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Assume, just for the sake of argument, that Trump is crude, rude, vulgar, a racist, a misogynist, and the people he doesn't like that he has the power to fire, he fires them without a reason we agree with. Let's assume he hates dogs, cats, and children.

The power to determine what foreign policy IS ... rests with whoever is the President of the United States.  Whoever that is DEFINES it, during his Presidency,   I seem to remember (?) before Obama was even installed as President, he fired ALL the previously political appointee Ambassadors, and wanted them out of their offices before his inauguration.

But I digress .... back to the main point.

If  a President hateful, belligerent, nasty and many other despicable things ... IT IS NEITHER A HIGH CRIME OR HIGH LEVEL MISDEMEANOR, worthy of deposing a duly and honestly elected President of the United States!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If  a President hateful, belligerent, nasty and many other despicable things ... IT IS NEITHER A HIGH CRIME OR HIGH LEVEL MISDEMEANOR, worthy of deposing a duly and honestly elected President of the United States!

Per Wikipedia, The Constitution says:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

When the Constitution was written, the terms "high crime" and "misdemeanor" were both used in senses that are quite different from the way we've come to think of them today. The original sense came from the laws that the framers had themselves been under, the British laws, which had used the term since as far back as 1386. It was originally a phrase to highlight the fact that almost any kind of "maladministration" --even things we might think of as NON-crimes-- could have a magnified effect due to the "high office" of the official, judge, president, etc. Most of the items that were considered "maladministration" would not be considered much of a problem at all if you or I practiced them. But they could become a perverting of justice or subject the populace to the ill effects in a way that only a person in high office had the ability to do.

When James Madison discussed the formulation of the "constitution" with Mason, they started out with only Bribery and Treason, but Mason argued that the definition of Treason is too narrowly tied to enemies when at war, and that this would hardly cover situations when a president "attempts to subvert the Constitution." So the British term "maladministration" was suggested and then, after discussion, changed it to the more formal British term "high crimes and misdemeanors." According to the Wikipedia article on "Maladministration"  it means the following in UK law:

The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:

  • Delay
  • Incorrect action or failure to take any action
  • Failure to follow procedures or the law
  • Failure to provide information
  • Inadequate record-keeping
  • Failure to investigate
  • Failure to reply
  • Misleading or inaccurate statements
  • Inadequate liaison
  • Inadequate consultation
  • Broken promises

That's such a vague definition that Madison said it would be the equivalent of just having a President who served at the pleasure of the Senate. It would "normalize" impeachment, and therefore the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was deemed closer to the idea of "subverting the constitution." The phrase was definitely intended to narrow the reasons that the Senate might try to impeach a President, but was also a way to include things that would not nearly reach up to the definitions of bribery and treason.

In Britain the phrase meant abuse of a high office even if the abuse did NOT violate any criminal laws. So this is how legal scholars have also applied it to the US presidency, usually with a focus on any subversion of the Constitution.

The Wiki article on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes the following that gives an idea of how the original framers understood it:

Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[10]

The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[11]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[12]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.