Jump to content


US House of Representatives Impeachment Hearings Over President Donald Trump

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!


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.


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
11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

the Colonists thought the British Interpretation of how things should be handled that was an onerous burden to them ... sufficient enough to go to war

Yes. But with no change to the meaning or interpretation of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as we can see by every example of those officials who were impeached during the years when that phrase still held the British meaning. And we can also compare every example of those officials who were impeached in Britain during the centuries and decades leading up to the US Constitution, and beyond.

I should also add that I think Trump is guilty of many abuses of power. If he was right about the way that he says Obama was guilty of abuses of power (and I think he was) then Trump must be guilty by his own admission. I also think that Trump definitely had in mind a quid pro quo with Ukraine. This doesn't mean that he got his way, however. The people around him often tend to reel him in, or just end up doing the more politically legal thing, even if Trump is ready and proud to do something illegal or unethical. Even if Trump only did the right thing after he was "caught" as Democrats would like to say, it doesn't make the desire to do the wrong thing, or even the request "impeachable" on its own. Trying to do the wrong thing, is not the same as doing it. One can point out the fact that aid was held up, and even that it was held up so that he would get something he wanted of personal benefit. But if the other side did not give him what he wanted, then we don't have the crux of the quid pro quo anyway.

Personally, I don't even think it's the right thing to give aid to Ukraine. The whole point is to paint Russia as an evil adversary or enemy when we are not at war, or shouldn't be. We keep a proxy war going through Ukraine only because we (and especially Democrats) love the idea of a powerful bullying empirical power that shows it wants to stand up to Putin, even if this teases out a WWIII. The Democrats want to look even stronger against Putin, because they are still stuck on this missed chance to make it look like Trump is weak on Putin, or somehow in cahoots with Putin. Trump actually tends, most of the time, toward a foreign policy that is less hawkish than Democrats. Of course, that probably doesn't sit well with several of the military agencies and contractors who "need" more war. Many of Trump's "walkbacks" have been over times when he wanted to scale back military operations and expenditures, but came back the next day to show that it wasn't a real scaling back. Some say they can see a pattern which was especially predictable with Bolton, Pompeo, etc. As his advisors and cabinets change personnel, his own statements will still always be unpredictable, but his "walkbacks" are less so. 

After listening carefully to a few minutes of the testimony today, I'm thinking that Biden's son was picked by Burisma for the same reason that a corrupt company like Theranos put Reagan-era George Schultz on its board. It is a way to pay for some credibility or even protect from too much inquiry or investigation. And after watching him become the most hated mayor in America, Giuliani is just about the kind of person I would expect to be looking for these same kinds of deals for his friends and relatives. Also I got the impression that the phone transcript of Trump's "perfect" call is not the full transcript. There was too much legal activity going on immediately after the call to make sure that transcript would become legal. There were some hints in the way legal-savvy people word their answers that raised some flags for me.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.