Why hasn't the FBI taken the 24 Republican Congressmen into custody?

Fuck you, you fucking ****! You have been given the rules! READ THEM!!!!Your refusal to even attempt to support your outright vicious anti-American liies betray your evil nature.Slither back to Russia!

You fucking evil anti-American Russia-loving traitorous ****! Answer DrJones*' challenge! (Message 44): Substantiate your claim!

4 day suspension.The little red dot suspension message: AdminnemooseusABE - Suspension lifted after about 20 hour.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ABE

quote:

---

Oh the behavior of Schiff and Pelosi is enough to tell me this is a Kangaroo Court

---

Impeachment isn’t a trial. That happens afterwards, in the Senate.

quote:

---

They found a way to have a completely private fishing expedition for any shred of misbehavior they can trash this President with

---

They already have the whistleblower report and corroborating evidence in the transcript of the call. They are just gathering more evidence, so as to make a stronger case.

quote:

---

Since they already have lists and lists of allegedly impeachable misbehaviors you'd think that would do it for them, but they know none of it amounts to more than wishful thinking, none of it would stand up in court. so they keep looking and looking and looking and pretending what they've found is devastating for Trum when it's all just puff.

---

See - even you acknowledge that they need to get more evidence. But somehow you call the attempt a fishing expedition.In fact the evidence is pretty good, but maybe not good enough in a court, especially in a court biased in favour of the defendant,

quote:

---

AbE: Oh keep calling us Deplorables, keep calling Republicans Deplorables who got up the guts to face down this corrupt impeachment charade, it only tells the voters you have nothing and it motivates them to take you all down.

---

Because the voters so love lying in hypocrites who want to destroy the USA. You know Trump is guilty. Why else would you try to pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist. Why else would you try to prevent any investigation ? But you so love the idea of a corrupt tyranny that will lock up the opposition you don’t care. Deplorable is the least of it.

Oh come on. You all claim to have lists and lists and lists of Trump's crimes and impeachable behavior. If any of that amounted to anything impeachable they wouldn't need any more. If the supposed whistleblower thing amounted to anything -- and the transcript did not corroborate it, it showed it all to be a lie and Schiff in particular to be a fool who should be impeached himself -- then they would not have needed their closed hearing.Oh but we are assured day in and ady out that they've got the goods on Trump coming and going. That's been the endless chant for three years. Percy gives such lists and dwise just put one up on another thread. See my reference to it in Message 3211 on the Right Side of the News thread. There's nothing there, PK, you are all falling for propaganda, smoke and mirrors, or maybe you're not falling for it, you're in on it. That's pretty funny since what I'm saying is that they have NO evidence whatever, that's why there's that ridiculous closed-door meeting going on. They huff and puff about all the evidence they claim to have, oh it's going to bring him DOWN DOWN DOWN, like tomorrow, like NOW and it never does, it's all hot air, but they just keep going on to the next huffing and puffing which amounts to another blast of hot air and nothing more. So that's why they are interviewing witnesses hoping to drum up some actual evidence. Yup, just the word for it. Which is another silliness since it's very easy for the Left to shop for the right judge and get it.I don't know when you guys are going to face it but all you've got is a long list of wishful supposed wrongdoings by Trump. Not a single one would hold up in court or they'd have been running with it and already had their vote for impeachment. They don't even need one to hold up in court, that's how bad it is, they've got NOTHING.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh come on. You all claim to have lists and lists and lists of Trump's crimes and impeachable behavior. If any of that amounted to anything impeachable they wouldn't need any more

---

Don’t be silly. Simply knowing of impeachable behaviour is not enough in a trial. I guess you think that knowing of illegal behaviour on the part of a Democrat should be enough to get him slung in jail bit fortunately for everyone the system doesn’t wrk like that. As I already explained.

quote:

---

If the supposed whistleblower thing amounted to anything -- and the transcript did not corroborate it, it showed it all to be a lie and Schiff in particular to be a fool who should be impeached himself -- then they would not have needed their closed hearing.

---

We can see that it did amount to convincing evidence - we don’t need silly inferences. And we know that the hearing was closed because classified information might come up.

quote:

---

There's nothing there, PK, you are all falling for propaganda, smoke and mirrors, or maybe you're not falling for it, you're in on it.

---

I have read the transcript myself. I know that there is something there.

quote:

---

That's pretty funny since what I'm saying is that they have NO evidence whatever, that's why there's that ridiculous closed-door meeting going on.

---

The only funny thing is that you managed to say something true. We know that they do have evidence. We’ve seen it. And so have you.

quote:

---

Yup, just the word for it

---

Only because you want to use partisan politics to shut down a legitimate investigation.

quote:

---

Which is another silliness since it's very easy for the Left to shop for the right judge and get it.

---

The trial is in the Senate. As I told you at the start of the post. There is no chance to shop around for a judge. And the Senate has a Republican majority.

quote:

---

I don't know when you guys are going to face it but all you've got is a long list of wishful supposed wrongdoings by Trump. Not a single one would hold up in court or they'd have been running with it and already had their vote for impeachment. They don't even need one to hold up in court, that's how bad it is, they've got NOTHING.

---

The evidence they have probably isn’t good enough. But that is the reason for the hearings. That is why they are not a fishing expedition - and that is why you are objecting to them. Because you know Trump is guilty.

OK you asked for a specific rule the closed-door meeting is breaking, after admitting there is no rule regarding impeachment that they are following, thank you again, and since dwise got himself suspended for having one of his famous conniption fits over my not givine a specific rule in answer to your request for one -- SO here's the rule they are breaking:The Constitution assigns impeachment to the House of Representatives. Not to SOME of the House of Representatives but ALL of the House of Representatives. Since just a small group of House reps are having their impeachment inquiry behind closed doors I believe this is a violation of a Constitutional directive, and that those House members who sat in on it earlier were within their rights to do so. Is that a good enough Rule for you?This excuse that there might be classified information in what they are doing is inadmissible. You have the open House meeting since this is an impeachment inquiry and if classified material comes up in the process of conducting it, then you do not admit it in public but very clearly and according to the rules make provision for it to be revealed to the right people at the right time without interrupting the proceedings attended by the whole House. That's MY suggestion of course but the point is that there must be rules for such contingencies that come up in the process of a whole House inquiry without interrupting it. This little meeting is called an impeachment inquiry. It MUST be a violation of the Constitutional assignment of impeachment to the House.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And the House has the right and obligation to set the rules of procedure.

The committees conducting the inquiry have republicans on them he'll get those when the actual trial starts. We're still in the evidence gathering portion of the process,

If you mean the trial before the Senate, he'll get his chance to challenge to evidence before that: namely when the the evidence is presented before the entire House of Representatives during the actual impeachment hearings.

where does the Constitution layout the rules for conducting an impeachment? be specific. right, an inquiry, not the actual impeachment.Nixon's impeachment began with the formation of an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee, was that unconstitutional as well?

I can't be any more specific than that the Constitution says it is the House that does the impeaching. There are other nonspecific rules tht aren't being followed, such as giving due process and other rights to the defendant. As I understand it both the Nixon and the Clinton impeachments were very careful to be sure the President had all the usual rights of challenging witnesses, proposing other witnesses, and a lot more I can't keep in mind, all of which are far from this House's proceedings.

so no rules are being broken by having impeachment inquiries before the House vote on impeachment. where are these rules written down?

But that too is simply not true. Due Process is being followed. This is still during the early interview stages of the investigation. The suspect and suspects lawyers are not entitled to be present when the witnesses are interviewed.Should the House vote to bring Impeachment Charges then and only then would it move to the trial setting which would be in the Senate.Faith, this is basic stuff any middle schooler should have learned.

Uh huh, and they are going to extend this "interview" phase as long as they can and actually they'll never have a vote to impeach because there will never be anything to impeach him on, but meanwhile this inquiry leaving out the majority of the House is a politically motivated violation of decency if nothing specific though probably of worse only I just am not up on it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.