Impeachment proceedings against Trump

And fortunately for us who still respect the Constitution, it wasn't intended to because proving innocence is not the standard. Proving guilt is. A quick recap of the conversation so you can catch up... Rick asked why this impeachment inquiry is being held without Republican input or any equal rights and SC answered by calling Republicans "man babies". Even though this response was childish and crass, I answered in a respectful tone citing evidence that Adam Schiff should probably not be the one in charge of this inquiry, which is what the article you read was about.

towermonkey wrote: And fortunately for us who still respect the Constitution, it wasn't intended to because proving innocence is not the standard. Proving guilt is.

That's some pretty funny crap after seeing how you spun the "phony emoluments clause" gaffe. But, anyway, the question of guilt is moot. He did it.

I assume you have some proof of that. Better send it over to Schiff....

He already has it.

"If Tuesday’s congressional testimony by William Taylor, the acting United States envoy to Ukraine, is to be taken at face value — and no one in the Trump administration has yet denied a word of it — then it is now beyond doubt: President Trump placed his personal political future above the national-security interests of the United States. He did so at the expense of longstanding foreign policy, a critical international alliance and the stability of the global order — and he used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do it.
The nation has known the basic outlines of this story for weeks, thanks to the bravery of a C.I.A. whistle-blower and others. But in 15 pages, Mr. Taylor laid out with a stunning degree of detail the extent of Mr. Trump’s effort to extort Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son over supposed corruption."

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/opinion/trump-taylor-ukraine.html

towermonkey wrote: And fortunately for us who still respect the Constitution, it wasn't intended to because proving innocence is not the standard. Proving guilt is. A quick recap of the conversation so you can catch up... Rick asked why this impeachment inquiry is being held without Republican input or any equal rights and SC answered by calling Republicans "man babies". Even though this response was childish and crass, I answered in a respectful tone citing evidence that Adam Schiff should probably not be the one in charge of this inquiry, which is what the article you read was about.

This is the latest scare tactic by Republicans to try to stop the investigation. In fact, Republicans sit on each of the committees. Regardless of what you have been told, they have a presence in this situation.

If it helps, think of this as a grand jury investigation.

koobookie wrote:

towermonkey wrote: And fortunately for us who still respect the Constitution, it wasn't intended to because proving innocence is not the standard. Proving guilt is. A quick recap of the conversation so you can catch up... Rick asked why this impeachment inquiry is being held without Republican input or any equal rights and SC answered by calling Republicans "man babies". Even though this response was childish and crass, I answered in a respectful tone citing evidence that Adam Schiff should probably not be the one in charge of this inquiry, which is what the article you read was about.

This is the latest scare tactic by Republicans to try to stop the investigation. In fact, Republicans sit on each of the committees. Regardless of what you have been told, they have a presence in this situation.

If it helps, think of this as a grand jury investigation.

It doesn't help because it is not. If it were, the minority would have more rights than they do now. I'm actually shocked by how many are defending this gulag style farce. Don't be surprised when your rights are stolen as well.

Brandon wrote: He already has it.

"If Tuesday’s congressional testimony by William Taylor, the acting United States envoy to Ukraine, is to be taken at face value — and no one in the Trump administration has yet denied a word of it — then it is now beyond doubt: President Trump placed his personal political future above the national-security interests of the United States. He did so at the expense of longstanding foreign policy, a critical international alliance and the stability of the global order — and he used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do it.
The nation has known the basic outlines of this story for weeks, thanks to the bravery of a C.I.A. whistle-blower and others. But in 15 pages, Mr. Taylor laid out with a stunning degree of detail the extent of Mr. Trump’s effort to extort Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and his son over supposed corruption."

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/opinion/trump-taylor-ukraine.html

Ah, so a selectively leaked NYT (Fake News) article that they put "Opinion" across the top of is proof....got it. When can the American people expect to see the actual transcript of these super secret depositions so we can decide for ourselves with the full context?

Exactly what rights are being denied of the Republicans?

From the link ScienceChic provided earlier:

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/201...nscripts/3997318002/

Republicans have complained that the meetings should be public and transcripts should be released. Access has been limited to members of the three panels, which prevented one Republican from attending Monday and the half-dozen Wednesday. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said private sessions are needed to prevent witnesses from hearing each other, the same protocol used by prosecutors in criminal investigations.

towermonkey wrote: Ah, so a selectively leaked NYT (Fake News) article that they put "Opinion" across the top of is proof....got it. When can the American people expect to see the actual transcript of these super secret depositions so we can decide for ourselves with the full context?

Seriously, think of this as a Grand Jury investigating the possibility of a crime. When it comes to discussion of impeachment on the house floor, then the information will come out. Until then, this is an investigation.

Your analogy of the Schift investigation to a grand jury is most apt
Please remember:
A grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted.