Why did Republicans force their way into Impeachment Hearing?

[Hank77]

Obama?
Or Bidens son?
Just guessing?
Little help please?
M-Bob

You responded exacting as I expected you would.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

You responded exacting as I expected you would.

Even my wife doesn't know me that well.
Getting scary around here!
I already have a best friend -- thanks.
We go back to fifth grade
and I hardly know you.

M-Bob

 

[Go Braves]

Even my wife doesn't know me that well.
Getting scary around here!
I already have a best friend -- thanks.
We go back to fifth grade
and I hardly know you.

M-Bob

Bob, your posts tend to be about as predictable as a knock knock joke. Not saying this with ill intent, just that there's no need to be your wife or your best friend since 5th grade to figure out your responses.

 

[Hank77]

Even my wife doesn't know me that well.
Getting scary around here!
I already have a best friend -- thanks.
We go back to fifth grade
and I hardly know you.

M-Bob

Maybe you should share more with your wife?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Maybe you should share more with your wife?

With her
I share all that I can
whenever I can.

She's a good cook
and
she is cooking.

Happy up top the mountain.
M-Bob

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

where did you hear such a blatant lie? No crime has to be commited to impeach, the bar is far lower then that, they just have to find the president has done things unbecoming of his office.

Per the constitution in article II section 4:

"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."

Note that it says nothing about conduct unbecoming of a president. So I may as well ask where did you hear such a blatant lie?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Judge Napolitano Schools ‘Fox & Friends’ on Impeachment

Here is an another article with a video of the judge on Fox and Friends.

"As the Fox & Friends hosts continued to protest, he added, “I know this is going to sound weird, these are not the impeachment hearings. The impeachment hearings have to be held in public by the House Judiciary Committee. This is the initial interview of witnesses to see what they have to say, to determine whether or not they are even worthy of presenting evidence of impeachment.”

Yep...exactly what I have been saying. By the way, I might add that it is refreshing that fox news actually has someone like Judge Napolitano to "school" their own anchor and viewers on the facts in an objective manner. You would be hard pressed to find anything like it on the other mainstream sources.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Per the constitution in article II section 4:

"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."

Note that it says nothing about conduct unbecoming of a president. So I may as well ask where did you hear such a blatant lie?

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and while misdemeanors are a class of crime in our justice system, high crimes are not. The definition of "high crimes" at the time of the founders boiled down to abuse of power.

 

[loveofourlord]

Per the constitution in article II section 4:

"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."

Note that it says nothing about conduct unbecoming of a president. So I may as well ask where did you hear such a blatant lie?

Per the constitution in article II section 4:

"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."

Note that it says nothing about conduct unbecoming of a president. So I may as well ask where did you hear such a blatant lie?

actually by wikipedia the definition of high is:

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[6] A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.[7]

so in this example yes it's a crime, but it's a crime that is defined as breaking his oath of office,

 

[SimplyMe]

"As the Fox & Friends hosts continued to protest, he added, “I know this is going to sound weird, these are not the impeachment hearings. The impeachment hearings have to be held in public by the House Judiciary Committee. This is the initial interview of witnesses to see what they have to say, to determine whether or not they are even worthy of presenting evidence of impeachment.”

Yep...exactly what I have been saying. By the way, I might add that it is refreshing that fox news actually has someone like Judge Napolitano to "school" their own anchor and viewers on the facts in an objective manner. You would be hard pressed to find anything like it on the other mainstream sources.

Tell me, where is the law stating that it must be done by the Judiciary Committee?

Not to mention, a court has ruled it is an impeachment hearing.

 

[RDKirk]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and while misdemeanors are a class of crime in our justice system, high crimes are not. The definition of "high crimes" at the time of the founders boiled down to abuse of power.

So did "misdemeanor," at a lower level.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Even my wife doesn't know me that well.

If that's so, I would advise logging off CF for a while and spending more time with your wife.

 

[Tom 1]

The democrats are calling this a distraction.
I'm not to sure about that?
Seems the republicans are making a right move on this one?
M-Bob

Maybe they just really wanted to see their colleagues, those other Republicans who had been ‘shut out’ but were er part of the meeting they had been shut out of...um...they were there and part of the process they had been uh shut out of...?

 

[Tom 1]

The democrats are calling this a distraction.
I'm not to sure about that?
Seems the republicans are making a right move on this one?
M-Bob

Honest question M-Bob; are you really, genuinely not able to recognise what is wrong with this picture? You genuinely don’t see that you are being lied to here? Or do you see it but it suits you to lie to yourself about it?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Tell me, where is the law stating that it must be done by the Judiciary Committee?

Not to mention, a court has ruled it is an impeachment hearing.

It isn't a law. It is a house rule that was passed by a Republican controlled congress.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Not to mention, a court has ruled it is an impeachment hearing.

Reference please.

 

[SimplyMe]

Reference please.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...8a7d1524758e425ad31/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

 

[SimplyMe]

It isn't a law. It is a house rule that was passed by a Republican controlled congress.

Citation?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It isn't a law. It is a house rule that was passed by a Republican controlled congress.

Sounds like the Republicans are screaming that their own rules are unfair... now that they have to follow them themselves.

 

[miggles]

Why did Republicans force their way into Impeachment Hearing?
because the door was locked and bolted.