But this is nonsense. You can't support this with anything other than dis-information!!! B The procedure being followed by the house is entirely within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. If it weren't the Republicans would go to court and stop it. But they in fact are losing in court, right and left, so to speak.
I would agree it is within the letter of the law. The problem is: No one has defined the crime. Normally you'd have the crime defined and then the proceeding would determine whether or not the crime was actually committed. In this case, the proceeding is to determine if a crime has been committed. That's why its more a witch hunt.
Exactly. They're fabricating crimes to suit the pre determined conclusions that Trump must be guilty and that is clearly illegal and unconstitutional.
The law did! That's the point. You can read the details of every alleged scandal and the follow-up investigations on Wiki, if you don't believe me. You're far to young to know the depth of scrutiny the Clinton's have been subjected to, not to mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I'm not writing this as a blind supporter of the Clinton's -- I hated that Hillary was my only choice; I'm writing it as a witness.
They, whoever "they" are, are not fabricating anything. The preliminary hearings were about fact finding. Republicans and democrats both participated. They were closed to the public for the same reason grand jury hearings are closed. But unlike grand jury hearings, you will soon get to read, if you are so inclined, word for word transcripts of every closed hearing, with some very minor exception to assure no one's rights are violated. And public hearings are coming up. The same testimony held behind closed doors will be heard in public. This has been an exemplary process. If you want to make extraordinary claims such "fabricated crimes", then you owe it to the rest of us to provide extraordinary proof, or at minimum, an argument backed by at least a shred of evidence. Lacking that, your assertion appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of political hacks. In the United States, it is illegal to solicit help from a foreign government in a U.S. political campaign. And a few micro seconds of reflection will tell you why. Bribery is also illegal under a different statute. And as a practical and ethical matter, do you want your president to be conducting diplomatic relations behind your back and in direct conflict with Congress and the State Department? Are we a democratic republic or a dictatorship? My questions to you have nothing to do with whether you or I agree with this policy or that. They have to do with what kind of government you or I want to live under.
Please provide the wiki link as a source to your claim. Yes, I can go looking for it but if you're going to call it as evidence, I'd prefer to know which article you are referring to so we're both reading off the same sheet of music.
Thank you for an intelligent comment!!! I think you may not be correct however. I think the whistle blower was reporting what they thought was a crime committed by our president. The crime was solicitation of help from a foreign government in a U.S. election campaign. Their is a U.S. statutory law forbidding this. It matters not whether help was received. It's the solicitation that is illegal. The hearings were to establish whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the allegation. This is similar to the purpose of a grand jury. In the course of establishing whether there is evidence to support the original allegation of a criminal act, other crimes may be inadvertently discovered, e.g. bribery and/or extortion. This would seem to have happened in the course of the present House Intelligence Committee Hearings. It is as if one goes fishing where trout have been reported to see if it is true that trout are there and ends up catching not only trout but also an eel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_cattle_futures_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation–State_Department_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-with-vince-foster.html https://vault.fbi.gov/vincent-foster I'm sure I've left out some of them, couldn't recall them all, they'll come to me later. Were we just doing Hillary? I think I may have slipped some Bill investigations in here too.