Why Trump won, a message! (Page 8)

davidk1
davidk1: .

You can post all the crap you want. No crime? No impeachment. Not sending it to the Senate? You can not get over the fact that Nancy got screwed by Schiff and Nadler.

She will hold onto the articles right up to the 2020 elections and when the House goes Republican....adios.

Russia Hoax
Ukrainian Hoax
Impeachment Hoax

Strike Three...you're out!

11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: A grand jury does not determine if a crime has been committed.
Simply stated, a person who is charged (or impeached) has the presumption of innocence until it is proven in a court of law. In an impeachment the Senate acts as the court & jury. It's not a difficult process to understand at the basic level.
11 months ago Report
0
davidk1
davidk1: .

Ok Nicotine. Please explain to me Clinton lying to a Grand Jury and being impeached for lying.

Here is what I know.....


"After a federal criminal investigation of the President's actions began in January 1998, the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice during the grand jury investigation. There also is substantial and credible information that the President's actions with respect to Monica Lewinsky constitute an abuse of authority inconsistent with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."

This is what got him impeached in the House.


There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/starr-excerpt.htm

______________________________


And Nicotine, this took a year. The Schiff / Nadler impeachment...12 weeks.
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: I'm not sure what needs to be explained to you. Also, my username is Nicotina with an A at the end.
11 months ago Report
2
davidk1
davidk1: .

Nico...

Exactly my point.

.
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: October 5, 1998 - The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.

October 8, 1998 - The House of Representatives vote for impeachment proceedings to begin against Clinton.

That would be 4 days if you included a full day for the votes.
11 months ago Report
1
davidk1
davidk1: .

Nica....

AFTER the crime was committed. AFTER the crime had gone to the Grand Jury. There actually was a CRIME for him to be impeached. It took a year for the crime to go the distance to get to the House to vote on impeachment.

With Trump, there was no crime committed. That's why it has stalled in the Schiff and Nadler sham and Nancy has nothing. If was all about charging him with a bank robbery and there was no bank robbed.
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: The crime was alleged to have happened when Clinton was testifying to the grand jury in a civil case. The impeachable offence was the lying not what he was accused of in the civil case. Clinton was impeached for perjury which meant he would have to stand trial in the Senate where he was assumed innocent until proven guilty (as is Trump). The result of the trial was that Clinton was acquitted on both articles of impeachment.
Clinton was not charged in any other court for the same crimes as he was in the articles of impeachment.
11 months ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Stop passively/aggressively misnaming nicotina...it doesn;t become you
11 months ago Report
1
Billie Ingle
Billie Ingle: None of the Presidents will be ok because Bush caused 9/11 sending troops out to Pakistan, Obama wanted to build Mosques in NY where the crash happened and Trump is just trying to get a racial war telling immigrants aren't welcome under any circumstance in the US and how many Presidents didn't fuck it up before them but it is, just crawl them in the butt and swallow it how they fuck up America.

In the past we had burgers and beans with bacon and eggs but now it is Kebab, Churros, etc... all food which isn't American at all and we lose our culture to those who never gave a fuck about us only trying to get us down and still we don't wanna see how the immigration conquers our culture and switch it
11 months ago Report
0
davidk1
davidk1: .

Nica...I had to stop at your eight-word..."The crime was alleged to have happened when Clinton..." and then reread them and in amazement ask....how the fuck does she claim that Clinton was alleged to have done a crime. He was convicted of lying by a Grand Jury. It was not alleged that it happened. WTF. The House convicted him of treason and then the Dem majority found him innocent of a crime? GTF out.

He was convicted of a crime. WTF is wrong with you?

Trump has not been convicted of a crime, nor has he been charged with a crime.

Why don't you understand that is why Nancy is having issues with this hoax sending it to the Senate?

There was no bank robbed for anyone to charge Trump with the crime. WTF is wrong with you people?

Get over it...Hillary lost because she is corrupt and a coward and not because Trump is a Russian agent.


Oh and Beaver, anyone that names themselves after the most dangerous drug on the planet, no matter that one letter is off...it's like using the N-word and it is spelled and pronounced a number of ways as well. So get off your high horse and say something intelligent for just once.

And Billie, Bush was behind 911? He wasn't smart enough.


.
11 months ago Report
0
Billie Ingle
Billie Ingle: They warned him multiple times to retreat or they would make him regret it and you see what Bin Laden gave us 2 hijacked airplanes and some explosives
11 months ago Report
0
davidk1
davidk1: .

What? What are you talking about? Retreat? From what?
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: Clinton was ACQUITTED by the Senate. I think I see where you might be confused david1k.
A grand jury decides if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. If the grand jury decides there is sufficient evidence the case goes to a trial where the jury can render a decision of guilty or not guilty.

david1k, you are claiming that Clinton was convicted of a crime. Could you please tell me what crime, which jury convicted him, and provide a source for that information, thank you.

As an aside, I took my name from a song Nicotina by the Canadian band Big Sugar. I also had a number of beautiful plants in my garden whose Latin name was Nicotiana. These plants are decorative and not the ones that tobacco comes from. The plant "Nicotiana tabacum" is the one which used for commercially grown tobacco. Amazingly, I do not smoke.

edit - spelling.
(Edited by Nicotina)
11 months ago Report
1
davidk1
davidk1: .

I am reposting this on my thread since there are those on other threads that refuse to hear the truth...

And Nicotina, please read this in its entirety.

Nicotina said:

Clinton was ACQUITTED by the Senate. I think I see where you might be confused david1k.

David responds:

You are absolutely correct that he was found not guilty. However, you miss the point. Clinton had already been found guilty of lying in a Grand Jury investigation. Remember the blue dress? The Senate was in Democratic control.

Here are the facts....

On August 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before the Office of Independent Counsel as the subject of a grand-jury investigation.

The testimony came after a four-year investigation into Clinton and his wife Hillary’s alleged involvement in several scandals, including accusations of sexual harassment, potentially illegal real-estate deals and suspected “cronyism” involved in the firing of White House travel-agency personnel.

The independent prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, then uncovered an affair between Clinton and a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.

When questioned about the affair, Clinton denied it, which led Starr to charge the president with perjury and obstruction of justice, which in turn prompted his testimony on August 17.

After testifying, Clinton addressed the nation live via television and gave his side of the story.

He admitted to an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky and said that he regretted misleading his wife and the American people when he denied the affair earlier. He insisted that he had given “legally accurate” answers in his testimony and that “at no time” had he asked anyone to “lie, hide or destroy evidence or to take any unlawful action.” In addressing the investigation into his past business dealings, Clinton insisted that the investigation did not prove that he or his wife Hillary had engaged in any illegal activity.

The damage, however, was already done.

Revelations from the investigation sparked a battle in Congress over whether or not to impeach Clinton.

While Democrats favored censure, Republicans called loudly for impeachment, claiming Clinton was unfit to lead the country. In December 1998, the House of Representatives voted to impeach the president, but after a five-week trial in the Senate, Clinton was acquitted.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/clinton-testifies-before-grand-jury

David continues:

I remember vividly, Bill Clinton famously telling the nation, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Then the FBI came up with his DNA on her dress. Oooops.

Nicotina continues:

A grand jury decides if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. If the grand jury decides there is sufficient evidence the case goes to a trial where the jury can render a decision of guilty or not guilty.

David responds:

The House impeached Clinton due to his lying to the Grand Jury, sent it to the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate, and damn the evidence, found him, not guilty.

Nicotina continued:

david1k, you are claiming that Clinton was convicted of a crime. Could you please tell me what crime, which jury convicted him, and provide a source for that information, thank you.

David responds:

See above.

David responds:

Clinton denied under oath that he had engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky. That testimony led Starr to accuse the president of perjury and obstruction of justice, which in turn prompted his grand jury appearance. Remember, Bill Clinton famously telling the nation, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Then the FBI came up with his DNA on her dress.

When Clinton testified, he knew Lewinsky was talking to Starr’s prosecutors, and he knew his DNA could match a semen stain on her blue dress. Faced with those facts, the president could have invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to incriminate himself before the grand jury.

Instead, according to Starr, he continued to lie.

Starr’s subsequent voluminous report to Congress led to a move by the Republican-led House to impeach Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice. It accused the president of having provided “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” to the grand jury.

David continues:

Clinton had been found to lie to the Grand Jury and was convicted in the House for obstruction of justice. In December 1998, despite a strong showing in the midterm elections by the Democrats, the lame-duck House GOP majority voted to impeach the president.

After a five-week trial, the Democrat Senate acquitted Clinton, however, he was stripped of his lawyer's license.

Nicotina said:

As an aside, I took my name from a song Nicotina by the Canadian band Big Sugar.

David responds:

Ok...if you say so..

https://thafd.bing.com/th/id/OIP.hay-IOpbVhzsbnUWiVM1eAHaEK?w=300&h=168&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

Nicotina continues:

I also had a number of beautiful plants in my garden whose Latin name was Nicotiana. These plants are decorative and not the ones that tobacco comes from. The plant "Nicotiana tabacum" is the one which used for commercially grown tobacco. Amazingly, I do not smoke.

edit - spelling.

David responds:

I stopped smoking years ago.
11 months ago Report
0
davidk1
davidk1: .

And Nancy Pelosi is hold back sending the impeachment articles to the senate for what reason?

Because they have no case, no facts, no Grand Juries, nothing. Nancy got screwed by Shiff and Nadler and they had stacked the deck as well.

Dem Al Green has stated that slavery is Trump's fault alfter stating that if he is not impeached, he will win in 2020.

Democrats are unhinged. Completely unhinged.
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina:
david states - Clinton had already been found guilty of lying in a Grand Jury investigation.
my reply, a grand jury does not determine guilt. A grand jury decides if there is enough evidence to send a case to trial.

david states - Clinton had been found to lie to the Grand Jury and was convicted in the House for obstruction of justice.
my reply - The House does not convict. The house decides if there is enough evidence to send a case to trial.

I'm trying to make my point clear. A grand jury decides if there is enough evidence for a trial. The House acts as a grand jury during an impeachment and determines if there is enough evidence for a trial.
If it is decided that there is sufficient evidence for a trial a grand jury will send the case to court where the trial is held. If the House decides there is sufficient evidence for a trial the case is sent to the Senate where the trial is held.

david states - if you say so
my reply -

david states - I stopped smoking years ago.
my reply - congratulations.

If Clinton had been truthful to the grand jury (which was prior to the impeachment proceedings) he would not have faced the impeachment proceedings for lying to a grand jury.
Clinton was not convicted of a crime be it a court conviction or a conviction in the Senate.
11 months ago Report
1
davidk1
davidk1: .




BINGO!!!
(Edited by davidk1)
11 months ago Report
0
davidk1
davidk1: .

So...Nicotina...

Why exactly is Trump being impeached which he has not been until the articles are delivered to the Senate?

Had he been called in front of a Grand Jury? Nope.

Had he lied in front of a Grand Jury? Nope.

During the House Hearings, did any of the witnesses have any direct knowledge that he committed any crimes? Nope.

What else... ....did any witnesses when asked did they know if Trump had committed any crimes like Treason? or broke any laws? Lied to anyone? Nope.

So why are we here for?

Clinton had lied in front of a Grand Jury and was found not guilty. What did Trump do exactly? Nothing.

.
(Edited by davidk1)
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: Important points to consider.

A Grand Jury IS NOT part of the impeachment process.

During the impeachment process the House is the equivalent to a grand jury in that they can send a case to trial.

Trump has not been before a grand jury. Trump in being impeached.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official. Whereas in some countries the individual is provisionally removed, in others they can remain in office during the trial. Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgement which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment entails the official's definitive removal from office.


FACTS - the House votes upon impeachment.
Impeachment is the process.

Trump has been impeached...
Article 1 - Abuse of Power
Article 2 - Obstruction of Congress.

These articles are a matter of public record and are available at
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf

The reasons for impeachment are clearly laid out in the above government record.

A GRAND JURY DOES NOT DETERMINE GUILT!
A GRAND JURY IS NOT PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.


I can try to explain it to you davidk1, unfortunately I can not comprehend it for you.
11 months ago Report
0
mrbult
mrbult: well put !!!!
11 months ago Report
1
davidk1
davidk1: .

I can't agree with you more. Trump has not been in front of a court of law or has been charged with any crime like Clinton or Nixon were before their impeachments. You are so right.

Why has Trump not been charged with a 'crime'?

No crime has been committed. It's like he is being charged for a bank robbery, but no bank has been robbed. One reason Nancy can not take the articles forward.

The impeachment process for Trump started before his inauguration.

It was started by the Dem's with false accusations that were not based in fact or reality. Many of the accusers are going to be indicted for treasonous acts. Many of the Obama administration officials like ex-FBI Director Comey, ex-CIA Director Brennan and many others are going to be indicted for creating false testimony in front of FISA judges. In many of the official correspondences that have been collected, Obama and Hillary are implicated as well.

Yet, you say nothing about them.

Then ex-FBI Director Comey leaked official documents and Mueller was charged to get to the bottom of Trump and possible treason and collusion.

Schiff stated all over the media that he had 'solid evidence' that Trump had colluded with the Russians. False. He lied.

Mueller found nothing. He came up empty. No treason and no collusion.

Then the very next day after Mueller testified, Schiff comes up with a whistleblower on the Ukrainian charade.

Schiff says this whistleblower had first-hand knowledge and was on the call. More treason and collusion charges.

Then Trump, with complete surprise to Schiff, Nadler, and Nancy, he provides the call records and guess what? The whistleblower was not on the call, had given false testimony and then was not called as a witness because Schiff had colluded himself with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed his paperwork.

Now you know why Nancy can not file the articles with the Senate. I posted the following a few times before and every hour, it becomes more plausible and reasonable.....

So, I am reposting it for comments...
___________________________________________

Maybe, just maybe, or maybe not, the conversation [between Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler] after Nancy had to hold up sending the articles over to the Senate went something like this....

Nancy might have started with this:

"...either of you want a cup of coffee or a piece of the shit pie you two morons created????

Shut the fuck up Adam!

I told both of you that you better have your shit together and you Adam lied to me. Both of you shut the fuck up while I'm speaking. I mad as hell!!!

I expect you to lie to the public about Trump, but you assholes, you lied to me saying the whistleblower had the goods on Trump. And you Nadler, you are as guilty as that other piece of shit sitting next to you! You also promised me you had my back and sure enough, you did not you cock sucker!!!

You both fucked me up the ass one right after the other and neither of you two even have the courage to kiss me first.

Now I have to hold back this impeachment farce as long as I can.

You two dickwads just lost us the House and my fucking job. Thanks so much, you imbeciles!

I knew back a few months ago I should not have trusted you two morons. I should have had AOC in charge, at least she would have gotten better ratings.

Get the fuck out of my office. Go. Damit to hell!"

________________________________________

Now that may just be how the conversation happened but then, I might be wrong.


If Hillary had not lost.....

.



.
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: I must reiterate that in the case of impeachment the House does not determine guilt. The House decides if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. If the House determines that there is sufficient evidence then a trial is held in the Senate.
11 months ago Report
0
Nicotina
Nicotina: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf <<< THE GOVERNMENT SITE THAT SHOWS THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
The legal document is available to all. Please read it.
11 months ago Report
0
davidk1
davidk1: .

The House did decide that there was evidence. The vote was very clear. All the Democrats except for a few voted there was enough evidence, All the Republicans said there was not. Totally different from Nixon and Clinton.

Nancy did not send it to the Senate. Schumer wants to call more witnesses. That's not how it works. Obviously, the Senate Democrats do not believe the House provided enough evidence and that is why Nancy is holding back.

What don't you get about that?

Trump is being charged with robbing a bank even before he was inaugurated. However, no bank was robbed.

What don't you get about that?

In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, Grand Juries had been enacted before the impeachment process.

With Trump, nothing. No crimes were committed.

THAT IS WHY NANCY CAN NOT SEND IT TO THE SENATE AND SCHUMMER AGREES.

I believe that Nancy will never send it to the Senate.

She is happy with her efforts so far and this is where it will lay.

.

11 months ago Report
0