Judge Ken Starr just sank Nancy's "Impeachment of Trump"

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Look into it" is different from an investigation. Trump never said investigation--the left created that lie. Trump asked Zelensky to look into it as a favor. Investigations are not favors.

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

 

[Kilroy2]

Starr in the 90's

"inconsistent with the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."

So is lobbying a foreign country to investigate a political rival is considered his constitutional duty by having his private lawyer lead the charge

Mueller report has testimony from former Trump people implicating him in try to stop the Mueller investigation

Trump urged Comey to let Flynn go

McGhan his lawyer has given Mueller statements that trump wanted him to fire Mueller but the lawyer refused


Lying under oath

Roger Stone’s trial in Washington, D.C., which culminated last Friday in a guilty verdict against the longtime Trump adviser for lying to Congress and tampering with one of its witnesses during its Russia probe

During the Stone trial, jurors heard direct testimony and saw dozens of texts and email messages showing Trump’s campaign closely tracking Julian Assange’s plans to upend Hillary Clinton’s White House aspirations by dumping damaging documents on his site, WikiLeaks. That included at least three conversations between Stone and Trump on the topic that would appear to contradict the president’s written answer to Mueller.

yes we remember the question Mueller presented to Trump in which his only reply was "I have no recollection of discussing WIkiLeak with Stone " after given days to recall the incidents

Yes I can see it how his lawyers asked him the question and he reply I have no recollection

send it back to Mueller

influence peoples testimony

Trump has pulled executive privileged and has stopped people from testimony. Executive privileged being used not for government security issues but to stop negative testimony

his lawyers have even implicated him in try to fire Mueller

Foreign policy is not another country doing an investigation of an american political rival was doing a job as given to him by then President Obama as a foreign policy initiative

Starr says the president has a right to be involved in foreign policy

My my have times change and ones story changes when its a repub president and a demo president

 

[AntonToo]

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

Let me use your own words.

all those people are shills.

there. we done now?

Retard, they are not some mouthpieces-for-hire, they are DIRECT FIRST HAND WITNESSES and all of them were working for Trump.

 

[AntonToo]

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

When asked, Sondland testified that when he called Trump directly, which is the only conversation they had about the matter, what Trump wanted, Trump stated he wanted nothing from Zelensky but to do the right thing. Aid was not mentioned in his conversation. Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time. Mulvaney said the media misconstrued what he said, and then stated the opposite.

Which butt is yours in that picture???

Horsecrap, Trump consistently reffered people to Juliani.

Proposition that Sondland ran a rogue operation in Ukraine in contradition to what Trump wanted is simply insane.

And when did Trump "don't want anything?" when his ass got caught and House opened investigations into held up aid and whistleblower complaint. Please stop bringing that stupid shit up as any sort of defense.

 

[AntonToo]

Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time.

Parnas also comes with evidence that Trump, who denied even knowing him, actually knows him pretty well.

Is Trump credible??

 

[colfax_m]

Based on subsequent communication, it was quite clear that Trump wanted an investigation.

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

When asked, Sondland testified that when he called Trump directly, which is the only conversation they had about the matter, what Trump wanted, Trump stated he wanted nothing from Zelensky but to do the right thing. Aid was not mentioned in his conversation. Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time. Mulvaney said the media misconstrued what he said, and then stated the opposite.

Which butt is yours in that picture???

Horsecrap, Trump consistently reffered people to Juliani.

Proposition that Sondland ran a rogue operation in Ukraine in contradition to what Trump wanted is simply insane.

And when did Trump "don't want anything?" when his ass got caught and House opened investigations into held up aid and whistleblower complaint. Please stop bringing that stupid shit up as any sort of defense.

I didn't say anything about his defense, I pointed out that it was not evidence of anything, particularly where an impeachment is concerned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

Then the House should have subpoenaed him during their clown show.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time.

Parnas also comes with evidence that Trump, who denied even knowing him, actually knows him pretty well.

Is Trump credible??

Pretty well? WTF did you come up with that? Trump may have been in a room with him, but that's not proof of anything. Do you really believe that Trump memorizes the names of every person he spoke with or was in the company of?

 

[WEATHER53]

House fumbled and trying to demand an unfumble from Senate
Sorry children but No

 

[colfax_m]

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

Then the House should have subpoenaed him during their clown show.

What good would have a subpoena done?

 

[iceberg]

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

Let me use your own words.

all those people are shills.

there. we done now?

Retard, they are not some mouthpieces-for-hire, they are DIRECT FIRST HAND WITNESSES and all of them were working for Trump.

Shills. Hey, you can dismiss what you don't like as such. That makes it fair game for me to do the same.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

Then the House should have subpoenaed him during their clown show.

What good would have a subpoena done?

It might have gotten him to testify. He would have had to choose between the will of Trump and the subpoena.

 

[Nostra]

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

When asked, Sondland testified that when he called Trump directly, which is the only conversation they had about the matter, what Trump wanted, Trump stated he wanted nothing from Zelensky but to do the right thing. Aid was not mentioned in his conversation. Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time. Mulvaney said the media misconstrued what he said, and then stated the opposite.

Which butt is yours in that picture???

Horsecrap, Trump consistently reffered people to Juliani.

Proposition that Sondland ran a rogue operation in Ukraine in contradition to what Trump wanted is simply insane.

And when did Trump "don't want anything?" when his ass got caught and House opened investigations into held up aid and whistleblower complaint. Please stop bringing that stupid shit up as any sort of defense.

Horsecrap, Trump consistently reffered people to Juliani.

What is "refferred", and who is "Juliani"?

 

[Nostra]

But you need evidence of that which you don't have. Assumptions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Is testimony no longer evidence?

Not if the testimony is opinions, no it's not. I can testify that you robbed a bank. That doesn't mean you did, it was just my opinion. Do you think they would throw you in prison because of my testimony? Of course not. They need empirical evidence that you robbed the bank.

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

The unsourced NYTs op-ed? That report?

 

[WEATHER53]

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

When asked, Sondland testified that when he called Trump directly, which is the only conversation they had about the matter, what Trump wanted, Trump stated he wanted nothing from Zelensky but to do the right thing. Aid was not mentioned in his conversation. Parnas is not credible. He changes stories all the time. Mulvaney said the media misconstrued what he said, and then stated the opposite.

Which butt is yours in that picture???

Horsecrap, Trump consistently reffered people to Juliani.

Proposition that Sondland ran a rogue operation in Ukraine in contradition to what Trump wanted is simply insane.

And when did Trump "don't want anything?" when his ass got caught and House opened investigations into held up aid and whistleblower complaint. Please stop bringing that stupid shit up as any sort of defense.

Horsecrap, Trump consistently reffered people to Juliani.

What is "refferred", and who is "Juliani"?

He meant Julie’s Auntie

 

[colfax_m]

If you say that you saw me rob a bank, that’s not an opinion.

Good lord. Do people not understand what an opinion is anymore?

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

Then the House should have subpoenaed him during their clown show.

What good would have a subpoena done?

It might have gotten him to testify. He would have had to choose between the will of Trump and the subpoena.

Nope. He told us exactly what he was going to do with a subpoena and it wasn’t testify.

You know what would get him to testify? Being called as a witness in the trial.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, that would not be an opinion because I witnessed it. Who witnessed Trump saying he wanted a quid pro quo on Zelensky?

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

Then the House should have subpoenaed him during their clown show.

What good would have a subpoena done?

It might have gotten him to testify. He would have had to choose between the will of Trump and the subpoena.

Nope. He told us exactly what he was going to do with a subpoena and it wasn’t testify.

You know what would get him to testify? Being called as a witness in the trial.

I don't recall him saying that. Perhaps you are confusing him with Biden.

 

[colfax_m]

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to sqeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

Now show us where Trump told Zelensky that the aid was based on his cooperation. I'll wait right here.

Sondland told Ukrainians that everything including aid is conditioned on announcement of the investigations into Crowdstrike holding DNC server and Burisma. He was dealing with Juliani on this and belived that is what Trump wanted.

Bolton is now confirming that yes, aid was held up to pressure Ukraine for investigations, including Bidens.

Mulvaney publicly confirmed that Trump held up aid to pressure Ukraine for DNC server investigation.

Parnas publicly confirmed that Trump was running a campaign to pressure Ukraine for investigations.


How many Trump people have to come forward and confirm charges against him correct for you rightwingers to stop doing this?

It's fucking emberrasing.

Let me use your own words.

all those people are shills.

there. we done now?

They are shills, well at least kind of. The fact that these shills are making statements against their own interest makes their statements much more relevant.

You see, when someone says something against their own interest, ie Mulvaney saying that politics were influencing foreign policy, then the court is more likely to believe its true. People generally lie when it’s beneficial to them. They don’t lie to implicate themselves,

 

[colfax_m]

If reports are to be believed, Bolton. He needs to testify.

Then the House should have subpoenaed him during their clown show.

What good would have a subpoena done?

It might have gotten him to testify. He would have had to choose between the will of Trump and the subpoena.

Nope. He told us exactly what he was going to do with a subpoena and it wasn’t testify.

You know what would get him to testify? Being called as a witness in the trial.

I don't recall him saying that. Perhaps you are confusing him with Biden.

Nope. It was Bolton.