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

[MeBelle]

Abusing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

What personal favors did Trump seek??

 

[MeBelle]

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.

When was the Bolton book leak?

A few days ago?

After the House had closed their impeachment inquiry.

 

[MeBelle]

I have never seen a finer group of lawyers all very diverse from one another.

The stupidity of some of the posters in this thread amazes me.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

When was the Bolton book leak?

A few days ago?

After the House had closed their impeachment inquiry.

Not sure what that has to do with it.
Former Trump adviser Bolton threatened to sue if subpoenaed to testify in impeachment probe: committee

Bolton willing to testify in impeachment trial if subpoenaed

 

[MeBelle]

Not sure what that has to do with it.
Former Trump adviser Bolton threatened to sue if subpoenaed to testify in impeachment probe: committee

^^^ This was for the House' impeachment probe

Bolton willing to testify in impeachment trial if subpoenaed

^^^This is for the Senate trial.

 

[colfax_m]

Not sure what that has to do with it.
Former Trump adviser Bolton threatened to sue if subpoenaed to testify in impeachment probe: committee

^^^ This was for the House' impeachment probe

Bolton willing to testify in impeachment trial if subpoenaed

^^^This is for the Senate trial.

Yep. If the people are going to get the testimony, it’s going to have to be in the Senate.

 

[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?

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,

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

 

[hadit]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

Wow, THAT'S your response? Seriously, you can do better than that.

 

[colfax_m]

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,

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

 

[iceberg]

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,

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

 

[colfax_m]

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,

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

And now it’s what you do too.

 

[iceberg]

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,

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

And now it’s what you do too.

Just because I note human behavior doesn't mean I engage in said behavior.

Grasp of details escapes you.

 

[colfax_m]

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,

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

And now it’s what you do too.

Just because I note human behavior doesn't mean I engage in said behavior.

Grasp of details escapes you.

Except you do engage in such behavior.

all those people are shills.

 

[iceberg]

Or maybe they are saying what they believe, but you don't.

Calling them shills is a very juvenile tactic to dismiss things you don't like. You can either talk about other viewpoints or dismiss them. If you choose dismiss it sets others up to "return the favor".

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

And now it’s what you do too.

Just because I note human behavior doesn't mean I engage in said behavior.

Grasp of details escapes you.

Except you do engage in such behavior.

all those people are shills.

Like I said, grasp of details escapes you.

But typical leftist bullshit. Take a quote n make it wht you want despite what the person who said it says they meant.

Just like done by you to trump.

 

[kyzr]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and induging 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?

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE,

Where does it say the "Whole House". I must have missed that. The Majority party has the power and the whole House voted on the rules at the beginning of the legislative session.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

The HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

No one BUT the House has a say on how it conducts impeachment, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to subpoena, with or without impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

Further, the administration's goals were, AND STILL ARE, to obstruct the impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

1. Dershowitz rejected Maxine's assertion that impeachment is whatever the House says it is. That is simply an abuse of power by the House.
2. The Framers wanted tension between the House and Executive, those disagreements need to be decided by the courts, not by impeachment
3. According to Starr & Dershowitz Resolution 660, authorizing impeachment inquiry by the whole House, needed to precede the subpoenas regarding impeachment.
4. Trump has due process rights, that is not obstruction. The USSC took the Trump v House subpoena for Trump's tax records, that proves the point.

1. Who the fuck is Dershowitz? Because he says something it is therefore so? He is just another shill for Trump as far as I'm concerned.
2. HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT - it's black and white simple, what courts?
3. Who the fuck is Starr? Just another Trump shill. Not impressive argument.
4. Trump has no right to wholesale, unspecified executive privilege. He has no right to tell people they can't testify before Congress and his Obstruction has no basis in the law. DUH, courts already ruled as much.

1. You take low IQ Maxine and I'll take Alan and Starr before the USSC to argue if the Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is an impeachable offense, and we'll see who wins
2. All impeachments are not justified. So far the House is 0-3 for removal of presidents. Disagreements should be resolved in court, not via impeachment.
3. You take you to the USSC and I'll take Alan and Starr and we'll see who the USSC agrees with regarding impeachment protocol.
4. Trump has EVERY right to take issues like subpoenas and executive privilege to court. The House knows they'd lose, or the clock would run out on their impeachment sham.

 

[colfax_m]

“Returning the favor” is a juvenile tactic.

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

And now it’s what you do too.

Just because I note human behavior doesn't mean I engage in said behavior.

Grasp of details escapes you.

Except you do engage in such behavior.

all those people are shills.

Like I said, grasp of details escapes you.

But typical leftist bullshit. Take a quote n make it wht you want despite what the person who said it says they meant.

Just like done by you to trump.

Sure as hell seems like you were dismissing the other poster’s substantive reply by calling them shills. There was no other substantive response.

 

[iceberg]

Talk to the left. I keep getting told this is revenge for Clinton. Or Obama.
I 5hink its bullshit too, but it's what eople do.

And now it’s what you do too.

Just because I note human behavior doesn't mean I engage in said behavior.

Grasp of details escapes you.

Except you do engage in such behavior.

all those people are shills.

Like I said, grasp of details escapes you.

But typical leftist bullshit. Take a quote n make it wht you want despite what the person who said it says they meant.

Just like done by you to trump.

Sure as hell seems like you were dismissing the other poster’s substantive reply by calling them shills. There was no other substantive response.

Since when has he ever deserved one?

Bye.

 

[colfax_m]

And now it’s what you do too.

Just because I note human behavior doesn't mean I engage in said behavior.

Grasp of details escapes you.

Except you do engage in such behavior.

all those people are shills.

Like I said, grasp of details escapes you.

But typical leftist bullshit. Take a quote n make it wht you want despite what the person who said it says they meant.

Just like done by you to trump.

Sure as hell seems like you were dismissing the other poster’s substantive reply by calling them shills. There was no other substantive response.

Since when has he ever deserved one?

Bye.

He made some good points. If you choose not to respond, I assume it’s because you can’t.

I think you choose to ignore arguments you have no response to. I think you claim to be open minded and reasonable but you aren’t. I think you’re smarter than that but just too stubborn.

Ciao Bella.