- Jan 19, 2010
- 67,648
- 61,931
- 3,605
The known piece of shit media sources hate Trump and are lying....you are operating on out and out lies and only half the story dummy....
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Offical Impeachment Thread
- Thread starter mascale
- Start date
The known piece of shit media sources hate Trump and are lying....you are operating on out and out lies and only half the story dummy....
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #7,242
We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....That's exactly right. American voters will be the jury in place of the Senate.And by turning their cheeks it will let the voting public see what guys kiss trumps butt and which are voting for country firstNope? Not out of context. Investigating Biden hurts Biden in the election. Being a political rival, hurting Biden helps Trump. Zelensky is a foreign national. Right there is Trump soliciting a foreign national for something of value towards his own campaign.Out of context, faun.....but, you know that.Who needs wishes when we have Trump's admission...?
"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..."
That's a crime.
The House is fulfilling their Constitutional obligations to impeach a president who abused the power of his office in such a wanton manner. If the Senate wants to turn their cheek on this, that's on them.
I function just fine. But if I were to travel abroad, I could not answer what the hell Rump is doing without showing some pretty serious shame. And try to answer 1st graders questions about why they have to do certain things when President Rump doesn't. Rump is a Grade Z embarrassment.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #7,243
https://nypost.com/2018/06/19/house-goper-unmasks-identities-of-anti-trump-fbi-agents/
Another figure, “Agent 5,” was previously identified as Sally Moyer, but her lawyers disputed that and Meadows later said it wasn’t her.
Clinesmith was assigned to the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, according to the IG’s report, and also later worked as a top lawyer on the Trump-Russia investigation and the special-counsel probe.
Clinesmith sent a number of pro-Clinton, anti-Trump political messages over the FBI’s computer system, which the report said “raised concerns about potential bias” that may have impacted the investigation.
Meadows said Clinesmith was among five FBI officials Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz referred for investigation after additional anti-Trump messages surfaced.
All five worked on the Clinton case, accounting for one-third of the 15 who were assigned to the investigation. One was Peter Strzok, who was kicked off the special-counsel team last year and escorted from the FBI headquarters building Friday as part of internal discipline proceedings. He and his mistress, Lisa Page, who left the bureau last month, also supervised the Trump-Russia investigation.
Another GRU, "Hey look over there" moment in history.
OH MY GOD!!!! Mark Sandy's Testimony Was Just Released and Shows Why He Thought Ukrainian Aid Was Held!
Townhall.com ^ | November 26, 2019 | Beth Baumann
House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy's deposition transcript on Tuesday. The transcripts reveal aid to Ukraine was put on hold because President Donald Trump was concerned about other countries' failure to provide aid.
Q: Okay. When did you go on leave?
A: I was out of the office starting on Monday, July 8th.
Q: So you did not hear anything about Ukraine security assistance possibly being on hold at any time during the month of June or during that first week of JuIy?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear of any questions that were being raised by OMB about Ukraine security assistance at the end of June or the beginning of July?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe what you heard?
A: I heard that the President had seen a media report and he had questions about the assistance.
Q: When did you hear that the President had seen a media report and had questions about the assistance?
A: 0n June 19th.
Q: Do you know what media report that was?
A: I don't recall the specific article.
Q: Who told you that the President had these concerns on these questions?
A: Mike Duffey.
Q: And that was the conversation that you had with Mr. Duffey on June 19th?
A: I believe it was an email.
Q: Okay. Can you describe what that email said?
A: The email expressed an interest in getting more information from the Department of Defense.
Q: And what kind of additional information?
A: A description of the program.
Q: What exactly did Mr. Duffey say, to the best of your recollection, in that email?
A: That the President had questions about the press report and that he was seeking additional information.
Q: Anything else in that email?
A: Not that I recall.
...
Q: Between JuIy 19th and JuIy 22nd, including July 22nd, did Mr. Duffey provide you any explanation as to why the President wanted to place a hold on Ukraine security assistance?
A: No.
Q: Did you ask?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was the response?
A: He was not aware of the reason.
Q: To the best of your recollection, what precisely dld he say to you when you asked for the reason for the President's decision to place a hold on security assistance?
A: That he was not aware.
Q: He simply said, "I don't know"?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he indicate that he was going to try to get more information as to why the President was placing a hold on security assistance?
A: I am pausing because I -- there was certainly a desire to learn more about the rationale.
Q: Whose rational?
A: A desire on the pant of Mike Duffey, myself, and other people working on this issue. So I want to answer your question accurately in terms of saying, that desire was acknowledged.
Q: A11 night. Did Mr. Duffey say that he was going to try to get additional information as to the reason for the hold?
A: Yes. He certainly said that if he got additional information he would share it with us.
Q: Okay. At any point in time, from the moment that you walked into the SCIF to anytime in history, has Mr. Duffey even provided to you a reason why the President wanted to place a hold on security assistance?
A: I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.
In a joint statement, the Chairman of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees attempted to spin the testimony.
“The testimonies from Ambassador Reeker and Mr. Sandy continue to paint a portrait of hand-picked political appointees corrupting the official levers of U.S. government power, including by withholding taxpayer funded military assistance to Ukraine, to further the President’s own personal political agenda.
“Mr. Sandy confirmed that he was told by the office of Mick Mulvaney, the Acting White House Chief of Staff, that the President himself had directed the hold on security assistance to Ukraine. However, he was provided no other reason or justification for the hold when he was directed to implement it. And in fact, after he raised concerns with OMB leadership and lawyers that the withholding of funding for Ukraine may violate the law, his authority for approving security assistance funding was revoked and given instead to a hand-picked Trump OMB political appointee.
“Finally, we learned from Mr. Sandy that he was first informed in early September—approximately two months after the hold was implemented—that the reason for the hold was due to concerns regarding European countries not paying their fair share of foreign assistance. Given other testimony and the public admission by Mr. Mulvaney that the aid was held to pressure Ukraine to conduct the investigations desired by the President, this constitutes powerful evidence that this justification was concocted as an after-the-fact rationalization to justify the hold.”
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) took to Twitter to slam House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for pushing the quid pro quo theory.
Lee Zeldin
✔@RepLeeZeldin
https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1199452046337957889
The transcript for OMB’s Mark Sandy was just released. The ONLY reason he was ever given why there was a hold on $ to Ukraine was “the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.” NOT bribery. NOT quid pro quo or any other WACKY Schiff conspiracy!
-------------
GAME..SET..MATCH..this testimony PROVES that President Trump was telling the TRUTH about why he wanted to withhold aid, and I dont blame him one bit..Personally if I were President I wouldn’t give any foreign aid to any country unless they can show me exactly what the money would be used for...
Townhall.com ^ | November 26, 2019 | Beth Baumann
House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy's deposition transcript on Tuesday. The transcripts reveal aid to Ukraine was put on hold because President Donald Trump was concerned about other countries' failure to provide aid.
Q: Okay. When did you go on leave?
A: I was out of the office starting on Monday, July 8th.
Q: So you did not hear anything about Ukraine security assistance possibly being on hold at any time during the month of June or during that first week of JuIy?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear of any questions that were being raised by OMB about Ukraine security assistance at the end of June or the beginning of July?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe what you heard?
A: I heard that the President had seen a media report and he had questions about the assistance.
Q: When did you hear that the President had seen a media report and had questions about the assistance?
A: 0n June 19th.
Q: Do you know what media report that was?
A: I don't recall the specific article.
Q: Who told you that the President had these concerns on these questions?
A: Mike Duffey.
Q: And that was the conversation that you had with Mr. Duffey on June 19th?
A: I believe it was an email.
Q: Okay. Can you describe what that email said?
A: The email expressed an interest in getting more information from the Department of Defense.
Q: And what kind of additional information?
A: A description of the program.
Q: What exactly did Mr. Duffey say, to the best of your recollection, in that email?
A: That the President had questions about the press report and that he was seeking additional information.
Q: Anything else in that email?
A: Not that I recall.
...
Q: Between JuIy 19th and JuIy 22nd, including July 22nd, did Mr. Duffey provide you any explanation as to why the President wanted to place a hold on Ukraine security assistance?
A: No.
Q: Did you ask?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was the response?
A: He was not aware of the reason.
Q: To the best of your recollection, what precisely dld he say to you when you asked for the reason for the President's decision to place a hold on security assistance?
A: That he was not aware.
Q: He simply said, "I don't know"?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he indicate that he was going to try to get more information as to why the President was placing a hold on security assistance?
A: I am pausing because I -- there was certainly a desire to learn more about the rationale.
Q: Whose rational?
A: A desire on the pant of Mike Duffey, myself, and other people working on this issue. So I want to answer your question accurately in terms of saying, that desire was acknowledged.
Q: A11 night. Did Mr. Duffey say that he was going to try to get additional information as to the reason for the hold?
A: Yes. He certainly said that if he got additional information he would share it with us.
Q: Okay. At any point in time, from the moment that you walked into the SCIF to anytime in history, has Mr. Duffey even provided to you a reason why the President wanted to place a hold on security assistance?
A: I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.
In a joint statement, the Chairman of the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees attempted to spin the testimony.
“The testimonies from Ambassador Reeker and Mr. Sandy continue to paint a portrait of hand-picked political appointees corrupting the official levers of U.S. government power, including by withholding taxpayer funded military assistance to Ukraine, to further the President’s own personal political agenda.
“Mr. Sandy confirmed that he was told by the office of Mick Mulvaney, the Acting White House Chief of Staff, that the President himself had directed the hold on security assistance to Ukraine. However, he was provided no other reason or justification for the hold when he was directed to implement it. And in fact, after he raised concerns with OMB leadership and lawyers that the withholding of funding for Ukraine may violate the law, his authority for approving security assistance funding was revoked and given instead to a hand-picked Trump OMB political appointee.
“Finally, we learned from Mr. Sandy that he was first informed in early September—approximately two months after the hold was implemented—that the reason for the hold was due to concerns regarding European countries not paying their fair share of foreign assistance. Given other testimony and the public admission by Mr. Mulvaney that the aid was held to pressure Ukraine to conduct the investigations desired by the President, this constitutes powerful evidence that this justification was concocted as an after-the-fact rationalization to justify the hold.”
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) took to Twitter to slam House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for pushing the quid pro quo theory.
Lee Zeldin
✔@RepLeeZeldin
https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1199452046337957889
The transcript for OMB’s Mark Sandy was just released. The ONLY reason he was ever given why there was a hold on $ to Ukraine was “the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.” NOT bribery. NOT quid pro quo or any other WACKY Schiff conspiracy!
-------------
GAME..SET..MATCH..this testimony PROVES that President Trump was telling the TRUTH about why he wanted to withhold aid, and I dont blame him one bit..Personally if I were President I wouldn’t give any foreign aid to any country unless they can show me exactly what the money would be used for...
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,144
- 66,462
- 2,635
Just because a criminal prosecution is a trial doesn't mean a trial is a criminal prosecution. You,re beyond retarded.Since when isn't a Criminal Prosecution not been done in a trial ......dumbfuck.Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.Since impeachment isnt a criminal trial or legal process, the president doesnt have constitutional right to confront accuser.
Besides, the witnesses have accused the president more than the whistleblower.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
Your cussing doesn't make it so...........it is your method of trolling to push the left narrative.
Mueller investigation a failure..........Impeachment nothing but hearsay.........and your polls are dropping......
too bad.
But g'head, tell the forum again how Clinton, who was acquitted in the Senate WAS impeached; but Trump, should he be acquitted in the Senate, will NOT be impeached.
Try explaining how the Constitution has different rules for Republicans than it does for Democrats.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,677
- 4,732
- 280
lol You don't have to travel abroad to appear ignorant and confused about what is going on in America, you do that everyday right here.We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....That's exactly right. American voters will be the jury in place of the Senate.And by turning their cheeks it will let the voting public see what guys kiss trumps butt and which are voting for country firstNope? Not out of context. Investigating Biden hurts Biden in the election. Being a political rival, hurting Biden helps Trump. Zelensky is a foreign national. Right there is Trump soliciting a foreign national for something of value towards his own campaign.Out of context, faun.....but, you know that.
That's a crime.
The House is fulfilling their Constitutional obligations to impeach a president who abused the power of his office in such a wanton manner. If the Senate wants to turn their cheek on this, that's on them.
I function just fine. But if I were to travel abroad, I could not answer what the hell Rump is doing without showing some pretty serious shame. And try to answer 1st graders questions about why they have to do certain things when President Rump doesn't. Rump is a Grade Z embarrassment.
Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.Since impeachment isnt a criminal trial or legal process, the president doesnt have constitutional right to confront accuser.4th Amendment and the right to confront your accusers in the Senate should there be a trial........
He has accused.............and can be called to the Senate............Whistleblower protections do not override the 4th Amendment of the Constitution...............
He's out of the public eye............ONLY FOR NOW.
Besides, the witnesses have accused the president more than the whistleblower.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
It applies in civil law also.
.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #7,248
Actually Trump is guilty of obstruction of injustice.Wrong. He knew within a few weeks that there was no collusion. Yet, her persisted in persecuting the Trump administration for another 2 1/2 years.Mueller did exactly what he was supposed to do. Who knows why you think that's a problem for him?Mr. Mueller hope you are feeling better............you looked ill when testifying.........and didn't even know what was in the Report.......
Are you better now..........the meds helping..............
Collusion is not illegal. Never was and never will be. But conspiring with the Enemy and Obstruction of Justice IS illegal. And the obstruction of Justice was proven by Mueller against Rump. The House doesn't need the Ukrainian thing to bust Rump for Obstruction of Justice. They already have the proof for previous times for Rump. Rump obstructed the Mueller investigation, period. Since he thinks he got away with it, he does another "Here hold my beer" moment.
Yes, except the injustice has been by Rump himself.
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,144
- 66,462
- 2,635
No, I don't know that at all, lying fucking moron.You know you're going to lose, don't ya, turd?I don't take bets with conservatives. I've never yet seen one pay up when they lose.How much do you want to bet that it won't be one of the charges?For one, for soliciting campaign help from a foreign national.For what?And Trump's still gonna get impeached.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #7,250
lol You don't have to travel abroad to appear ignorant and confused about what is going on in America, you do that everyday right here.We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....That's exactly right. American voters will be the jury in place of the Senate.And by turning their cheeks it will let the voting public see what guys kiss trumps butt and which are voting for country firstNope? Not out of context. Investigating Biden hurts Biden in the election. Being a political rival, hurting Biden helps Trump. Zelensky is a foreign national. Right there is Trump soliciting a foreign national for something of value towards his own campaign.
That's a crime.
The House is fulfilling their Constitutional obligations to impeach a president who abused the power of his office in such a wanton manner. If the Senate wants to turn their cheek on this, that's on them.
I function just fine. But if I were to travel abroad, I could not answer what the hell Rump is doing without showing some pretty serious shame. And try to answer 1st graders questions about why they have to do certain things when President Rump doesn't. Rump is a Grade Z embarrassment.
Why, because I find you supporting a Criminal like Rump as improper? That shows loads of character on my part.
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,144
- 66,462
- 2,635
That's what Shokin, who has an axe to grind against Biden, says just a couple of months ago. And wouldn't even sign his name to. Show the proof from 2016 that the case was active....September 4, 2019: In a sworn deposition, Viktor Shokin testifies that he was fired after refusing to close the Burisma corruption cases.Sure, prove Burisma was under an active investigation when Biden got shokin fired...I'll tell you what.....let's go after Biden first, okay? I want you to rip into Biden like you have Trump.Well, with his own words spoken, that IS exactly what you're doing. Who are you trying to kid?If he committed a crime, punish him. I have no desire to back crooks & thieves & liars like you do.
His own words were the words of the United States of America. And it got results. Enough that Ukraine was removed from the Corrupt country list and could receive Offensive Weapons from the US. he showed a level of Statesmanship far beyond what you are capable of understanding. So, by his own words, he helped to change Ukraine from a completely corrupt nation to a near honest one. Not 100% honest but close enough compared to the other Eastern Block countries. What part of this are you having trouble understanding or did Putins GRU tell you to keep stirring that pot?
let's clean up Rump and his band of Criminals and then you can go after Biden if it trips your trigger. But having the Criminal Rump and his Sycophants do it is just a way to try and make us look the other way on their crimes. Sorry, Blackmail, Election Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, just to name three of a long list, we need to take care of those (and don't try and tell the rest of us that those charges aren't real) first. The only reason that they aren't being taken care of is the AG is working as Rumps personal Lawyer instead of representing the US and the Republicans in the Senate and House are all afraid that Rump is needed to get them, reelected. And then is Moscow Mitch. Congress has NEVER been this weak and the Executive Branch has never been this strong. Rump is closer to a King than a President which was what he wanted in the first place, the US Constitution of the United States be damned.
Again, having a bunch of criminals do a criminal investigation on anyone never ends well.
I want you to besmirch one of your own, Daryl. Until then your words mean nothing to me.
Shokin Statement
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Burisma was not under investigation?
If you do, please add it to the timeline in the Debate Now forum.Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #7,252
Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.Since impeachment isnt a criminal trial or legal process, the president doesnt have constitutional right to confront accuser.
Besides, the witnesses have accused the president more than the whistleblower.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
.
Ah, the Link, Link, Link defense. It's already been linked a number of times. Do you own search in USMB for a change.
- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,677
- 4,732
- 280
No, because you show yourself to be slow witted, ignorant and bigoted in every post.lol You don't have to travel abroad to appear ignorant and confused about what is going on in America, you do that everyday right here.We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....That's exactly right. American voters will be the jury in place of the Senate.And by turning their cheeks it will let the voting public see what guys kiss trumps butt and which are voting for country first
I function just fine. But if I were to travel abroad, I could not answer what the hell Rump is doing without showing some pretty serious shame. And try to answer 1st graders questions about why they have to do certain things when President Rump doesn't. Rump is a Grade Z embarrassment.
Why, because I find you supporting a Criminal like Rump as improper? That shows loads of character on my part.
- Jan 19, 2010
- 67,648
- 61,931
- 3,605
You are ashamed of being American?....I'm guessing you have felt that way before Trump came around...remember Booosh?.....you were in a rose colored daze while Obama was golfing errrrr leading from behind...but the rest of us were awake struggling to make ends meet....We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....That's exactly right. American voters will be the jury in place of the Senate.And by turning their cheeks it will let the voting public see what guys kiss trumps butt and which are voting for country firstNope? Not out of context. Investigating Biden hurts Biden in the election. Being a political rival, hurting Biden helps Trump. Zelensky is a foreign national. Right there is Trump soliciting a foreign national for something of value towards his own campaign.Out of context, faun.....but, you know that.
That's a crime.
The House is fulfilling their Constitutional obligations to impeach a president who abused the power of his office in such a wanton manner. If the Senate wants to turn their cheek on this, that's on them.
I function just fine. But if I were to travel abroad, I could not answer what the hell Rump is doing without showing some pretty serious shame. And try to answer 1st graders questions about why they have to do certain things when President Rump doesn't. Rump is a Grade Z embarrassment.
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,144
- 66,462
- 2,635
^^^ another dumbfuck who can't comprehend the difference between criminal prosecutions and civil complaints.Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.Since impeachment isnt a criminal trial or legal process, the president doesnt have constitutional right to confront accuser.
Besides, the witnesses have accused the president more than the whistleblower.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
It applies in civil law also.
.
Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
.
Ah, the Link, Link, Link defense. It's already been linked a number of times. Do you own search in USMB for a change.
Actually I edited that, I guess I wasn't fast enough. LOL
.
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,144
- 66,462
- 2,635
That dumbfuck edited that out of his post and replaced it with even bigger idiocy, claiming, "It applies in civil law also."Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
.
Ah, the Link, Link, Link defense. It's already been linked a number of times. Do you own search in USMB for a change.
^^^ another dumbfuck who can't comprehend the difference between criminal prosecutions and civil complaints.Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?In the Senate...........it is considered a trial..........And Trump's Lawyers can defend the President and call witnesses...........the WB is not immune to that under the 4th.
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
It applies in civil law also.
.
Sure I can, most of the protections provided a criminal defendant are also provided to a civil defendant. The right to face your accuser is one of them.
.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #7,259
Nixon resigned dummy.They don't Impeach him...............You can play this game all you want....it's just words........if you can't win the case in the Senate............You have done NOTHING........NADDA..Dumbfuck, the House impeaches, not the Senate.You don't get a conviction.........you don't have Jack Squat. And you don't have a prayer in the Senate........"Congress doesn't Impeach"
LOLOLOL
Dumbfuck, aside from the fact that the Senate is part of Congress.... yes, the House impeaches without the Senate. The Senate tries impeachments.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Fuck, even I'm embarrassed for you.
So this is NOISE.
You're so stupid, you actually think Clinton wasn't impeached!
And you can't win there..........and you know it............
In a Real Court they would have laughed you out of it....
After 3 years of trying...........you have 2 things.
Jack.............and
Shit..............
If it were a real court and the DA acted like the AG does, he would be rode out of town on a rail and disbarred in a few states. And the sitting Judge would be from the Judicial Department, the 12 jurors would be selected from the greater population. What we have is the AG is corrupt and the Jury is bought off. So much for justice. The only saving grace might be the Chief Justice residing. Can you imagine if the Chief Justice requires Rump to testify and he says NO, Executive Privilege. How'd that work out for Nixon?
He resigned to prevent having to testify in the Senate. BTW, I voted for Nixon twice after looking at the alternatives. the reasoning was a Crook was a step up from a bungling idiot twice over. Even with Watergate being held over his head, Nixon won by a landslide for reelection. Nixon was just a Crook. We could live with that. Rump is a Mob Boss style crook and we can't live with that. Surprise, I voted more Republican than I ever did Democrat until the Party of Rump seized control of the GOP and made it the POT. There are one hell of a lot of us out here. We don't want the GOP gone, we want the Party of Rump gone so we can rebuild the GOP into something we can be proud of. Until then, don't look for us to support nor vote for Rump and his supporters. If it allows the Dems to win a few then that's the price the Rumpsters should be willing to pay. Not worry, when the Rumpsters are gone, we get the GOP back to business.
- Nov 14, 2011
- 121,144
- 66,462
- 2,635
Prove it, given the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions" ...^^^ another dumbfuck who can't comprehend the difference between criminal prosecutions and civil complaints.Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........Interesting.. can you find legal precedent?
We're not in a senate trial yet, so the inquiry at this stage in the house doesnt apply to 4th amendment.
Im not sure if the Senate trial counts as a criminal trial or legal process.
Will not be a Shifty Show there...........Your side can't stop other witnesses from testifying against your side...........Pelosi doesn't want it to go there and you know it........There will be consequences and she knows it..........
Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.
It applies in civil law also.
.
Sure I can, most of the protections provided a criminal defendant are also provided to a civil defendant. The right to face your accuser is one of them.
.
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 32
- Replies
- 508
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 64
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8059
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-