Offical Impeachment Thread

[Daryl Hunt]

That's exactly right. American voters will be the jury in place of the Senate.

We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....

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.

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.

Why, because I find you supporting a Criminal like Rump as improper? That shows loads of character on my part.

No, because you show yourself to be slow witted, ignorant and bigoted in every post.

Why, because I want criminals out of the Whitehouse that current infest it? Again, shows a lot of Character on my part. No so much on yours.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We already voted...you lose....no one wants an impeachment but snowflakes that can't function while Trump is president....

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.

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.

Why, because I find you supporting a Criminal like Rump as improper? That shows loads of character on my part.

No, because you show yourself to be slow witted, ignorant and bigoted in every post.

Why, because I want criminals out of the Whitehouse that current infest it? Again, shows a lot of Character on my part. No so much on yours.

While we know you'd like to think that was the case.....we disagree.

 

[Zorro!]

What testimony did the whistleblower give to make the case against Trump?
Zero

There is no reason to put this person's life in danger, one of the reasons for the whisleblower concept.

Quoit try to bame others because Trump got caught.

Actually, no. The only legal protection the WB has is from retaliation on the job. There is no legal requirement for anonymity, no protection against being forced to testify, none. Basically, if he made the accusation, he can be forced to defend it, and that opens the door to whether the democrats handled him legally or not.

Wrong very wrong.
In this site alone how many of you idiots post lies and violence?
Out there how many of these deranged idiots Trump followers would like to kill this WB?

If something happened to him and his family are you going to do something?

If you think I am wrong, then cite the text of the law that guarantees a WB anonymity and immunity from testifying. That's all you need to do. If you can't do so, at least have the dignity to admit you were wrong.

The statute doesn't apply to this "whistleblower" or to Trump's phone call and the statute doesn't guarantee immunity or anonymity.

see national security protections:

intelligence- community whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation if they raise "differences of opinions concerning public-policy matters," but are protected if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations. This makes it difficult for national-security employees to raise questions about the overarching legality or constitutionality of policies or programs operated under secret law, like the NSA's mass-surveillance programs.[33]

Since law was violated, whistleblower is protected.

Not in this case.

While the media purport to be deeply concerned about Trump-administration law-breaking in classified matters, there is negligible interest in whether the intelligence officials leaking to them are flouting the law.

Urgent concern is a specialized term in federal law. Under Section 3033(k)(5)(G) (of Title 50, U.S. Code), an “urgent concern” relates to specified problems involving intelligence activities and classified information that are within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI is the cabinet official who oversees the community of intelligence agencies. The urgent concerns Section 3033 outlines include, for example, violations or abuses of laws or executive orders, or deficiencies in the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity.

Section 3033 Does Not Apply to the President
Here, the whistleblower believed President Trump discussion with a foreign leader qualified as an “urgent concern” under the statute.

Joseph Maguire, the acting DNI, correctly determined that the issue did not meet the Section 3033 definition of an urgent concern, because it related to an activity by someone not under the authority of the DNI (the president). Consequently, Maguire declined to pass the complaint along to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Schiff’s interpretation of the statute, is wrong. Section 3033 does not apply to a president’s negotiations with or commitments to foreign powers. To repeat, the statute applies to intelligence activities by government officials acting under the authority of the DNI. Since neither Trump, nor this call is covered by Section 3033, neither is the "whistleblower." Since he is not a whistleblower under the statute, he is not entitled to it's protections, which do not provide immunity or anonymity even if they did apply.

In our system, the conduct of foreign policy is a near plenary authority of the chief executive. The only exceptions are explicitly stated in the Constitution (Congress regulates foreign commerce, the Senate must approve treaties, etc.). Congress may not enact statutes that limit the president’s constitutional power to conduct foreign policy; the Constitution may not be amended by statute.

Consistent with this principle, the Justice Department has long adhered to the so-called “clear statement” rule: If the express terms of a statute do not apply its provisions to the president, then the statute is deemed not to apply to the president if its application would conflict with the president’s constitutional powers. Section 3033 does not refer to the president. By its terms, it applies to intelligence-community officials. And, in any event, it may not properly be applied to the president if doing so would hinder the president’s capacious authority to conduct foreign policy.

At least when a Republican is in the White House, progressives are enthralled by laws that, in effect, empower bureaucrats — here, “intelligence professionals”– to second-guess and otherwise check the president’s power to direct the executive branch. That is not our system.

Trump Whistleblower Claim: Congress Should Investigate | National Review

 

[Rambunctious]

Why, because I want criminals out of the Whitehouse that current infest it? Again, shows a lot of Character on my part. No so much on yours.

Did you want the Clinton's out?....me doubt it.....hypocrite....

 

[Muhammed]

Well, with his own words spoken, that IS exactly what you're doing. Who are you trying to kid?

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'll tell you what.....let's go after Biden first, okay? I want you to rip into Biden like you have Trump.
I want you to besmirch one of your own, Daryl. Until then your words mean nothing to me.

Sure, prove Burisma was under an active investigation when Biden got shokin fired...

September 4, 2019: In a sworn deposition, Viktor Shokin testifies that he was fired after refusing to close the Burisma corruption cases.
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.

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....

Are you seriously trying to convince us that Burisma was never under criminal investigation? Or that Shokin closed all of the Burisma cases?

WTF?

Do you know that for a fact? If so, then please add the date into the timeline of facts.

Debate Now - The Biden-Ukraine corruption timeline.

What month day and year are you alleging the Shokin officially closed all of the criminal investigations regarding Burisma?

 

[Faun]

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'll tell you what.....let's go after Biden first, okay? I want you to rip into Biden like you have Trump.
I want you to besmirch one of your own, Daryl. Until then your words mean nothing to me.

Sure, prove Burisma was under an active investigation when Biden got shokin fired...

September 4, 2019: In a sworn deposition, Viktor Shokin testifies that he was fired after refusing to close the Burisma corruption cases.
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.

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....

Are you seriously trying to deny that Burisma was never under criminal investigation? Or that Shokin closed all of the Burisma cases?

WTF?

Do you know that for a fact? If so, then please add the date into the timeline of facts.

usmessageboard.com/threads/the-biden-ukraine-corruption-timeline.791609/#post-23558984

Holyfuckingshit!

Can any of you retards argue against what's actually said and not what you wish was said???

I never said Burisma was never under investigation. There was no active investigation at the time Biden got Shokin fired.

 

[RealDave]

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.

It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........

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..........

Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."

Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.

It applies in civil law also.

.

^^^ another dumbfuck who can't comprehend the difference between criminal prosecutions and civil complaints.

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.

.

So far we have lots of accusers & Trump can come to the hearings & face everyone of them.

Then he can go under oath & testify.

 

[Zorro!]

The statute doesn't apply to this "whistleblower" or to Trump's phone call and the statute doesn't guarantee immunity or anonymity.

see national security protections:

intelligence- community whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation if they raise "differences of opinions concerning public-policy matters," but are protected if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations. This makes it difficult for national-security employees to raise questions about the overarching legality or constitutionality of policies or programs operated under secret law, like the NSA's mass-surveillance programs.[33]

Since law was violated, whistleblower is protected.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's whatever the Senate wants it to be. These longstanding procedures are in our Constitutional and legal processes because they ensure a fair process and prevent witch hunts and lynchings.

In our system the removal of a President requires a very broad bipartisan consensus that conduct has occurred that requires removal, and since we are in an election year, IMMEDIATE removal. You have nothing of the sort and this issue will not develop into that. First of all, there is no statutory violation and no harm occurred, the aid was released without any of the requirements openly fabricated by Schiff (he later backpedaled on his baldfaced lies and claimed it was "parody", though his lies are still bandied about as talking points by bitter partisans).

At this point, I don't think Pelosi can get away with not passing articles of impeachment, and at that point she loses all power over the process. She may try letting it die a slow death from inattention hoping that something else shifts attention away from it so that she neither has to take the vote, nor stop the vote. If she stops a vote it's likely her resignation will be demanded from the whacked out side of the Democrat caucus.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why, because I want criminals out of the Whitehouse that current infest it? Again, shows a lot of Character on my part. No so much on yours.

Did you want the Clinton's out?....me doubt it.....hypocrite....

So you want another Devil versus Satan again. Which one will YOU vote for. Will it be the Devil or Satan. Are you aware that it's on file where the GRU went after the leading Republican Candidates hard starting in 2016? Of course you will deny that. The only leading Rep Candidate they didn't attack was Rump. The fix was on.

Rubio or Cruz would have been a better alternative but they got destroyed. Not by the Democrats but by the GRU helping Rump. If they wanted us real Republican votes they would have presented one of those two or even a third or fourth option. But the fix was in.

 

[RealDave]

Actually, no. The only legal protection the WB has is from retaliation on the job. There is no legal requirement for anonymity, no protection against being forced to testify, none. Basically, if he made the accusation, he can be forced to defend it, and that opens the door to whether the democrats handled him legally or not.

Wrong very wrong.
In this site alone how many of you idiots post lies and violence?
Out there how many of these deranged idiots Trump followers would like to kill this WB?

If something happened to him and his family are you going to do something?

If you think I am wrong, then cite the text of the law that guarantees a WB anonymity and immunity from testifying. That's all you need to do. If you can't do so, at least have the dignity to admit you were wrong.

The statute doesn't apply to this "whistleblower" or to Trump's phone call and the statute doesn't guarantee immunity or anonymity.

see national security protections:

intelligence- community whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation if they raise "differences of opinions concerning public-policy matters," but are protected if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations. This makes it difficult for national-security employees to raise questions about the overarching legality or constitutionality of policies or programs operated under secret law, like the NSA's mass-surveillance programs.[33]

Since law was violated, whistleblower is protected.

Not in this case.

While the media purport to be deeply concerned about Trump-administration law-breaking in classified matters, there is negligible interest in whether the intelligence officials leaking to them are flouting the law.

Urgent concern is a specialized term in federal law. Under Section 3033(k)(5)(G) (of Title 50, U.S. Code), an “urgent concern” relates to specified problems involving intelligence activities and classified information that are within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI is the cabinet official who oversees the community of intelligence agencies. The urgent concerns Section 3033 outlines include, for example, violations or abuses of laws or executive orders, or deficiencies in the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity.

Section 3033 Does Not Apply to the President
Here, the whistleblower believed President Trump discussion with a foreign leader qualified as an “urgent concern” under the statute.

Joseph Maguire, the acting DNI, correctly determined that the issue did not meet the Section 3033 definition of an urgent concern, because it related to an activity by someone not under the authority of the DNI (the president). Consequently, Maguire declined to pass the complaint along to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Schiff’s interpretation of the statute, is wrong. Section 3033 does not apply to a president’s negotiations with or commitments to foreign powers. To repeat, the statute applies to intelligence activities by government officials acting under the authority of the DNI. Since neither Trump, nor this call is covered by Section 3033, neither is the "whistleblower." Since he is not a whistleblower under the statute, he is not entitled to it's protections, which do not provide immunity or anonymity even if they did apply.

In our system, the conduct of foreign policy is a near plenary authority of the chief executive. The only exceptions are explicitly stated in the Constitution (Congress regulates foreign commerce, the Senate must approve treaties, etc.). Congress may not enact statutes that limit the president’s constitutional power to conduct foreign policy; the Constitution may not be amended by statute.

Consistent with this principle, the Justice Department has long adhered to the so-called “clear statement” rule: If the express terms of a statute do not apply its provisions to the president, then the statute is deemed not to apply to the president if its application would conflict with the president’s constitutional powers. Section 3033 does not refer to the president. By its terms, it applies to intelligence-community officials. And, in any event, it may not properly be applied to the president if doing so would hinder the president’s capacious authority to conduct foreign policy.

At least when a Republican is in the White House, progressives are enthralled by laws that, in effect, empower bureaucrats — here, “intelligence professionals”– to second-guess and otherwise check the president’s power to direct the executive branch. That is not our system.

Trump Whistleblower Claim: Congress Should Investigate | National Review

If the "prosecution" decides to use testimony from the whistleblower in the hearing, then Trump has his invitation.

 

[Zorro!]

Actually, no. The only legal protection the WB has is from retaliation on the job. There is no legal requirement for anonymity, no protection against being forced to testify, none. Basically, if he made the accusation, he can be forced to defend it, and that opens the door to whether the democrats handled him legally or not.

Wrong very wrong.
In this site alone how many of you idiots post lies and violence?
Out there how many of these deranged idiots Trump followers would like to kill this WB?

If something happened to him and his family are you going to do something?

If you think I am wrong, then cite the text of the law that guarantees a WB anonymity and immunity from testifying. That's all you need to do. If you can't do so, at least have the dignity to admit you were wrong.

The statute doesn't apply to this "whistleblower" or to Trump's phone call and the statute doesn't guarantee immunity or anonymity.

see national security protections:

intelligence- community whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation if they raise "differences of opinions concerning public-policy matters," but are protected if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations. This makes it difficult for national-security employees to raise questions about the overarching legality or constitutionality of policies or programs operated under secret law, like the NSA's mass-surveillance programs.[33]

Since law was violated, whistleblower is protected.

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.

The President and his phone call are not covered by the Whistle Blower statute, so neither is the "whistle blower" who expressed an urgent concern over the call. Further, whistle blower protections, even if they did apply, do not provide immunity and/or anonymity.

 

[RealDave]

LOLOL

You're an even bigger dumbfuck than I gave you credit for. People hold meetings all the time on phone calls. I do it myself for work.

Words have meaning retard.

meeting
[ˈmēdiNG]
NOUN

1. an assembly of people, especially the members of a society or committee, for discussion or entertainment.
   "the early-dismissal policy will be discussed at our next meeting"
   synonyms:
   gathering · assembly · conference · congregation · convention ·
   [more]
2. a coming together of two or more people, by chance or arrangement.
   "he intrigued her on their first meeting"

.

Dumbfuck, people can "come together" by phone to discuss matters. They don't have to come together physically. Just because you're older than the telephone doesn't mean they're not used for meetings. Rarely does a workday go by where I don't join a meeting by phone or by webex.

Alternate means of communications are NOT meetings, shove your semantics.

.

LOLOL

It's not semantics, dumbfuck. I work in an office with no less than a hundred conference rooms where people hold meetings. Ya know what's in every one 'em...?

A telephone.

Because some people dial into the meetings. Either by phone or from their laptops.

You're dumber than shit, ya know that?

That doesn't contradict what he said. A telephone call is not a meeting.

really. It certainly can be.

 

[RealDave]

For one, for soliciting campaign help from a foreign national.

You wish....

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..."​

Out of context, faun.....but, you know that.

Nope? 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.

So the fact that Biden might get hurt is more important than what he did. Lib insanity 101
You all have been railroading witch hunt investigating Trump for 3 years with no evidence and the conclusions reached so far by your cherished investigators is that Trump did nothing illegal.

This is from funny chit coming from the assfucks that investigated Hillary Clinton for far longer.

The Mueller investigation was done by REPUBLICANS you God damn idiot

 

[RealDave]

And Trump's still gonna get impeached.

For what?

For one, for soliciting campaign help from a foreign national.

You wish....

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..."​

Biden: ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”


That is some quid pro quo, don't need an imagination

Who got the quo?

With Biden, the US policy got the quo by fighting the corruption in the Ukraine so we could send them aid.

With your fast asssed orange buddy, the quo was damage to his political foe.

I suspect that even a fucking moron liar like you can get that.

 

[RealDave]

Mueller did exactly what he was supposed to do. Who knows why you think that's a problem for him?

No it's a problem for the left..........3 years of I GOTCHA..........and FLOP.

And here we go again............You guys are so wrong all the time.........why should anyone listen to people who are always wrong.

Again? We haven't been going after Trump for 3 years. You're delusional.

What??????

Name how the left has been going after Trump for 3 years.....

Comey started in mid 2016 and they haven't stopped since.

.

The Mueller investigation was done by Republicans.

 

[Meister]

For what?

For one, for soliciting campaign help from a foreign national.

You wish....

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..."​

Biden: ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”


That is some quid pro quo, don't need an imagination

Who got the quo?

With Biden, the US policy got the quo by fighting the corruption in the Ukraine so we could send them aid.

With your fast asssed orange buddy, the quo was damage to his political foe.

I suspect that even a fucking moron liar like you can get that.

Fake Dave, I've already showed how you lie to make your points. You're a silly child.
You denying the quid pro quo with Biden just shows how much of a liar you are.
His son was going to be investigated by the prosecutor, and uncle Joe shut it down with
his quid pro quo/extortion/bribery. Please....run along, child. Oh...by the way...Bless your heart.

 

[OKTexas]

It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........

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..........

Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."

Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.

It applies in civil law also.

.

^^^ another dumbfuck who can't comprehend the difference between criminal prosecutions and civil complaints.

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.

.

Prove it, given the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions" ...

If you could read you'd know that Federal Civil Procedure almost perfectly mirrors Federal Criminal Procedure. Compliant, discovery, jury selection, trial and verdict.

civil procedure

 

[RealDave]

For one, for soliciting campaign help from a foreign national.

You wish....

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..."​

Biden: ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”


That is some quid pro quo, don't need an imagination

Who got the quo?

With Biden, the US policy got the quo by fighting the corruption in the Ukraine so we could send them aid.

With your fast asssed orange buddy, the quo was damage to his political foe.

I suspect that even a fucking moron liar like you can get that.

Fake Dave, I've already showed how you lie to make your points. You're a silly child.
You denying the quid pro quo with Biden just shows how much of a liar you are.
His son was going to be investigated by the prosecutor, and uncle Joe shut it down with
his quid pro quo/extortion/bribery. Please....run along, child. Oh...by the way...Bless your heart.

Fuck off Trump Boy. I never denied the Quid Pro Quo & if you could fucking read, you would know that.

Who appointed Mueller.

You are just another stupid fucking Trumpette.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For one, for soliciting campaign help from a foreign national.

You wish....

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..."​

Biden: ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”


That is some quid pro quo, don't need an imagination

Who got the quo?

With Biden, the US policy got the quo by fighting the corruption in the Ukraine so we could send them aid.

With your fast asssed orange buddy, the quo was damage to his political foe.

I suspect that even a fucking moron liar like you can get that.

Fake Dave, I've already showed how you lie to make your points. You're a silly child.
You denying the quid pro quo with Biden just shows how much of a liar you are.
His son was going to be investigated by the prosecutor, and uncle Joe shut it down with
his quid pro quo/extortion/bribery. Please....run along, child. Oh...by the way...Bless your heart.

Nicely relayed, Comrade.

 

[OKTexas]

It's called a trial in the Constitution..........good luck keeping the WB out of this if it goes there........

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..........

Dumbfuck, the Constitution states it applies to "criminal prosecutions," not "trials."

Can you at least try not to be such a flaming dumbfuck??? At least fake it.

It applies in civil law also.

.

^^^ another dumbfuck who can't comprehend the difference between criminal prosecutions and civil complaints.

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.

.

So far we have lots of accusers & Trump can come to the hearings & face everyone of them.

Then he can go under oath & testify.

So far you got nothing except some folks that think they heard or presumed they heard something. That's not evidence. The transcript damn sure doesn't verify a damn thing, except Trump did nothing wrong.

.