Trump Will Be Impeached

[Wry Catcher]

Do democrats think Americans are freaking blind? They prevent elected congress people from entering the hearings while they leak selected testimony through their minions in the media and then they convince themselves that they "sealed the deal". Meanwhile people have to step around corpses under tarps and shit on the sidewalks in the Speaker's district.

LOL, you like so many others simply parrot the propaganda issued by White House stooges, AM radio voices and Murdoch's talking heads and columnists.

 

[jc456]

I have no idea why you bring in that I'm a moderator. I wasn't posting in red, so I'm a poster just like you.
Having said that, quid pro quo has not been established and they can't even get their primary witnesses to establish that.
Everything is second third and forth handed information with schiff making up lies to establish what the dems want you
to believe. That has been established.

Doesn't matter what you're posting as list the rules that were changed.

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process
Nancy Pelosi's December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Go ahead and read it if you can read. "Doesn't matter", only tells me that you agree with what I posted and just too much
of a minion to care.

Changes do matter.

Dems blast House GOP subpoena rules change

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

In a letter shared with POLITICO, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.


Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

I do not know how true the 2015 rule is. But was that after the Dems changed the rules in voting for judges from 60 to simple majority? They were probably pizzed at that time.

That was in the Senate and has nothing to do with subpoena power or procedural rules in the House.

subpoena's from the house are not judicial and cannot be used to threaten people. one can ignore them without repercussions.

 

[jc456]

Do democrats think Americans are freaking blind? They prevent elected congress people from entering the hearings while they leak selected testimony through their minions in the media and then they convince themselves that they "sealed the deal". Meanwhile people have to step around corpses under tarps and shit on the sidewalks in the Speaker's district.

LOL, you like so many others simply parrot the propaganda issued by White House stooges, AM radio voices and Murdoch's talking heads and columnists.

are you saying that didn't happen? are you really going to show off your stupid with that statement?

 

[easyt65]

The invasion was never backed by the UN.

I agree - the UN never backed the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's invasion of Syria...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not to be impeached it doesn't.

To be removed... lol
And if the senate acquits trump... That will only help trump in the next election

I don't think an impeached president can win an election. We all know that if the senate doesn't convict him, it will be due to partisanship and not fact.

We all know the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship.

"We all"? I assume you mean biddable fools believe, "the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship".

50% of us (and likely more) believe trump should be impeached and removed from office.

nope, you have not taken a vote. your poll is fake. too bad for you, 2020 will decide for you. why are you afraid of the 2020 elections?

It's not my poll, and it was not a singular poll. Two others were 51% & 52% for impeachment and removal from office.

I do fear the election of 2020, for if, and likely when trump is defeated, he will have 78 days before he leaves office. The damage a vindictive person like trump has proved to be can be enormous.

 

[jc456]

To be removed... lol
And if the senate acquits trump... That will only help trump in the next election

I don't think an impeached president can win an election. We all know that if the senate doesn't convict him, it will be due to partisanship and not fact.

We all know the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship.

"We all"? I assume you mean biddable fools believe, "the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship".

50% of us (and likely more) believe trump should be impeached and removed from office.

nope, you have not taken a vote. your poll is fake. too bad for you, 2020 will decide for you. why are you afraid of the 2020 elections?

It's not my poll, and it was not a singular poll. Two others were 51% & 52% for impeachment and removal from office.

I do fear the election of 2020, for if, and likely when trump is defeated, he will have 78 days before he leaves office. The damage a vindictive person like trump has proved to be can be enormous.

dude, polls are an interferring tool used to create division. 2020 is a year away. why are you afraid to wait for the peoples vote?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It's true........

 

[Meister]

To be removed... lol
And if the senate acquits trump... That will only help trump in the next election

I don't think an impeached president can win an election. We all know that if the senate doesn't convict him, it will be due to partisanship and not fact.

We all know the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship.

"We all"? I assume you mean biddable fools believe, "the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship".

50% of us (and likely more) believe trump should be impeached and removed from office.

nope, you have not taken a vote. your poll is fake. too bad for you, 2020 will decide for you. why are you afraid of the 2020 elections?

It's not my poll, and it was not a singular poll. Two others were 51% & 52% for impeachment and removal from office.

I do fear the election of 2020, for if, and likely when trump is defeated, he will have 78 days before he leaves office. The damage a vindictive person like trump has proved to be can be enormous.

Fox already admitted to the over sampling of democrats. I imagine that wording and over sampling in the polls can give false conclusions.
Not like they would do that.....ever.

 

[jc456]

I don't think an impeached president can win an election. We all know that if the senate doesn't convict him, it will be due to partisanship and not fact.

We all know the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship.

"We all"? I assume you mean biddable fools believe, "the Hysterical House Dem witch-hunt is STRICTLY partisanship".

50% of us (and likely more) believe trump should be impeached and removed from office.

nope, you have not taken a vote. your poll is fake. too bad for you, 2020 will decide for you. why are you afraid of the 2020 elections?

It's not my poll, and it was not a singular poll. Two others were 51% & 52% for impeachment and removal from office.

I do fear the election of 2020, for if, and likely when trump is defeated, he will have 78 days before he leaves office. The damage a vindictive person like trump has proved to be can be enormous.

Fox already admitted to the over sampling of democrats. I imagine that wording and over sampling in the polls can give false conclusions.
Not like they would do that.....ever.

again, there is nothing fair that is a poll. NOTHING. It is but a manipulation of people's thoughts.

 

[Meister]

Please stay on topic

 

[BlindBoo]

Doesn't matter what you're posting as list the rules that were changed.

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process
Nancy Pelosi's December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Go ahead and read it if you can read. "Doesn't matter", only tells me that you agree with what I posted and just too much
of a minion to care.

Changes do matter.

Dems blast House GOP subpoena rules change

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

In a letter shared with POLITICO, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.


Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

I do not know how true the 2015 rule is. But was that after the Dems changed the rules in voting for judges from 60 to simple majority? They were probably pizzed at that time.

That was in the Senate and has nothing to do with subpoena power or procedural rules in the House.

subpoena's from the house are not judicial and cannot be used to threaten people. one can ignore them without repercussions.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ag

 

[BlindBoo]

The invasion was never backed by the UN.

I agree - the UN never backed the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's invasion of Syria...

Since we never actually invaded Syria, so what?

 

[MAGAman]

The time has come for Trump.

Trump Will Be Impeached
Ambassador William Taylor’s testimony sealed the deal.
October 22, 2019
by John Podhoretz

Remember when I said last week that October 17 was the worst day of the Trump presidency? Well, October 22 and has now come along to break the record. This is the day that, I think, has ensured Donald Trump’s impeachment. Not his removal. But impeachment will be bad enough.

Today’s key sentence: “Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.”

It comes from the testimony of acting U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine William Taylor before House impeachment investigators, and it instantly makes all but impossible the task of anyone seeking to defend Trump against the charge that he held up American military aid to Ukraine to secure a political advantage in the 2020 election.

There were three defenses of Trump following the revelations of the “whistleblower” and the phone-call transcript of the conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine. The first was that he is only interested in investigating corruption relating to the 2016 election. The second is that even though Trump himself said he wanted the Ukranian to do him a favor, there was no quid pro quo. The third is that the only thing Trump was trading for was a White House visit, which is no great shakes.

There’s no need to talk about the “whistleblower” and his findings any longer, and there’s no need for the whistleblower to be heard any further. We have a veteran U.S. diplomat on the record saying that a Trump intimate told him Trump was holding up Congressionally authorized and appropriated military aid to Ukraine because he wanted a public statement from the Zelensky government that it was investigating Joe Biden’s son.

Taylor said this of a September 1 phone call with Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to the European Union about the $275 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine as well as a possible meeting between Trump and Ukranian president Zelensky:

“Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

Ambassador William Taylor’s Testimony Ensured Trump’s Impeachment

Trump has a guest coming to visit

And he doesn't worry about invitations​

It's like deja vu all over again.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Russia was the left's Benghazi.
Ukraine will be the lefts.. well idk but it will be up there too.
Partisanship does horrible things to people.

Only difference....Benghazi was completely manufactured bullshit....

the Russia thing ended up with felony convictions....

and this Ukraine thing is ending up with felony convictions and a possible impeachment

Other than that, yea...both sides do it....if that makes you feel better

There was felony convictions of trump colludingvwith russia?
Where are the convictions with ukraine?
What?

These two guys were arrested on felony charges, along with 2 others....they were arrested for actions directly related to Trump -- so much so that even Trump's own personal lawyer is under 2 different criminal investigations...


As for the Russian investigation, the only charges handed out for election meddling were given out to the Russian officials who conducted it...but.....I do know that Trump's other personal lawyer is currently in prison for shit directly related to Trump, so much so that Trump was named an unindicted co-conspirator.....Now since I know you like to say "both sides do it" because of your intellectual laziness -- can you give me the "both sides" example to this one??

Does Obama have 2 personal attorneys either convicted or being investigated for something they were doing for him??

 

[Rustic]

The time has come for Trump.

Trump Will Be Impeached
Ambassador William Taylor’s testimony sealed the deal.
October 22, 2019
by John Podhoretz

Remember when I said last week that October 17 was the worst day of the Trump presidency? Well, October 22 and has now come along to break the record. This is the day that, I think, has ensured Donald Trump’s impeachment. Not his removal. But impeachment will be bad enough.

Today’s key sentence: “Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.”

It comes from the testimony of acting U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine William Taylor before House impeachment investigators, and it instantly makes all but impossible the task of anyone seeking to defend Trump against the charge that he held up American military aid to Ukraine to secure a political advantage in the 2020 election.

There were three defenses of Trump following the revelations of the “whistleblower” and the phone-call transcript of the conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine. The first was that he is only interested in investigating corruption relating to the 2016 election. The second is that even though Trump himself said he wanted the Ukranian to do him a favor, there was no quid pro quo. The third is that the only thing Trump was trading for was a White House visit, which is no great shakes.

There’s no need to talk about the “whistleblower” and his findings any longer, and there’s no need for the whistleblower to be heard any further. We have a veteran U.S. diplomat on the record saying that a Trump intimate told him Trump was holding up Congressionally authorized and appropriated military aid to Ukraine because he wanted a public statement from the Zelensky government that it was investigating Joe Biden’s son.

Taylor said this of a September 1 phone call with Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to the European Union about the $275 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine as well as a possible meeting between Trump and Ukranian president Zelensky:

“Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

Ambassador William Taylor’s Testimony Ensured Trump’s Impeachment

Trump has a guest coming to visit

And he doesn't worry about invitations​

Well it Has to make it through the Senate, and if it does every single one of those Republicans will be primaried out... lol

Where were you when you were supposed to learn about the impeachment process? Were you one of those who didn't go to class and spent their time getting drunk or high?

Seriously here, everyone who goes to school in the US learns the constitution. It starts in grade school and ends in high school with US History and civics class usually called Contemporary Issues.

The Senate has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment. They have everything to do with the trial and ruling from the trial.

An impeachment is to indict or accuse someone of something. That's totally up to the House. The Senate has no power to stop it.

After the House impeaches the president the case goes to the Senate. The Senate holds a trial on the charges with the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, presiding as judge. The Senators are the jury. They hear the whole case then vote to convict or not. If they convict, the president is thrown out of office. If they don't convict, the president isn't thrown out of office.

If you didn't learn that in school, which you were supposed to have learned it, then you would have learned it with the Clinton impeachment.

The Senate won't convict trump. trump and all his supporters will spend the election screaming that he was not found guilty thus he didn't commit any crime and it was all a hoax or witch hunt. Hoping that will save his fat butt in the election.

I hope that the American people are much more intelligent than that. I hope the American people throw his ugly fat butt out of office next year.

We have to wait until November 2020 to find out.

Meanwhile, stop making such a fool of yourself. Learn about a topic before you post.

Lol
It Has to go through the Senate to throw him out of office... Just impeaching him is nothing more than Acquittal...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Doesn't matter what you're posting as list the rules that were changed.

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process
Nancy Pelosi's December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Go ahead and read it if you can read. "Doesn't matter", only tells me that you agree with what I posted and just too much
of a minion to care.

Changes do matter.

Dems blast House GOP subpoena rules change

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

In a letter shared with POLITICO, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.


Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

I do not know how true the 2015 rule is. But was that after the Dems changed the rules in voting for judges from 60 to simple majority? They were probably pizzed at that time.

That was in the Senate and has nothing to do with subpoena power or procedural rules in the House.

subpoena's from the house are not judicial and cannot be used to threaten people. one can ignore them without repercussions.

That's not true, but the issue is complicated:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[jc456]

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process
Nancy Pelosi's December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Go ahead and read it if you can read. "Doesn't matter", only tells me that you agree with what I posted and just too much
of a minion to care.

Changes do matter.

Dems blast House GOP subpoena rules change

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

In a letter shared with POLITICO, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.


Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

I do not know how true the 2015 rule is. But was that after the Dems changed the rules in voting for judges from 60 to simple majority? They were probably pizzed at that time.

That was in the Senate and has nothing to do with subpoena power or procedural rules in the House.

subpoena's from the house are not judicial and cannot be used to threaten people. one can ignore them without repercussions.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ag

Nixon was a boob. And just that. he didn't need to do anything legally. he choose his own fate. It was wrong, but nontheless he did it. but, he didn't need to. again, a congressional subpoena is not subject to the judicial system. just isn't. Ask Jim Jordan.

Judge sides with Congress in subpoena fight over Trump records

Courts have grappled with the scope of Congress’ investigative power for more than a century, Mehta said, and previous decisions state mean judges must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and defer to lawmaker judgements about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose.

“To be sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority,” Mehta wrote. “But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress.”

Mehta also denied a request from Trump’s lawyers to halt the subpoena while the case goes to an appeals court, saying the public interest in the records outweighs the risk of harm to Trump, even if there is a possibility the records leak from Congress.

 

[MAGAman]

The time has come for Trump.

Trump Will Be Impeached
Ambassador William Taylor’s testimony sealed the deal.
October 22, 2019
by John Podhoretz

Remember when I said last week that October 17 was the worst day of the Trump presidency? Well, October 22 and has now come along to break the record. This is the day that, I think, has ensured Donald Trump’s impeachment. Not his removal. But impeachment will be bad enough.

Today’s key sentence: “Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.”

It comes from the testimony of acting U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine William Taylor before House impeachment investigators, and it instantly makes all but impossible the task of anyone seeking to defend Trump against the charge that he held up American military aid to Ukraine to secure a political advantage in the 2020 election.

There were three defenses of Trump following the revelations of the “whistleblower” and the phone-call transcript of the conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine. The first was that he is only interested in investigating corruption relating to the 2016 election. The second is that even though Trump himself said he wanted the Ukranian to do him a favor, there was no quid pro quo. The third is that the only thing Trump was trading for was a White House visit, which is no great shakes.

There’s no need to talk about the “whistleblower” and his findings any longer, and there’s no need for the whistleblower to be heard any further. We have a veteran U.S. diplomat on the record saying that a Trump intimate told him Trump was holding up Congressionally authorized and appropriated military aid to Ukraine because he wanted a public statement from the Zelensky government that it was investigating Joe Biden’s son.

Taylor said this of a September 1 phone call with Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to the European Union about the $275 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine as well as a possible meeting between Trump and Ukranian president Zelensky:

“Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

Ambassador William Taylor’s Testimony Ensured Trump’s Impeachment

Trump has a guest coming to visit

And he doesn't worry about invitations​

How'd that Mueller investigation work out for you?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Nancy Pelosi’s December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process
Nancy Pelosi's December 2018 Rule Changes Block Republicans From Participating In Impeachment Process

Go ahead and read it if you can read. "Doesn't matter", only tells me that you agree with what I posted and just too much
of a minion to care.

Changes do matter.

Dems blast House GOP subpoena rules change

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

In a letter shared with POLITICO, the Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.


Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.

“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO.

I do not know how true the 2015 rule is. But was that after the Dems changed the rules in voting for judges from 60 to simple majority? They were probably pizzed at that time.

That was in the Senate and has nothing to do with subpoena power or procedural rules in the House.

subpoena's from the house are not judicial and cannot be used to threaten people. one can ignore them without repercussions.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ag

Republicans hate memory....if you have the ability to remember what republicans said 2 days ago and hold them accountable for it -- then you are committing treason in their eyes

 

[Meister]

STAY ON TOPIC! THREAD BANS WILL BEGIN GOING FORWARD