Trumps Lawyers Issue Legal Response Kicking House Democrats In The Balls

[Care4all]

18 minutes.

18 minutes after the election results were in, democrats vowed to begin impeachment.

It started earlier than that.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? - Politico, April 2016

BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP said and did on his campaign...

OF COURSE impeachment would be on everyone's tongue, not because they were creating things to do it, to get him out of office,but because of how he thought and what he said his stances were, WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...

From your article;


Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.

You people need to be eithervcompletely defeated and/or relocated to your own One Party Rule country. Modern Progressives are no longer Americans

you are the party that supports lawlessness, and a monarchy, a King, instead of a constitutional republic.... you are the danger to our Nation!

 

[Ame®icano]

18 minutes.

18 minutes after the election results were in, democrats vowed to begin impeachment.

It started earlier than that.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? - Politico, April 2016

BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP said and did on his campaign...

OF COURSE impeachment would be on everyone's tongue, not because they were creating things to do it, to get him out of office,but because of how he thought and what he said his stances were, WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...

From your article;


Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.

Regardless of what he said, free speech is not a crime.

Lets test your sample. Barry didn't say he's going to drone American citizen, but he's done it. Did he committed impeachable offense? Yes or no.

 

[Ame®icano]

18 minutes.

18 minutes after the election results were in, democrats vowed to begin impeachment.

It started earlier than that.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? - Politico, April 2016

BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP said and did on his campaign...

OF COURSE impeachment would be on everyone's tongue, not because they were creating things to do it, to get him out of office,but because of how he thought and what he said his stances were, WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...

From your article;


Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.

You people need to be eithervcompletely defeated and/or relocated to your own One Party Rule country. Modern Progressives are no longer Americans

you are the party that supports lawlessness, and a monarchy, a King, instead of a constitutional republic.... you are the danger to our Nation!

Wait, wait, we're not democracy anymore?

 

[joaquinmiller]

"Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT

Pretty much spells everything out.....any honest lawyer with a rudimentary background would agree with this statement.

Dershowitz couldn't disassociate himself from it fast enough. Are you an honest lawyer with a rudimentary background?

 

[busybee01]

This stuff is priceless.

Trump's legal team spelled out in great detail exactly why the House Democrat's partisan impeachment was a total sham. It illustrates why Democrats wanted to use Russian Collusion and not the Whistleblower as evidence of wrongdoing. It also shows that Democrats knew their arguments wouldn't stand up in a court of law which renders their claims of obstruction of congress totally unfounded. When Trump took congress to court in response to their demands for documents and witnesses....they immediately withdrew their demands. Then they rushed to impeach instead.

January 19, 2020
Trump’s attorneys issue a powerful response to the Articles of Impeachment
By Andrea Widburg
Anyone who has watched a Trump rally or followed Trump’s Twitter feed knows that he’s been open about his disdain for the House’s impeachment proceedings. However, now that the House formally delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Trump’s lawyers can finally make known the President’s official legal stand against the Democrats’ blatant political effort to overturn the 2016 election.

In five-and-a-half fiery pages, Jay Alan Sekulow and Pat A. Cipollone attack both the impeachment process and the legal and factual bases (or lack thereof) underlying the articles of impeachment. Sekulow and Cipollone understand that the real audience is the American people, so the document is written in ordinary English, not legalese.

Regarding the entire impeachment, the lawyers state that this warped process attacks the American people and free elections:

The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election-now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.​

For the first Article of Impeachment, which alleges “abuse of power,” Sekulow and Cipollone explain that, contrary to the Constitution’s demand for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the first Article fails to state any legal violation. Not only does it fail to identify actual legal wrongdoing, the facts alleged also fail to show that Trump abused his powers:

At all times, the President has faithfully and effectively executed the duties of his Office on behalf of the American people. The President's actions on the July 25,2019, telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine (the "July 25 call"), as well as on the earlier April 21, 2019, telephone call (the "April 21 call"), and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest.​

The attorneys also note that the best evidence is the telephone call transcript, which Trump released immediately. Ukrainian officials, from President Zelenskyy on down, all support the transcript and the tenor of Trump’s deals with Ukraine.

Read more here.....https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._response_to_the_articles_of_impeachment.html

Read the full legal response here...."Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT​

It is only powerful to Trump fools who have to have their talking points so know what to think. The American Thinker is a oxymoron.

- It is not a attack on the American people or elections. It is a defense against Trump who has attempted and continues to attempt to subvert the Constitution. Trump is the one who has acted in a highly partisan manner. He has undermined our elections by allowing the Russians to help him. That is a direct attack on our elections. That has continued to this day.as Giuliani brought back propaganda provided by Russia leaning politicians in Ukraine.

- Republican expert Jonathan Turley stated in 2014 that a high crime did not have to be a statutory violation of any law.

- The calls and Giuliani's activities show that there was a concerted effort by Trump to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation of Biden. The evidence is overwhelming and that is without Administration officials testifying.

 

[busybee01]

"Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT

Pretty much spells everything out.....any honest lawyer with a rudimentary background would agree with this statement.

The fact is, most hyper-partisan hacks, who have their head buried in Trump's posterior, would think that Trump's team kicked the "House Democrats In The Balls."
Where as liberal Constitutional scholars, think otherwise.
‘Alternative law:’ Constitutional scholar on the Dershowitz defense of Trump
So, there we have it! Each sides hyper-partisans have their take, but who is Constitutionally right?

Alan is a democrat and won’t vote for trump,, he’s telling all of you democrats you have TDS.. get help

That is what he says. You are the one who has TDS. You are the one who sounds stupid. That is a symptom of TDS.

 

[Jitss617]

"Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT

Pretty much spells everything out.....any honest lawyer with a rudimentary background would agree with this statement.

The fact is, most hyper-partisan hacks, who have their head buried in Trump's posterior, would think that Trump's team kicked the "House Democrats In The Balls."
Where as liberal Constitutional scholars, think otherwise.
‘Alternative law:’ Constitutional scholar on the Dershowitz defense of Trump
So, there we have it! Each sides hyper-partisans have their take, but who is Constitutionally right?

Alan is a democrat and won’t vote for trump,, he’s telling all of you democrats you have TDS.. get help

That is what he says. You are the one who has TDS. You are the one who sounds stupid. That is a symptom of TDS.

Umm ok lol

 

[busybee01]

This stuff is priceless.

Trump's legal team spelled out in great detail exactly why the House Democrat's partisan impeachment was a total sham. It illustrates why Democrats wanted to use Russian Collusion and not the Whistleblower as evidence of wrongdoing. It also shows that Democrats knew their arguments wouldn't stand up in a court of law which renders their claims of obstruction of congress totally unfounded. When Trump took congress to court in response to their demands for documents and witnesses....they immediately withdrew their demands. Then they rushed to impeach instead.

January 19, 2020
Trump’s attorneys issue a powerful response to the Articles of Impeachment
By Andrea Widburg
Anyone who has watched a Trump rally or followed Trump’s Twitter feed knows that he’s been open about his disdain for the House’s impeachment proceedings. However, now that the House formally delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Trump’s lawyers can finally make known the President’s official legal stand against the Democrats’ blatant political effort to overturn the 2016 election.

In five-and-a-half fiery pages, Jay Alan Sekulow and Pat A. Cipollone attack both the impeachment process and the legal and factual bases (or lack thereof) underlying the articles of impeachment. Sekulow and Cipollone understand that the real audience is the American people, so the document is written in ordinary English, not legalese.

Regarding the entire impeachment, the lawyers state that this warped process attacks the American people and free elections:

The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election-now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.​

For the first Article of Impeachment, which alleges “abuse of power,” Sekulow and Cipollone explain that, contrary to the Constitution’s demand for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the first Article fails to state any legal violation. Not only does it fail to identify actual legal wrongdoing, the facts alleged also fail to show that Trump abused his powers:

At all times, the President has faithfully and effectively executed the duties of his Office on behalf of the American people. The President's actions on the July 25,2019, telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine (the "July 25 call"), as well as on the earlier April 21, 2019, telephone call (the "April 21 call"), and in all surrounding and related events, were constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest.​

The attorneys also note that the best evidence is the telephone call transcript, which Trump released immediately. Ukrainian officials, from President Zelenskyy on down, all support the transcript and the tenor of Trump’s deals with Ukraine.

Read more here.....https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._response_to_the_articles_of_impeachment.html

Read the full legal response here...."Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT​

So, these same assfucks were dancing in the streets when Republivcans tried to undue the 1996 election?
Really?
That is their argument?

Typical Republican bullshit. They do something & then argue the other side can't do it.

My understanding is Republicans discovered Clinton had committed crimes in a sexual-harassment lawsuit and Clinton appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the crime. The impeachment was a result of the discovery of 11 crimes that Clinton committed including perjury during Grand Jury testimony, Obstruction of Justice, witness tampering, and Abuse of Presidential Power.

On the other hand Democrats decided even before the 2016 election that they would use a "Plan B" which included spying on a political opponent and a new president, setting Trump up for impeachment if he somehow won election. This Plan B included unending investigations and attempts to impeach and impeach and impeach Trump endlessly until he is forced out of office or leaves in shame.

By a attorney that is working for Trump. We now know that Starr was a Republican toady. There was no spying on Trump's campaign.

 

[busybee01]

"Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT

Pretty much spells everything out.....any honest lawyer with a rudimentary background would agree with this statement.

The fact is, most hyper-partisan hacks, who have their head buried in Trump's posterior, would think that Trump's team kicked the "House Democrats In The Balls."
Where as liberal Constitutional scholars, think otherwise.
‘Alternative law:’ Constitutional scholar on the Dershowitz defense of Trump
So, there we have it! Each sides hyper-partisans have their take, but who is Constitutionally right?

Alan is a democrat and won’t vote for trump,, he’s telling all of you democrats you have TDS.. get help

My post is basically none partisan. But you are such a goose-stepping Little Trumpster, you think anyone who is not a Trunk butt-sniffer is a Democrat. Have you checked Trumpster's poll numbers with Independents & moderates?
My post takes neither side on who's approach is correct.
But your post clearly shows who really has "TDS".

de·range·ment
(dĕ-rānj'mĕnt)
1. A disturbance of the regular order or arrangement.
2. Older term for a mental disturbance or disorder.
derangement
You are highly obsessed with Trumpism, as demonstrated with your multiple posts in such a short period of time. If I am on here for fifteen years total,, I still won't reach your total post numbers for one year total. You are an obsessive, which is a mental health disorder. Fact.

Dude 57% of trump rallies are democrats lol that are switching parties it’s over you are on the fringe

you are in a extremist group called democrats now

Republicans are losing suburban voters. We saw that in the Governor's races in the 3 Governor's elections in RED states. In swing states like Pennsylvania, Democrats won local races in places they have never won before. In many cases, they beat long term Republican incumbents.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....watch what happens if they decide on witnesses and DUMS realize Ooooooooops.....having Schiff, Hunter and the whistleblower have to show....

 

[busybee01]

I don't think it's an obsession.....more like common-sense.
It's clear that when the Democrat Party supports a country like Iran...and they're flooding the country with illegals....and they're trying to take away our rights to own a gun....the only sane thing to do is support who they oppose.

You might as well claim the colonists had an "obsession" with the British monarchy and self rule.

A party that is on the verge of being toppled by socialist progressives, that gives aid and comfort to enemies of America, that tries to flood the nation with illegal voters...that party doesn't deserve to exist. Not in this nation, anyway.

Even worse.....Democrats have become a party of spies who are a worse security risk than your average KGB member.

Forcing Trump to use private citizens like Rudy Giuliani, because the State Department is full of idiots like Sondland who make presumptions out of ignorance, and repeat it as if it's fact. It's also full of backstabbing little traitors like Vindman who heard our president make a comment about Biden firing Shokin, has no clue what that is referring to. So he just speculates and creates his own versions of events. Joining Sondland in spreading lies and rumors as if they are fact.

Trump used lowlife like Giuliani because he would not face any opposition to do illegal things. The government employees who came forward and provided what information they had are patriots. Col Vindman is a patriot who put his life on the line for this country. You are a piece of lowlife garbage.

 

[Jitss617]

"Dangerous, Brazen and Unlawful" -- BREAKING: Trump Defense Team Files First Response to Sham Impeachment -- WITH FULL DOCUMENT

Pretty much spells everything out.....any honest lawyer with a rudimentary background would agree with this statement.

The fact is, most hyper-partisan hacks, who have their head buried in Trump's posterior, would think that Trump's team kicked the "House Democrats In The Balls."
Where as liberal Constitutional scholars, think otherwise.
‘Alternative law:’ Constitutional scholar on the Dershowitz defense of Trump
So, there we have it! Each sides hyper-partisans have their take, but who is Constitutionally right?

Alan is a democrat and won’t vote for trump,, he’s telling all of you democrats you have TDS.. get help

My post is basically none partisan. But you are such a goose-stepping Little Trumpster, you think anyone who is not a Trunk butt-sniffer is a Democrat. Have you checked Trumpster's poll numbers with Independents & moderates?
My post takes neither side on who's approach is correct.
But your post clearly shows who really has "TDS".

de·range·ment
(dĕ-rānj'mĕnt)
1. A disturbance of the regular order or arrangement.
2. Older term for a mental disturbance or disorder.
derangement
You are highly obsessed with Trumpism, as demonstrated with your multiple posts in such a short period of time. If I am on here for fifteen years total,, I still won't reach your total post numbers for one year total. You are an obsessive, which is a mental health disorder. Fact.

Dude 57% of trump rallies are democrats lol that are switching parties it’s over you are on the fringe

you are in a extremist group called democrats now

Republicans are losing suburban voters. We saw that in the Governor's races in the 3 Governor's elections in RED states. In swing states like Pennsylvania, Democrats won local races in places they have never won before. In many cases, they beat long term Republican incumbents.

Dude it’s over.. you polls are done

 

[CrusaderFrank]

18 minutes.

18 minutes after the election results were in, democrats vowed to begin impeachment.

It started earlier than that.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? - Politico, April 2016

BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP said and did on his campaign...

OF COURSE impeachment would be on everyone's tongue, not because they were creating things to do it, to get him out of office,but because of how he thought and what he said his stances were, WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...

From your article;


Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.

You people need to be eithervcompletely defeated and/or relocated to your own One Party Rule country. Modern Progressives are no longer Americans

you are the party that supports lawlessness, and a monarchy, a King, instead of a constitutional republic.... you are the danger to our Nation!

All of a sudden Stalinist democrats LOVEEEEEEE our Constitutional Republic.
Remember when you were telling us the Constitution was outdated because it was founded by old rich white slaveowners -- much like the current crop of democrat candidates.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump used lowlife like Giuliani because he would not face any opposition to do illegal things. The government employees who came forward and provided what information they had are patriots. Col Vindman is a patriot who put his life on the line for this country. You are a piece of lowlife garbage.

Just fuck off! You post is so moronic it refutes itself. Vindman put his life on the line...LOL!

 

[The Original Tree]

It's a childish, and ridiculous statement and defense, written for kindergarteners imo.

Geez, I hope he has a better defense than that......??

Those are just facts of the matter. The House did attempt to create an offense out of thin air. Their withdrawal of their court cases to Challenge The President's Constitutional Right to challenge a subpoena is Evidence to that fact.

The President has the sole power to determine Foreign Policy. A delay in Foreign Policy is his right, and even with what I consider an unconstitutional limit on how long a president can with hold or delay Foreign Aid, the President still released it within that artificial deadline.

Furthermore, The Democrats have proven that a representative of The Executive Branch can indeed threaten a delay for instance (Ukraine) by with holding of Foreign Aid, for instance Joe Biden threatening the Ukraine that it had better fire the prosecutor investigating his son, or they don't get the Millions in Foreign Aid. That was a Quid Pro Quo and an example of extortion, yet The Democrats did not pursue charges against Joe Biden when he publicly admitted he had done this.

To wit, The Aide to Ukraine was released by The Trump Administration on time, and within the allowed time range. To wit, no actions were taken by Ukraine to have this aid released. To wit, The Ukrainian Government states that No Pressure was applied, nor any act was necessary for them to perform in order to receive Foreign Aid from The United States. To wit, The Ukrainian Government was never aware of any attempt to withhold foreign aid in exchange for any actions they were pressured to take.

The articles do not contain accusations of infractions of US Code, nor Evidence of misdemeanors committed with respect to US Code, nor evidence of High Crimes committed under US Code exist.

The articles are therefore invalid, do not meet the standard of impeachment and do not even meet the standards of any offenses that could be brought forth in a US Criminal Case or Civil Case according to Our Constitution, and US Code, or other Laws and statutes.

HR-1 Should be dismissed as a malformed Resolution, which has no merit in fact, nor evidence to support such accusations, and has no merit in law, or code known to our current judicial system.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Under Obama, Democrat Witness Fiona Hill Argued Against Lethal Aid For Ukraine

More hypocrisy and situational ethics.

 

[Care4all]

18 minutes.

18 minutes after the election results were in, democrats vowed to begin impeachment.

It started earlier than that.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? - Politico, April 2016

BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP said and did on his campaign...

OF COURSE impeachment would be on everyone's tongue, not because they were creating things to do it, to get him out of office,but because of how he thought and what he said his stances were, WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...

From your article;


Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.

Regardless of what he said, free speech is not a crime.

Lets test your sample. Barry didn't say he's going to drone American citizen, but he's done it. Did he committed impeachable offense? Yes or no.

Did the Republican house sue on this, and get a court ruling? if not, why not, and if so, what was the court's ruling?

They were not talking about impeachment because he said he would do an impeachable offense, because of his free speech...... they were talking about impeachment, if he DID what he said, murdered the wives and children of terrorists, and continue torture, which are BOTH illegal.

Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, government watchdog finds

 

[Ame®icano]

18 minutes.

18 minutes after the election results were in, democrats vowed to begin impeachment.

It started earlier than that.

Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office? - Politico, April 2016

BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP said and did on his campaign...

OF COURSE impeachment would be on everyone's tongue, not because they were creating things to do it, to get him out of office,but because of how he thought and what he said his stances were, WERE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...

From your article;


Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric, most notably about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture, has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.

“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president.

Regardless of what he said, free speech is not a crime.

Lets test your sample. Barry didn't say he's going to drone American citizen, but he's done it. Did he committed impeachable offense? Yes or no.

Did the Republican house sue on this, and get a court ruling? if not, why not, and if so, what was the court's ruling?

They were not talking about impeachment because he said he would do an impeachable offense, because of his free speech...... they were talking about impeachment, if he DID what he said, murdered the wives and children of terrorists, and continue torture, which are BOTH illegal.

I didn't ask you to comment, I asked for your answer. Simple answer, yes or no would do it.

You can't do that, can you?

 

[Care4all]

The President has the sole power to determine Foreign Policy. A delay in Foreign Policy is his right, and even with what I consider an unconstitutional limit on how long a president can with hold or delay Foreign Aid, the President still released it within that artificial deadline.

NO IT IS NOT the president's perogative on foreign aid passed by congress.

IT BROKE THE LAW, the Impoundment control act of 1974....

please stop lying.

Trump administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid, government watchdog finds

 

[Care4all]

Under Obama, Democrat Witness Fiona Hill Argued Against Lethal Aid For Ukraine

More hypocrisy and situational ethics.

That was then, and this is now, years later. When the incident first happened, vs developing a diplomatic policy to handle it.