Bizarro World: Trump Impeached for Biden's Corruption

[alang1216]

You may want to live in a country where children don't get decent healthcare but I don't.

I don't care whether your children get decent healthcare. Providing that is your job, not mine.

And if I can't do my job you're OK with children suffering? Nice guy.

They should be taken away from you if you can't take care of them.

Taken away and provided for by who? You? The gov't?

The government would take them away, and then a private charity would put them up for adoption.

So you're not willing to provide them healthcare but you're willing to have the gov't pay for all their expenses until they are adopted? What about the children with medical problems and won't be adopted because their medical bills would be astronomical? As wards of the gov't you'll pay for all their care. I'm not sure you've thought this through.

 

[alang1216]

Issuing subpoenas that the entire Congress hasn't voted on.

Is the entire Congress required to vote on all subpoenas?

According to the material I've read on it, yes they are.

You need to read more:

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. ... As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient."​

No link. I want to know the source and to read the whole thing.

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

Google impaired?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't care whether your children get decent healthcare. Providing that is your job, not mine.

And if I can't do my job you're OK with children suffering? Nice guy.

They should be taken away from you if you can't take care of them.

Taken away and provided for by who? You? The gov't?

The government would take them away, and then a private charity would put them up for adoption.

So you're not willing to provide them healthcare but you're willing to have the gov't pay for all their expenses until they are adopted? What about the children with medical problems and won't be adopted because their medical bills would be astronomical? As wards of the gov't you'll pay for all their care. I'm not sure you've thought this through.

We don't base public policy on a handful of extreme cases. We already have numerous charities for children with serious diseases. I said they would be handed over to a charity that would put them up for adoption.

 

[bripat9643]

Issuing subpoenas that the entire Congress hasn't voted on.

Is the entire Congress required to vote on all subpoenas?

According to the material I've read on it, yes they are.

You need to read more:

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. ... As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient."​

No link. I want to know the source and to read the whole thing.

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

Google impaired?

"As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber"
​

That didn't happen, now did it?

 

[Jitss617]

Adoption to Africans lol

Much better than adoption by racists.

You should meet some Africans they are Supremacist

 

[busybee01]

Like someone who defends his actions by asking "Who told you that?" the Democrats are defending Biden's Corruption by blaming Trump for pointing it out. What could be more ludicrous? If the MSM had the slightest amount of journalistic integrity, the current impeachment trial would be laughed off the front pages as a transparent political stunt by the Democrats to avoid criminal investigation of many of their leaders.

Instead, the MSM is conspiring in the greatest criminal coverup in our nation's history. Billions of laundered public dollars have passed under their dirty noses without notice or comment. Why? Because they are in, directly or indirectly, on the take. Just follow the money.

There is not a shred of evidence of any corruption. Trump provided no evidence of any corruption. Trump's AG has not found any information to open a preliminary investigation. The fact is that voters are taking it seriously as they should. Soliciting campaign help from a foreign country is worse than Watergate.

The right wing media is engaging in a massive coverup. There is not a shred of evidence to prove that.

 

[busybee01]

Wow, so many allegations and so little proof, as in none.

Q. Why hasn't the Dept. of Justice requested The Court to issue an arrest warrant for the former VP and/or his son?

A. Because the agent who signs the arrest warrant signs it under penalty of perjury, that the allegations are true; and the the criminal act violated a specific crime, & where and when the crime occurred.

Clearly your post cannot be seen as perjury, and you have no worry about incurring a felony; all you risk is your credibility.

Wow, trying to appear intelligent? Try again.

P.S. No arrest warrant has been issued because a criminal investigation hasn't been completed, nor an indictment issued. But things may change unless you Democrooks can get rid of Trump.

No arrest warrant has been issued because there is not enough evidence to open a preliminary investigation;. The DOJ has strict rules for opening a criminal investigation. Trump has not even met that standard.

 

[busybee01]

whether you like or dislike Trump or Biden is irrelevant. the issue is the constitution and Biden's misconduct as well as Trump's crimes

I have yet to see any evidence of Biden's misconduct but I've seen plenty of evidence of Trump's crimes.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with Biden testifying, right?

Because he knows nothing about Trump's attempt to force a foreign government to open a phony investigation.

 

[busybee01]

I don't have a problem but I don't know what he might know about the impeachment issues.

You don't have a problem with Trump testifying under oath, right? Clinton did for his impeachment.

No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.

Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.

No lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

 

[Jitss617]

No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.

Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.

No lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

Omg where!!???

 

[busybee01]

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?

If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.

What has been done that isn't legal?

Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcfly

Impeachment does not require a violation of a criminal statute. Even Republican witness Jonathan Turley agrees with that.

 

[bripat9643]

No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.

Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.

No lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

They witnessed nothing, and there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime. Dim mind reading doesn't constitute evidence.

 

[busybee01]

We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?

If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.

What has been done that isn't legal?

Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcfly

Are you saying there is a law against impeaching a president with no crime being broken? Which law is that?

Let me ask, is there any form of abuse of power that would make you want to see Trump impeached and removed from office?

• Trump provides classified information to a foreign power
• Trump accepts a bag of cash from a foreign power to have the US military do something
• Trump has the FBI arrest one of his political opponents on faked evidence
• Trump encourages a Right-wing militia to attack people protesting and action by Trump

I'm not saying Trump did any of these, just asking what is your criteria for a Presidents removal.

I’m not answering hypothetical questions Trump did nothing wrong you all have gone insane

You are the one who is insane. That is how TDS works and you have a serious case of it.

 

[Cassandro]

So you're not willing to provide them healthcare but you're willing to have the gov't pay for all their expenses until they are adopted? What about the children with medical problems and won't be adopted because their medical bills would be astronomical? As wards of the gov't you'll pay for all their care. I'm not sure you've thought this through.

OK let's kill them all, including children with medical problems after they are borne? I'm not sure you've thought this through.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?

If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.

What has been done that isn't legal?

Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcfly

Impeachment does not require a violation of a criminal statute. Even Republican witness Jonathan Turley agrees with that.

"Orange man bad" isn't sufficient grounds for impeachment, douchebag.

 

[Jitss617]

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

We both know that if the Dems went through the courts to compel witnesses Trump would fight them and the cases would drag on for years. Trump would die of old age before anything was decided. Is that justice or obstruction of justice?

If you don't want to follow the legal process, then just admit it and stop all this fooling around.

What has been done that isn't legal?

Your impeaching a president with no crime being broken lol hello mcfly

Impeachment does not require a violation of a criminal statute. Even Republican witness Jonathan Turley agrees with that.

Oh because your stomping your feet? Lol

 

[busybee01]

No lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

Omg where!!???

They testified in the House proceedings. Then we have Mulvaney who admitted it and Bolton apparently knows something. They were blocked by Trump from testifying.

 

[Rye Catcher]

No he didn't, turd. He testified in the Paula Jones lawsuit under oath, not in his impeachment.

Once again the leftwinger lies about the facts.

No lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

I agree. One more piece of evidence is the efforts by Trump&Co. to prevent witness testimonies under oath before the Senate and so many efforts by Trump and his lawyers to obstruct both the Mueller Investigation and the H. or Rep. investigation.

 

[busybee01]

No lie. Clinton's impeachment included excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony given by Clinton. Shouldn't Trump have to do the same?

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

They witnessed nothing, and there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime. Dim mind reading doesn't constitute evidence.

You would not admit it if everybody in Washington DC testified. A majority of voters also agree that Trump did it.

 

[Jitss617]

You have the transcript go ahead use them I did

The transcript is not a legal document. The participants were not under oath and neither were the transcribers. Also, the transcript raises many questions that only Trump and his senior staff can answer.

You may love Trump and don't want to have his presidency cut short, I get that, but if he can refuse to be investigated/testify, expect the next president, whom you may not like so much, to do the same. What we'll have are imperial presidents with little or no checks on their power. How many times did Hillary testify in front or Congress? In the future such testimony will never occur.

There's a difference between being prosecuted and being smeared and railroaded. If the Dims want to have a real impeachment, then they can follow the process, ya know, like having actual witnesses and evidence. They got none.

Bullshit. There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of witnesses.

They witnessed nothing, and there is no evidence that Trump committed any crime. Dim mind reading doesn't constitute evidence.

You would not admit it if everybody in Washington DC testified. A majority of voters also agree that Trump did it.

Did what? Win in 2016?