They did, we all know it, they spied on Carter Page, a member of the Trump campaign, and DID NOT tell Trump (they usually tell the leader like in the Feinstein case) so you are full of shit, stop letting me beat your face with my dick...….it's just too much fun
Had his father not emigrated to the United States from Ukraine, he would have faced the same vengeful authoritarian tactics. Arrogance, ignorance and vengeance. The three pillars of Trump and his cult.
What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.I doubt it.Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - WikipediaThe same DOJ that tried to stage a coup against Trump?
TDS morons like you are crazy.
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.
You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup. It was an investigation of the illegal activities for political gain by the now "Impeached President of the United States, per the Constitution. The House of Representatives proved their case. We all know Donny's guilt. He just wasn't removed, mainly because spineless Republican Senators thought the election in 9 months was the place for the people speak on the matter, and it would allow them to hold on to power until election day. I am proud, the House exposed Donny's bullsh#t, and am proud of the whistle blower and all those that testified in the House as great American Patriots. I will support whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November to replace the crooked SOB at that time.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.
Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.
What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.I doubt it.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.
Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.
And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.
This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.
We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.
Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.
Elections are legal. Conducting espionage on the opposition party isn't.Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - WikipediaThe same DOJ that tried to stage a coup against Trump?
TDS morons like you are crazy.
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.
You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup. It was an investigation of the illegal activities for political gain by the now "Impeached President of the United States, per the Constitution. The House of Representatives proved their case. We all know Donny's guilt. He just wasn't removed, mainly because spineless Republican Senators thought the election in 9 months was the place for the people speak on the matter, and it would allow them to hold on to power until election day. I am proud, the House exposed Donny's bullsh#t, and am proud of the whistle blower and all those that testified in the House as great American Patriots. I will support whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November to replace the crooked SOB at that time.
Actually a Senate trial doesn't "just sound" Constitutional, it IS Constitutional.You seriously are going to quibble over the distinctions of a coup and a coup d etat and bloody vs bloodless rather than engage the large point?You seriously are going to quibble over the distinctions of a coup and a coup d etat and bloody vs bloodless rather than engage the large point?Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - WikipediaThe same DOJ that tried to stage a coup against Trump?
TDS morons like you are crazy.
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.
You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup...
You really are not aware that neither article alleged a statutory crime and that "Obstruction of Congress" is just a phrase they manufactured out of thin air, that there is no such crime in the Federal Register?
The Wholly Exonerated President.
This claim was tested by a Senate Vote and only managed a fraction of the vote necessary for removal.
Actually we all know his innocence as declared by the Chief Justice after the vote.
You folks tried to overturn the last election and circumvent the upcoming election, clearly you have no confidence in your ability to obtain the support of The Electorate, so you viciously attacked them. Not quite as bad as when the Democrats fired on Fort Sumter but ill advised, none-the-less.
As you did last time, big deal. If you guys had any confidence in yourselves you would have never tried an election year impeachment scam without any statutory crimes that had no hope of being successful. The Corrupt House's goal was to unconstitutionally impact the upcoming election, and it looks like you have failed as miserably as you deserved to.
You engaged in a horrific abuse of power before the entire nation. And then Nancy demonstrated that your are led by a Crazy Lady. She started practicing tearing the pages as soon as Trump handed OUR copy of the speech to her, which she committed a felony by destroying.
How come you are so big on made up crimes but quite ok with real ones?
Yep. No Coup, clueless. An investigation, by the House, per the constitution, an Impeachment, Just like Bill Clinton (who was also acquitted and is still impeached), a show trial in the Senate where republicans totally controlled and voted to acquit, Sounds constitutional to That ain't happening...
Exactly.
No, the impeachment articles were tested by vote a failed very badly. This House will forever wear the shame of bringing failed articles.
Andrew Johnson was a bit before my time, but with Clinton's multiple felonies, I thought he should be impeached. I was amazed that it failed, but, learned as well, even with Felonies, impeachment is a very long shot. Without felonies, or even any crimes, it's just ridiculous. But, with this farce, the realistic goal never was removal, it was an Abuse of House Power in a failed attempt to influence the upcoming election, and it looks like you folks will be properly dealt with by the voters. Pelosi deliberately committing a felony before the entire nation just shows that James Carville is right, you guys have lost your damn minds.
Maybe, I heard she was more partial to tacos.
The Pot Smoker Ticket? "What's Aleppo?"
The evidence that it did happen is irrefutable.
What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.I doubt it.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.
Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.
And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.
This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.
We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.
Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.
He withheld it in order to get Ukraine to play ball to support his re-election.
Zelensky never testified in either House. Statement is meaningless.
Biden was Democratic front runner at the time.
Aide only released after he was caught trying to strong arm Ukraine.
Trump got nothing because Ukraine would not play ball.
Problem was not quid pro quo for American policy, but for personal political gain. Also known as just plain fkn wrong.
As I have said on here before, I never thought the Senate would find him guilty and remove, but that don't exonerate. It sure doesn't make anyone who is not committed to the Republican party believe he is innocent. I have said while this was going on, if you want your lying crook, you can keep your lying crook. Since the trial is over, you can officially keep your lying, impeached, crook.
Well, only that he was the one that was supposedly pressured.What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.I doubt it.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.
Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.
And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.
This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.
We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.
Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.
He withheld it in order to get Ukraine to play ball to support his re-election.
Zelensky never testified in either House. Statement is meaningless...
You guys took him out with the failed impeachment. Wiithout your faked up failed impeachment, nobody knew that Biden extorted Ukraine Governmet, with a Billion in US Tax Payer Aid, if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating Bursima, who was paying Hunter Biden $50 large a month for a no show job.
There was no date it had to be released by and it was released before the end of the fiscal year with nothing required of Ukraine.
Exactly, it was a failed farce by the House, a grotesque abuse of the Impeachment Power with the corrupt aim of influencing the upcoming election. The failure capped off by Nancy The Ripper committing a felony in the sight of the nation when she could no longer deny her complete repudiation.
He was never charged with a statutory crime.
Pelosi is an unindicted felon, you know, and mentally unbalanced. Sad!
Look out guys, he's backing up!
Exactly.What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.I doubt it.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.
Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.
And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly.
This debate is back and forth, back and forth. It reminds me of an old George Carling joke: When two people are in an elevator and one of them farts, they both know who did it.
We all read the transcript. We all know what Trump said, so when you on the left keep repeating the lies, it's not going to make us believe them.
Trump never threatened aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky stated he felt no pressure from President Trump.
Biden was not Trump's rival. It was almost a year before their nominee would be selected.
The aid was released, two weeks before the deadline.
Trump got nothing in return, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo's have been used by most Presidents. They are not against the law.
He withheld it in order to get Ukraine to play ball to support his re-election.
Zelensky never testified in either House. Statement is meaningless.
Biden was Democratic front runner at the time.
Aide only released after he was caught trying to strong arm Ukraine.
Trump got nothing because Ukraine would not play ball.
Problem was not quid pro quo for American policy, but for personal political gain. Also known as just plain fkn wrong.
As I have said on here before, I never thought the Senate would find him guilty and remove, but that don't exonerate. It sure doesn't make anyone who is not committed to the Republican party believe he is innocent. I have said while this was going on, if you want your lying crook, you can keep your lying crook. Since the trial is over, you can officially keep your lying, impeached, crook.
You don't know (or have evidence) of why Trump withheld the money. Never did...
Yup.
Exactly!
That's some bloody tRumpling's speculation.
Witnesses with no first hand information, even Kangaroos don't do that.What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign.I doubt it.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman followed the rules and spoke the truth, as did Sondland and the others.
Let me know when that article 32 session on charges of insubordination starts.
And Sondland testified that when he spoke to Trump, Trump told him no quid pro quo's. Out of all the witnesses, he's the only one that talked with Trump directly. ..
It was all a bid farce by a Mad House Drunk With Arrogated Power. Now so shamefully repudiated that Crazy Nancy committed a felony, deliberately, in full view of the Nation.
Unlike Quid Pro Joe, it never happened.What utter hogwash. I like the way my investments have performed also, but doesn't mean he didn't illegally try to use money assigned by both houses of congress to force Ukraine to make a public statement of investigation to benefit his election campaign...I doubt it.Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - WikipediaThe same DOJ that tried to stage a coup against Trump?
TDS morons like you are crazy.
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.
You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup. It was an investigation of the illegal activities for political gain by the now "Impeached President of the United States, per the Constitution. The House of Representatives proved their case. We all know Donny's guilt. He just wasn't removed, mainly because spineless Republican Senators thought the election in 9 months was the place for the people speak on the matter, and it would allow them to hold on to power until election day. I am proud, the House exposed Donny's bullsh#t, and am proud of the whistle blower and all those that testified in the House as great American Patriots. I will support whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November to replace the crooked SOB at that time.
Gallup: 59% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, the highest level in the history of Gallup polling.
Gallup has never recorded this level in over 40 years - even the dot com boom was 58%.
This is how Trump wins reelection in November.
He took 30 states last time, could easily take 35 this time.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN CONDEMNED HIMSELF IN HIS IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY.
Vindman was unreliable and had questionable judgment, according to his own outgoing superior, Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s senior director for European affairs.
In fact, Morrison viewed Vindman as so untrustworthy that he opted to exclude him from his conversations with William Taylor, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine.
Vindman had an “unfortunate habit,” Morrison thought, of defying the sprawling executive branch’s carefully delineated chain of command. Vindman’s testimony vindicates Morrison’s dripping disdain for his former subordinate.
The nation was put through this imbroglio because Vindman opted to work in tandem with a Deep State whistleblower to jump-start impeachment proceedings over a disagreement with a phone call’s ethics.
Suffice it to say, this is not how our constitutional republic is intended to operate.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is remarkably straightforward:
“The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.”
Leftists may invariably decry constitutional law’s “unitary executive theory,” but as Attorney General William Barr noted last Friday, the notion that the president of the United States, and only the president of the United States, is responsible for carrying out “the executive power” of which Article II speaks is not a mere “theory.”
It is, as Barr said, a “description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II.”
When anyone else in the executive branch — be it Deep State, Shallow State or anywhere in between — attempts to undermine and thwart the president’s executive power, such action is not merely insubordinate or morally problematic. It is outright unconstitutional.
The executive power incontrovertibly includes within its ambit all “residual” foreign-affairs powers, meaning all foreign-affairs powers not legislatively vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8.
It is appropriate for top-level national security advisers to offer substantive opinions to the president. But Vindman has testified that he never even directly communicated with Trump.
Vindman actually attempted to deliberately thwart or undermine the duly enacted president’s foreign policy agenda, he was attempting to unconstitutionally carry out the executive power that the Constitution of the United States vests in the president of the United States alone.
Executive power, especially in the areas of foreign policy and national security, flows from the very person of the president. A lieutenant colonel has no right to interfere with the president’s discretion or attempt to undermine the president’s authority over policy disagreements — which is what the impeachment allegations amount to.
Now this piece of insubordinate crap is rightfully dismissed from his perch on the National Security Council.
Vindman had no first hand information and the only first hand information Sondland has was Trump adamantly denying that he wanted a quid pro quo.
Everyone but crazed Democrats is crystal clear on this.Elections are legal. Conducting espionage on the opposition party isn't.Have your way. We will probably have another constitutional coup first week of November. Grow up.It was a coup. Just because thousands of people haven't been killed doesn't mean it wasn't one.Coup, sh-mew. Here's examples of coup. Congo Crisis - Wikipedia 100,000 believed killed. 1960 Ethiopian coup d'état attempt - WikipediaThe same DOJ that tried to stage a coup against Trump?
TDS morons like you are crazy.
300 killed, including most of the conspirators. 1963 Togolese coup d'état - Wikipedia They took over government buildings, arrested most of the cabinet, and assassinated Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio outside the American embassy in Lomé. 1963 Dahomeyan coup d'état - Wikipedia On October 28 Chief of Staff of the 800-man Dahomeyan Army Christophe Soglo took control of the country[16] to prevent a civil war. He dismissed the cabinet, dissolved the Assembly, suspended the constitution and banned any type of demonstrations.[19] After having Maga sign his resignation the same day. In late November, it began prosecuting members of the cabinet, such as the Minister of National Economy and the Finance Minister for misusing public funds.[19] Maga was soon to find himself in jail too. Ramadan Revolution - Wikipedia the February 1963 coup d'état in Iraq, was a military coup by the Ba'ath Party's Iraqi-wing which overthrew the Prime Minister of Iraq, Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1963. The most powerful leader of the new government was the secretary general of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, Ali Salih al-Sa'di, who controlled the National Guard militia and organized a massacre of hundreds—if not thousands—of suspected communists and other dissidents following the coup.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Algerian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Around 1:30am, Tahar Zbiri, Said Abid, and colonel Abbes approached Villa Joly and were let in by the replacement guards at the entrance. Tahar Zbiri knocked on Ben Bella's door and explained to Ben Bella that he was no longer the president. The three military officers allowed Ben Bella to get dressed and then took him to an undisclosed location where he was placed under house arrest.
You get the point. All you little drama queens crying "Coup, Coup, Coup" are just so full of sh#t. This was no coup. It was an investigation of the illegal activities for political gain by the now "Impeached President of the United States, per the Constitution. The House of Representatives proved their case. We all know Donny's guilt. He just wasn't removed, mainly because spineless Republican Senators thought the election in 9 months was the place for the people speak on the matter, and it would allow them to hold on to power until election day. I am proud, the House exposed Donny's bullsh#t, and am proud of the whistle blower and all those that testified in the House as great American Patriots. I will support whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November to replace the crooked SOB at that time.
Of course there is, dumbass. It has been discussed endlessly in this forum.
