Offical Impeachment Thread

[AzogtheDefiler]

Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?

Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.

What evidence was that?

The evidence FakeStupidDave made up in his head.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

You don't get to pick my answers for me. The president sets foreign policy within the law.

Yes, he did.

LOL

Soliciting help towards his campaign from a foreign national is not within the law.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

You claimed it barred the President from using it. You failed to show where it does that, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You're ******* deranged, dumbfuck.

You must think Trump is the Attorney General and Zelensky is the Prosecutor General.

Another fail by you, dumbfuck.

Where does the treaty say the President can't use it, dumbfuck?

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You poor, deranged dumbfuck, it doesn't say you can't request such assistance under that treaty -- that doesn't mean that treaty allows you to request the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever???

 

[OKTexas]

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.

Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.

Irrelevant drivel.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.

It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.

To be a witness you have to witness something, they didn't.

.

 

[The Purge]

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister

Reuters ^ | 11/14/19 |

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.

Trump and his allies are accused by Democrat opponents of freezing nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open investigations into Biden, Trump’s main rival for the 2020 presidential race.

Trump calls the inquiry a witch hunt.

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.

 

[The Original Tree]

Now we know why ABC squashed the Legit and Corroborated story about Epstein and Clinton Raping Children. And then went on a witch hunt to destroy the whistleblower.

 

[OKTexas]

Not even close. So how long do you republicans plan on being disingenuous?

Food for thought. It is what our foreign policy is based on and Trump was trying to weaponized it against his domestic opposition.

Yet Kent testified that Trumps policies on Ukraine are much better than maobamas was. Go figure. Kent also said he warned Bidens staff about Hunter.

.

Which of course is completely irrelevant to the misconduct in question.

Not true, if Kent had concerns about the Bidens it's perfectly understandable that the President might share those concerns. Burisma used Hunter to buy access to maobamas State Dept. State Dept emails are just now coming to light proving that.

.

You were comparing Obama and Trump policy, dope.

Obama's policy is irrelevant to Trump's abuse of power.

Are you capable of reading more than one sentence at a time. Try it. Otherwise be more specific in your responses.

.

 

[Faun]

And I will tell you again, the treaty was not about Biden, try as hard as you wish to make it about him. The treaty is about Trump, who again, was not authorized to use it.

That's now twice you've asked that and twice I gave you an answer you don't like. If you keep asking you will keep getting the same answer; and you know what repeating yourself but expecting a different response symptomatic of, right?

Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

Where does it say the president can't simply make a personal request?

Lying ******* moron, it says who can. No one else outside of that can. Your moronic position is like saying the Judiciary can impeach a president because the Constitution doesn't say they can't.

Are you ever not a lying ******* moron, ya lying ******* moron??

Ever???

 

[Faun]

Abuse of power.

No such crime.

Lying ******* moron...

• The Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

Article II
ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.​

• H. Rept. 105-830 - IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

D. Article IV--Abuse of Power

Article IV - 1
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee​

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

There doesn't have to be a statute, ya lying ******* moron.

Have you learned nothing at all??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

Wrong. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute. Otherwise it's just a whine.

Lying ******* moron, impeachment is a political procedure, not a criminal one. Didn't you learn anything from Lindsey Graham??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

 

[Faun]

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

You claimed it barred the President from using it. You failed to show where it does that, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You're ******* deranged, dumbfuck.

You must think Trump is the Attorney General and Zelensky is the Prosecutor General.

Another fail by you, dumbfuck.

Where does the treaty say the President can't use it, dumbfuck?

You lose again, dumbfuck.

He is a loser. He didn't know what QE was.

Spits for forum idiot who said Trump was elected in 2015.

 

[OKTexas]

Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:

You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?

Watch this..................

And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.

Once again I will ask...........and you will dodge.............show me the part of the treaty that says corruption can't be looked into if your name is Biden.

While you are doing that, explain which political rival you were referencing if it wasn't Biden.

It sure is fun painting you into a corner. (this is where you claim I didn't paint you into a corner in a feeble attempt to ignore the two challenges in this post)

And I will tell you again, the treaty was not about Biden, try as hard as you wish to make it about him. The treaty is about Trump, who again, was not authorized to use it.

That's now twice you've asked that and twice I gave you an answer you don't like. If you keep asking you will keep getting the same answer; and you know what repeating yourself but expecting a different response symptomatic of, right?

Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.

Dumbfuck...

​

Perhaps that's why Trump asked for cooperation with the AG 4 times during the call.

.

 

[Faun]

You're ******* deranged, dumbfuck.

You must think Trump is the Attorney General and Zelensky is the Prosecutor General.

One might say, you enjoy talking to a "deranged dumbfuck". Your call.

Your point that the treaty requires that request be made by the appropriate institutions is a good one, even if the permanently debilitated won't get it. There is an even better one (assuming that a president might intervene on behalf of his own AG to get things moving): Look at Article 4, 2. For Trump's so-called request under the treaty violated pretty much every one of these provisions.

Focus on Article 4, 2 (a): The request shall include the "name of the authority conducting the investigation". There is, of course, a precondition to that, namely, there has to be an actual investigation (in the U.S.) by that authority. There is, however, no such investigation by any U.S. authority into Joe or Hunter Biden.

And with that the whole "but but but we have a mutual legal assistance agreement with Ukraine" is exposed as yet another imbecilic hoax. That again is about as surprising as the finding that water is wet. Case closed.

LOL

Yes, it's a guilty pleasure when it comes to politics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

No. Thanks for asking!

Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.

Ooops, also false. Thanks for posting!

Let the voters decide. Seems simple.

We can't have that. The voters did decide last election, and that's what this impeachment is all about. Trump didn't get permission from the Democrats or the establishment to take the job. We the people just gave it to him.

 

[Faun]

And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.

Once again I will ask...........and you will dodge.............show me the part of the treaty that says corruption can't be looked into if your name is Biden.

While you are doing that, explain which political rival you were referencing if it wasn't Biden.

It sure is fun painting you into a corner. (this is where you claim I didn't paint you into a corner in a feeble attempt to ignore the two challenges in this post)

And I will tell you again, the treaty was not about Biden, try as hard as you wish to make it about him. The treaty is about Trump, who again, was not authorized to use it.

That's now twice you've asked that and twice I gave you an answer you don't like. If you keep asking you will keep getting the same answer; and you know what repeating yourself but expecting a different response symptomatic of, right?

Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.

Dumbfuck...

​

Perhaps that's why Trump asked for cooperation with the AG 4 times during the call.

.

Then why didn't Trump ever actually call upon his Attorney General to contact Ukraine?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Which side is Trump on?

Republicans have to be gnashing their teeth over the abject stupidity of the Republican President.

Trump's order to retreat in Syria betrayed a key ally who suffered 11,000 casualties in quelling the ISIS terrorist threat. Trump's retreat order facilitated the Turkish invasion of Syria and the attempt by the Turkish dictator, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to annihilate the Kurds who he regards as terrorists.

Trump enabled Edogan to kill hundreds of Kurds and causing thousands more to abandon their homes, becoming refugees.

On a day when live, public House impeachment hearings began featuring two key witnesses against Trump, William B. Taylor Jr., acting ambassador to Ukraine, and his boss, George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, provided devastating evidence of abuse of power, on a day when desperate Republicans are trying vainly to defend Trump from his own incriminating statements, guess who Trump invites to the White House.

You got it, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

It is an in your face gesture to Republicans from a Republican President.

How smart is that?

Republicans are in the midst of drafting a bipartisan sanctions bill targeting Turkey for its aggressive action against the Kurds, aggressive action caused by Trump's retreat. Some of the strongest Congressional critics have included some of Trump's closest congressional allies, including Senator Lindsey Graham, who has repeatedly warned Erdoğan about the repercussions of his actions and has drafted his own sweeping sanctions bill targeting the country.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for Trump to rescind the White House invitation to Erdoğan entirely. The White House declined to do so.

How smart is that?

Pretty smart if Trump is acting like a Russian puppet whose sole purpose is to create havoc in the capital.

GOP senators air concerns during unusual White House meeting with Erdoğan - CNNPolitics helped with this report.

"Trump’s mistake in Syria is the unexpected ‘lottery win’ that further strengthened Moscow’s position in the Middle East and undermined America’s prestige as a rational political player and a reliable partner,” raved Mikhail Rostovsky in his article for the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets.

The Post reports, "Kremlin-funded Russian state television has openly sided with Trump throughout the Ukraine scandal and even during the events that led up to it. For months on end, Dmitry , the host of a Sunday news show called “Vesti Nedeli” (or “The Weekly News”) on state-controlled television station Rossiya-24, encouraged Trump’s push for a Ukrainian investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son, as well as the groundless theory that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in U.S. presidential elections in 2016."

Which side Trump is on is very difficult to determine in view of the support he is getting from hostile dictatorships.

 

[Faun]

Lying ******* moron...

• The Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

Article II
ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.​

• H. Rept. 105-830 - IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

D. Article IV--Abuse of Power

Article IV - 1
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee​

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

There doesn't have to be a statute, ya lying ******* moron.

Have you learned nothing at all??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

Wrong. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute. Otherwise it's just a whine.

Trump has committed crimes but you don't have to commit a crime to be fired from your job.

The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors," not "if the Dims have a hissy fit."

This isn't the first time you've been shown this, lying ******* moron...

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...​

 

[IM2]

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

No. Thanks for asking!

Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.

Ooops, also false. Thanks for posting!

Let the voters decide. Seems simple.

We can't have that. The voters did decide last election, and that's what this impeachment is all about. Trump didn't get permission from the Democrats or the establishment to take the job. We the people just gave it to him.

The voters decided for Clinton.

 

[IM2]

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.

Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.

Irrelevant drivel.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.

It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.

To be a witness you have to witness something, they didn't.

.

They did witness something.

 

[IM2]

Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?

Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.

If they were, then Trump had nothing to do with it. A 2 year 45 million tax dollar investigation proved that. So tell me, why did DumBama allow that to go on??

It did prove that. And Obama didn't have 140+ meetings with the Russians during his campaign.

 

[IM2]

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

Jesus ******* Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?

Trump is flaunting his corruption right out in the open. He is spitting on the US Constitution .

And you love it.

What I love is how you Democrats are chasing voters to our side. That's what I love about it. If your heads weren't so clouded to see what others see, you'd understand the damage Democrats are doing to themselves.

Trump Campaign Raises $3.1M in Donations During Impeachment Hearings

The wealthy are scared to death they will lose their buddy who keeps handing them money.

As an Amerocan, I don't give a shit about voters. I care about justice and the US Constitution.

Too band you Trumpettes can't say the same.

If you cared about justice you wouldn't be on here telling everyone how the rich should be looted.

Why not? The rich are the ones robbing everybody else.