Offical Impeachment Thread

[Faun]

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?

<crickets>

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We know this. Now what's your point?

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Firsthand is one word. LMAO. You’re so stupid and a *****. Biden is corrupt and Trump wants to know what happened with the Nepotism gig and firing of the prosecutor

And?
The substance?
Nothing?

Let's try again.

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Trying VERY hard to sound as though he has a point that's relevant to anything, but same as Adam ScHITt, is FAILING, MISERABLY... ^^^

Another that won't engage. Go figure.

I'll give you another chance as well.

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Engage? You're a *****.

Engage? You're a *****.

Yes. Engage. No comprende, bobo?

Still nothing, loser?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

How do you know he didn't, the DOJ doesn't discuss investigations, perhaps Durham is looking into it along with other things that happened. If it was ongoing, there would be no need to discuss it, would there?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

What?

.

 

[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...

​

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?

How do you know he didn't, the DOJ doesn't discuss investigations, perhaps Durham is looking into it along with other things that happened. If it was ongoing, there would be no need to discuss it, would there?

.

Justice Department: Trump never asked Barr to talk to Ukraine

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

She did not get the majority so they actually did not

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

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.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

Your understanding is shit. Everyone knows this.

READ: Testimony Of Alexander Vindman, The White House's Ukraine Specialist

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

This impeachment has nothing to do with the election.

It has to do with Trump breaking the law.

Unless you can prove intent you cannot prove he broke the law. FakeStupidDave, do you have dementia?

 

[OKTexas]

You just described what Biden did.

What political gain?????

Keeping his job. If it was exposed that he used his position as VP to get his crackhead son, who had zero experience in oil and gas, and zero experience in Ukraine, a no-show position based solely on his last name on the Board of Directors of a Ukranian oil and gas company, Biden would have been toast.

More blatant lies

There is ZERO evidence of Biden soliciting a job for his son

What? Why did Devon Archer visit poppa joe in the WH two days before Hunter was appointed to the board?

.

And this is according to who?

WH visitor logs. A video of the report has been posted in this thread.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Firsthand is one word. LMAO. You’re so stupid and a *****. Biden is corrupt and Trump wants to know what happened with the Nepotism gig and firing of the prosecutor

And?
The substance?
Nothing?

Let's try again.

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Trying VERY hard to sound as though he has a point that's relevant to anything, but same as Adam ScHITt, is FAILING, MISERABLY... ^^^

Another that won't engage. Go figure.

I'll give you another chance as well.

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Engage? You're a *****.

Engage? You're a *****.

Yes. Engage. No comprende, bobo?

Still nothing, loser?

A ***** says what? Old man, you’re out of your league with your incoherent posts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Another wasted day the swamp democrat leaders carry on this impeachment charade. All taken advantage of by the hard working tax payer expense.

The important thing is, yesterday was the BIG DAY, the STAR WITNESSES, the day that they were SUPPOSED to GET TRUMP, but it fizzled like a melting lollipop.
So today, not only is no one covering this FARCE, no one wants to WATCH IT.
It's OVER. The dems blew their wad and it's OVER.
Now comes the IG report, and the demtrash have a RUDE AWAKENING coming.

Thank you! I was about to ask-- -- -- I turned the TV on at 10AM.

• CBS nothing.
• ABC nothing.
• NBC nothing.
• PBS nothing.
• FOX nothing.

So I tried again at 11AM. Still nothing but soap operas and Sesame Street. Guess the networks lost enough revenue for one day. Oh well, yesterday was a screaming yawner anyway. I suppose the remainder will be left for some obscure cable channel now where no one will watch it or care.

Trump was right again. Is it too late to ask for a refund? I figure the democrats are into every taxpaying in this country now for a few bucks. Democrats: consider that my campaign contribution for whatever fuckwit you eventually nominate.

There was no testimony scheduled today, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And?
The substance?
Nothing?

Let's try again.

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Trying VERY hard to sound as though he has a point that's relevant to anything, but same as Adam ScHITt, is FAILING, MISERABLY... ^^^

Another that won't engage. Go figure.

I'll give you another chance as well.

Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?

Engage? You're a *****.

Engage? You're a *****.

Yes. Engage. No comprende, bobo?

Still nothing, loser?

A ***** says what? Old man, you’re out of your league with your incoherent posts.

Keep dancing, bobo.

 

[OKTexas]

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

LMAO. "Nothing inappropriate" --- you have got to be kidding me. Even Hunter Biden stated otherwise. StupidFakeDave, adults are speaking STFU and go and play with your dolls.

Hunter said he should not ha ve taken the position. But there was nothing illegal or corrupt for a US citizen to serve on the board of a foreign corporation.

Right to the point where his name was used to get access to the State Dept., that crossed the line.

.

When was that? What access?

Emails Reveal Burisma Consulting Firm Leveraged Hunter Biden To Get State Dept. Meetings

The State Dept is scheduled to release more emails next month in response to a FOIA.

.

 

[OKTexas]

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

Nothing between Hunter and China, then why did they send 600K+ to an account controlled by him and Devon Archer?

.

It doesn't matter.

The crackhead lied and said he hadn't made ANY money off the China deal, so yes, it does matter. Funny how Hunter makes out every time daddy is involved.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

LMAO. "Nothing inappropriate" --- you have got to be kidding me. Even Hunter Biden stated otherwise. StupidFakeDave, adults are speaking STFU and go and play with your dolls.

Hunter said he should not ha ve taken the position. But there was nothing illegal or corrupt for a US citizen to serve on the board of a foreign corporation.

Right to the point where his name was used to get access to the State Dept., that crossed the line.

.

When did that happen.

DAMN, You idiots don't seem to know anything. I've already posted a link.

.

 

[OKTexas]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

There's a constitutional definition of treason, tell the class how it applies to a freaking phone call.

.

I know you want to try playing this off as just a phone call. But during that call there was a conversation and in that conversation Trump committed bribery and extortion.

Even IF that were true, that doesn't meet the constitutional definition of treason, no matter how much you commies say it.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The rats see the ship is sinking. This one just happens to be the guy who signed off on holding the Ukraine cash.

1st question- Who ordered or directed you to hold the aid funding to Ukraine?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...s-testify-impeachment-inquiry/?outputType=amp

"A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the holdup of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear. The White House has called the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and ordered administration officials not to participate.

Unlike these other OMB officials, Sandy is a career employee, not one appointed by the president. He has worked at the agency off and on for over a decade, under presidents of both parties, climbing the ranks to his current role as deputy associate director for national security programs..........

Sandy could provide insight into the process by which some $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine was held up over the summer. He was among the career staffers who raised questions about the holdup on the aid, people familiar with the matter said, and his role gave him responsibility for signing the documents required to hold it up. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Sandy’s signature appears on at least one of these so-called apportionment letters in July that prevented the money from going to Ukraine, according to copies of the documents discussed during an earlier deposition in the impeachment inquiry, a transcript of which was made public. But after that, the process for approving or denying such funds was taken over by a political appointee at OMB, Michael Duffey, who defied a congressional subpoena to testify earlier this month. The money had already been approved by Congress."

 

[OKTexas]

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?

How do you know he didn't, the DOJ doesn't discuss investigations, perhaps Durham is looking into it along with other things that happened. If it was ongoing, there would be no need to discuss it, would there?

.

Justice Department: Trump never asked Barr to talk to Ukraine

Funny, I heard him do it on TV several times. But once again, how do you know they aren't already looking into it?

.

 

[bripat9643]

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???

We've already been over this multiple times, dumbass. If they go outside the channels specified in the treaty, then they aren't entitle to receive the services they are requesting. That's all the treaty says. It's certainly not against the law for them to do so.

You've come down on both sides of this issue now, and you claimed I'm a dumbass in both cases.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

There's a constitutional definition of treason, tell the class how it applies to a freaking phone call.

.

I know you want to try playing this off as just a phone call. But during that call there was a conversation and in that conversation Trump committed bribery and extortion.

Exact words please, and no commie interpretations either.