Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[Slade3200]

No shit. If they had felt pressure there is no way they would publicly say that. Come on man, use your brain, you don’t bite the hand that feeds

Brilliant.

First we must assume Trump said something nobody witnessed him saying.

Second we must must assume somebody felt pressure because they said they didn't.

It doesn't take Perry Mason to defend against that.

No guessing necessary we know the agenda and we know the i tensions. It’s not a mystery. Several members of Trump foreign policy team testified to it... aid was withheld, it was leveraged for investigations. Not rocket science

Yet every damn one of them, on cross examination, said they had no direct knowledge that was the case. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. The one person with first hand knowledge of what the president said, testified that the president told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. He just wanted Zelensky to do what he campaigned on. You can spew the commie talking points all you wish, that doesn't alter the facts presented.

.

Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?! Ok you got me there. Trump didn’t do that. But his agenda was made very clear from his top guys, all of whom he blocked from testifying, down through those on the ground who actually did testify and all agreed as to what the agenda was. Wake up man, this isn’t even a sly cover up

If I put you on Ignore, then you are guilty of something. I just can't figure it out yet, BUT MY FEELINGS tell me so.

Your Guilt is out there in the Unseen Pyschic World of LibPhuckistan.

Yes I was guilty of owning you too many times in these debates and calling out your bullshit. I’m sure you got tired of it and decided to ignore me. Please feel free to do it again. I have no use for trolls like you in my life.

 

[easyt65]

He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"

Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.

Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.

Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....

And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....

 

[Slade3200]

Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?!

Thank you for the personal liberal extremist Trump-hating OPINION and translation...which perfectly sums up both disastrous Coup Attempt Hearings held by the Democrats.

Bwuhahahahaha....the snowflakes and Democrats keep trying to 'splain' what happened, what Trump and his team were THINKING, what they really MEANT, but everything - the hearings and every comment made is self-explanatory, no snowflake translation needed.

Schiff's committee hearings did not produce a crime or abuse of power, did not produce evidence of any crime or abuse of power, did not produce 1 single witness - someone who actually witnessed ANYTHING. It was sad and pathetic...and criminal.

Nadler's committee hearings presented 3 proven anti-Trump/Trump-hating, DNC-Donating liberal extremist socialist Democrat Extremist University professors who gave their OPINION that Trump deserves Impeachment, and one DEMOCRAT Constitutional Scholar that declared what the Democrats are doing is dangerous to our Republic and the only ones abusing power is the DEMOCRAS!

If you can't READ the transcripts, you're in luck - it was broadcast live and you can still watch the videos.

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was. You can take the head in the sand argument and say that Trump had no clue what was going on... I’ll laugh. You can take the deep state argument and Say that all the people many of whom were appointed by Trump are all lying to Congress and out to get Trump... I’ll laugh. Or you can take the realistic approach and acknowledge that Trump had an agenda and pushed his people to get these investigations announced while using the aid as leverage. Mark my words... you will be using this argument in a few weeks. You will admit that Trump did this but will say it is not an impeachable offense and your focus will be that the investigations were valid US Security concerns. That’s where all this is going. And I will laugh when I see you fall in line

 

[OKTexas]

Brilliant.

First we must assume Trump said something nobody witnessed him saying.

Second we must must assume somebody felt pressure because they said they didn't.

It doesn't take Perry Mason to defend against that.

No guessing necessary we know the agenda and we know the i tensions. It’s not a mystery. Several members of Trump foreign policy team testified to it... aid was withheld, it was leveraged for investigations. Not rocket science

Yet every damn one of them, on cross examination, said they had no direct knowledge that was the case. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. The one person with first hand knowledge of what the president said, testified that the president told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. He just wanted Zelensky to do what he campaigned on. You can spew the commie talking points all you wish, that doesn't alter the facts presented.

.

Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?! Ok you got me there. Trump didn’t do that. But his agenda was made very clear from his top guys, all of whom he blocked from testifying, down through those on the ground who actually did testify and all agreed as to what the agenda was. Wake up man, this isn’t even a sly cover up

Wrong again, the guy from OMB didn't back up those claims, why do you think shitt didn't call him for the public hearings.

.

You mean Mick Mulvaney the guy that runs that department who said during a press conference on national Tv that they did the QPQ?

NO.

.

 

[Slade3200]

No guessing necessary we know the agenda and we know the i tensions. It’s not a mystery. Several members of Trump foreign policy team testified to it... aid was withheld, it was leveraged for investigations. Not rocket science

Yet every damn one of them, on cross examination, said they had no direct knowledge that was the case. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. The one person with first hand knowledge of what the president said, testified that the president told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. He just wanted Zelensky to do what he campaigned on. You can spew the commie talking points all you wish, that doesn't alter the facts presented.

.

Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?! Ok you got me there. Trump didn’t do that. But his agenda was made very clear from his top guys, all of whom he blocked from testifying, down through those on the ground who actually did testify and all agreed as to what the agenda was. Wake up man, this isn’t even a sly cover up

Wrong again, the guy from OMB didn't back up those claims, why do you think shitt didn't call him for the public hearings.

.

You mean Mick Mulvaney the guy that runs that department who said during a press conference on national Tv that they did the QPQ?

NO.

.

Oh my bad, who are you talking about then and what did they say?

 

[easyt65]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

 

[BS Filter]

He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"

Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.

Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.

Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....

And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....

There were 31 Democrats in the House That voted to impeach Clinton. This is a hoax.

 

[The Original Tree]

He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"

Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.

Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.

Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....

And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....

There were 31 Democrats in the House That voted to impeach Clinton. This is a hoax.

Zero Republicans voted to Impeach Trump.

401 Reps in The House voted to Impeach Nixon.

Clinton and Nixon had Bi-Partisan Support for Impeachment, and both of them were afforded DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

Only Trump has had to endure this new and strange unprecedented process that resembles a Witch Hunt more than a somber impeachment proceeding and only President Trump has had his Right to Privacy Violated, DUE PROCESS Violated and his Civil Rights Violated by The Left Tard Radical DemNazi Party.

 

[The Original Tree]

He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"

Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.

Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.

Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....

And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....

Pelosi is a GOOD Catholic that does not Hate The President and that prays for him.

Her Prayers go like this:

Dear Satan:

I pray you help me get rid of That Impostor, Coward, and Fraud that resides in My White House.

 

[Slade3200]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

 

[The Original Tree]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence?

 

[Slade3200]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence.

whats fiction about it? I’m asking what would be considered criminal or not. I’m not making the case that Trump did all that.

 

[The Original Tree]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence.

whats fiction about it? I’m asking what would be considered criminal or not. I’m not making the case that Trump did all that.

Unless the Question is About Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma it's a fictional question. That situation is the only situation where Ukraine was pressured and Extorted to do something and they in fact DID the very thing DEMANDED of them by JOE BIDEN and he OPENLY Bragged about HIS CRIME.

He may as well have written out a confession. He should drop out of the race because if by some miracle he gets elected he will immediately be impeached on what he did in The Ukraine when The GOP gets control of The House.

But polling and trending show Trump is gaining more and more steam every day and it's inevitable that he get's re-elected.

Joe Biden is not a political rival of The President and will most likely not get the nomination.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Slade3200]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence.

whats fiction about it? I’m asking what would be considered criminal or not. I’m not making the case that Trump did all that.

Unless the Question is About Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma it's a fictional question. That situation is the only situation where Ukraine was pressured and Extorted to do something and they in fact DID the very thing DEMANDED of them by JOE BIDEN and he OPENLY Bragged about HIS CRIME.

Your premise is fictional. It is perfectly relevant to determine what is considered criminal and impeachable under the law. Congress just held a hearing with legal experts to discuss such things.

question is why are you scared to answer a simple question?

 

[easyt65]

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

'Yes' or 'no' because YOU say so...sorta like a mandatory 'yes' or 'no' answer to the BS question, 'Are you still beating your spouse?'

Democrat Constitutional Scholar Turley testified that - as the Democrats showed and we all saw - the President did not commit any crimes or abuse his Constitutional authority: no crime, no evidence of crime, no witnesses, Democrat 'witnesses' asked directly to name a crime or a High Crime and Misdemeanor could NOT...but did testify that the Bidens should be investigated....one huge cluster-f* FAIL by Democrats....

....as opposed to former VP Biden's videotaped confession of extorting the former Ukraine PM.

.

 

[Slade3200]

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

'Yes' or 'no' because YOU say so...sorta like a mandatory 'yes' or 'no' answer to the BS question, 'Are you still beating your spouse?'

Democrat Constitutional Scholar Turley testified that - as the Democrats showed and we all saw - the President did not commit any crimes or abuse his Constitutional authority: no crime, no evidence of crime, no witnesses, Democrat 'witnesses' asked directly to name a crime or a High Crime and Misdemeanor could NOT...but did testify that the Bidens should be investigated....one huge cluster-f* FAIL by Democrats....

....as opposed to former VP Biden's videotaped confession of extorting the former Ukraine PM.

.

I ask yes or no because every time I ask that question people squirm away like you and Tree both just did. But since you brought up Turley... he actually said that if the accusations were proven true and Trump did in fact leverage aid for political purposes then it would constitute an impeachable act. He said it plain and clear in his opening statement. Do you agree with him about that?

 

[easyt65]

I ask yes or no because....

You ask self-declared 'yes' or 'no' questions because your questions are non-reality-based snowflake BS meant to distract from the real facts.

Let's make this simple - you don't even have to give a personal response, just a link. I will show you mine - you show me yours.

Provide a video of President Trump giving a videotaped confession of extorting a Ukraine PM

Here's Biden's:




YOUR TURN.....

.

 

[Slade3200]

I ask yes or no because....

You ask self-declared 'yes' or 'no' questions because your questions are non-reality-based snowflake BS meant to distract from the real facts.

Let's make this simple - you don't even have to give a personal response, just a link. I will show you mine - you show me yours.

Provide a video of President Trump giving a videotaped confession of extorting a Ukraine PM

Here's Biden's:




YOUR TURN.....

.

That’s twice now you’ve avoided answering my question and now you want me to show you the respect of answering yours?! I’m happy to give direct answers, I got nothing to hide, but you gotta earn that respect And not avoid answering mine.

there’s nothing wrong with yes or no questions, you can answer and explain your answer, I’m making it as simple as possible, why won’t you answer?

 

[task0778]

The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.

Agreed!

No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed

No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.

No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley

The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'

Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!

Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.

If you don't mind me butting into this conversation uninvited, I'd like to take a whack at your question. Is what you proposed a crime? No, I don't think so. Is it an impeachable offense? Tougher question, but my answer is still no, because I think it's done all the time. Is it unethical? Yeah, I think so, but does it rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? No, not in my view.

Politics is a dirty business, both domestically and internationally. I have no doubt that Politicians in every country try to bend others to do their will, explicitly or implicitly. Is it ethical? No, but it is reality. And here's my next point: it is not right to pick and choose who you're going to charge with unethical behavior that is commonly done. We might not know about it, but I am not naive enough to believe that Trump is the 1st American president or politician to resort to unethical behavior.

 

[easyt65]

That’s twice now you’ve avoided answering my question

Once again, that's because your question is based on fantasy, something that has not happened, which snowflakes and Democrats love to focus on instead of what REALLY happened...like THIS:



Sooooo.......YOUR TURN.

This one self-incriminating videotaped confession of extorting the former Ukraine PM by itself is more 'evidence' of a crime having been committed than the democrats have been able to find in the last 4 years.

It's not a 'Yes or No' - It's a 'Put Up Or Shut Up', snowflake.