Trump impeachment defense team will include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

[Butch_Coolidge]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

like Clinton and Johnson?

Johnson has right to complain about his impeachment. Clinton was a judgement fall about whether his crime was pertinent to his position.

Trump did the deed. Dershowitz is going to make sure he doesn’t have to face consequences. Just like he did for Epstein.

His judgement? Why don’t you send your daughter to be his personal assistant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Clinton was a judgement fall about whether his crime was pertinent to his position.

How so?

Perjury in a private lawsuit that was dismissed. It’s a judgement as to whether that should exclude him from office.

Perjury in a private lawsuit that was dismissed.

That means it wasn't perjury?

It was dismissed, because of the settlement he paid, as well as losing his law license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BULLDOG]

So what do you think he lied about? You got a link to show he lied about something other than a blow job?

It has nothing to do with what he lied about rather than it does who he lied to. He lied to a federal grand jury. It doesn't matter if it was about a murder or jaywalking. When you lie to the FBI, a judge, a grand jury, that's perjury. You can't do that because it's a felony.

You hang on to that thought. Right wingers impeached Clinton for something as inconsequential as lying about a blowjob, but claim it's OK for trump to misdirect federal funds to bribe a foreign country for his own personal political gains. Do you even remember when the right still had integrity?

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

There is? A lot of evidence? Show me one.

Sorry, but I put your request for information in the "Pearl before swine" category. A soon as you give any indication that facts or logic mean anything to you, I will consider putting you in another category, but until then, the only purpose you serve is to entertain me, and make me laugh.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

How so?

Perjury in a private lawsuit that was dismissed. It’s a judgement as to whether that should exclude him from office.

Perjury in a private lawsuit that was dismissed.

That means it wasn't perjury?

No, it means it has nothing to do with his capacity as president.

"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action."

clinton impeachment charges - Yahoo Search Results

Which has nothing to do with his duties as president.

Don is dealing with his duties just fine. That’s why he will win a second term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Adam Schiff does not stand a chance.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Great. Now find me where in the articles of impeachment he got charged with that. He got charged for lying to a federal grand jury which is perjury; a felony.

So what do you think he lied about? You got a link to show he lied about something other than a blow job?

It has nothing to do with what he lied about rather than it does who he lied to. He lied to a federal grand jury. It doesn't matter if it was about a murder or jaywalking. When you lie to the FBI, a judge, a grand jury, that's perjury. You can't do that because it's a felony.

You hang on to that thought. Right wingers impeached Clinton for something as inconsequential as lying about a blowjob, but claim it's OK for trump to misdirect federal funds to bribe a foreign country for his own personal political gains. Do you even remember when the right still had integrity?

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

Because it doesn’t. There is no evidence, and no witnesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toobfreak]

That makes TWO impeachments then that are a farce.

Only if you buy the very doubtful cover story.

THAT'S THE POINT. I DON'T buy the cover story that Trump did anything meriting impeachment, and the fact that the House passed two articles, neither of which is even a crime and one of them laughable and specious, and now they want to retry Trump all over again in the senate, proves it.

Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?

Is that right?

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

How is Biden a political opponent when he's not even nominated the running candidate? And what if he wasn't running? Then it would be OK? So if I want to get out of prosecution for a crime, I just run for office? Is that why all Democrats get into politics? And how is it wrong for Trump to investigate a person known to have abused the power of his office yet it is the "constitutional duty" for Sanders and Warren to sit on a panel investigating THEIR political opponent?

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump is less notable than a pimple on Clinton's ass.

 

[BULLDOG]

So what do you think he lied about? You got a link to show he lied about something other than a blow job?

It has nothing to do with what he lied about rather than it does who he lied to. He lied to a federal grand jury. It doesn't matter if it was about a murder or jaywalking. When you lie to the FBI, a judge, a grand jury, that's perjury. You can't do that because it's a felony.

You hang on to that thought. Right wingers impeached Clinton for something as inconsequential as lying about a blowjob, but claim it's OK for trump to misdirect federal funds to bribe a foreign country for his own personal political gains. Do you even remember when the right still had integrity?

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

Because it doesn’t. There is no evidence, and no witnesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right wingers defense of Trump.

 

[toobfreak]

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

No

Nixon shouldn't have ordered the break-in, Clinton shouldn't have had the IRS investigate conservative groups.

Now, how are you going to twist it to accuse Trump of something?

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad. What law would that violate?

The answer is that it doesn’t. There is no law. Therefore it can’t be impeachable.

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law. In fact, "abuse" is a purely subjective, arbitrary judgement that many would say is political spin for presidential prerogative by the democrats trying to simply eliminate a political opponent.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law. In fact, "obstructing congress" is just political spin for saying Trump didn't jump to a bunch of subpoenas and the democrats weren't willing to allow the courts time to adjudicate the matter.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

 

[BULLDOG]

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

No

Nixon shouldn't have ordered the break-in, Clinton shouldn't have had the IRS investigate conservative groups.

Now, how are you going to twist it to accuse Trump of something?

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad. What law would that violate?

The answer is that it doesn’t. There is no law. Therefore it can’t be impeachable.

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

 

[toobfreak]

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical. Is the president allowed to order an investigation into his political opponent for any reason whatsoever?

No

Nixon shouldn't have ordered the break-in, Clinton shouldn't have had the IRS investigate conservative groups.

Now, how are you going to twist it to accuse Trump of something?

So let’s say the president ordered . . .

We don't need you to "say." We already have Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler "saying" 10,000 things, from Trump is an imperious, imminent threat to our national security to McConnell is a russian asset. You loons have gone from claiming in a few years that Russia was no threat to us at all and the elections impervious to influence and tampering to seeing russian spies, tampering and conspiracies in every dark corner!

The only tampering being done is by the Democrats!

 

[toobfreak]

THAT'S THE POINT. I DON'T buy the cover story that Trump did anything meriting impeachment, and the fact that the House passed two articles, neither of which is even a crime and one of them laughable and specious, and now they want to retry Trump all over again in the senate, proves it.

Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?

Is that right?

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

Its the last act of the Stalinist democrats

 

[BULLDOG]

Just do we are clear, the president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever?

Is that right?

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

That worked for the Republicans in 2016

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It has nothing to do with what he lied about rather than it does who he lied to. He lied to a federal grand jury. It doesn't matter if it was about a murder or jaywalking. When you lie to the FBI, a judge, a grand jury, that's perjury. You can't do that because it's a felony.

You hang on to that thought. Right wingers impeached Clinton for something as inconsequential as lying about a blowjob, but claim it's OK for trump to misdirect federal funds to bribe a foreign country for his own personal political gains. Do you even remember when the right still had integrity?

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

There is? A lot of evidence? Show me one.

Sorry, but I put your request for information in the "Pearl before swine" category. A soon as you give any indication that facts or logic mean anything to you, I will consider putting you in another category, but until then, the only purpose you serve is to entertain me, and make me laugh.

Deflect. A typical strategy by the left. So you can't answer my question, can you? Of course not. You (like your ilk) are only told what to think--not why you should be thinking it. Facts don't mean anything to me? Then why not present a fact or two? Why? Because you have no facts.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump is less notable than a pimple on Clinton's ass.

You are full of shit.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

That worked for the Republicans in 2016

It was the republicans who fucked Bernie Sanders ?

Don't think so.

Debbie Fatass Shultz made sure the annointed Hillary Clinton got to the nomination.

 

[BULLDOG]

You hang on to that thought. Right wingers impeached Clinton for something as inconsequential as lying about a blowjob, but claim it's OK for trump to misdirect federal funds to bribe a foreign country for his own personal political gains. Do you even remember when the right still had integrity?

Except there is evidence (DNA and video) of Clinton lying. There is zero evidence of Trump withholding aid for political gains......ZERO!

No question he lied about a blowjob. Big deal. There is lots of evidence that Trump withheld funds for political gains. You can pretend that evidence doesn't exist if you want to.

There is? A lot of evidence? Show me one.

Sorry, but I put your request for information in the "Pearl before swine" category. A soon as you give any indication that facts or logic mean anything to you, I will consider putting you in another category, but until then, the only purpose you serve is to entertain me, and make me laugh.

Deflect. A typical strategy by the left. So you can't answer my question, can you? Of course not. You (like your ilk) are only told what to think--not why you should be thinking it. Facts don't mean anything to me? Then why not present a fact or two? Why? Because you have no facts.

Because it's a waste of time to answer your questions.

 

[BULLDOG]

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

That worked for the Republicans in 2016

It was the republicans who fucked Bernie Sanders ?

Don't think so.

Debbie Fatass Shultz made sure the annointed Hillary Clinton got to the nomination.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Republicans fomenting dissent within the Democratic party is what I was referencing.