When was President Trump convicted to cause impeachment?

[busybee01]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

Joe and Hunter Biden for beginners, and because right now they don't have subpoena power THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING DEAL.

Please quote the law that states a president is not allowed to request help from a foreign gov't in possible corrupt dealings with a former vice president WHILE he was in office.

Thanks in advance.

There does not have to be a specific law. Trump's demand was the corruption. There was no corruption with any former vice President.

 

[Care4all]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

Yes but the simple question is:
What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

The Constitution is clear:
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
"It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A) There has been NO impeachment because
B) There has been NO conviction, because
there have been NO Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors even made about President Trump!

HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONVICT HIM HE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

The Constitution is clear: "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction for Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

I'm simply asking WHAT
1) TREASON?? Zero
2) Bribery??? Zero
3) Other high crimes and misdemeanors" Zero

There has been NOTHING proving President Trump has done any of the above!

So again... WHAT are the reasons for impeachment? Nothing!

First high crimes and misdemeanors are ABUSES OF POWER, as defined in the Federalist papers number 65. The term is specifically for abuses of power whether illegal crimes or not.

Bribery/extortion is a contender for an article of impeachment... with Trump holding back military aid and DC meeting, until the Ukraine president decides to investigate crowdstrike conspiracy and the President' s rival's son and company he worked for...

AND the Uke President HAD TO make a Media public announcement.... That is gvt extortion and an abuse of Trump' s power as President.

Working a shadow gvt with Giuliani for his OWN personal purpose and gain is also an abuse of power.

 

[busybee01]

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

alleged bribery and extortion.

Using a foreign gvt to help with your campaign.

Running a shadow gvt with his personal campaign lawyer.

WHO can Repubs subpoena to testify that could defend the president' s actions???

How is paying Hunter Biden 50,000 a month to sit on the board of a company he knew nothing about helping the president's campaign?

First, it was not illegal for Hunter to sit on their board, so there was NO Corruption for Giuliani and the President to look in to.

Second, the procedure of investigating an American citizen for corruption in a foreign country is done legally, through the DOJ And our Foreign Corruption agencies within the FBI or Treasury...along with the cooperation agreement with the foreign nation. NOT through the President and his personal campaign lawyer and a handful of criminal goons.

Third, if the President were truly concerned about corruption taking place in the Ukraine then why in the gecko is he concerned with what might have happened 3 to 4 years ago with his rival verses the corruption that could be going on NOW, in the present?

Fourth, in June the Pentagon analyzed the Ukraine's corruption before handing over our aid and gave the Ukraine a clear Bill of health, to release the aid... but Trump held it back till the Ukraine investigated AGAIN, the Biden's and expectations...

And Fifth, Trump would not release the aid or put the Ukraine president on the schedule for a meeting in DC

UNTILL the Uke President made a PUBLIC announcement that he was investigating Hunter BIden/ Burisma in the media, preferably CNN....

NOW TELL ME, why was the public announcement of this newly opened Uke investigation needed before the meeting scheduled in DC or the military aid released?


WAKE UP PLEASE

Cute. I asked for the law stating it was illegal not your opinion.

Thanks for playing.

No law is required,

Thanks for playing loser.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

The witnesses are all burying your hero's lies. That's why he keeps changing the story, and attacking the process. Neither the law, the witnesses or the process are on your side.

The only witness that matters is the President of the Ukraine. He has stated that there was no pressure and therefore no quid pro quo. Your investigation should have died right there.

Did you expect a man who is utterly dependent on President Trump's approval internationally to sit next to Trump in front of the American press and call the President a liar? But Zelensky made a point of saying that he still didn't have an invitation to the White House in that presser, which showed that he was, in truth, being pressured.

Can you post anything except bullshit?

He was not sitting next to the President during that phone call. You do know how telephones work, right? Or are you Canucks still using two cans and a string?

You can imagine shit all you want, but facts are facts.

You have lost and don;t even know it yet, not that it matters to you since you are a busybody with no real skin in our political processes. Right Canuck?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Just because you don’t like the POTUS, doesn’t mean he should be impeached.

If you don’t think Brennan lied to the FBI and the FBI slurped it up, you probably also don’t think that the Clinton Foundation was operated as a pay for play organization.

So odd their donations fell so much once she lost the election. I guess all disease and famine on earth have been eradicated? Or is it because they can’t sell political favors.

 

[busybee01]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

Yes but the simple question is:
What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

The Constitution is clear:
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
"It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A) There has been NO impeachment because
B) There has been NO conviction, because
there have been NO Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors even made about President Trump!

HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONVICT HIM HE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

The Constitution is clear: "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction for Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

I'm simply asking WHAT
1) TREASON?? Zero
2) Bribery??? Zero
3) Other high crimes and misdemeanors" Zero

There has been NOTHING proving President Trump has done any of the above!

So again... WHAT are the reasons for impeachment? Nothing!

The reason is abuse of his authority as President. The Congress decides what a high crime and misdemeanor is.

 

[busybee01]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

What the democrats in the house are doing is a Soviet Star Chamber. Impeachment requires the ENTIRE house, not just the politburo.

There is no star chamber. The impeachment vote requires a vote of the full House. A inquiry does not.

 

[Care4all]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

The witnesses are all burying your hero's lies. That's why he keeps changing the story, and attacking the process. Neither the law, the witnesses or the process are on your side.

The only witness that matters is the President of the Ukraine. He has stated that there was no pressure and therefore no quid pro quo. Your investigation should have died right there.

Seriously, what would you expect him to say?

 

[Care4all]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

Yes but the simple question is:
What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

The Constitution is clear:
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
"It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A) There has been NO impeachment because
B) There has been NO conviction, because
there have been NO Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors even made about President Trump!

HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONVICT HIM HE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

The Constitution is clear: "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction for Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

I'm simply asking WHAT
1) TREASON?? Zero
2) Bribery??? Zero
3) Other high crimes and misdemeanors" Zero

There has been NOTHING proving President Trump has done any of the above!

So again... WHAT are the reasons for impeachment? Nothing!

This isn't an impeachment, despite what the little Goebbels of the fascist media say. The Soviet Star Chamber of Adam Stalin-Schitt is 100% political. It is intended to alter and influence the 2020 election. Schitt and the Stalinists are running a taxpayer funded smear campaign. They have no intention of drafting articles of impeachment. This is just the democrats using the federal government to rig an election, once again.

The dims will be swept from the house over this. Regardless of proclamations from corrupt Obama judges.

That's correct, it is an impeachment inquiry, to gather evidence and facts on whether to impeach and the articles of impeachment if they choose. It could be just a Censure instead once the investigating part is complete and turned over to the judiciary committee.

 

[busybee01]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

The witnesses are all burying your hero's lies. That's why he keeps changing the story, and attacking the process. Neither the law, the witnesses or the process are on your side.

The only witness that matters is the President of the Ukraine. He has stated that there was no pressure and therefore no quid pro quo. Your investigation should have died right there.

Did you expect a man who is utterly dependent on President Trump's approval internationally to sit next to Trump in front of the American press and call the President a liar? But Zelensky made a point of saying that he still didn't have an invitation to the White House in that presser, which showed that he was, in truth, being pressured.

Can you post anything except bullshit?

He was not sitting next to the President during that phone call. You do know how telephones work, right? Or are you Canucks still using two cans and a string?

You can imagine shit all you want, but facts are facts.

You have lost and don;t even know it yet, not that it matters to you since you are a busybody with no real skin in our political processes. Right Canuck?

You are the bullshit artist here.

It goes beyond the just the phone call. There clearly was a rogue foreign policy conducted by Trump and Giuliani. Zelensky became aware of that shortly after he took office. You have yet to mention a fact.

 

[busybee01]

Just because you don’t like the POTUS, doesn’t mean he should be impeached.

If you don’t think Brennan lied to the FBI and the FBI slurped it up, you probably also don’t think that the Clinton Foundation was operated as a pay for play organization.

So odd their donations fell so much once she lost the election. I guess all disease and famine on earth have been eradicated? Or is it because they can’t sell political favors.

There is no evidence of anything you say.

 

[Pogo]

The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution. It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors..

What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

Would someone please tell me when President Trump was convicted?

Does it say anything in there about which hand the POTUS wipes his ass with?

Because I recall that was an issue for you with O'bama.

Hypocrisy much?

You really have a scatological fetish don't you? Do you sit on the toilet and play with your pooh?

Maybe you should answer that question, Shorty, since YOU actually made a thread out of it.

Whelp --- that told us what your standards are.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Just because you don’t like the POTUS, doesn’t mean he should be impeached.

If you don’t think Brennan lied to the FBI and the FBI slurped it up, you probably also don’t think that the Clinton Foundation was operated as a pay for play organization.

So odd their donations fell so much once she lost the election. I guess all disease and famine on earth have been eradicated? Or is it because they can’t sell political favors.

There is no evidence of anything you say.

There is no evidence that Brennan lied to the FBI and there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation went down significantly in 2017?

Come on.

Why are you lying about something so provable?

https://nypost.com/2018/11/24/donations-to-clinton-foundation-plunged-after-hillarys-defeat/

Back in March, Brennan lied about indictments coming down from Mueller. He is a liar.

Brennan Predicts Mueller Report, More Indictments On Friday: "I Don't Have Inside Knowledge"!

 

[Cellblock2429]

Impeachment is equivalent to indictment in a criminal legal process.

The House is the prosecutor.

The House lawyer chosen will be the prosecutor in the Senate impeachment Trial, the President has his own Defense lawyers.

The senators are the Jury.

The chief justice is the presiding judge.

Due process is given, once the House votes to indict, impeach, and it goes to trial.

Just like in a criminal case... once officially charged with crimes, the defendant gets discovery, and gets to call defence witnesses and all that due process...

We ain't there yet, they are still investigating.

Yes but the simple question is:
What treasonous act has President Trump been convicted?
What bribery act has President Trump been convicted?
What other high crimes and misdemeanors acts has President Trump been convicted?

The Constitution is clear:
The requirements to impeach a president are found in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution.
"It states that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

A) There has been NO impeachment because
B) There has been NO conviction, because
there have been NO Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors even made about President Trump!

HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CONVICT HIM HE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO BE IMPEACHED. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD?

The Constitution is clear: "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction for Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

I'm simply asking WHAT
1) TREASON?? Zero
2) Bribery??? Zero
3) Other high crimes and misdemeanors" Zero

There has been NOTHING proving President Trump has done any of the above!

So again... WHAT are the reasons for impeachment? Nothing!

First high crimes and misdemeanors are ABUSES OF POWER, as defined in the Federalist papers number 65. The term is specifically for abuses of power whether illegal crimes or not.

Bribery/extortion is a contender for an article of impeachment... with Trump holding back military aid and DC meeting, until the Ukraine president decides to investigate crowdstrike conspiracy and the President' s rival's son and company he worked for...

AND the Uke President HAD TO make a Media public announcement.... That is gvt extortion and an abuse of Trump' s power as President.

Working a shadow gvt with Giuliani for his OWN personal purpose and gain is also an abuse of power.

/——/ Gee that’s what Old Joe did. Fancy that.

 

[harmonica]

Yea the conviction they speak of is in the senate, not a court of law.

That's what makes impeachment a political move, not a legal one. However, once a REAL impeachment is voted on, that gives the minority party the right to subpoena witnesses which libtards do NOT want to happen.

Who can they call as witnesses to defend president Trump' s illegal actions in the Ukraine?

And why not simply ask for these witnesses to be brought in now, if they are relevant?

There is no one that's even in the realm of this mess that has spoken up to defend Trump' s actions...

Not a single Republican has spoken up with any valid excuse for him and what he did in the Ukraine...

They are only yelling about a Process, not TRUMPs actions ?

what actions about the Ukraine ?

alleged bribery and extortion.

Using a foreign gvt to help with your campaign.

Running a shadow gvt with his personal campaign lawyer.

WHO can Repubs subpoena to testify that could defend the president' s actions???

How is paying Hunter Biden 50,000 a month to sit on the board of a company he knew nothing about helping the president's campaign?

First, it was not illegal for Hunter to sit on their board, so there was NO Corruption for Giuliani and the President to look in to.

Second, the procedure of investigating an American citizen for corruption in a foreign country is done legally, through the DOJ And our Foreign Corruption agencies within the FBI or Treasury...along with the cooperation agreement with the foreign nation. NOT through the President and his personal campaign lawyer and a handful of criminal goons.

Third, if the President were truly concerned about corruption taking place in the Ukraine then why in the heck is he concerned with what might have happened 3 to 4 years ago with his rival verses the corruption that could be going on NOW, in the present?

Fourth, in June the Pentagon analyzed the Ukraine's corruption before handing over our aid and gave the Ukraine a clear Bill of health, to release the aid... but Trump held it back till the Ukraine investigated AGAIN, the Biden's and crowdstrike

And Fifth, Trump would not release the aid or put the Ukraine president on the schedule for a meeting in DC

UNTILL the Uke President made a PUBLIC announcement that he was investigating Hunter BIden/ Burisma in the media, preferably CNN....

NOW TELL ME, why was the public announcement of this newly opened Uke investigation needed before the meeting scheduled in DC or the military aid released?


WAKE UP PLEASE

so there was NO Russian Corruption for the Dems/left/etc to look in to.

 

[harmonica]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

grand jury for what?? you don't understand the question

The question was simple, what charges has Trump been convicted of. The answer is equally simple...none

thank you--that is correct....there is nothing for a ''grand jury'' to look into

 

[ColonelAngus]

Notice how when you post a link to a video or straight up empirical data, they just vanish?

They won’t admit they are wrong and they certainly won’t change their bullshit lies.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

grand jury for what?? you don't understand the question

The question was simple, what charges has Trump been convicted of. The answer is equally simple...none

thank you--that is correct....there is nothing for a ''grand jury'' to look into

The Dems in the House disagree....and they are the only ones that really matter.

 

[Lesh]

No

I don't understand the confusion here.
I'm asking a very simple question.
Talk about "impeachment" requires specific "high crimes and misdemeanors. "
I'm asking what crimes? What misdemeanors"?

. You stupidly keep asking what crimes Trump has been CONVICTED of . Conviction.. if it happens, comes down the road in the Senate

 

[harmonica]

Sorry, this is so confusing for you. I will try and help you out.

The "conviction" comes from the Senate, which this case has not made it that far yet.

What the House does is akin to what a grand jury does while the Senate is the actual jury giving the verdict.

This is why Bill was not removed from office, he was impeached but not found guilty by the Senate

grand jury for what?? you don't understand the question

The question was simple, what charges has Trump been convicted of. The answer is equally simple...none

thank you--that is correct....there is nothing for a ''grand jury'' to look into

The Dems in the House disagree....and they are the only ones that really matter.

hahahhahahahahaha
1. the Dems and Reps hardly ever agree
2. since the election, you people have wanted to get rid of Trump for ANY dumbass thing=nazism/un-American/ILLEGAL/treasonous
--so--we laugh at all your dumbshit crying Trump this Trump that--we know it's bullshit