All you need to do is show Dershowitz in 1998 to quiet him

[Faun]

What a pity you couldn't quote your imaginary 180.

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

 

[Crepitus]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to quiet him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

....I think most people will go with the lawyer's experience/knowledge/etc and not a USMB member named Penelope

You're incorrect. Everyone but a few tRumplings knows Deshowitz is a wholly owned property of Faux Noise.

 

[Nostra]

That's the best ya got after getting owned?

You are an idiot. The worst troll on the board.

Run along, Kid............you are a waste of bandwidth.

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

 

[Richard-H]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

withholding aid is a crime? cite the statute.

Name the crime in the articles?

The GAO issued a report stating that it was a crime.

 

[jc456]

Just min 5.18-5.38, to shut him up.

a mere 20 sec video. oh the hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

withholding aid is a crime? cite the statute.

Name the crime in the articles?

The GAO issued a report stating that it was a crime.

who are they? it was an opinion. still waiting for the criminal statute.

 

[whitehall]

"Quiet him"? Interesting phrase. Is that how the left conducts legal proceedings these days, by "quieting" the opposition?









quiet him"?

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Poor thing can't actually quote the 180 he's hallucinating.

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

 

[jc456]

In the link I provided, troll.

You have been owned.

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

here, to help you. I took you off ignore to do this one post. useless as ever and confirms why you are on ignore.


31 second mark. ready go.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

here, to help you. I took you off ignore to do this one post. useless as ever and confirms why you are on ignore.


31 second mark. ready go.

Don't waste time on the troll. He is useless as a poster.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Dershowitz on one side and Schumer on the other...all of them are full of shit but you wingnuts from both sides pretend it is just the other side



1999 letter by Schumer comes back to bite him in the ass.

Sitting on a fence on the issue of Impeachment is cowardly.

Who has done that?

Very few.

 

[jc456]

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

here, to help you. I took you off ignore to do this one post. useless as ever and confirms why you are on ignore.


31 second mark. ready go.

Don't waste time on the troll. He is useless as a poster.

yep, why she's on ignore. I couldn't help myself on that one though, I had it all just sitting there. it didn't cost me any time.

 

[Siete]

All you need to do is show Dershowitz in 1998 to quiet him


nope wont even make him blink - saw his lying ass last night on the tube.

His program completed, he is in the fold of the collective.

 

[jc456]

All you need to do is show Dershowitz in 1998 to quiet him


nope wont even make him blink - saw his lying ass last night on the tube.

His program completed, he is in the fold of the collective.

or we can go here and just say crying chuckie!!!



31 second mark.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, your link fails to prove your claim. That's why you can't actually quote the 180 you delude yourself into believing is in it.

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

here, to help you. I took you off ignore to do this one post. useless as ever and confirms why you are on ignore.


31 second mark. ready go.

First of all, none of that is in the letter dumbfuck linked. Secondly, Schumer said...

"This is not a criminal trial, but this is something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.

...

Also it's not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury."​

Quote him saying the opposite of that....

 

[Faun]

Yes, it does. Not my job to hold the hand of single digit IQ morons who can't navigate a link.

Which one is your favorite flavor?

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

here, to help you. I took you off ignore to do this one post. useless as ever and confirms why you are on ignore.


31 second mark. ready go.

Don't waste time on the troll. He is useless as a poster.

Slobbers the dumfuck who couldn't actually quote the 180 he imagined he read in Schumer's letter.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Nope. Nothing in there is the opposite of what he says today. As always, you prove to be an abject idiot.

Have fun down your rabbit hole, Crayon muncher.

Pack a lunch............

LOLOL

It's hysterical how you project getting owned by being utterly incapable of quoting Schumer changing his position. Almost as much fun as it is watching you try to bluff your way out of the corner you painted yourself into by insisting it's in that letter, all I have to do is find it.



Here, lemme show you what proving a 180 really looks like...

Dershowitz then...

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."​

Dershowitz now...

"I will be paraphrasing the successful argument made by Justice Benjamin Curtis in the trial of Andrew Johnson back in the 1860's where he argued that the Framer's intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the criminal law."​

here, to help you. I took you off ignore to do this one post. useless as ever and confirms why you are on ignore.


31 second mark. ready go.

Don't waste time on the troll. He is useless as a poster.

yep, why she's on ignore. I couldn't help myself on that one though, I had it all just sitting there. it didn't cost me any time.

LOLOL

Moron, how'd you know what I said if you had me on ignore to take me off ignore to respond to my post?

Logic is anathema to you brain-dead cons.

 

[bendog]

"Quiet him"? Interesting phrase. Is that how the left conducts legal proceedings these days, by "quieting" the opposition?









quiet him"?

Quiet him from making an argument that he said was not legitimate 25 years ago.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Amazing. People see what they want to see. Trump was impeached on an opinion. Clinton on a fact. Neither should have been impeached. Our politicians are idiots on both sides (not all but many).

 

[Richard-H]

No hypocrisy by Alan as I see the video.
The "abuse of power" needs to be egregious, serious, dangerous, or a threat to the republic.
Although not technically a "crime" but a threatening abuse of power, not a ticky-tack abuse of power.

Maybe you just need to take off the partisan glasses and see what non-criminal "abuse of power" is comparable in seriousness to "treason and bribery".

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

withholding aid is a crime? cite the statute.

Name the crime in the articles?

The GAO issued a report stating that it was a crime.

who are they? it was an opinion. still waiting for the criminal statute.

If you think I'm going to waste my time looking up legal statutes you stupider than even i thought.

If you don't believe the GAO or that obstruction of justice is not a crime, your even stupider than that!

I have better things to do than argue with an idiot.

 

[Siete]

well according to the impeachment rules, it must be 'other' to high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of power isn't a crime. so they failed. Supposed Penelope could offer up the statute abuse of powers is.

Withholding aid to Ukraine is a crime as is attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian government for personal political gain. Obstruction of Justice by obstructing a Congressional investigation is also a crime.

The idea that Trump committed no crimes is a joke.

withholding aid is a crime? cite the statute.

Name the crime in the articles?

The GAO issued a report stating that it was a crime.

who are they? it was an opinion. still waiting for the criminal statute.

If you think I'm going to waste my time looking up legal statutes you stupider than even i thought.

If you don't believe the GAO or that obstruction of justice is not a crime, your even stupider than that!

I have better things to do than argue with an idiot.

shoot em in the head with reality is wasting bullets -