Article of Impeachment

[Avatar4321]

If you want to do this go ahead. It will rip the country to pieces. You may not like the results.I

people won't tolerate this nonsense

Trump has already torn our country apart. We were a house divided before he took the oath of office, but since then was are more divided than when President Lincoln was first elected, and it is all about Trump's hate and fear and divisive rhetoric.

Yes is all Trumps fault that we were divided before he came into office

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump was found to have about 10 incidents of obstruction.

You mean Mueller reported on 10 incidents - at least one of which includes his Twitter posts - that might be considered obstruction, but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

No one can cite for me language in the laws against obstruction that allow for the criminalization of Twitter posts.

but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

The report doesn't say that at all. If anything it says the opposite. Evidence of criminal obstruction was found but a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Twisting facts is part and parcel of being a Progressive. Your desperation is duly noted!

LOL....

You obviosly never read the report, dope.
How you dopes believe you can argue over something that you never read is beyond me. That is the very definition of stupid.

 

[Avatar4321]

Trump was found to have about 10 incidents of obstruction.

You mean Mueller reported on 10 incidents - at least one of which includes his Twitter posts - that might be considered obstruction, but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

No one can cite for me language in the laws against obstruction that allow for the criminalization of Twitter posts.

but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

The report doesn't say that at all. If anything it says the opposite. Evidence of criminal obstruction was found but a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Twisting facts is part and parcel of being a Progressive. Your desperation is duly noted!

LOL....

You obviosly never read the report, dope.
How you dopes believe you can argue over something that you never read is beyond me. That is the very definition of stupid.

Remind me again, did anyone read obamacare?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So exercising free speech cannot also be incriminating? Who knew?

How?

If I say, "I want to fire Hutch Starskey". But I never fire Hutch Starskey, how is that obstruction of justice?

Progressives are in such a panic that our country is going so well they'll do anything to disrupt the momentum. Their criminal activities are beginning to come to light, and they are desperate to keep the eye of the media on anything but themselves.

How?

LOL....

“When I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.’”

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is the process used for both Watergate and clinton, dope.

Both of which were over obstruction.

Both of which had underlying felonies. That does not exist today. As you well know.

Yes. Obstruction of justice, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump was found to have about 10 incidents of obstruction.

You mean Mueller reported on 10 incidents - at least one of which includes his Twitter posts - that might be considered obstruction, but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

No one can cite for me language in the laws against obstruction that allow for the criminalization of Twitter posts.

but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

The report doesn't say that at all. If anything it says the opposite. Evidence of criminal obstruction was found but a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Twisting facts is part and parcel of being a Progressive. Your desperation is duly noted!

LOL....

You obviosly never read the report, dope.
How you dopes believe you can argue over something that you never read is beyond me. That is the very definition of stupid.

Remind me again, did anyone read obamacare?

WTF does that have to do with you dopey morons arguing your ignorance?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you want to do this go ahead. It will rip the country to pieces. You may not like the results.I

people won't tolerate this nonsense

Trump has already torn our country apart. We were a house divided before he took the oath of office, but since then was are more divided than when President Lincoln was first elected, and it is all about Trump's hate and fear and divisive rhetoric.

Yes is all Trumps fault that we were divided before he came into office

Partially, at least.

 

[Olde Europe]

Trump has already torn our country apart. We were a house divided before he took the oath of office, but since then was are more divided than when President Lincoln was first elected, and it is all about Trump's hate and fear and divisive rhetoric.

Yes[, it] is all Trump[']s fault that we were divided before he came into office[.]

Nowhere did Wry indicate it was "all" Trump's fault. So, your illiterate garbage isn't just disingenuous, it is also perfectly nonsensical. Moreover, you probably were in a coma during the Trump campaign, which pitted white, straight Christians against pretty much every other societal group you care to mention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Idiot-gram ^^^, which lacks thought and the only thoughtful aspect of this comment is laughter at such ignorance.

What's that?
You haven't addresses post # 101?
Surprise, surprise.

 

[Markle]

Trump was found to have about 10 incidents of obstruction.

You mean Mueller reported on 10 incidents - at least one of which includes his Twitter posts - that might be considered obstruction, but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

No one can cite for me language in the laws against obstruction that allow for the criminalization of Twitter posts.

but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

The report doesn't say that at all. If anything it says the opposite. Evidence of criminal obstruction was found but a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Twisting facts is part and parcel of being a Progressive. Your desperation is duly noted!

LOL....

You obviosly never read the report, dope.
How you dopes believe you can argue over something that you never read is beyond me. That is the very definition of stupid.

 

[Markle]

This is the process used for both Watergate and clinton, dope.

Both of which were over obstruction.

Both of which had underlying felonies. That does not exist today. As you well know.

Yes. Obstruction of justice, dope.

 

[Wyatt earp]

adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

ARTICLE 1

"In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert"

Read more in the link.

what a bunch of morons, They really want to lose in 2020 huh?

 

[Markle]

WTF does that have to do with you dopey morons arguing your ignorance?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump was found to have about 10 incidents of obstruction.

You mean Mueller reported on 10 incidents - at least one of which includes his Twitter posts - that might be considered obstruction, but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

No one can cite for me language in the laws against obstruction that allow for the criminalization of Twitter posts.

but there isn't enough evidence to support a criminal charge to that effect.

The report doesn't say that at all. If anything it says the opposite. Evidence of criminal obstruction was found but a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Twisting facts is part and parcel of being a Progressive. Your desperation is duly noted!

LOL....

You obviosly never read the report, dope.
How you dopes believe you can argue over something that you never read is beyond me. That is the very definition of stupid.

No. Being cool means you speak to the point. Not post dopey memes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is the process used for both Watergate and clinton, dope.

Both of which were over obstruction.

Both of which had underlying felonies. That does not exist today. As you well know.

Yes. Obstruction of justice, dope.

Dope is as dope does.
Tell us again how obstruction requires an underlying crime, dope.

Now show us the underlying crime Clinton committed before being impeached.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

WTF does that have to do with you dopey morons arguing your ignorance?

More accurately, it reveals your intellectual shortcomings.

 

[Markle]

This is the process used for both Watergate and clinton, dope.

Both of which were over obstruction.

Both of which had underlying felonies. That does not exist today. As you well know.

Yes. Obstruction of justice, dope.

Dope is as dope does.
Tell us again how obstruction requires an underlying crime, dope.

Now show us the underlying crime Clinton committed before being impeached.

Felony perjury.

 

[Markle]

WTF does that have to do with you dopey morons arguing your ignorance?

More accurately, it reveals your intellectual shortcomings.

I was being nice saying it was your low self-esteem and you claim it is your intellectual shortcomings. I stand corrected! Thank you!

 

[Meathead]

adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

ARTICLE 1

"In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert"

Read more in the link.

Go ahead punk. Make my day.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is the process used for both Watergate and clinton, dope.

Both of which were over obstruction.

Both of which had underlying felonies. That does not exist today. As you well know.

Yes. Obstruction of justice, dope.

Dope is as dope does.
Tell us again how obstruction requires an underlying crime, dope.

Now show us the underlying crime Clinton committed before being impeached.

Felony perjury.

There was no felony perjury.