Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Durham Investigation

[colfax_m]

Means nothing. Another sacrificial lamb to appease the masses.

Do you think it goes higher and do others fall?

I hope so since there was an apparent conspiracy, but I think it unlikely. My guess is Trump has been whispered to, that should he allow high level O cabinet members be prosecuted, he and his will be prosecuted once out of office. I believe Pelosi and Harris have publicly stated Trump has committed illegal offenses.

and you're basing your assumption on all that has transpired from the Russian spy gate against the president.
The coupe to overthrow his administration.

How does “spygate” result in the president being overthrown?

it lead to three years of continuous bull shit and lies from your leftists that brought us the shciff sham

So again, how does it overthrow the president?

Impeachment?

Not a coup. Thats a legal constitutional process.

Fraud on the court to spy on a campaign is TREASON as is the illegal use of impeachment powers without a crime. WOW you fuck tards will justify anything to obtain power... We need to string these bastards up on gallows.

That is total gibberish.

“Impeachment powers” is a nonsensical meaningless phrase.

Tell me again how Trump gets overthrown? Because you still haven’t described how that happens.

The commies impeach Trump. If the MSM could apply enough pressure, some Republicans in the Senate (like Romney) vote to have him removed from office. If there are enough back-stabbing Republicans willing to vote with the Democrats, Trump is removed, thus the election is overthrown.

There’s a pretty big difference between removal by impeachment and removal by coup, wouldn’t you say?

Just to nit-pick the language a second. The election isn’t overthrown. The election happened, Trump is and always will be the winner. He’s just removed from office by impeachment.

It would have been a coup because he would have been removed with no impeachable offenses and no crimes committed. In other words, removed for no other reason other than to overthrow his presidency.

Admitted leftist Democrat and constitutional scholar Allen Dershowitz even came to testify against the Democrats because what they were doing was indeed un-constitutional. You don't impeach a president with such bogus charges simply because you don't like him. Now they sparked an impeachment war that will last God knows how many generations. If Biden magically wins this election and the Republicans take leadership of the House, he will be impeached. Mark my words on this.

What is an impeachable offense is up to Congress and no one else, including Alan Dershowitz.

So no, it would not be a coup because it would follow the proscribed constitutional process.

Ignoring the Constitution and all that was debated back during our founding may work for you, but if your opinion is an impeachable offense is anything the Congress decides on, I don't want to hear one peep out of you if Biden gets in and the Republicans are able to impeach him by what they "feel" an impeachable offenses is. Remember, your side drew first blood.

What Trump was accused of doing was precisely what our founding fathers considered impeachable. High crimes had a specific definition and referred to crimes committed only by high officials, such as using the government to pursue personal benefit like winning re-election.

I’ll pass your concern of Republicans using impeachment to Newt Gingrich and the 105th Congress.

President Trump did nothing wrong. Clinton committed a felony, which to my understanding is a higher crime than a misdemeanor as outlined in the Constitution.

Your definition of wrong is not the same as our founders.

Clinton was acquitted, so your definition of a higher crime does not match with what the Senate considered applicable to impeachment.

Two strikes!

So was Trump and any other President. I'm not talking about the Senate, I'm talking about the House. The Constitution reads high crimes and misdemeanors. A proven felony is higher than a misdemeanor, therefore the Senate didn't do their job. They sided with their own as the Democrats in the House did when it was clearly an impeachable offense by any definition of the word.

Again, you’re thinking of high crime and misdemeanor as a common use. That’s not how the forefathers knew that language.

It specifically referred to abuses of power. So as you can see, it wasn’t Democrats that drew blood first. It was the house in 1998.

Oh please. Abuse of power is a generic term that can be applied to any President and subjective at the least, it's just that the past House leaderships had some dignity. The Republicans impeached Clinton for committing a felony. A felony is a felony just like our founders intended. They didn't mean it any other way.

Abuse of power is indeed a generic term. That’s why the founders entrusted the Congress to determine what abuse is impeachable and what isn’t.

The founders had no intention of defining impeachment in terms of US criminal code, which you continually ignore by pointing to Clinton’s “felony” (which he was never convicted of).

In terms of impeachment, Trump’s crime was is far more relevant than Clinton’s given it was misuse of the unique and great power entrusted to the president. Clinton lied to a grand jury. Trump is betraying the nation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stupid it was a plea deal

False, liar. It's the charged crime. Just an insignificant process crime. Ask any trump cultist or mirror.

well then tell me why he's planning to plead guilty?
It's called a plea deal that would be the charge on the indictment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty Friday after admitting that he doctored a document used in the application process authorizing surveillance against for a former Trump campaign aide

Former FBI lawyer to plead guilty in Trump-Russia probe review

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty Friday after admitting that he doctored a document used in the application process authorizing surveillance against for a former Trump campaign aide -- part of the first criminal case brought by U.S. Attorney John Durham in his...

www.yahoo.com

 

[ColonelAngus]

Hey, libtards.

Lets say that Clinesmith altered a document to send YOU to jail.

NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

well then tell me why he's planning to plead guilty?

Because he is....? Duh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lets say that Clinesmith altered a document to send YOU to jail.

Sorry, just a process crime. Nothing to see, here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty Friday after admitting that he doctored a document used in the application process authorizing surveillance against for a former Trump campaign aide

Which is a crime fully described in the statute under which he is charged. A/k/a, the process crime statute.

 

[AntonToo]

Hey, libtards.

Lets say that Clinesmith altered a document to send YOU to jail.

He didn't send anyone to jail and FBI stated that this didn't materially effect the warrant applicaiton.


Seriously, if this is all there is after years and years of "Obama spied on me!!!" Trump bullshit then your blue balls ought to be falling off by now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Means nothing. Another sacrificial lamb to appease the masses.

Do you think it goes higher and do others fall?

I hope so since there was an apparent conspiracy, but I think it unlikely. My guess is Trump has been whispered to, that should he allow high level O cabinet members be prosecuted, he and his will be prosecuted once out of office. I believe Pelosi and Harris have publicly stated Trump has committed illegal offenses.

and you're basing your assumption on all that has transpired from the Russian spy gate against the president.
The coupe to overthrow his administration.

How does “spygate” result in the president being overthrown?

it lead to three years of continuous bull shit and lies from your leftists that brought us the shciff sham

So again, how does it overthrow the president?

Impeachment?

Not a coup. Thats a legal constitutional process.

Fraud on the court to spy on a campaign is TREASON as is the illegal use of impeachment powers without a crime. WOW you fuck tards will justify anything to obtain power... We need to string these bastards up on gallows.

That is total gibberish.

“Impeachment powers” is a nonsensical meaningless phrase.

Tell me again how Trump gets overthrown? Because you still haven’t described how that happens.

The commies impeach Trump. If the MSM could apply enough pressure, some Republicans in the Senate (like Romney) vote to have him removed from office. If there are enough back-stabbing Republicans willing to vote with the Democrats, Trump is removed, thus the election is overthrown.

There’s a pretty big difference between removal by impeachment and removal by coup, wouldn’t you say?

Just to nit-pick the language a second. The election isn’t overthrown. The election happened, Trump is and always will be the winner. He’s just removed from office by impeachment.

It would have been a coup because he would have been removed with no impeachable offenses and no crimes committed. In other words, removed for no other reason other than to overthrow his presidency.

Admitted leftist Democrat and constitutional scholar Allen Dershowitz even came to testify against the Democrats because what they were doing was indeed un-constitutional. You don't impeach a president with such bogus charges simply because you don't like him. Now they sparked an impeachment war that will last God knows how many generations. If Biden magically wins this election and the Republicans take leadership of the House, he will be impeached. Mark my words on this.

What is an impeachable offense is up to Congress and no one else, including Alan Dershowitz.

So no, it would not be a coup because it would follow the proscribed constitutional process.

Ignoring the Constitution and all that was debated back during our founding may work for you, but if your opinion is an impeachable offense is anything the Congress decides on, I don't want to hear one peep out of you if Biden gets in and the Republicans are able to impeach him by what they "feel" an impeachable offenses is. Remember, your side drew first blood.

What Trump was accused of doing was precisely what our founding fathers considered impeachable. High crimes had a specific definition and referred to crimes committed only by high officials, such as using the government to pursue personal benefit like winning re-election.

I’ll pass your concern of Republicans using impeachment to Newt Gingrich and the 105th Congress.

President Trump did nothing wrong. Clinton committed a felony, which to my understanding is a higher crime than a misdemeanor as outlined in the Constitution.

Your definition of wrong is not the same as our founders.

Clinton was acquitted, so your definition of a higher crime does not match with what the Senate considered applicable to impeachment.

Two strikes!

So was Trump and any other President. I'm not talking about the Senate, I'm talking about the House. The Constitution reads high crimes and misdemeanors. A proven felony is higher than a misdemeanor, therefore the Senate didn't do their job. They sided with their own as the Democrats in the House did when it was clearly an impeachable offense by any definition of the word.

Again, you’re thinking of high crime and misdemeanor as a common use. That’s not how the forefathers knew that language.

It specifically referred to abuses of power. So as you can see, it wasn’t Democrats that drew blood first. It was the house in 1998.

Oh please. Abuse of power is a generic term that can be applied to any President and subjective at the least, it's just that the past House leaderships had some dignity. The Republicans impeached Clinton for committing a felony. A felony is a felony just like our founders intended. They didn't mean it any other way.

Abuse of power is indeed a generic term. That’s why the founders entrusted the Congress to determine what abuse is impeachable and what isn’t.

The founders had no intention of defining impeachment in terms of US criminal code, which you continually ignore by pointing to Clinton’s “felony” (which he was never convicted of).

In terms of impeachment, Trump’s crime was is far more relevant than Clinton’s given it was misuse of the unique and great power entrusted to the president. Clinton lied to a grand jury. Trump is betraying the nation.

WTF do you think misdemeanor means? It's a criminal code and that's what's in the Constitution. Need me to copy and paste it here? Yes, a felony is a more serious crime than a misdemeanor. Clinton was charged with perjury and that is a felony. He even lost his law license in his state over it. That's besides the fact he violated his oath of office.

Now that the commies created a new precedent of what abuse of power means, like I said, don't come here complaining when we do the exact same thing to one of yours. Can you tell me what this abuse of power was?

 

[Turtlesoup]

Think about this for a moment...

This attorney falsified public records used to obtain an illegal wire tap on a presidential candidate and then on a SITTING US PRESIDENT. This means everything they did was ILLEGAL from the get go. This makes the case solid as bedrock on everyone else.

This makes the intentional (premeditated) Fraud on the FISA court valid charges to follow up with. Given who knew and when they were told, this makes everyone in the chain right up to and including Obama and Biden culpable in the Coup.

This one case makes all the others possible. The next bomb could be 35+ indictments... And it could happen very early next week. What IF Biden is named in an indictment? What will democrats do? Biden is still just a citizen and does not gain exemption from prosecution.

I need lots of popcorn....

There was no wire tap, legal or illegal on a presidential candidate or a sitting U.S. president. Where do you guys come up with this whacked out stuff?

WE know that isn't true because early on the FBI was quoting private conversations that Trump had had verbatim.........we also know that FISA courts issued their approval for wire taps.


From BBC news-------

"
What did the ex-FBI lawyer do?
Mr Clinesmith is due to accept responsibility for altering an email used to obtain permission to wiretap a Trump campaign aide.

The email from another FBI official was changed to suggest that the aide, Carter Page, had never been a CIA "source" - whereas Mr Page was in fact a CIA informant.

The document was cited in support of the contention that there was "probable cause" to suspect Mr Page was "a knowing agent" of Russia."

 

[dudmuck]

Think about this for a moment...

This attorney falsified public records used to obtain an illegal wire tap on a presidential candidate and then on a SITTING US PRESIDENT. This means everything they did was ILLEGAL from the get go. This makes the case solid as bedrock on everyone else.

This makes the intentional (premeditated) Fraud on the FISA court valid charges to follow up with. Given who knew and when they were told, this makes everyone in the chain right up to and including Obama and Biden culpable in the Coup.

This one case makes all the others possible. The next bomb could be 35+ indictments... And it could happen very early next week. What IF Biden is named in an indictment? What will democrats do? Biden is still just a citizen and does not gain exemption from prosecution.

I need lots of popcorn....

There was no wire tap, legal or illegal on a presidential candidate or a sitting U.S. president. Where do you guys come up with this whacked out stuff?

WE know that isn't true because early on the FBI was quoting private conversations that Trump had had verbatim.........we also know that FISA courts issued their approval for wire taps.


From BBC news-------

"
What did the ex-FBI lawyer do?
Mr Clinesmith is due to accept responsibility for altering an email used to obtain permission to wiretap a Trump campaign aide.

The email from another FBI official was changed to suggest that the aide, Carter Page, had never been a CIA "source" - whereas Mr Page was in fact a CIA informant.

The document was cited in support of the contention that there was "probable cause" to suspect Mr Page was "a knowing agent" of Russia."

Clinesmith asked the CIA if Page was a source, and they said "yes, here's the documents." He changed that to "no." That's called lying lol.

SInce the Russia probe started with George Papadouplus bragging about Trump russia ties. Not Carter Page.

What about the real guys they were after?

John Brennan not a target of prosecutors in John Durham investigation: Report - Washington Examiner

Former CIA Director John Brennan appears to have avoided prosecution in U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation.After NBC News reported Thursday that Brennan agreed to do an interview with Durham, signaling that his investigation is nearing its end, a lawyer...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Turtlesoup]

Think about this for a moment...

This attorney falsified public records used to obtain an illegal wire tap on a presidential candidate and then on a SITTING US PRESIDENT. This means everything they did was ILLEGAL from the get go. This makes the case solid as bedrock on everyone else.

This makes the intentional (premeditated) Fraud on the FISA court valid charges to follow up with. Given who knew and when they were told, this makes everyone in the chain right up to and including Obama and Biden culpable in the Coup.

This one case makes all the others possible. The next bomb could be 35+ indictments... And it could happen very early next week. What IF Biden is named in an indictment? What will democrats do? Biden is still just a citizen and does not gain exemption from prosecution.

I need lots of popcorn....

There was no wire tap, legal or illegal on a presidential candidate or a sitting U.S. president. Where do you guys come up with this whacked out stuff?

WE know that isn't true because early on the FBI was quoting private conversations that Trump had had verbatim.........we also know that FISA courts issued their approval for wire taps.


From BBC news-------

"
What did the ex-FBI lawyer do?
Mr Clinesmith is due to accept responsibility for altering an email used to obtain permission to wiretap a Trump campaign aide.

The email from another FBI official was changed to suggest that the aide, Carter Page, had never been a CIA "source" - whereas Mr Page was in fact a CIA informant.

The document was cited in support of the contention that there was "probable cause" to suspect Mr Page was "a knowing agent" of Russia."

Clinesmith asked the CIA if Page was a source, and they said "yes, here's the documents." He changed that to "no." That's called lying lol.

SInce the Russia probe started with George Papadouplus bragging about Trump russia ties. Not Carter Page.

What about the real guys they were after?

John Brennan not a target of prosecutors in John Durham investigation: Report - Washington Examiner

Former CIA Director John Brennan appears to have avoided prosecution in U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation.After NBC News reported Thursday that Brennan agreed to do an interview with Durham, signaling that his investigation is nearing its end, a lawyer...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

George Papdouplus was set up----------turns out that Clintons Aussie ambassador (later hired at the clinton foundation), the Cambridge professor who the FBI lied about being dead repeatedly btw in order to avoid allowing him to be crossed examined and btw a known ACTOR for hire in FBI/CIA and others operations , and a CIA agent pretending to be Putin's neice tried to set up Papdouplus and when that failed resorted intimidation and lying to get him. Papadouplus has already also talked of retracting his plea deal and going after the players in this in civil court. Papadouplus was another INNOCENT that the Hilliary FBI/CIA violated and intimidated.

 

[dudmuck]

Think about this for a moment...

This attorney falsified public records used to obtain an illegal wire tap on a presidential candidate and then on a SITTING US PRESIDENT. This means everything they did was ILLEGAL from the get go. This makes the case solid as bedrock on everyone else.

This makes the intentional (premeditated) Fraud on the FISA court valid charges to follow up with. Given who knew and when they were told, this makes everyone in the chain right up to and including Obama and Biden culpable in the Coup.

This one case makes all the others possible. The next bomb could be 35+ indictments... And it could happen very early next week. What IF Biden is named in an indictment? What will democrats do? Biden is still just a citizen and does not gain exemption from prosecution.

I need lots of popcorn....

There was no wire tap, legal or illegal on a presidential candidate or a sitting U.S. president. Where do you guys come up with this whacked out stuff?

WE know that isn't true because early on the FBI was quoting private conversations that Trump had had verbatim.........we also know that FISA courts issued their approval for wire taps.


From BBC news-------

"
What did the ex-FBI lawyer do?
Mr Clinesmith is due to accept responsibility for altering an email used to obtain permission to wiretap a Trump campaign aide.

The email from another FBI official was changed to suggest that the aide, Carter Page, had never been a CIA "source" - whereas Mr Page was in fact a CIA informant.

The document was cited in support of the contention that there was "probable cause" to suspect Mr Page was "a knowing agent" of Russia."

Clinesmith asked the CIA if Page was a source, and they said "yes, here's the documents." He changed that to "no." That's called lying lol.

SInce the Russia probe started with George Papadouplus bragging about Trump russia ties. Not Carter Page.

What about the real guys they were after?

John Brennan not a target of prosecutors in John Durham investigation: Report - Washington Examiner

Former CIA Director John Brennan appears to have avoided prosecution in U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal inquiry into the Russia investigation.After NBC News reported Thursday that Brennan agreed to do an interview with Durham, signaling that his investigation is nearing its end, a lawyer...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

George Papdouplus was set up----------turns out that Clintons Aussie ambassador (later hired at the clinton foundation), the Cambridge professor who the FBI lied about being dead repeatedly btw in order to avoid allowing him to be crossed examined and btw a known ACTOR for hire in FBI/CIA and others operations , and a CIA agent pretending to be Putin's neice tried to set up Papdouplus and when that failed resorted intimidation and lying to get him. Papadouplus has already also talked of retracting his plea deal and going after the players in this in civil court. Papadouplus was another INNOCENT that the Hilliary FBI/CIA violated and intimidated.

Then why isnt Durham going after that?

Alexander Downer: the Australian blue blood accused of being an anti-Trump 'spy'

Conservative monarchist who led the charge to have Australia join the second Iraq war is now bizarrely at the centre of an alt-right conspiracy

www.theguardian.com

Yet still giving attention to stuff that wasnt the origins of Russia investigation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well then tell me why he's planning to plead guilty?

Because he is....? Duh.

Because it's a plea deal to a lesser crime
Courts do that. Now what else did he give up to keep from going to prison for 20 years?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty Friday after admitting that he doctored a document used in the application process authorizing surveillance against for a former Trump campaign aide

Which is a crime fully described in the statute under which he is charged. A/k/a, the process crime statute.

plea deal to a lesser crime

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lets say that Clinesmith altered a document to send YOU to jail.

Sorry, just a process crime. Nothing to see, here.

Altering a government document which is what he did is not a process crime
He took a plea deal for a lesser crime

 

[Turtlesoup]

Means nothing. Another sacrificial lamb to appease the masses.

Do you think it goes higher and do others fall?

I hope so since there was an apparent conspiracy, but I think it unlikely. My guess is Trump has been whispered to, that should he allow high level O cabinet members be prosecuted, he and his will be prosecuted once out of office. I believe Pelosi and Harris have publicly stated Trump has committed illegal offenses.

and you're basing your assumption on all that has transpired from the Russian spy gate against the president.
The coupe to overthrow his administration.

How does “spygate” result in the president being overthrown?

it lead to three years of continuous bull shit and lies from your leftists that brought us the shciff sham

So again, how does it overthrow the president?

Impeachment?

Not a coup. Thats a legal constitutional process.

Fraud on the court to spy on a campaign is TREASON as is the illegal use of impeachment powers without a crime. WOW you fuck tards will justify anything to obtain power... We need to string these bastards up on gallows.

That is total gibberish.

“Impeachment powers” is a nonsensical meaningless phrase.

Tell me again how Trump gets overthrown? Because you still haven’t described how that happens.

The commies impeach Trump. If the MSM could apply enough pressure, some Republicans in the Senate (like Romney) vote to have him removed from office. If there are enough back-stabbing Republicans willing to vote with the Democrats, Trump is removed, thus the election is overthrown.

There’s a pretty big difference between removal by impeachment and removal by coup, wouldn’t you say?

Just to nit-pick the language a second. The election isn’t overthrown. The election happened, Trump is and always will be the winner. He’s just removed from office by impeachment.

It would have been a coup because he would have been removed with no impeachable offenses and no crimes committed. In other words, removed for no other reason other than to overthrow his presidency.

Admitted leftist Democrat and constitutional scholar Allen Dershowitz even came to testify against the Democrats because what they were doing was indeed un-constitutional. You don't impeach a president with such bogus charges simply because you don't like him. Now they sparked an impeachment war that will last God knows how many generations. If Biden magically wins this election and the Republicans take leadership of the House, he will be impeached. Mark my words on this.

What is an impeachable offense is up to Congress and no one else, including Alan Dershowitz.

So no, it would not be a coup because it would follow the proscribed constitutional process.

Ignoring the Constitution and all that was debated back during our founding may work for you, but if your opinion is an impeachable offense is anything the Congress decides on, I don't want to hear one peep out of you if Biden gets in and the Republicans are able to impeach him by what they "feel" an impeachable offenses is. Remember, your side drew first blood.

What Trump was accused of doing was precisely what our founding fathers considered impeachable. High crimes had a specific definition and referred to crimes committed only by high officials, such as using the government to pursue personal benefit like winning re-election.

I’ll pass your concern of Republicans using impeachment to Newt Gingrich and the 105th Congress.

President Trump did nothing wrong. Clinton committed a felony, which to my understanding is a higher crime than a misdemeanor as outlined in the Constitution.

Your definition of wrong is not the same as our founders.

Clinton was acquitted, so your definition of a higher crime does not match with what the Senate considered applicable to impeachment.

Two strikes!

So was Trump and any other President. I'm not talking about the Senate, I'm talking about the House. The Constitution reads high crimes and misdemeanors. A proven felony is higher than a misdemeanor, therefore the Senate didn't do their job. They sided with their own as the Democrats in the House did when it was clearly an impeachable offense by any definition of the word.

Again, you’re thinking of high crime and misdemeanor as a common use. That’s not how the forefathers knew that language.

It specifically referred to abuses of power. So as you can see, it wasn’t Democrats that drew blood first. It was the house in 1998.

Oh please. Abuse of power is a generic term that can be applied to any President and subjective at the least, it's just that the past House leaderships had some dignity. The Republicans impeached Clinton for committing a felony. A felony is a felony just like our founders intended. They didn't mean it any other way.

Abuse of power is indeed a generic term. That’s why the founders entrusted the Congress to determine what abuse is impeachable and what isn’t.

The founders had no intention of defining impeachment in terms of US criminal code, which you continually ignore by pointing to Clinton’s “felony” (which he was never convicted of).

In terms of impeachment, Trump’s crime was is far more relevant than Clinton’s given it was misuse of the unique and great power entrusted to the president. Clinton lied to a grand jury. Trump is betraying the nation.

Trump is betraying a nation? What are you smoking? Clinton was sexually harassing young interns on the oval office desk-----------something most people would be fired for at their place of business and sued nowadays for.

 

[gipper]

Means nothing. Another sacrificial lamb to appease the masses.

Do you think it goes higher and do others fall?

I hope so since there was an apparent conspiracy, but I think it unlikely. My guess is Trump has been whispered to, that should he allow high level O cabinet members be prosecuted, he and his will be prosecuted once out of office. I believe Pelosi and Harris have publicly stated Trump has committed illegal offenses.

and you're basing your assumption on all that has transpired from the Russian spy gate against the president.
The coupe to overthrow his administration.

How does “spygate” result in the president being overthrown?

it lead to three years of continuous bull shit and lies from your leftists that brought us the shciff sham

So again, how does it overthrow the president?

Impeachment?

Not a coup. Thats a legal constitutional process.

Fraud on the court to spy on a campaign is TREASON as is the illegal use of impeachment powers without a crime. WOW you fuck tards will justify anything to obtain power... We need to string these bastards up on gallows.

That is total gibberish.

“Impeachment powers” is a nonsensical meaningless phrase.

Tell me again how Trump gets overthrown? Because you still haven’t described how that happens.

The commies impeach Trump. If the MSM could apply enough pressure, some Republicans in the Senate (like Romney) vote to have him removed from office. If there are enough back-stabbing Republicans willing to vote with the Democrats, Trump is removed, thus the election is overthrown.

There’s a pretty big difference between removal by impeachment and removal by coup, wouldn’t you say?

Just to nit-pick the language a second. The election isn’t overthrown. The election happened, Trump is and always will be the winner. He’s just removed from office by impeachment.

It would have been a coup because he would have been removed with no impeachable offenses and no crimes committed. In other words, removed for no other reason other than to overthrow his presidency.

Admitted leftist Democrat and constitutional scholar Allen Dershowitz even came to testify against the Democrats because what they were doing was indeed un-constitutional. You don't impeach a president with such bogus charges simply because you don't like him. Now they sparked an impeachment war that will last God knows how many generations. If Biden magically wins this election and the Republicans take leadership of the House, he will be impeached. Mark my words on this.

What is an impeachable offense is up to Congress and no one else, including Alan Dershowitz.

So no, it would not be a coup because it would follow the proscribed constitutional process.

Ignoring the Constitution and all that was debated back during our founding may work for you, but if your opinion is an impeachable offense is anything the Congress decides on, I don't want to hear one peep out of you if Biden gets in and the Republicans are able to impeach him by what they "feel" an impeachable offenses is. Remember, your side drew first blood.

What Trump was accused of doing was precisely what our founding fathers considered impeachable. High crimes had a specific definition and referred to crimes committed only by high officials, such as using the government to pursue personal benefit like winning re-election.

I’ll pass your concern of Republicans using impeachment to Newt Gingrich and the 105th Congress.

President Trump did nothing wrong. Clinton committed a felony, which to my understanding is a higher crime than a misdemeanor as outlined in the Constitution.

Your definition of wrong is not the same as our founders.

Clinton was acquitted, so your definition of a higher crime does not match with what the Senate considered applicable to impeachment.

Two strikes!

So was Trump and any other President. I'm not talking about the Senate, I'm talking about the House. The Constitution reads high crimes and misdemeanors. A proven felony is higher than a misdemeanor, therefore the Senate didn't do their job. They sided with their own as the Democrats in the House did when it was clearly an impeachable offense by any definition of the word.

Again, you’re thinking of high crime and misdemeanor as a common use. That’s not how the forefathers knew that language.

It specifically referred to abuses of power. So as you can see, it wasn’t Democrats that drew blood first. It was the house in 1998.

Oh please. Abuse of power is a generic term that can be applied to any President and subjective at the least, it's just that the past House leaderships had some dignity. The Republicans impeached Clinton for committing a felony. A felony is a felony just like our founders intended. They didn't mean it any other way.

Abuse of power is indeed a generic term. That’s why the founders entrusted the Congress to determine what abuse is impeachable and what isn’t.

The founders had no intention of defining impeachment in terms of US criminal code, which you continually ignore by pointing to Clinton’s “felony” (which he was never convicted of).

In terms of impeachment, Trump’s crime was is far more relevant than Clinton’s given it was misuse of the unique and great power entrusted to the president. Clinton lied to a grand jury. Trump is betraying the nation.

Trump is betraying a nation? What are you smoking? Clinton was sexually harassing young interns on the oval office desk-----------something most people would be fired for at their place of business and sued nowadays for.

Can you define the betrayal and link relevant back up?

 

[gipper]

Means nothing. Another sacrificial lamb to appease the masses.

Do you think it goes higher and do others fall?

I hope so since there was an apparent conspiracy, but I think it unlikely. My guess is Trump has been whispered to, that should he allow high level O cabinet members be prosecuted, he and his will be prosecuted once out of office. I believe Pelosi and Harris have publicly stated Trump has committed illegal offenses.

and you're basing your assumption on all that has transpired from the Russian spy gate against the president.
The coupe to overthrow his administration.

How does “spygate” result in the president being overthrown?

it lead to three years of continuous bull shit and lies from your leftists that brought us the shciff sham

So again, how does it overthrow the president?

Impeachment?

Not a coup. Thats a legal constitutional process.

Fraud on the court to spy on a campaign is TREASON as is the illegal use of impeachment powers without a crime. WOW you fuck tards will justify anything to obtain power... We need to string these bastards up on gallows.

That is total gibberish.

“Impeachment powers” is a nonsensical meaningless phrase.

Tell me again how Trump gets overthrown? Because you still haven’t described how that happens.

The commies impeach Trump. If the MSM could apply enough pressure, some Republicans in the Senate (like Romney) vote to have him removed from office. If there are enough back-stabbing Republicans willing to vote with the Democrats, Trump is removed, thus the election is overthrown.

There’s a pretty big difference between removal by impeachment and removal by coup, wouldn’t you say?

Just to nit-pick the language a second. The election isn’t overthrown. The election happened, Trump is and always will be the winner. He’s just removed from office by impeachment.

It would have been a coup because he would have been removed with no impeachable offenses and no crimes committed. In other words, removed for no other reason other than to overthrow his presidency.

Admitted leftist Democrat and constitutional scholar Allen Dershowitz even came to testify against the Democrats because what they were doing was indeed un-constitutional. You don't impeach a president with such bogus charges simply because you don't like him. Now they sparked an impeachment war that will last God knows how many generations. If Biden magically wins this election and the Republicans take leadership of the House, he will be impeached. Mark my words on this.

What is an impeachable offense is up to Congress and no one else, including Alan Dershowitz.

So no, it would not be a coup because it would follow the proscribed constitutional process.

Ignoring the Constitution and all that was debated back during our founding may work for you, but if your opinion is an impeachable offense is anything the Congress decides on, I don't want to hear one peep out of you if Biden gets in and the Republicans are able to impeach him by what they "feel" an impeachable offenses is. Remember, your side drew first blood.

What Trump was accused of doing was precisely what our founding fathers considered impeachable. High crimes had a specific definition and referred to crimes committed only by high officials, such as using the government to pursue personal benefit like winning re-election.

I’ll pass your concern of Republicans using impeachment to Newt Gingrich and the 105th Congress.

President Trump did nothing wrong. Clinton committed a felony, which to my understanding is a higher crime than a misdemeanor as outlined in the Constitution.

Your definition of wrong is not the same as our founders.

Clinton was acquitted, so your definition of a higher crime does not match with what the Senate considered applicable to impeachment.

Two strikes!

So was Trump and any other President. I'm not talking about the Senate, I'm talking about the House. The Constitution reads high crimes and misdemeanors. A proven felony is higher than a misdemeanor, therefore the Senate didn't do their job. They sided with their own as the Democrats in the House did when it was clearly an impeachable offense by any definition of the word.

Again, you’re thinking of high crime and misdemeanor as a common use. That’s not how the forefathers knew that language.

It specifically referred to abuses of power. So as you can see, it wasn’t Democrats that drew blood first. It was the house in 1998.

Oh please. Abuse of power is a generic term that can be applied to any President and subjective at the least, it's just that the past House leaderships had some dignity. The Republicans impeached Clinton for committing a felony. A felony is a felony just like our founders intended. They didn't mean it any other way.

Abuse of power is indeed a generic term. That’s why the founders entrusted the Congress to determine what abuse is impeachable and what isn’t.

The founders had no intention of defining impeachment in terms of US criminal code, which you continually ignore by pointing to Clinton’s “felony” (which he was never convicted of).

In terms of impeachment, Trump’s crime was is far more relevant than Clinton’s given it was misuse of the unique and great power entrusted to the president. Clinton lied to a grand jury. Trump is betraying the nation.

Trump is betraying a nation? What are you smoking? Clinton was sexually harassing young interns on the oval office desk-----------something most people would be fired for at their place of business and sued nowadays for.

Again, you need to define the betrayal and document it. Otherwise, you’re just another winger pissing up a rope.

 

[Dragonlady]

Hey, libtards.

Lets say that Clinesmith altered a document to send YOU to jail.

NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?

I don’t recall anybody being sent to jail here. He lied on a FISA warrant application. Nobody died or went to jail.