Judge Ken Starr just sank Nancy's "Impeachment of Trump"

[kyzr]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and induging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE,

Where does it say the "Whole House". I must have missed that. The Majority party has the power and the whole House voted on the rules at the beginning of the legislative session.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

 

[kyzr]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

 

[BlindBoo]

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

Using the good will of the entire nation, and the tax money of us all, to coerce foreign intervention in our election, was an attempted attack on half of our Republic. He should be removed from office for the good of the country.

Good luck with that one. The Bidens, Pelosis and Democrat staffers are still cashing checks from Burisma. You don’t think anyone falling in this category can replace Trump? How serious are you about ridding corruption or are you just heavily motivated to GETTrump?

Regardless, I don't believe he will be removed by the Senate, leaving it to be resolved in Nov.

 

[LeftofLeft]

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

Using the good will of the entire nation, and the tax money of us all, to coerce foreign intervention in our election, was an attempted attack on half of our Republic. He should be removed from office for the good of the country.

Good luck with that one. The Bidens, Pelosis and Democrat staffers are still cashing checks from Burisma. You don’t think anyone falling in this category can replace Trump? How serious are you about ridding corruption or are you just heavily motivated to GETTrump?

Regardless, I don't believe he will be removed by the Senate, leaving it to be resolved in Nov.

Novembers are how Elections are supposed to be resolved. Not through some bullshit Impeachment farce made up by Democrats as they go along because they don’t have the faith and confidence to win in Nov on their own vision and plan.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and induging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE,

Where does it say the "Whole House". I must have missed that. The Majority party has the power and the whole House voted on the rules at the beginning of the legislative session.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

The House has subpoena power to investigate the activity of the Federal government and needs not call "Impeachment" for those subpoena's to be valid and lawful. They are taking it to court and the matter will be resolved over time. However, actively soliciting foreign intervention in our elections, combined with the drip drip drip of information that will be coming out about the Ukraine Shakedown Scheme over the next year, I think the Trumpublicans Rats will soon be abandoning the sinking ship.

 

[AntonToo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and induging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

The Constitution says that impeachment is the "sole power of the House". THE WHOLE HOUSE,

Where does it say the "Whole House". I must have missed that. The Majority party has the power and the whole House voted on the rules at the beginning of the legislative session.

You see the disagreement between the House and the Executive regarding the requirements for impeachment. Resolution 660 needed to be passed first, before the subpoenas regarding impeachment, so the subpoenas are not valid, period. If the House disagrees, take it to court.

As Alan further explained, the House does not take the same oath that the senate does. That is for a reason. The Framers understood that partisan pressure would make the House more likely to pull the trigger on impeachment. The senate is supposed to be more thoughtful and bi-partisan in evaluating the Articles. The senate's constitutional duty is to avoid partisanship, which is why 67 votes are needed for removal. The Articles should have been bi-partisan instead of partisan. The Articles needed to prove serious "high crimes" against the nation comparable to treason, which they don't. They aren't even crimes.

The HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

No one BUT the House has a say on how it conducts impeachemnt, the argument that Courts can tell the House how to conduct impeachment is pure nonsense.

Congress further has the power to supoena, with or without impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

Further, the administration's goals were, AND STILL ARE, to obstruct the impeachment, so again, the argument is bust.

 

[AntonToo]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Abusing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

 

[colfax_m]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

 

[AntonToo]

Dummy, what is it that you think Ken Starr told you that makes Trump immune from impeachment for Abusing his Office and indulging in a corrupt conduct of foreign policy for personal benefit?

Constitution plainly states that the House has the sole power to impeach, and to subpoena witnesses, wtf do you think Ken Starr told you that makes it not true?

"Yea Trump is guilty as sin, but hey, the House didn't follow the procedure to Trump's lawyer's liking, so oh well, he can't be impeached"

You seriously think thats going to fly?

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

 

[RealDave]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

According to Ken Star, his impeachment against Clinton was illegal.

 

[RealDave]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

I was only 18 at the time but was it not lying about it and coercing others to lie? No?

That was the end result but he did investigate Clinton getting head on the oval office.

What crime is that?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The man persecuted a blowjob

Shows his credibility

I was only 18 at the time but was it not lying about it and coercing others to lie? No?

That was the end result but he did investigate Clinton getting head on the oval office.

What crime is that?

It is stupid. Hindsight being 20/20 that impeachment was retarded IMO.

 

[martybegan]

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it

Wtf are you talking about? Did Democrats make Trump coduct these corrupt operations??

If that swamper could keep his nose clean he would not be impeached today. Period.

"Corrupt", again assuming facts not proven even in the slightest.

He is being impeached because the dems promised their base he would, and they found this to be the closest thing they could find, within the timeframe they wanted (right before the primaries to rouse up their base)

 

[martybegan]

That might be true if it actually happened, but as we all know, it didn't. But even if it did, it's not a crime or impeachable offense.

History has just proven that what ol'Trumpybear did was impeachable. He is impeached. The evidence is exposed before the American independent voters and I expect more evidence of his Shakedown of the Ukraine Scheme will be dripping out for the next 10 months or so. My dream may come true after all and the American Voters will have the opportunity to say to Trumpybear "You're Fired"

No, it was not impeachable. That's the defense of Trump. Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and treason. That's it. Trump engaged in none of that, and neither impeachment article highlights any crime.

I believe they felt the Abuse of Power based on the claim that he:—"corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election." reached the bar for High Crimes.

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

That's why he was impeached.

he was impeached because they promised their base they would do it, and this is the "best" reason they could find.

A purely political action.

Using the good will of the entire nation, and the tax money of us all, to coerce foreign intervention in our election, was an attempted attack on half of our Republic. He should be removed from office for the good of the country.

Not proven at all. Based on supposition and assumption of conversations overheard by unreliable actors.

 

[iceberg]

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. There is a big difference between an "abuse of power" and an "impeachable offense". Every president was accused of abuses of power.

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ken Starr's testimony was outstanding. He very carefully explained how the House's Articles had no constitutional basis.
The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy, period. The "Rodino Rule" was violated in that for an impeachment to be justified it MUST be bi-partisan. Nixon's was, and Clinton's was, but Trump's was not.

Article-2 is simply void because the subpoenas issued before Resolution 660, the impeachment by the full House are not constitutional. Nancy has no authority to start an impeachment inquiry without the full House vote. Further, Trump has every legal right to "due process" and can have the courts evaluate subpoenas and executive privilege claims.

The defense could have rested right after Ken Starr's summary. It was fantastic.
Starr advised that a crime is essential based on the Constitution in order for the senate to remove a president, and Trump committed no crime.

Bolton's testimony is irrelevant, because it would not allege a crime. No witnesses are needed. The fat lady just sang.

According to Ken Star, his impeachment against Clinton was illegal.

How so?

 

[colfax_m]

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

it isn't serious. it's made up bullshit from the dems who have been looking since day 1 for a reason, ANY REASON, to do this. they count on lemming-like fools to repeat the crap they say and hey - here you are.

Every Congress is looking for a reason to impeach the president. That’s called oversight. You are a terrible cop if you aren’t looking for people commuting crimes.

"commuting crimes"

LMAO!!!!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Horseshit, no president was accused of something like pressuring a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors.

Maybe not every instance of Abuse of Power is impeachable, but certainly this is. It's pure corruption.

We are discussing the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and if they are serious enough for removal, i.e. "high crimes".
They clearly are not, so end the sham and get back to the business of the country.

Absuing your office to pressure a country with American foreign aid to squeeze out personal favors is not serious crime according to you?

According to Dershowitz, handing over Alaska to Russian control isn’t even an impeachable offense.

Dershowitz literally wrote that in his book.

Forget crazy Dershowitz, no way Americans would consider what Trump is accused of doing in Ukraine "not serious".

It's wrong, it's texbook corrupt and absolutely is subject to Congressional oversight. It is therefore impeachable.

Impeachment is for high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery. What Trump did is none of those things.

Even Bolton said the aid was contingent on providing data for 2016 not 2020.