Late Stage Impeach Phase: Trump Doesn’t Have to Break a Law to Be Impeached

[Billy_Bob]

The "Can shoot somebody on Fifth Ave." mindless sycophants will never acknowledge Trump's crimes no matter how obvious they are.

Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, Violations of the Emoluments clause, Violations of the Logan act, violations of campaign finance laws.

To the SANE 63% these are obvious, to the insane 37% nothing Trump does is wrong so their opinions do not count.

Yet for all of his Crimes you Allege he committed, Mueller was forced to admit there was no Evidence and that he could not recommend a single Indictment for which The DemNazi controlled House could write Articles of Impeachment on. So you are now on what, COUP attempt 2.0?

Go find some ISIS under shorts, to support your weak retorts.

Mueller wasn't 'forced to admit' anything.
Mueller admitted he was prevented by Justice Department poilcy from recommending an indictment of anything for a sitting President.

Mueller did point to 13 incidents of obstruction of Justice by Trump that recourse could only be pursued outside the Justice Department- which is of course Impeachement.

Poor little russian troll... You just cant get past that Mueller was not impeded by anything and could have indicted under seal.. Go lie somewhere else...

 

[The Original Tree]

How many times do you why that is the case...

Mueller was not accusing someone who was not afforded the right of reply...

He left the evidence to speak for itself and the evidence is damning and could be easily prosecuted if the President was open for such a charge...

The case was too complicated for the public (but more important ) unlike the Ukraine case... Ukraine was a shakedown and Public have seen enough mob shakedowns on TV...

The President looks pretty guilty of soliciting a bribe from Ukraine...

A simpler version is that the collusion with the Russians in 16 was difficult to prove while the collusion with the Ukranians for 20 was outrightly admitted.

There was no collusion. Not sure what you are talking about. Asking about an ongoing investigation in to The Obama Administration, and Biden and Clinton working to overturn the 2016 election through Foreign Actors and Russian spies is a legitimate question and is part of The President's job with regards to Foreign Policy and Political Corruption Cooperation Agreements that we have with countries like The Ukraine.

It's been admitted to and testified to, dope.

Wrong. That is a lie, and you are a liar. There is no collusion. Care to state your case instead of doing a drive by lie?

Guiliani, Trump and Mulvaney have all admitted it on television.
The whistleblower, Taylor, and today, Vindman all have testified.

See for yourself, dope.
READ: Ukraine Expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's Opening Statement

Admitted what? Admitted to doing their jobs? Do you know how Foreign Policy, and Political Corruption Cooperation Treaties Work?

Please cite US Code, and Specify the exact infraction of it, that you could base an legitimate impeachment upon namely a High Crime or Misdemeanor which The Constitution references as Treason or Bribery. We have federal statutes on that, so list US Code and cite evidence The President violated US Law.

Or you can STFU and go away with your tail behind your legs, and then wait in vain for Judgment Day and your journey To Hell.

 

[MisterBeale]

Dream on.
Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...

From your own link;

". . . Madison objected to “maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.. . . "

I think, at worst, the POTUS could only, at this point, be guilty of this. This is what you don't like, and refuse to admit, because these proceedings, are, in the end, just political in nature and a violation of the separation of powers.

No, it's far worse than that. And had it not been for Trump getting away with obstruction of justice relative to Mueller, you would understand just exactly how valid this potential impeachment is.

The definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Seek professional psychiatric healthcare.

Yep, supporting trickle down economics time and time again and expecting different results is insanity.

Therefore you are insane.

Actually, if you are knowledgeable about government and economics, you would know, that there is factual information about the Laffer curve and it's relation to government and economics.

For instance, as ancient Rome or any other large unwieldy empire that taxed out of control, the currency became debased, the central government increase taxes, economic growth stagnated and tax revenue thus declined.

It is a simple and well know relationship.

OTH, you are right, if a nation and empire is already prosperous, more tax breaks are not going to make a damn bit of difference. It is a relative and dependent on the situation of the current economy and the current tax rates.

In the U.S., our currency has already been incredibly heavily debased, almost to the point of non-repair. Whether or not this makes it sensitive to supply side? Largely up for debate.

I would say, as long as we are making nearly a tenth of our GDP servicing the debt? Yeah, we best keep corporate tax rates low. Unless you really want more of the poor and minority community out on the streets with no job and no government budget for social services?

You don't really seem to know what you are on about. . . so. . . why not quit while you are ahead?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Clinton WAS impeached, idiot.
Not for taking money for favors, not for getting a blow job, but for lying under oath about getting a blow job.

Ken Starr turned over every fucking rock he could find about Clinton and finally ended up with Clinton getting a blow job.

Trump is holding out Congressionally approved funds to a country in a hot war in order to get info to benefit his fucking 2020 campaign.
Why don't you redneck idiots SEE THIS?
It's right in front of you.
Mick Mulvaney ADMITTED TO IT ON CAMERA.
Trump released the TRANSCRIPT with "I need a favor, though."
Why did he do that?
Because somebody inside that White House got it through his thick skull that if it can be proved, he wouldn't want to be impeached for lying under oath.

isn't that what biden did with urkraine? I mean really, are you going to out yourself that easily? I hope so, but still, we have it on video in here about fifty times now. need again? I'm happy to post that idiot bragging about his quid pro quo. here anyway, please show all your hypocrisy

isn't that what biden did with urkraine?

No, retard.

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

for a foreign government? our VP and President holding favor with a foreign government, interfering in their internal structure? and that's policy? hahahahahaha, dude you're delusional. you really are. one can't hold a discussion with someone who has no sense of reason and holds delusional philosophies.

Of course it was their policy. Aid comes with conditions like eliminating corruption or ending human rights abuses. Just not for personal political assistance.

 

[The Original Tree]

isn't that what biden did with urkraine? I mean really, are you going to out yourself that easily? I hope so, but still, we have it on video in here about fifty times now. need again? I'm happy to post that idiot bragging about his quid pro quo. here anyway, please show all your hypocrisy

isn't that what biden did with urkraine?

No, retard.

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

Care to state your case with evidence and not some Drive By Lie, Dem Tard talking point with No Facts behind it?

What happened to Fake Russian Collusion? This is even more pathetic. 2020 is going to be a day of Joy for Conservatives every where!

You show us, dope.

Explain how a sitting VP could act and withold funds without the consent of the administration.

Did the Prosecutor get fired who was investigating Quid Pro Joe's Son, Corruption in The Ukraine and George Soros?

Was it Illegal for Joe Biden to threaten The Ukraine with with holding Billions of Dollars if Ukraine did not comply with Quid Pro Joe's Quid Pro Demands?

You are just not a very intelligent Troll. This is why you cannot cite US Code, or pick out a single "High Crime or Misdeameanor" the president committed.

Please cite US Code that was violated or STFU and go beat off to a picture of Hillary Rotten Clinton's Leathery Face.

Hell awaits liars such as you. I suggest you invest in asbestos underwear.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A simpler version is that the collusion with the Russians in 16 was difficult to prove while the collusion with the Ukranians for 20 was outrightly admitted.

There was no collusion. Not sure what you are talking about. Asking about an ongoing investigation in to The Obama Administration, and Biden and Clinton working to overturn the 2016 election through Foreign Actors and Russian spies is a legitimate question and is part of The President's job with regards to Foreign Policy and Political Corruption Cooperation Agreements that we have with countries like The Ukraine.

It's been admitted to and testified to, dope.

Wrong. That is a lie, and you are a liar. There is no collusion. Care to state your case instead of doing a drive by lie?

Guiliani, Trump and Mulvaney have all admitted it on television.
The whistleblower, Taylor, and today, Vindman all have testified.

See for yourself, dope.
READ: Ukraine Expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's Opening Statement

well they're correct, if a foreign government wants our money they must purchase our favor. nothing Biden didn't do. see, it's simple. you should educate yourself. Let me ask you, when you go to a restaurant to eat, do you get food for you money? if so, you completed a quid pro quo.

It's not the quid pro quo that's the crime, dope. They can serve the American people and their interests.

The crime is doing it for personal political gain.

 

[The Original Tree]

isn't that what biden did with urkraine? I mean really, are you going to out yourself that easily? I hope so, but still, we have it on video in here about fifty times now. need again? I'm happy to post that idiot bragging about his quid pro quo. here anyway, please show all your hypocrisy

isn't that what biden did with urkraine?

No, retard.

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

for a foreign government? our VP and President holding favor with a foreign government, interfering in their internal structure? and that's policy? hahahahahaha, dude you're delusional. you really are. one can't hold a discussion with someone who has no sense of reason and holds delusional philosophies.

Of course it was their policy. Aid comes with conditions like eliminating corruption or ending human rights abuses. Just not for personal political assistance.

I'd say asking The Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating Quid Pro Joe's Coke head son taking Bribes and selling favors from The White House describes extorting personal political assistance perfectly.

 

[The Original Tree]

There was no collusion. Not sure what you are talking about. Asking about an ongoing investigation in to The Obama Administration, and Biden and Clinton working to overturn the 2016 election through Foreign Actors and Russian spies is a legitimate question and is part of The President's job with regards to Foreign Policy and Political Corruption Cooperation Agreements that we have with countries like The Ukraine.

It's been admitted to and testified to, dope.

Wrong. That is a lie, and you are a liar. There is no collusion. Care to state your case instead of doing a drive by lie?

Guiliani, Trump and Mulvaney have all admitted it on television.
The whistleblower, Taylor, and today, Vindman all have testified.

See for yourself, dope.
READ: Ukraine Expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's Opening Statement

well they're correct, if a foreign government wants our money they must purchase our favor. nothing Biden didn't do. see, it's simple. you should educate yourself. Let me ask you, when you go to a restaurant to eat, do you get food for you money? if so, you completed a quid pro quo.

It's not the quid pro quo that's the crime, dope. They can serve the American people and their interests.

The crime is doing it for personal political gain.

What Crime? Can you site US CODE? I think your posting on here is a Crime, because you are Criminally Stupid.

Please Cite US Code.

 

[jc456]

isn't that what biden did with urkraine? I mean really, are you going to out yourself that easily? I hope so, but still, we have it on video in here about fifty times now. need again? I'm happy to post that idiot bragging about his quid pro quo. here anyway, please show all your hypocrisy

isn't that what biden did with urkraine?

No, retard.

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

Care to state your case with evidence and not some Drive By Lie, Dem Tard talking point with No Facts behind it?

What happened to Fake Russian Collusion? This is even more pathetic. 2020 is going to be a day of Joy for Conservatives every where!

You show us, dope.

Explain how a sitting VP could act and withold funds without the consent of the administration.

isn't a president a president if his name is obammy or trump? so there is no difference right?

 

[IM2]

Mueller could not conclude that since the DOJ policy wouldn't allow it. Instead Mueller stated he did not exonerate Trump.

And next time don't post the Barr summary press release.

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

We do not nor should congress harass a POTUS (or any American) who, after an exhaustive 2 year, $35 million SC witch-hunt was deemed to not have committed a crime.

Case closed.

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."


.... because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Dufus.

Mueller never said that. He said there was not enough evidence to even suggest or recommend any indictments.

The Special Counsel Recommended 13 Indictments for which Congress could write Articles of Impeachment against Clinton and this is why he underwent an Impeachment Vote, and Impeachment Trial.

You have Zero, Zilch, Nada.

How's your friend Al Baghdadi today?

LOL

Of course Mueller said that, ya brain-dead cultist...

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.” - Robert Mueller​

Mueller Mueller Mueller!


You freaks have lost it. You can’t even keep up with your bullshit. Get with it, shitforbrains. It’s now Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine!

You guys keep talking about what Mueller did not prove.

 

[Camp]

The "Can shoot somebody on Fifth Ave." mindless sycophants will never acknowledge Trump's crimes no matter how obvious they are.

Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, Violations of the Emoluments clause, Violations of the Logan act, violations of campaign finance laws.

To the SANE 63% these are obvious, to the insane 37% nothing Trump does is wrong so their opinions do not count.

Yet for all of his Crimes you Allege he committed, Mueller was forced to admit there was no Evidence and that he could not recommend a single Indictment for which The DemNazi controlled House could write Articles of Impeachment on. So you are now on what, COUP attempt 2.0?

Go find some ISIS under shorts, to support your weak retorts.

Mueller wasn't 'forced to admit' anything.
Mueller admitted he was prevented by Justice Department poilcy from recommending an indictment of anything for a sitting President.

Mueller did point to 13 incidents of obstruction of Justice by Trump that recourse could only be pursued outside the Justice Department- which is of course Impeachement.

Poor little russian troll... You just cant get past that Mueller was not impeded by anything and could have indicted under seal.. Go lie somewhere else...

If Mueller could have indicted under seal it would be big news or at least news many folks aren't aware of. Do you have a link for backing up your assertion?

 

[The Original Tree]

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

We do not nor should congress harass a POTUS (or any American) who, after an exhaustive 2 year, $35 million SC witch-hunt was deemed to not have committed a crime.

Case closed.

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."


.... because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Dufus.

Mueller never said that. He said there was not enough evidence to even suggest or recommend any indictments.

The Special Counsel Recommended 13 Indictments for which Congress could write Articles of Impeachment against Clinton and this is why he underwent an Impeachment Vote, and Impeachment Trial.

You have Zero, Zilch, Nada.

How's your friend Al Baghdadi today?

LOL

Of course Mueller said that, ya brain-dead cultist...

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.” - Robert Mueller​

Mueller Mueller Mueller!


You freaks have lost it. You can’t even keep up with your bullshit. Get with it, shitforbrains. It’s now Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine!

You guys keep talking about what Mueller did not prove.

No, we are talking about What YOU CANNOT PROVE, DOPE

Mueller Hoax was a failure and so are you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A simpler version is that the collusion with the Russians in 16 was difficult to prove while the collusion with the Ukranians for 20 was outrightly admitted.

There was no collusion. Not sure what you are talking about. Asking about an ongoing investigation in to The Obama Administration, and Biden and Clinton working to overturn the 2016 election through Foreign Actors and Russian spies is a legitimate question and is part of The President's job with regards to Foreign Policy and Political Corruption Cooperation Agreements that we have with countries like The Ukraine.

It's been admitted to and testified to, dope.

Wrong. That is a lie, and you are a liar. There is no collusion. Care to state your case instead of doing a drive by lie?

Guiliani, Trump and Mulvaney have all admitted it on television.
The whistleblower, Taylor, and today, Vindman all have testified.

See for yourself, dope.
READ: Ukraine Expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's Opening Statement

Admitted what? Admitted to doing their jobs? Do you know how Foreign Policy, and Political Corruption Cooperation Treaties Work?

Please cite US Code, and Specify the exact infraction of it, that you could base an legitimate impeachment upon namely a High Crime or Misdemeanor which The Constitution references as Treason or Bribery. We have federal statutes on that, so list US Code and cite evidence The President violated US Law.

Or you can STFU and go away with your tail behind your legs, and then wait in vain for Judgment Day and your journey To Hell.

Admitted they withheld funds to pressure the president of ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden, dope.

Wake up and stop playing dumb. It only makes you look dumb.

 

[IM2]

Mueller could not conclude that since the DOJ policy wouldn't allow it. Instead Mueller stated he did not exonerate Trump.

And next time don't post the Barr summary press release.

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

We do not nor should congress harass a POTUS (or any American) who, after an exhaustive 2 year, $35 million SC witch-hunt was deemed to not have committed a crime.

Case closed.

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."


.... because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Dufus.

Mueller never said that. He said there was not enough evidence to even suggest or recommend any indictments.

The Special Counsel Recommended 13 Indictments for which Congress could write Articles of Impeachment against Clinton and this is why he underwent an Impeachment Vote, and Impeachment Trial.

You have Zero, Zilch, Nada.

How's your friend Al Baghdadi today?

LOL

Of course Mueller said that, ya brain-dead cultist...

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.” - Robert Mueller​

Mueller said there is No Evidence, and that is why you had to Move on to Impeachment Hoax 2.0 and soon to move on to Impeachment Hoax 3.0.

The President is standing in the way of your Globalist - Marxist - Socialist Green New Hell!

When is Mueller going to do another hearing?


Fake Impeachment 2.0 Isn't really about Trump or any wrong doing at all.

You have to ask why Trump has spent so much time obstructing a hoax.

 

[The Original Tree]

There was no collusion. Not sure what you are talking about. Asking about an ongoing investigation in to The Obama Administration, and Biden and Clinton working to overturn the 2016 election through Foreign Actors and Russian spies is a legitimate question and is part of The President's job with regards to Foreign Policy and Political Corruption Cooperation Agreements that we have with countries like The Ukraine.

It's been admitted to and testified to, dope.

Wrong. That is a lie, and you are a liar. There is no collusion. Care to state your case instead of doing a drive by lie?

Guiliani, Trump and Mulvaney have all admitted it on television.
The whistleblower, Taylor, and today, Vindman all have testified.

See for yourself, dope.
READ: Ukraine Expert Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's Opening Statement

Admitted what? Admitted to doing their jobs? Do you know how Foreign Policy, and Political Corruption Cooperation Treaties Work?

Please cite US Code, and Specify the exact infraction of it, that you could base an legitimate impeachment upon namely a High Crime or Misdemeanor which The Constitution references as Treason or Bribery. We have federal statutes on that, so list US Code and cite evidence The President violated US Law.

Or you can STFU and go away with your tail behind your legs, and then wait in vain for Judgment Day and your journey To Hell.

Admitted they withheld funds to pressure the president of ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden, dope.

Wake up and stop playing dumb. It only makes you look dumb.

Where is US CODE I asked you to cite, Troll? Is your ENGRISH that bad that you cannot comply with nor understand a simple request?

Bring The Facts, NOT YOUR BIASED NARRATIVE.
Cite US CODE or go find your daddy, Al Baghdadi's underwear and take a big whiff of it to go to your happy place, and then take a good dose of STFU because you can't hang when you are asked to produce facts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, retard.

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

Care to state your case with evidence and not some Drive By Lie, Dem Tard talking point with No Facts behind it?

What happened to Fake Russian Collusion? This is even more pathetic. 2020 is going to be a day of Joy for Conservatives every where!

You show us, dope.

Explain how a sitting VP could act and withold funds without the consent of the administration.

Did the Prosecutor get fired who was investigating Quid Pro Joe's Son, Corruption in The Ukraine and George Soros?

Was it Illegal for Joe Biden to threaten The Ukraine with with holding Billions of Dollars if Ukraine did not comply with Quid Pro Joe's Quid Pro Demands?

You are just not a very intelligent Troll. This is why you cannot cite US Code, or pick out a single "High Crime or Misdeameanor" the president committed.

Please cite US Code that was violated or STFU and go beat off to a picture of Hillary Rotten Clinton's Leathery Face.

Hell awaits liars such as you. I suggest you invest in asbestos underwear.

Did the Prosecutor get fired who was investigating Quid Pro Joe's Son, Corruption in The Ukraine and George Soros

In fact he was not.

Show us where and when he was.

 

[jc456]

isn't that what biden did with urkraine? I mean really, are you going to out yourself that easily? I hope so, but still, we have it on video in here about fifty times now. need again? I'm happy to post that idiot bragging about his quid pro quo. here anyway, please show all your hypocrisy

isn't that what biden did with urkraine?

No, retard.

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

for a foreign government? our VP and President holding favor with a foreign government, interfering in their internal structure? and that's policy? hahahahahaha, dude you're delusional. you really are. one can't hold a discussion with someone who has no sense of reason and holds delusional philosophies.

Of course it was their policy. Aid comes with conditions like eliminating corruption or ending human rights abuses. Just not for personal political assistance.

again, how is it different than aid with conditions trump's team employs? please, explain it to us all, because you have something unraveling in your brain, and if you don't speak now, you may never again.

BTW, aid with conditions is quid pro quo.

 

[IM2]

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."

We do not nor should congress harass a POTUS (or any American) who, after an exhaustive 2 year, $35 million SC witch-hunt was deemed to not have committed a crime.

Case closed.

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."


.... because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Dufus.

Mueller never said that. He said there was not enough evidence to even suggest or recommend any indictments.

The Special Counsel Recommended 13 Indictments for which Congress could write Articles of Impeachment against Clinton and this is why he underwent an Impeachment Vote, and Impeachment Trial.

You have Zero, Zilch, Nada.

How's your friend Al Baghdadi today?

LOL

Of course Mueller said that, ya brain-dead cultist...

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.” - Robert Mueller​

Mueller said there is No Evidence, and that is why you had to Move on to Impeachment Hoax 2.0 and soon to move on to Impeachment Hoax 3.0.

The President is standing in the way of your Globalist, Marxist, Socialist Green New Hell!

When is Mueller going to do another hearing?


Fake Impeachment 2.0 Isn't really about Trump or any wrong doing at all.

Don’t forget Stormy! IMPEACHMENT 4.0

I'm sure Individual 1 wants you guys to forget Stormy.

 

[jc456]

sure he did, he held money until the prosecutor was fired. he said it. are you denying he said it? just wondering. hmmmmm wow, you all can't even follow a video feed of a man admitting quid pro quo.

That was the policy of the administration, dope. Done for the benefit of the Ukrainian state and it's democracy. Not for personal political gain of any given individual.


Learn the difference and stop being an idiot.

Care to state your case with evidence and not some Drive By Lie, Dem Tard talking point with No Facts behind it?

What happened to Fake Russian Collusion? This is even more pathetic. 2020 is going to be a day of Joy for Conservatives every where!

You show us, dope.

Explain how a sitting VP could act and withold funds without the consent of the administration.

Did the Prosecutor get fired who was investigating Quid Pro Joe's Son, Corruption in The Ukraine and George Soros?

Was it Illegal for Joe Biden to threaten The Ukraine with with holding Billions of Dollars if Ukraine did not comply with Quid Pro Joe's Quid Pro Demands?

You are just not a very intelligent Troll. This is why you cannot cite US Code, or pick out a single "High Crime or Misdeameanor" the president committed.

Please cite US Code that was violated or STFU and go beat off to a picture of Hillary Rotten Clinton's Leathery Face.

Hell awaits liars such as you. I suggest you invest in asbestos underwear.

Did the Prosecutor get fired who was investigating Quid Pro Joe's Son, Corruption in The Ukraine and George Soros

In fact he was not.

Show us where and when he was.

 

[IM2]

Mueller said, and I quote: "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime."


.... because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Dufus.

Mueller never said that. He said there was not enough evidence to even suggest or recommend any indictments.

The Special Counsel Recommended 13 Indictments for which Congress could write Articles of Impeachment against Clinton and this is why he underwent an Impeachment Vote, and Impeachment Trial.

You have Zero, Zilch, Nada.

How's your friend Al Baghdadi today?

LOL

Of course Mueller said that, ya brain-dead cultist...

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.” - Robert Mueller​

Mueller Mueller Mueller!


You freaks have lost it. You can’t even keep up with your bullshit. Get with it, shitforbrains. It’s now Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine!

You guys keep talking about what Mueller did not prove.

No, we are talking about What YOU CANNOT PROVE, DOPE

Mueller Hoax was a failure and so are you.

You are talking about massive continuous obstruction of justice.