Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At least you finally recognize your severely limited attention span. Good for you.My apologies. . . you all sort of blend together. . .Umm, psycho... I didn't post that.Of course Clinton was impeached. He lied to a special investigator under oath. It was on record.
I never said he wasn't impeached.
What I asked for, was evidence that the Trump campaign took funds directly from a foreign entity, and did not funnel them like every other pol in D.C. has already done.
You probably do not know shit about China-gate and the folks that fled the nation for that and served time for it, do you?
"FBI agents were also denied the opportunity to ask President Clinton and Vice President Gore questions during Justice Department interviews in 1997 and 1998 and were only allowed to take notes. During the interviews, neither Clinton nor Gore were asked any questions about fund-raisers John Huang and James Riady, nor the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raising event led by Maria Hsia and attended by Huang and Ted Sioeng.[57]"
1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia
LOL!
I guess you forgot that Trump said he was going to drain the swamp.
He IS the fucking swamp, moron.
Don't hold back Faun, tell us what you really think. . mmmmkay?
Candidates and parties receive thousands upon thousands of donations all the time. It's very common when they violate rules or ethics, the monies are returned to the donors.OMG. . . you are by far, the most equivocating, morally bankrupt, lying individual on this site.Umm, your article points out the DNC gave all the money back. It also points out that Clinton was paid $500K for a speech in Russia. But that's in line with other speeches he was giving around the world. And he wasn't running for office so it couldn't be construed as a campaign donation.Chinagate and the Clintons | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.Well first you would have to show where they solicited help for their campaigns from foreign nationals ...Nope, at this point, he could be guilty of violating...
§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
O.K.
Sure. . .
Prove it in such a way that the Clinton's or Al Gore or Obama weren't guilty of doing the same thing.
fer fucks sake. . . really?
So if the DNC hadn't been caught. . . well, it would have been just fine for them to keep those contributions from a foreign government?
I guess if Trump gets caught, all he needs to do it give any illegally gotten gains back then, and you guys will be just fine with it, eh?
. . . and as for the other charge? Well. . . I suppose Trump should just have all cash go through Melania's name, then, if he wants to use it for any campaign purposes? meh. . . it's all good. . . right?
You are really, really, the most disingenuous poster on this site. Do you think folks are as stupid as the dumb shit you post?
Your analogy is false. Unless you can prove Hillary hired that company with the expectation they were going to hire a foreign national, and you can't; then the appropriate analogy would be you hired someone and without your knowledge, they murdered someone.Hillary hired Fusion GPS, an American based firm. There are no laws against that.Nope, at this point, he could be guilty of violating...
§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
O.K.
Sure. . .
Prove it in such a way that the Clinton's or Al Gore or Obama weren't guilty of doing the same thing.
fer fucks sake. . . really?
I can't find any record of Clinton, Gore or Obama soliciting a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political opponent.
Of course not.
FACT CHECK: Did Republicans Pay For The Trump Dossier?
Flashback: That Time The WSJ Said The Trump Dossier Could Be A Hillary-Funded Effort
Meet the espionage firm which ordered Trump 'dirty dossier' | Daily Mail Online
https://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/fifth060998.htm
If there are laws against, "soliciting a foreign government to dig up dirt," than hiring a company to do it for you, is analogous to saying. . . I didn't kill anyone, I only hired someone to do it for me. . . . Which, as most folks know the history of the Clintons, is pretty spot on.
Again, you are being a disingenuous piece of shit. Everyone sees right through you.
No, this would be just another example of the delusions from which you suffer.At least you finally recognize your severely limited attention span. Good for you.My apologies. . . you all sort of blend together. . .Umm, psycho... I didn't post that.LOL!
I guess you forgot that Trump said he was going to drain the swamp.
He IS the fucking swamp, moron.
Don't hold back Faun, tell us what you really think. . mmmmkay?
limited attention span?
Nah. . . I thought you folks prided yourself on being viewed as a collective?
Shocking Clinton, Gore, Obama did not inform you. They are so known for their transparency.Nope, at this point, he could be guilty of violating...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.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.
[...]
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.
§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
O.K.
Sure. . .
Prove it in such a way that the Clinton's or Al Gore or Obama weren't guilty of doing the same thing.
fer fucks sake. . . really?
I can't find any record of Clinton, Gore or Obama soliciting a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political opponent.
Do tell! While your at it, tell us how you found this out!Actually they need to at least accuse him of cutting the tag off of a pillow.That's actually true.
The House defines what offense is impeachable.
IOW, the Constitution gives them the rope to hang themselves.
“Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
I guess the steady stream of witnesses from the State Dept and diplomats all testifying to QPQ just went right over your pointed head, hmmm?
Delusions like 40 months of Trump will be impeached any day now?No, this would be just another example of the delusions from which you suffer.At least you finally recognize your severely limited attention span. Good for you.My apologies. . . you all sort of blend together. . .Umm, psycho... I didn't post that.Don't hold back Faun, tell us what you really think. . mmmmkay?
limited attention span?
Nah. . . I thought you folks prided yourself on being viewed as a collective?
Using your yardstick, Trump must have committed many crimes, based on the fear reaction we have been seeing.Shocking Clinton, Gore, Obama did not inform you. They are so known for their transparency.Nope, at this point, he could be guilty of violating...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.
§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
O.K.
Sure. . .
Prove it in such a way that the Clinton's or Al Gore or Obama weren't guilty of doing the same thing.
fer fucks sake. . . really?
I can't find any record of Clinton, Gore or Obama soliciting a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political opponent.
Besides, Biden should welcome an investigation, he has done nothing wrong.
And duly Re-elected.Yes, and the consequence appears to be Trump will be duly impeached.
The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.
You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.
After the Psychocrats finish abusing our impeach laws we have to rewrite the impeachment laws.The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.
You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.
actually it is the Democrats who do not follow our constitutionWell that is a relief! Tell them to re read the Constitution because it doesn't mean a damn thing to the GOP. I know how we can fix that. Someone present an amendment to Nancy Pelosi to require one of the members of the House of Rep's to read the Constitution out loud to all the Representatives so they understand what their duties are under this document. It would be CRYSTAL CLEAR and not be misunderstood by any of them. Then - require them to sign and date an affirmation that they do. The end. Do this yearly. Don't forget now.
Not something I've been saying for more than about one month now since he broke the law.Delusions like 40 months of Trump will be impeached any day now?No, this would be just another example of the delusions from which you suffer.At least you finally recognize your severely limited attention span. Good for you.My apologies. . . you all sort of blend together. . .Umm, psycho... I didn't post that.
limited attention span?
Nah. . . I thought you folks prided yourself on being viewed as a collective?
Depends on how many Senate Republicans give him a free pass. 23 of them are either running for re-election next year or retiring.And duly Re-elected.Yes, and the consequence appears to be Trump will be duly impeached.
Trump can be fired from his job like everyone else.The cycle repeats yet again. We got nothing on Trump but we can impeach him for beating Hillary.
You don't have to break a law to be impeached. Trump's defenders need a better argument.
Not reading this whole thread, but has anyone shown the OP that clip of Lindsay Graham telling us that a crime isn't needed for impeachment?
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.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.Dream on.Late Stage Impeach Phase: Trump Doesn’t Have to Break a Law to Be Impeached
That's a fact. No crime required to impeach. BTW, "high" crimes refers to high office - not the severity of the crime.
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.
[...]
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.
The definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.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.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.Dream on.Late Stage Impeach Phase: Trump Doesn’t Have to Break a Law to Be Impeached
That's a fact. No crime required to impeach. BTW, "high" crimes refers to high office - not the severity of the crime.
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.
[...]
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.
