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

[Weatherman2020]

Is that why no one here can even parrot all that supposed evidence?

You people make lemmings and sheep look brilliant.

You can stop repeating that lie son. You've got Trumps cock buried so deep in your windpipe that you refused to pay attention to the loads of evidence you have been shown.

Tell us more about Russia, taxes, Stormy, Ukraine, firings and security violations.

Tell us more about this constitution you don't abide by.

The Constitution you hate?

poor baby. 3 years down, 5 to go. Then a lifetime of mumbling about Trump stealing elections.

Apparently you hate the constitution. That's why you're supporting a president that has violated it. You see nut job, this has not been about Trump winning an election. This didn't happen to Bush and he started a war. So you need to get Trumps dick out of your mouth, take off the blue dress, and realize this is about Trump breaking laws and of the maintenance of our republic. If we have 5 more years of Trump, YOU will regret it.

Tell us more about Russia, taxes and Stormy.

I could if Trump had not obstructed justice.

What else did you lear on a Kos post?

I learned by reading the Mueller report. You read the gatewaydipshit and think that's factual reporting.

Is that why Mueller said there was no obstruction?
Even your pathetic CNN had to admit.

You’re insane.
View attachment 286836View attachment 286837
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html?r=https://bing.com/

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.

You forgot your meds again.

I’m going to enjoy this thread a few months from now.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

I told you that weeks ago...

Impeachment means you are getting fired...You can break the law and not get fired and you also can get fired with out breaking the law.

Incorrect again.

Impeachment means the Senate must determine the validity of the House's case meaning one can be impeached yet not fired.

BTW, the POTUS cannot "get fired" without hard evidence of high crimes & misdemeanors and so far all the Hysterical House Dems have is "Trump is a poopy-head" and JFTR, I checked … that is not impeachable.

 

[Jets]

Back to the OP. The article makes a valid point. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. If the majority of HoR wants to impeach the President, they can. High crimes and misdemeanors is what the House says it is. One reason the Senate holds the trial and ultimate outcome is to prevent an arbitrary use of impeachment power by the lower chamber.

 

[SAYIT]

But of course asking a foreign gov't to release any info they have on potential extortion perpetrated by a former US VP (who shall remain unnamed) involving US taxpayer funds is not "soliciting a foreign government to dig up dirt," as some have desperately tried to portray the DNC/MSM latest scam.

Making public the phone conversation - something the Dems definitely didn't see coming - has exposed once again their desperate need to impeach for fear that Trump will again beat them in 2020 ... because he will.

… So impeachment is their only option - nuclear - and they don't care about the fallout.

Rep Al Green (D, TX) told MSNBC in May that he is "concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Rep. Al Green: "I'm Concerned If We Don't Impeach This President, He Will Get Re-Elected"

DNC Chair Tom Perez - who recently returned from MEXICO CITY where he attended 3 fundraisers - was just as open about the need to impeach not for justice but rather for politics. Yeah … Dems know they can't win elections:
DNC Chief: ‘Our nominee won't stand a chance against Trump’

Trump has broken the law. You are going to find out how badly in upcoming days.

You're kidding, right? You've not yet swallowed enough "beginning of the end" moments? "Turning point" moments? "Bombshell" moments? "Tipping point" moments?

If I had just a nickel for every time someone has said that the last 3 yrs I'd be wealthier than Bezos.

3 minutes of belly-laughs:​

 

[007]

Democrats have been on an EPIC, THREE YEAR LONG TEMPER TANTRUM ever since Hitlery got kicked to the curb by the American people. The HYPOCRITICAL demtards were worried republicans wouldn't respect the election outcome. Now look at the dems.

They KNOW they don't have ANYONE that can beat President Trump in a straight up election without CHEATING, so the demtrash have pulled out ALL the stops and are doing EVERYTHING in their power to HURT the president. Doesn't matter that he's done NOTHING to deserve to be impeached. That's not the point. The point is the demgarbage are out to DAMAGE him as much as they possibly can before the election next year. THAT is what this FARCE of an impeachment is all about, NOT that he's done anything wrong... other than WIN.

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF TRASH.

 

[SAYIT]

Back to the OP. The article makes a valid point. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. If the majority of HoR wants to impeach the President, they can. High crimes and misdemeanors is what the House says it is. One reason the Senate holds the trial and ultimate outcome is to prevent an arbitrary use of impeachment power by the lower chamber.

True that. Our Hysterical House Dems, now certain they can't beat Trump in 2020, seem to believe they have no choice but to go nuclear. Thing is, like all their scams and frauds of the last 3 years, this one is likely to blow up in their faces next year.

They can conduct their witch-hunt behind closed doors and attempt to frame the testimony - leaking cherry-picked statements - in advance of its release but their perfidy will again be revealed in short order. I wouldn't characterize their process as unfair however, but rather un-American. This just isn't how we mete out justice.

 

[justoffal]

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.

Unfortunately that is true. Though it seems hardly feasible that it would ever occur Congress can impeach a president simply if they don't like him.

They don't have to prove anything at all in the way of a crime. However they cannot prevent him from running again if they do it in that way. If they managed to impeach him and get enough votes in the Senate to remove him leaving Pence in Charge... He will be re-elected in the largest landslide in American history a few months after that at the same time the Democrats will suffer the largest loss in their personal history in the house.

Jo

 

[CowboyTed]

There is plenty of evidence. And we would have heard it if Trump had not obstructed justice. Also if not for DOJ policy, Trump would be gone.

Tell us more about Russia, taxes and Stormy.

I could if Trump had not obstructed justice.

What else did you lear on a Kos post?

I learned by reading the Mueller report. You read the gatewaydipshit and think that's factual reporting.

Is that why Mueller said there was no obstruction?
Even your pathetic CNN had to admit.

You’re insane.
View attachment 286836View attachment 286837
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html?r=https://bing.com/

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...

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Unfortunately that is true. Though it seems hardly feasible that it would ever occur Congress can impeach a president simply if they don't like him.

They don't have to prove anything at all in the way of a crime. However they cannot prevent him from running again if they do it in that way. If they managed to impeach him and get enough votes in the Senate to remove him leaving Pence in Charge... He will be re-elected in the largest landslide in American history a few months after that at the same time the Democrats will suffer the largest loss in their personal history in the house.

Jo

Classic caught-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place. The Dems lose to Trump (bigly) in 2020 or get slaughtered by a justifiably enraged electorate if they remove him.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

The proceedings can't be any violation of separation of powers- since impeachment is provided for in the Constiution.

I think that Trump could be guilty of many crimes at this point- but we only have evidence for a few crimes- that is what investigations are for.

name one. for the umpteenth time I've asked.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Tell us more about Russia, taxes and Stormy.

I could if Trump had not obstructed justice.

What else did you lear on a Kos post?

I learned by reading the Mueller report. You read the gatewaydipshit and think that's factual reporting.

Is that why Mueller said there was no obstruction?
Even your pathetic CNN had to admit.

You’re insane.
View attachment 286836View attachment 286837
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html?r=https://bing.com/

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.

 

[The Original Tree]

There is plenty of evidence. And we would have heard it if Trump had not obstructed justice. Also if not for DOJ policy, Trump would be gone.

Tell us more about Russia, taxes and Stormy.

A thousand former prosecutors signed a document saying there was enough evidence for prosecuting Trump on obstructing justice.

Is that why no one here can even parrot all that supposed evidence?

You people make lemmings and sheep look brilliant.

You can stop repeating that lie son. You've got Trumps cock buried so deep in your windpipe that you refused to pay attention to the loads of evidence you have been shown.

Tell us more about Russia, taxes, Stormy, Ukraine, firings and security violations.

You miss your hero Al Baghdadi today?

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

 

[The Original Tree]

I could if Trump had not obstructed justice.

What else did you lear on a Kos post?

I learned by reading the Mueller report. You read the gatewaydipshit and think that's factual reporting.

Is that why Mueller said there was no obstruction?
Even your pathetic CNN had to admit.

You’re insane.
View attachment 286836View attachment 286837
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html?r=https://bing.com/

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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?

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

Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired- as part of official U.S. policy, supported by U.S. Senators, the EU and anti-corruption NGO's.
Trump secretly called the President of Ukraine to ask him to dig up dirt on his political opponent- and Trump insisted that the President of the Ukraine himself announce the investigation into Joe Biden.

To Trumpettes what Biden did was illegal -and Trump was just being Trump.

holding money. holding money. isn't that your beef with what trump did? what's different. still waiting.

 

[Faun]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

You poor, demented thing. Now you're lying as I myself showed you.

I asked for a crime. That’s not a crime.
Enjoy.

Pelosi: It’s Not An Impeachment Resolution We’ll Vote On

LOLOL

To the brain-dead cultists, soliciting a foreign national to help with Trump's campaign is not a crime.

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals​

 

[Faun]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

You poor, demented thing. Now you're lying as I myself showed you.

There is no evidence. Mueller spent 2.5 years looking for evidence he knew before the crooked bastard took the job with his buddy Strozk, Page, Bhara, and Weinstein that there was no evidence. He harassed The President with 2,500 Subpoenas, and the White House submitted and complied with 1 Million document requests and 250 interviews.

Mueller go nothing but Obama's Pubic hairs stuck in his teeth.

Keeping your head buried firmly up Trump's ass doesn't mean there's no evidence. It only means all you can see is Trump's shit.

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..." - Donny Boo Boo​

 

[The Original Tree]

Which of the allegations of impeachable offenses does not violate an actual law? Discussing whether a codified law must be violated for impeachment may be an interesting scholarly debate, but, how does it have anything to do with Trump?

What are those and your evidence? I’ve been asking for weeks and all I get is YOU GO LOOK IT UP

You poor, demented thing. Now you're lying as I myself showed you.

There is no evidence. Mueller spent 2.5 years looking for evidence he knew before the crooked bastard took the job with his buddy Strozk, Page, Bhara, and Weinstein that there was no evidence. He harassed The President with 2,500 Subpoenas, and the White House submitted and complied with 1 Million document requests and 250 interviews.

Mueller go nothing but Obama's Pubic hairs stuck in his teeth.

Keeping you head buried firmly up Trump's ass doesn't mean there's no evidence. It only means all you can see is Trump's shit.

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..." - Donny Boo Boo​

Impeachment 3.0 will also fail. There is nothing to impeach The President for other than he is standing in your way.

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

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

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.

You're wasting your time arguing with retards.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

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.

You're wasting your time arguing with retards.

The Leftist - Marxist - Globalists are desperate. Agenda 21 was torched by Trump's election, and re-titled to Agenda 2030, and if he get's re-elected again that get's pushed back to 2040.

This is why they are going bat shit crazy and saying we only have 11 years to save The Earth, because 2030 is their next target date for installing Globalism, and Fossil Fuel Bans and implementing The New Green Scam.

They have to impeach, not because Trump has done anything wrong, but because he is tearing apart all the Frame Work that was put in place to install Agenda 21, and will destroy whatever chance they have at installing Agenda 2030.

He is standing in their way, and they want him removed.

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

 

[SAYIT]

What else did you lear on a Kos post?

I learned by reading the Mueller report. You read the gatewaydipshit and think that's factual reporting.

Is that why Mueller said there was no obstruction?
Even your pathetic CNN had to admit.

You’re insane.
View attachment 286836View attachment 286837
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html?r=https://bing.com/

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.

Indeed, the POTUS is head of our justice system and we do have a signed (by Prez Clinton) treaty with The Ukraine. If Trump had reason to believe Biden had used his position and/or US tax $$$ to extort personal benefit, he'd be remiss in his duties in not asking for help exposing it.

Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters