Offical Impeachment Thread

[AzogtheDefiler]

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump and Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the president?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: You had three meetings again with Zelenksy and it didn’t come up … and President Zelensky never made an announcement. … and you’re their star witness.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="IM2, post: 23482922, member: 53913"]

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The head Ambassador the Ukraines testimony is hardly based on hearsay. Apparently you don't mind if Trump stops blocking witnesses and documents if this is going to be your argument..[/QUOTE]
sure it's hearsay. Are you calling the PM a liar?

Taylor and Kent admitted, under oath, they weren't on the call. the inquiry was about the call. Therefore, they aren't witnesses to anything except holding their own dicks as they pee. learn the definition of witness. you crack me up. throw and go!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

It is disgusting that Trump committed a thoroughly corrupt act under the guise of hunting for corruption.

The man is sick in the head.

He could have been a hero for delivering missiles to Ukraine which Obama had refused to give them. Instead, he tried to use them for his own personal political gain, thus forever exposing his true motives which had nothing to do with saving Ukraine from Putin's attempts to reconstitute the Soviet Union.

We were never intended to hear a corruption cover story. If all had gone according to Trump/Giuliani wishes, one day Trump would have tweeted, 'Look, sleepy joe is under investigation by ukraine', as if it were all spontaneous.

Why do you imagine the President has to have a press release about everything he's doing? Have you heard any news about who Durham is investigating?

 

[bripat9643]

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

Vindman wasn't testifying, dope.

 

[jc456]

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.

What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?

raymond, we all know you are one of them thar poorly educated fans of trump; but can't you for once try to show some dignity & research before you blurt?

there are several interpretations what 'high crimes & misdemeanors' consists of. i omitted the one that you claim is the only one because of redundancy

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure


There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

Congressional Interpretation

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

Misdemeanor

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

Relating to the President's Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-sy ... edure.html

name the high crime?

 

[August West]

Not only Trump, but the staff Trump told him to deal with

Read my Signature...

Are you really that stupid? Serious question.

"I would like you to do us a favor"

Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?

Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.

Your call...............

I would like you to do us a favor though

A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.

ASKED to DO A FAVOR INSTEAD OF DEMANDING UKRAINE TO DO SOMETHING...OR ELSE....SEEMS WRONGWINGER SPELLED OUT THE ANSWER AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!!

They weren`t getting the money if they refused to fire a corrupt prosecutor. It`s not really the same as asking for a bogus investigation of a political rival. The drive to oust the crooked prosecutor was an international effort. Got anything else?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

A former VP threatened US aid unless the investigator who was looking into the company his son was working for was fired is not the same?

The idea that his son got this job, making 80K a month, with no experience in the industry, not even able to understand the language, is not suspicious?

And now recently, we found that the company in question, tried to garner favor of the US State Department by dropping Hunter's name in an email, that's something that doesn't need to be looked into?

We have 7.5 billion people on this planet, and out of those 7.5 billion, Hunter Biden was the most qualified for this highly paying job; a guy who was kicked out of the military, and went to rehab multiple times for his drug addiction problem?

You're so correct.........nothing to see here folks.

Again: The drive to oust the corrupt prosecutor was an international effort. Give up the Biden nonsense, it`s Trump who is in deep shit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

 

[jc456]

Pure opinion, dumbass.

Still sworn testimony, dope.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

Call it what you will, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor? hmmmmm to be a witness, they would have had to been on the call. they weren't. All they are are dick holders.

 

[bripat9643]

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

Well we know a frame job when we see it.

Well we know a frame job when we see it.

Yes. With testimony from Trump's own appointees.

Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...

Who saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.

They aren't witnesses to the call, moron.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We are not a democracy, but a Republic, and you people are trying to destroy it.

You might at least learn what it is that you're trying to destroy.

We know what we are, that's why we oppose Trump.

Actually, you haven't a clue. You lack historical background. Otherwise you would not be what you are.

My historical background is far, far better than yours. That's why I oppose Trump.

How would you know? You have no background upon which to base that assessment.

I have plenty and it's called your postings.

Feel free to post any history errors I may have committed.

 

[jc456]

Are you really that stupid? Serious question.

"I would like you to do us a favor"

Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?

Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.

Your call...............

I would like you to do us a favor though

A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.

ASKED to DO A FAVOR INSTEAD OF DEMANDING UKRAINE TO DO SOMETHING...OR ELSE....SEEMS WRONGWINGER SPELLED OUT THE ANSWER AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!!

They weren`t getting the money if they refused to fire a corrupt prosecutor. It`s not really the same as asking for a bogus investigation of a political rival. The drive to oust the crooked prosecutor was an international effort. Got anything else?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

A former VP threatened US aid unless the investigator who was looking into the company his son was working for was fired is not the same?

The idea that his son got this job, making 80K a month, with no experience in the industry, not even able to understand the language, is not suspicious?

And now recently, we found that the company in question, tried to garner favor of the US State Department by dropping Hunter's name in an email, that's something that doesn't need to be looked into?

We have 7.5 billion people on this planet, and out of those 7.5 billion, Hunter Biden was the most qualified for this highly paying job; a guy who was kicked out of the military, and went to rehab multiple times for his drug addiction problem?

You're so correct.........nothing to see here folks.

Again: The drive to oust the corrupt prosecutor was an international effort. Give up the Biden nonsense, it`s Trump who is in deep shit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

no it wasn't, he didn't mention anyone but himself and obammy. that's it. do you really need to see the video again? AGAIN? It's in here about one hundred times. if you need it then let me know, and then you can show me at what point of his brag he mentions the international countries. Are you saying he was doing business with other countries? hmmmmmm

 

[playtime]

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

well, since the story got out - it didn't happen. an attempted robbery doesn't go unpunished, now does it?

silly you.

Bad comparison. It's more like somebody told the cops you were going to rob a store, but you never did, so they arrest you and put you in prison anyway.

Trump withheld funds from Ukraine, just like Hussein did, and other Presidents before them. Until you can prove the reason why, this impeachment is based on assumptions and not fact. Nowhere in the phone call in question did Trump ever say that US aid would only be provided if Zelensky started an investigation.......nowhere.

that's because the transcript hasn't been released. only the edited memorandum that is being peddled as THE transcript. oh & sundland said there was a quid pro quo after he was caught perjuring himself.

you know that how?

i research, that's how. it's written in clear language on PAGE ONE of the MEMORANDUM that donny is pushing. google it you poorly educated lazy ass.

 

[EvMetro]

The question of whether or not Trump is guilty isn't up for debate anymore. He's clearly guilty.

The question is if Republicans care.

Can you quote something that Trump is "clearly guilty" of, besides being your political opponent, in regard to the impeachment?

Bribery.

This is an allegation, not a quote.

The reason you "overlooked" the part of my post that specifically asks for a "quote", is because you CANNOT quote something that he is clearly guilty of. You saw that I asked specifically for a quote, and you would have posted a quote, but there is nothing to quote.

I've already provided you a quote in your other retarded thread and you abandoned ship faster than Trump throws his associates under the bus.

Lol, can't seem to post a quote?

 

[mudwhistle]

Today's media hack echo chamber blabbering point....

View attachment 289635

Mark Quigley (D): "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, and it's certainly valid in this instance."

So.....you're calling for the "first hand" witnesses like Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc to testify then?

Republican strategy

Block access to those with direct involvement then proclaim......all you have is hearsay

Says the lackey for the shysters who've blocked access to the whistlegossip.

Exactly
Republicans pout that they can’t interview the whistleblower while they block access to Trump, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pompeo

The only reason they're calling for the president to testify is to harass him. The focus should be on the opinions filed in the complaints anyway, not an attempt to get the president or cabinet members under oath.

Democrats need a valid complaint to an actual crime before we get to that point. They have neither.

 

[playtime]

Not only Trump, but the staff Trump told him to deal with

Read my Signature...

Are you really that stupid? Serious question.

"I would like you to do us a favor"

Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?

Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.

Your call...............

I would like you to do us a favor though

A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.

Favor regarding 2016 or 2020? 2016 is OK but 2020 is not. Therein lies the intent. How do you prove it was for 2020? I ll wait patiently.

because biden is the top candidate that polls are showing who could beat donny. that video that every dumbfuck here is trying to peddle as the smoking gun that 'proves' biden was committing a crime.... back in 2018... when donny was a year into his term... but nothingg came of it until after biden got into the race & the polls are favorable.

You have to prove intent and that intent is to impact 2020 not to see what happened in 2016. Even during yesterday's hearings, they mentioned 2016 numerous times. Intent is very difficult to prove. As far as "dumbfuck", you're the dumbest person on this board and that is saying a lot with people like JoeB running around.

uh-huh. please hang onto that if it makes feel better.

 

[jc456]

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

well, since the story got out - it didn't happen. an attempted robbery doesn't go unpunished, now does it?

silly you.

Bad comparison. It's more like somebody told the cops you were going to rob a store, but you never did, so they arrest you and put you in prison anyway.

Trump withheld funds from Ukraine, just like Hussein did, and other Presidents before them. Until you can prove the reason why, this impeachment is based on assumptions and not fact. Nowhere in the phone call in question did Trump ever say that US aid would only be provided if Zelensky started an investigation.......nowhere.

that's because the transcript hasn't been released. only the edited memorandum that is being peddled as THE transcript. oh & sundland said there was a quid pro quo after he was caught perjuring himself.

you know that how?

i research, that's how. it's written in clear language on PAGE ONE of the MEMORANDUM that donny is pushing. google it you poorly educated lazy ass.

you don't do it well obviously, you haven't posted anything. see. your evidence is something you present, not me going to look for it for you.

 

[jc456]

so

Are you really that stupid? Serious question.

"I would like you to do us a favor"

Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?

Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.

Your call...............

I would like you to do us a favor though

A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.

Favor regarding 2016 or 2020? 2016 is OK but 2020 is not. Therein lies the intent. How do you prove it was for 2020? I ll wait patiently.

because biden is the top candidate that polls are showing who could beat donny. that video that every dumbfuck here is trying to peddle as the smoking gun that 'proves' biden was committing a crime.... back in 2018... when donny was a year into his term... but nothingg came of it until after biden got into the race & the polls are favorable.

You have to prove intent and that intent is to impact 2020 not to see what happened in 2016. Even during yesterday's hearings, they mentioned 2016 numerous times. Intent is very difficult to prove. As far as "dumbfuck", you're the dumbest person on this board and that is saying a lot with people like JoeB running around.

uh-huh. please hang onto that if it makes feel better.

you still got nothing. got it.

 

[bripat9643]

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

it was a joint effort between the US & other nations. biden, along with other american officials were our point men & did not go rogue on this.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim.

 

[OKTexas]

You gutless Dem clowns do something about it DO IT impeach Trump.

/—-/ From Fox. GOP plans counter attack:
Reports have emerged that, should Trump be impeached by a majority vote in the House, Senate Republicans might strategically hold a lengthy trial to "scramble" the 2020 Democratic presidential primary -- including by requiring several of the contenders to remain in Washington to handle the trial. Trump is all but certain to be acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate in the event of impeachment, given that a two-thirds vote is required in the Senate to remove the president.

The 6 senators that are running for president should recuse themselves, they have a major conflict of interest.

.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.

What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?

High crimes like Blow Jobs?[/QUOTE

Like lying under oath to congress

Did you get a blow job?
Nope
impeachable to conservatives

Withholding military aid unless personal favors are granted is business as usual

/----. You man we could have impeached Obozo after all?
"Again, the Obama-Biden administration did nothing in response to Putin attacked Crimeaing Ukrain.), in fact less than nothing as it denied lethal aid Ukraine was begging for. In 2017, Trump announced plans to reverse the policy of the Obama administration, which stood by silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine, and sell the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels:"
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/trump_gave_ukraine_what_obama_withheld.html

 

[rightwinger]

Again, unless intent can be proven there can be no impeachment. This is a waste of a thread.

Intent seems obvious
Actions show intent

Intent to investigate 2016 or impact 2020? Prove the intent was to impact 2020. I'll wait patiently. Intent HAS NOT been proven. Debate me honestly on this don't give me a smiley emoji and run away like you usually do.

Both are actions to improve Trumps chances in 2020 and are based primarily on conspiracy theories

Trump: I hear the missing servers from 2016 have magically appeared in Ukraine. You need to investigate that