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.
I now trhis is a shocker to you Trumpettes. But the loyalty it to country & not Trump.Nazi Pelousy is on TV right now saying this farce isn't about politics, it's about Patriotism. Even did it with a straight face...........has to be all the botox.
It is the duty of Congress to impeach a piece of shit like Trump that violated the law.
ROFL. You're such a douche.No. The evidence determines if there is to be a prosecution, dope. Not the president.He can tell his AG to prosecute them, moron.The President runs the DOJ, moron. He's the AG's boss. He's the boss of everyone in the DOJ.The president isn't the DOJ.
Where's Barr in this equation, dope?
The president cannot prosecute anyone, dope.
About that "deliverable"?
Crickets? No way.
Really wants. My kids really want another dog. There was no linkage though. Wants and must have are disparate, Alfredo.
You were better off with crickets.
Their star witness said there was no linkage and the deliverable is data on Biden and what looks like to any logical person a blatant case of nepotism. I do not see anything wrong with that. Why do you?
Let me ask you this, Federico, if Trump is impeached and jailed would you still want to know how Hunter Biden got that gig or would you not care?
That's a false statement - the deliverable was for a public statement by Ukraine's prez that Biden was under investigation.
Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption. It shouldn't have happened. Joe Biden was running his mouth, trying to puff himself up in the foreign policy arena, by claiming toughness in getting rid of the Ukranian prosecutor, when he was just the errand boy for people holding the reins. It was his bad, and it opened him to the false narrative you folks are pushing. There has been no evidence offered that Hunter Biden was under investigation at any time in Ukraine. I know he got the job because of his name.
That said, the deliverable Trump wanted was completely corrupt and unrelated to any facts on the ground. The 2016 Crowdstrike question is a disinformation campaign with multiple targets, 2020 voters included.
The table-setter you and your leg-humping buddy, Jim Jordan, insist is the star witness, is an honest man who testified honestly that he didn't discuss security assistance in his first two meetings with Zelensky (I think on July 26 and 27) and when it was subsequently discussed with others present, no linkage was made. As an adult, do you find that suspicious or completely normal?
So, Marcelo, you agree that the Hunter Biden gig was fishy. Your issue is that you believe Trump held up aid until Ukraine investigated the fishy issue?
You can't even BULL SHIT and make that garbage sound believable... sorry.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
Not going to work arbuckle. Witnesses that have nothing to do with the act don't need to testify. We don't need to hear from Strzok and Page. We don't need to hear Hunter Biden. We don't need to hear the whistleblower since we now have corroborating testimonies. We do need to hear from all who were directly on the call.When Schiff-for-Brains stops blocking witnesses and documents..Then you don't mind if Trump stops blocking witnesses and documents.
No, you do need to hear from the whistleblower because his intent needs to be determined. You need to hear from the whistleblower to find out who created the letter to Congress since it's clear it was written by an attorney, or more likely, Schiff Face. We need to hear the whistleblower testify under oath to Congress, that Schiff Face never met him, nor discussed this situation before it became public as Schiff Face claims.
Schiff Face is hiding this guy so he can't tell us the real story of how this happened. So don't say the whistleblower is irrelevant in this case. We need him to prove this was a staged coupe right from the beginning. Although Democrats are not real Americans, we real Americans have lived by the law that states the accused has the right to face his accuser in the court of law.
Bullshit. The Whistleblower told the truth as evident from the released summary of that call.
The beginning? The beginning was when Trump tried to extort the Ukraine for political gain.
And yet nobody from the left can point to any direct quote from Trump that supports their claim he was extorting or using a quid pro quo to get an investigation on Biden. We keep asking you to show us, but nobody has any evidence to support their point in the transcript.
Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...Yes. With testimony from Trump's own appointees.
Who saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.
Saw what? Dope? Would you say that to my face? No. Keep it civil, prancing Nancy boy.
I would indeed.
Now speak to the substance of my post, dope.
If you're not too upset from my affront that is, pussy.
LOL
You took the bait. Little keyboard warrior. Poke successful. Poor little prancing nancy boy, still upset over 2016.
It's hearsay, moron, which means it's not credible.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.Irrelevant drivel.Those "witnesses" wouldn't be allowed to go near a real court of law. Their "testimony" is absolutely worthless in legal terms. It's propaganda.
Your pathetic attempts to characterize this sworn testimony by highly credible witnesses as something less than that only betrays your weak position and desperation.
It's now part of the congressional record and history regardless of your retarded blathering.
Not even close. So how long do you republicans plan on being disingenuous?
^ Extortion
Food for thought. It is what our foreign policy is based on and Trump was trying to weaponized it against his domestic opposition.
Yet Kent testified that Trumps policies on Ukraine are much better than maobamas was. Go figure. Kent also said he warned Bidens staff about Hunter.
.
Which of course is completely irrelevant to the misconduct in question.
Not true, if Kent had concerns about the Bidens it's perfectly understandable that the President might share those concerns. Burisma used Hunter to buy access to maobamas State Dept. State Dept emails are just now coming to light proving that.
.
Vindman wasn't testifying, dope.Hearsay is not first hand testimony.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.
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.Hearsay is not first hand testimony.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Still sworn testimony, dope.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.
The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.
Nothing, dope. That's the point.so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor?
Lying fucking moron...No such crime.Abuse of power.name the high crime?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
exactly, nothing, not witness to anything accept holding their schwantzes.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.Hearsay is not first hand testimony.Call it what you will, dope.Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.
It's still sworn, first hand testimony. If this is the extent of your defense. You've already lost.
The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.Nothing, dope. That's the point.so what does that have to do with kent and Taylor?
LOLOLwhat was the abuse? does he set foreign policy as President? it's a yes or no answer on that?Abuse of power.name the high crime?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
They aren't witnesses to the call, moron.Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...Well we know a frame job when we see it.So extortion is legal. Who knew?Well we know a frame job when we see it.
Yes. With testimony from Trump's own appointees.
Who saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.
I bet you have one...Sorry... but I don't speak bubble head lib-slang... I have no idea who Trumpybear is.No.What difference would it make?
None
Now you're just kidding yourself.
If Trumpybear knew there was an open investigation into Good Ol'Joe he would turn him into Hillary the horrible in a heartbeat.
Show where the treaty allows for that. Show where that was done.That can be provided after the fact.Of course that matters in terms of the treaty since a requirement to request support includes the requestor name the authority on the investigation.That doesn't matter either.It makes no difference if Barr knew about the call. What matters is that Barr was not investigating Biden.The Law Enforcement Assistance and Cooperation Treaty with Ukraine specifies that the designated officials of the two nations are the US Attorney General and the Ukraine Minister of Justice, (3.1.d.). The treaty binds those two offices--and so the usual rules in both nations, regarding those offices: In the Treaty. So from the New York Times, about the phone--Barbarous Anti-American sentiment is apparently what the White House has documented.
"A Justice Department official said that Mr. Barr had no knowledge of the call until the director of national intelligence and the intelligence community’s inspector general sent the department the whistle-blower’s criminal referral late last month, and that Mr. Trump has not spoken with the attorney general “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son.”
Political interference is not considered cause, stated in the Treaty provisions.
https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf
Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Red-Hatter waving takes on a new appearance. "Banzai! Surprise!" Attack on the USA apparently is supported--or on Ukraine, or Crimea!)
- So-called whistleblowers don't hand down indictments.
- "Cause" for what?
- What difference does it make if Barr knew about the call?
Triggered? Why so bitter. This will not be the last debate you lose to me. Chill, Julio.Really wants. My kids really want another dog. There was no linkage though. Wants and must have are disparate, Alfredo.
You were better off with crickets.
Their star witness said there was no linkage and the deliverable is data on Biden and what looks like to any logical person a blatant case of nepotism. I do not see anything wrong with that. Why do you?
Let me ask you this, Federico, if Trump is impeached and jailed would you still want to know how Hunter Biden got that gig or would you not care?
That's a false statement - the deliverable was for a public statement by Ukraine's prez that Biden was under investigation.
Hunter Biden should not have sought or accepted that job. It was nepotistic corruption. It shouldn't have happened. Joe Biden was running his mouth, trying to puff himself up in the foreign policy arena, by claiming toughness in getting rid of the Ukranian prosecutor, when he was just the errand boy for people holding the reins. It was his bad, and it opened him to the false narrative you folks are pushing. There has been no evidence offered that Hunter Biden was under investigation at any time in Ukraine. I know he got the job because of his name.
That said, the deliverable Trump wanted was completely corrupt and unrelated to any facts on the ground. The 2016 Crowdstrike question is a disinformation campaign with multiple targets, 2020 voters included.
The table-setter you and your leg-humping buddy, Jim Jordan, insist is the star witness, is an honest man who testified honestly that he didn't discuss security assistance in his first two meetings with Zelensky (I think on July 26 and 27) and when it was subsequently discussed with others present, no linkage was made. As an adult, do you find that suspicious or completely normal?
So, Marcelo, you agree that the Hunter Biden gig was fishy. Your issue is that you believe Trump held up aid until Ukraine investigated the fishy issue?
No, you can take your intentional stupidity, fold it into a triangle, and stick it up your ass.
And? What is wrong with that?Not going to work arbuckle. Witnesses that have nothing to do with the act don't need to testify. We don't need to hear from Strzok and Page. We don't need to hear Hunter Biden. We don't need to hear the whistleblower since we now have corroborating testimonies. We do need to hear from all who were directly on the call.When Schiff-for-Brains stops blocking witnesses and documents..
No, you do need to hear from the whistleblower because his intent needs to be determined. You need to hear from the whistleblower to find out who created the letter to Congress since it's clear it was written by an attorney, or more likely, Schiff Face. We need to hear the whistleblower testify under oath to Congress, that Schiff Face never met him, nor discussed this situation before it became public as Schiff Face claims.
Schiff Face is hiding this guy so he can't tell us the real story of how this happened. So don't say the whistleblower is irrelevant in this case. We need him to prove this was a staged coupe right from the beginning. Although Democrats are not real Americans, we real Americans have lived by the law that states the accused has the right to face his accuser in the court of law.
Bullshit. The Whistleblower told the truth as evident from the released summary of that call.
The beginning? The beginning was when Trump tried to extort the Ukraine for political gain.
And yet nobody from the left can point to any direct quote from Trump that supports their claim he was extorting or using a quid pro quo to get an investigation on Biden. We keep asking you to show us, but nobody has any evidence to support their point in the transcript.
I would like you to do us a favor though
what policy?They aren't witnesses to the call, moron.Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...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 saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.
We know this. Now what's your point?
Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?
Firsthand is one word. LMAO. You’re so stupid and a pussy. Biden is corrupt and Trump wants to know what happened with the Nepotism gig and firing of the prosecutorThey aren't witnesses to the call, moron.Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...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 saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.
We know this. Now what's your point?
Are you asserting that they had no first hand knowledge of how this policy was playing out on the Ukrainian side?
