Offical Impeachment Thread

[OldLady]

Cases do not always start with star witnesses. Why do you say that? It's not only a false claim, the reverse is often true - the star witness is withheld until the foundation is laid.

No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.

Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.

If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.

Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.

He was speechless, alright. But not because Jordan was so "astute." Jordan's good at what he does, as the Republican's doberman. I agree. But Jordan is 95% bark and his nips yesterday barely broke skin.

He was speechless because he was trying to stay neutral and non political. I am sure he could have shut down Jordan's yelping about nothing had he wanted to.

Didn't he end up breaking into a huge grin at one point?
Yeah, speechless.

 

[IM2]

LOLOL

You don't get to pick my answers for me. The president sets foreign policy within the law.

Yes, he did.

Apparently not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.

Well, except for the hours where they outlined their direct interactions with Ukrainian officials in real time while this was all transpiring, of course.

what about it? it was their job, you obviously didn't hear the answers to Jim Jordan's questions. too fking funny. little mthr fkr you are.

It's first hand testimony, dope.

of a job description and nothing about abuse of power or whatever the fk you little fkrs are running around with today.

I wouldn't touch it either if I were you.

 

[IM2]

No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.

Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.

If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.

Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.

He was speechless, alright. But not because Jordan was so "astute." Jordan's good at what he does, as the Republican's doberman. I agree. But Jordan is 95% bark and his nips yesterday barely broke skin.

He was speechless because he was trying to stay neutral and non political. I am sure he could have shut down Jordan's yelping about nothing had he wanted to.

Didn't he end up breaking into a huge grin at one point?
Yeah, speechless.

He sure did. And it looked like he was fighting and trying real hard to hold back a good loud laugh.

 

[okfine]

Unbelievable!

WOW! Top Democrat on Schiff's Show Trial Committee Tells Audience: "Hearsay Can Be Better Evidence than Direct" (VIDEO)

I'd sure like to see a prosecutor convict somebody on robbery or murder based on hearsay.

Drew Peterson. Ever hear about him?

 

[jc456]

Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.

Well, except for the hours where they outlined their direct interactions with Ukrainian officials in real time while this was all transpiring, of course.

what about it? it was their job, you obviously didn't hear the answers to Jim Jordan's questions. too fking funny. little mthr fkr you are.

It's first hand testimony, dope.

of a job description and nothing about abuse of power or whatever the fk you little fkrs are running around with today.

I wouldn't touch it either if I were you.

I have no desire to go near a fking leftist fk like you

 

[IM2]

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.

Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.

Well, except for the hours where they outlined their direct interactions with Ukrainian officials in real time while this was all transpiring, of course.

what about it? it was their job, you obviously didn't hear the answers to Jim Jordan's questions. too fking funny. little mthr fkr you are.

It's first hand testimony, dope.

of a job description and nothing about abuse of power or whatever the fk you little fkrs are running around with today.

You are sad.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="OldLady, post: 23484962, member: 56127"]

No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.

Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.

If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.

Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.

He was speechless, alright. But not because Jordan was so "astute." Jordan's good at what he does, as the Republican's doberman. I agree. But Jordan is 95% bark and his nips yesterday barely broke skin.

He was speechless because he was trying to stay neutral and non political. I am sure he could have shut down Jordan's yelping about nothing had he wanted to.

Didn't he end up breaking into a huge grin at one point?
Yeah, speechless.[/QUOTE]
and factless.

 

[IM2]

Another wasted day the swamp democrat leaders carry on this impeachment charade. All taken advantage of by the hard working tax payer expense.

The important thing is, yesterday was the BIG DAY, the STAR WITNESSES, the day that they were SUPPOSED to GET TRUMP, but it fizzled like a melting lollipop.

So today, not only is no one covering this FARCE, no one wants to WATCH IT.

It's OVER. The dems blew their wad and it's OVER.

Now comes the IG report, and the demtrash have a RUDE AWAKENING coming.

No one is scheduled to testify today. This is just the beginning son.

 

[jc456]

Bullshit. They had ZERO first hand testimony. None.

Well, except for the hours where they outlined their direct interactions with Ukrainian officials in real time while this was all transpiring, of course.

what about it? it was their job, you obviously didn't hear the answers to Jim Jordan's questions. too fking funny. little mthr fkr you are.

It's first hand testimony, dope.

of a job description and nothing about abuse of power or whatever the fk you little fkrs are running around with today.

You are sad.

I am?

 

[Olde Europe]

You're fucking deranged, dumbfuck.

You must think Trump is the Attorney General and Zelensky is the Prosecutor General.

One might say, you enjoy talking to a "deranged dumbfuck". Your call.

Your point that the treaty requires that request be made by the appropriate institutions is a good one, even if the permanently debilitated won't get it. There is an even better one (assuming that a president might intervene on behalf of his own AG to get things moving): Look at Article 4, 2. For Trump's so-called request under the treaty violated pretty much every one of these provisions.

Focus on Article 4, 2 (a): The request shall include the "name of the authority conducting the investigation". There is, of course, a precondition to that, namely, there has to be an actual investigation (in the U.S.) by that authority. There is, however, no such investigation by any U.S. authority into Joe or Hunter Biden.

And with that the whole "but but but we have a mutual legal assistance agreement with Ukraine" is exposed as yet another imbecilic hoax. That again is about as surprising as the finding that water is wet. Case closed.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="IM2, post: 23485008, member: 53913"]

Another wasted day the swamp democrat leaders carry on this impeachment charade. All taken advantage of by the hard working tax payer expense.

The important thing is, yesterday was the BIG DAY, the STAR WITNESSES, the day that they were SUPPOSED to GET TRUMP, but it fizzled like a melting lollipop.

So today, not only is no one covering this FARCE, no one wants to WATCH IT.

It's OVER. The dems blew their wad and it's OVER.

Now comes the IG report, and the demtrash have a RUDE AWAKENING coming.

No one is scheduled to testify today. This is just the beginning son.[/QUOTE]

of the demofks disaster. yes, we know.

 

[IM2]

QUOTE="OldLady, post: 23484962, member: 56127"]

No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.

Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.

If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.

Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.

He was speechless, alright. But not because Jordan was so "astute." Jordan's good at what he does, as the Republican's doberman. I agree. But Jordan is 95% bark and his nips yesterday barely broke skin.

He was speechless because he was trying to stay neutral and non political. I am sure he could have shut down Jordan's yelping about nothing had he wanted to.

Didn't he end up breaking into a huge grin at one point?
Yeah, speechless.

and factless.[/QUOTE]
He was far from factless.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="OldLady, post: 23484962, member: 56127"]

If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.

Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.

He was speechless, alright. But not because Jordan was so "astute." Jordan's good at what he does, as the Republican's doberman. I agree. But Jordan is 95% bark and his nips yesterday barely broke skin.

He was speechless because he was trying to stay neutral and non political. I am sure he could have shut down Jordan's yelping about nothing had he wanted to.

Didn't he end up breaking into a huge grin at one point?
Yeah, speechless.

and factless.

He was far from factless.[/QUOTE]
name one then

 

[Hum Dinger]

The law does NOT give grant them status anonymity, because the US Constitution gives every citizen the right to face their accuser,

In a trial, dumbass.

Impeachment is not a trial.

You're just making this stupid shit up as an excuse to expose and kill the whistleblower.

this isn't an impeachment. you got wrong hairball. what's the article of impeachment that trump is charged with?

This is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment. So far Trump has not been accused officially - so there is no accuser to face.

When Articles of impeachment are passed by the house, witnesses will be cross examined by the representatives of the President during the Senate trial.

so what are they investigating? what? I know I know you don't know. I know.so in other words a wild goose chase and you're losing.

Seriously?

Have you had you head stuck up your ass for the past 3 years?

Obviously you have.

 

[MAGAman]

Lets see what Democrats have so far.

No witnesses to a bribe. An alleged victim that says there was no bribe. Just people who spoke to people that said the other person said they felt like it was a bribe.

You've got a 55 day delay that Zelensky wasn't even aware of, compared to 8 years that Obama did not give any defensive weapons to the Ukraine.

You've got defensive weapons that were delivered within the time frame of the legislation authorizing the weapons.

That's what a Fascist coup looks like

 

[jc456]

The law does NOT give grant them status anonymity, because the US Constitution gives every citizen the right to face their accuser,

In a trial, dumbass.

Impeachment is not a trial.

You're just making this stupid shit up as an excuse to expose and kill the whistleblower.

this isn't an impeachment. you got wrong hairball. what's the article of impeachment that trump is charged with?

This is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment. So far Trump has not been accused officially - so there is no accuser to face.

When Articles of impeachment are passed by the house, witnesses will be cross examined by the representatives of the President during the Senate trial.

so what are they investigating? what? I know I know you don't know. I know.so in other words a wild goose chase and you're losing.

Seriously?

Have you had you head stuck up your ass for the past 3 years?

Obviously you have.

My president has been outstanding. and nothing you can do will ever change that fact. You fkin whiner loser.

 

[MAGAman]

Seriously?

Have you had you head stuck up your ass for the past 3 years?

Obviously you have.

What? Mueller exonerated Trump.. Where were you, in a hospital in a coma?

 

[jc456]

Lets see what Democrats have so far.

No witnesses to a bribe. An alleged victim that says there was no bribe. Just people who spoke to people that said the other person said they felt like it was a bribe.

You've got a 55 day delay that Zelensky wasn't even aware of, compared to 8 years that Obama did not give any defensive weapons to the Ukraine.

You've got defensive weapons that were delivered within the time frame of the legislation authorizing the weapons.

That's what a Fascist coup looks like

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around

 

[IM2]

You're fucking deranged, dumbfuck.

You must think Trump is the Attorney General and Zelensky is the Prosecutor General.

One might say, you enjoy talking to a "deranged dumbfuck". Your call.

Your point that the treaty requires that request be made by the appropriate institutions is a good one, even if the permanently debilitated won't get it. There is an even better one (assuming that a president might intervene on behalf of his own AG to get things moving): Look at Article 4, 2. For Trump's so-called request under the treaty violated pretty much every one of these provisions.

Focus on Article 4, 2 (a): The request shall include the "name of the authority conducting the investigation". There is, of course, a precondition to that, namely, there has to be an actual investigation (in the U.S.) by that authority. There is, however, no such investigation by any U.S. authority into Joe or Hunter Biden.

And with that the whole "but but but we have a mutual legal assistance agreement with Ukraine" is exposed as yet another imbecilic hoax. That again is about as surprising as the finding that water is wet. Case closed.

That post was outstanding Olde Europe.