Offical Impeachment Thread

[OKTexas]

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!)

The testimony yesterday of witnesses and patriots Ambassadors Taylor and Kent is that they disclosed a lunch time cell phone conversation between Trump and Ambassador Sondland where it is very obvious that Trump is more interested in investigation the Bidens then he is in rendering aid to Ukraine. This is not only devastating to Trump but also to Sondland, since he failed to disclose this conversation with Trump at his closed door hearing. Sondland is to testify next week. IT WILL BE FASCINATING TO SEE THE STEPS TRUMP & CO WILL TAKE TO KEEP HIM FROM TESTIFYING.

And, most importantly, this will serve as notice to other Trump sycophants that when questioned by the Democrats, if they avoid disclosing everything they know about Trump's crimes, retribution awaits them.

Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?

.

 

[OKTexas]

sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

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.

Yeah see how far it gets in the senate without criminal wrong doing.


.

 

[RealDave]

And Trump has been obstructing to save his ass since 2017.

obstructing what? you never made a claim of the investigation you're after.

Yawn! You know exactly what Trump has done. And what's so pathetic is you don't mind him breaking the law. Now democrats can let this go on and then when a democrat becomes president, they let him/her do what Trump is doing.

Name the law he broke and please provide the statute. Thank you.

No. You know what laws he has broken. You are able to name every law on the books for Obama , Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan Biden, etc., but you watch Trump tell people to defy subpoenas, he defies subpoenas, refuses to testify, asks a foreign government to investigate his opponent and suddenly you don't know what laws he has broken. Fuck that.

It's something called Executive Privilege, and using it is not breaking any laws. Furthermore, just because Slow Joe is a presidential nominee (not Trump's challenger) does not excuse him from being looked into for possible suspicious activity while serving as VP. Coke head Hunter got a very lucrative job for somebody that's never dealt in the country before in an industry he has no experience in. That's very suspicious.

Quit trying to pretend Trump was fighting corruption. He was only talking about Biden & yes his political adversary that Trump knows is his biggest threat.,

Try being an American instead of a Trumpette.

Quit lying & saying Hunter Biden had no experience. He had served on boards & was an attorney & advised the Ukrainian company on US law.

 

[RealDave]

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

LMAO. "Nothing inappropriate" --- you have got to be kidding me. Even Hunter Biden stated otherwise. StupidFakeDave, adults are speaking STFU and go and play with your dolls.

Hunter said he should not ha ve taken the position. But there was nothing illegal or corrupt for a US citizen to serve on the board of a foreign corporation.

He did not speak Ukrainian or Russian. He never moved to the Ukraine. He had zero experience with oil. He was getting paid more than any other board member. Why do you think he received the job?

You also saw nothing wrong with HRC staffers smashing blackberries and ipads.

We actually have devices where you can sit in on meetings without being there. Really, we do. He has international business experience.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?

Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.

 

[RealDave]

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

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.

Yeah see how far it gets in the senate without criminal wrong doing.


.

I am sure there are many Republicans who will vote no.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Intent seems obvious
Actions show intent

Funny, you didn't have that opinion with the bitch.

.

 

[NotYourBody]

That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..

Hate his guts and liver...

 

[daveman]

Trumps finished. Trump should be hung for the treasonous act he committed against our country.

Drama queen.

 

[RealDave]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

Trump has done lots of things that are impeachable.

Many examples of obstruction of justice including admitting he fired Comey because of the Russian thing.

 

[RealDave]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

First off, congress does not need any violation of the law to impeach and remove a person from office. And yes, the impeachment investigation is looking for a crime to charge Trump. That is what impeachment investigations do. There are plenty of wrong doings to sight but they don't have any strong evidence of violation federal statues.

Nixon's impeachment contain no reference to any crime but charged a violation of his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice. At time he resigned the committee was looking at the federal crime of suborning perjury.

Clinton was charged with perjury.

So this is the precedent you'd like to see set......that a House looks for reasons to impeach a President of the opposing party?

Like I've said repeatedly, if the Democrats want to open up that Pandora's Box, then the shoe fits on both feet.

The Constitution is not a reference guide, it's the law of our land. Impeachment is used for high crimes and misdemeanors, unless you can show me where it says impeachment is for any reason at any time, or if one party wants to overturn the election of the winners of the other party.

The House did not look, Trump flaunted it in their faces.

 

[OKTexas]

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

How about providing a contemporary story instead of revisionist history. Oh, for you commies, that would be something written at the time.

.

.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

Trump has done lots of things that are impeachable.

Many examples of obstruction of justice including admitting he fired Comey because of the Russian thing.

So he can be impeached for doing something the constitution gives him the right to do?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about providing a contemporary story instead of revisionist history.

How about you look one up yourself, you lazy piece of shit?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

First off, congress does not need any violation of the law to impeach and remove a person from office. And yes, the impeachment investigation is looking for a crime to charge Trump. That is what impeachment investigations do. There are plenty of wrong doings to sight but they don't have any strong evidence of violation federal statues.

Nixon's impeachment contain no reference to any crime but charged a violation of his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice. At time he resigned the committee was looking at the federal crime of suborning perjury.

Clinton was charged with perjury.

So this is the precedent you'd like to see set......that a House looks for reasons to impeach a President of the opposing party?

Like I've said repeatedly, if the Democrats want to open up that Pandora's Box, then the shoe fits on both feet.

The Constitution is not a reference guide, it's the law of our land. Impeachment is used for high crimes and misdemeanors, unless you can show me where it says impeachment is for any reason at any time, or if one party wants to overturn the election of the winners of the other party.

The House did not look, Trump flaunted it in their faces.

Wrong. They've been talking about impeachment since before Trump stepped foot in the White House. Don't tell me Trump initiated this.

For crying out loud, they're trying to impeach Trump over a MF phone call, and making up shit that he never said.

 

[RealDave]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?

Trump is flaunting his corruption right out in the open. He is spitting on the US Constitution .

And you love it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

Trump has done lots of things that are impeachable.

Many examples of obstruction of justice including admitting he fired Comey because of the Russian thing.

The US President can fire the FBI director and any time for any reason. There is no crime for that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

That wasn't me - LOL.

You admitted the Biden thing is fishy, the deliverable is the truth of what happened in 2016 and how Biden got that gig is my guess. Again, I am smart. Very smart. But I am not a mind reader. I don't see anything wrong with what DJT did. I bet prior presidents have done similar crap. This was in an open phone call. He was not hiding anything. Per usual, leftists like you make a mountain out of a mole hill. He should have been more direct, maybe".

DJT: Your country is very corrupt and my intelligence persons tell me that the whole Russia conspiracy started there in 2016. I have a hard time authorizing additional weaponry to a country that is corrupt. I understand you're trying to clean up the corruption. Would you please share with me what happened with Crowdstrike and how Hunter Biden got that board seat with Burisma? Why was the prosecutor fired?

I see ZERO wrong with this. NOTHING. He is not asking for the President of Ukraine to make shit up, he is asking for details on shit that actually happened.

I hope you understand this, Lopez.

Of course it was you, you transparent coward.

Yay an ad hominem from Domingo. My salient argument was too much for you? LOL

Again, Trump never asked the Ukraine to make up anything and his request was via an open phone call. You admitted the Biden board seat was iffy and this was not the first time. Remember China and the Bidens?

Come on man. Use your logic, Diego.

There is nothing between Hunter Biden & China. There as nothing inappropriate with Joe Biden in Ukraine.

Trump's extortion is obvious.

Your argument is a lie.

LMAO. "Nothing inappropriate" --- you have got to be kidding me. Even Hunter Biden stated otherwise. StupidFakeDave, adults are speaking STFU and go and play with your dolls.

Hunter said he should not ha ve taken the position. But there was nothing illegal or corrupt for a US citizen to serve on the board of a foreign corporation.

/----/
George Kent testified that in 2014, the first thing…” This was under the Obama administration. “The first thing the U.S. demanded from Ukraine in exchange for aid was an investigation of Burisma” in 2014. He said the investigation was “closed down due to bribery and corruption.” Remember, Kent here is an expert on corruption — anti-corruption and bribery, or whatever.

Now, why was this investigation closed down? In 2014, the U.S. demanded exactly what Trump did. The Obama administration demanded Ukraine investigate Burisma in exchange for aid. But it was closed down, maybe because Biden was hired by Burisma in late 2014! Maybe they closed it down because Burisma did what they had to do to close it down. They hired Biden and his kid. In 2015, George Kent pushed to reopen the investigation, but Obama ignored the request. So George Kent admitted that the State Department wanted to do exactly what they’re now saying Trump should be impeached for.
George Kent’s Bombshell Admission

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?

Trump is flaunting his corruption right out in the open. He is spitting on the US Constitution .

And you love it.

What I love is how you Democrats are chasing voters to our side. That's what I love about it. If your heads weren't so clouded to see what others see, you'd understand the damage Democrats are doing to themselves.

Trump Campaign Raises $3.1M in Donations During Impeachment Hearings

 

[RealDave]

For all intensive purposes both the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration co-operated with the investigation. Trump never considered co-operating. Both Clinton and Nixon understood the perils of impeachment for both parties and the harm it is does to the country. An impeachment always further divides the nation making bi-partisan efforts nearly impossible. It also makes the process just another method for changing presidents, not a good thing. Unfortunately, Donald Trump sees impeachment as just another personal battle with little thought for how it effects others and the future of the nation.

I believe the House investigation should culminate with a decision to do what the Senate will most likely do, leave the decision of wrong doing in the hands of the voters.

Nobody was fishing for a crime during Nixon or Clinton. They both knew the jig was up. What the Democrats are trying to do to Trump is find the crime so they can impeach him, even if it's holding a witness guilty on obstruction simply because they got a date wrong or something like that.

View attachment 289841

First off, congress does not need any violation of the law to impeach and remove a person from office. And yes, the impeachment investigation is looking for a crime to charge Trump. That is what impeachment investigations do. There are plenty of wrong doings to sight but they don't have any strong evidence of violation federal statues.

Nixon's impeachment contain no reference to any crime but charged a violation of his constitutional oath, to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice. At time he resigned the committee was looking at the federal crime of suborning perjury.

Clinton was charged with perjury.

So this is the precedent you'd like to see set......that a House looks for reasons to impeach a President of the opposing party?

Like I've said repeatedly, if the Democrats want to open up that Pandora's Box, then the shoe fits on both feet.

The Constitution is not a reference guide, it's the law of our land. Impeachment is used for high crimes and misdemeanors, unless you can show me where it says impeachment is for any reason at any time, or if one party wants to overturn the election of the winners of the other party.

The House did not look, Trump flaunted it in their faces.

Wrong. They've been talking about impeachment since before Trump stepped foot in the White House. Don't tell me Trump initiated this.

For crying out loud, they're trying to impeach Trump over a MF phone call, and making up shit that he never said.

Now you resort to outright lying. There would not be any impeachment proceeding without Trumps extortion. How any witnesses have to testify what he did before your stupid fucks believce it.