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.
Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?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.Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?
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 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
Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?
There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?
Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
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.The House did not look, Trump flaunted it in their faces.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.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
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.
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.
Manuel, it was a public and open call. He didn’t do anything wrong. We disagree so let’s decide at the ballot box. I want a public statement as well. You want weaponry then tell us what the hell is going on.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.
Logic is useless to someone who won't acknowledge the "deliverable" wasn't for an investigation. It was for a public announcement of an investigation. Details are fucking irrelevant and the last thing Trump wants is a quest for the truth. Once the smear is out there, there's no need for an investigation. Trump is leveraging US foreign aid for a smear campaign to use in domestic politics.
Experience should tell you the con man is conning you. Maybe you were born every minute.
He is leveraging aid as he is the Commander in Chief of the military to ensure that Ukraine is not as corrupt as it was in 2016. How is he conning me? It was an open phone call, he released the transcript, the Bidens seem like the con artists to me. Again, I don't see anything that he did as being wrong, you disagree and that is your right, Luis.
Keep spinning until you explain why the "deliverable" was a public statement from Zelensky. Man up.
Yes and as POTUS he has the right to demand this. He wasn't hiding it. He did it in an open forum.
Burisma, a private oil and gas company in Ukraine, announced this week that it has appointed Hunter Biden, the youngest son of US Vice President Joe Biden, to its board of directors.
The company, founded in 2002, is controlled by a former energy official in the government of deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
The move has raised some eyebrows in the US, given the Obama administration's attempts to manage the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
"Joe Biden has been the White House's go-to guy during the Ukraine crisis, touring former Soviet republics and reassuring their concerned leaders," writes the National Journal's Marina Koren. "And now, he's not the only Biden involved in the region."
She says that by appointing Hunter Biden head of its legal affairs unit, "Burisma is turning to US talent - and money and name recognition - for protection against Russia".
The younger Mr Biden isn't the only American with political ties to have recently joined Burisma's board. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a college roommate of Mr Kerry's stepson HJ Heinz, signed on in April.
Mr Biden and Mr Archer are also managing partners at Rosemont Seneca Partners, a Washington, DC-based investment company.
Both Mr Biden and Mr Archer have not responded to requests from reporters for comment. In Burisma's press release announcing his hiring, Mr Biden says:
I believe that my assistance in consulting the company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.
All this could be explained simply as a foreign energy company looking to increase its visibility in the US and spur investment, writes the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway. State-controlled companies currently account for 90% of Ukraine's gas production, but this year Burisma became the nation's largest private producer.
Hemingway adds, however, that there may be another, less savoury possibility:
The most disturbing explanation is that the company is attempting to curry favour with the US government by enlisting the services of the close family friend and campaign bundler of the secretary of state and the son of the vice president. After all, Archer notes on one of his company's web pages that his firm's "relationship network creates opportunities for our portfolio companies which then compound to greater outcomes for all parties".
She concludes that this seems like a "cliched movie plot": "a shady foreign oil company co-opts the vice president's son in order to capture lucrative foreign investment contracts".
The White House has emphasised that the vice president's son's new job will have no influence on US foreign policy.
"Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer," Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the vice president, told the Wall Street Journal. "The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company."
Bullshit. Trump made every effort to hide his request of Ukraine, including, to this day, denying there was a quid pro quo. He used a backchannel of his personal attorney and two currently-indicted associates, who engaged in a smear campaign to remove an Ambassador. The WH hid the call records, in which Trump never mentioned the word corruption, tho he mentioned Biden and Giuliani. A whistleblower report was suppressed.
But, yeah, It's just an honest, above-board effort to root out corruption. The demand for a public statement of a Burisma/Biden investigation is so innocent you can't even conceive of an explanation for it.
Yeah, he didn't pay hush money either.
So Bill Clinton was not impeached? Okay, if you say so!Impeachment Occurs in The Senate. The Only thing The House can do is recommend and request an Impeachment of a President. If the Request is unwarranted The Senate can table it and do not even have to consider it.If the house can muster the votes, they can impeach the president for any reason. Likewise, if the senate has the votes after the house impeaches the president, they can convict/remove him from office for any reason. However, the constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is very unlikely that there will be a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the president without a bipartisan vote. For a bipartisan vote to remove the president, there needs to be a valid high crime or misdemeanor or the people will revolt at the ballot box. That being said, the house may impeach Trump on a partisan basis simply because the dems hate his guts and consider him evil..Fishing without a licenseSince impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, hearsay evidence is always admissibly. To impeach a person and remove them from office, there is no requirement for a violation of a federal statue. Violation of oath of office, improper use of power, conduct unbecoming a president are valid articles of impeachment.Day 1:
This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?
The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?
Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.
And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.
Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.
Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.
Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).
Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?
Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.
Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:
Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.
Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:
Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court
There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:
* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.
So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.
Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc
FakeStupidDave, shall I embarrass you again? Trump just stated publicly what everyone already knew and now the idiot Democrats are putting a nice bow on it. You’re still denying that Clintons cronies smashed 15 blackberries and iPads.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.The House did not look, Trump flaunted it in their faces.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.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
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.
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.
Voters are people so you don’t care about people? You’re so stupid it hurts.Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?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.Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?
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 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
The wealthy are scared to death they will lose their buddy who keeps handing them money.
As an Amerocan, I don't give a shit about voters. I care about justice and the US Constitution.
Too band you Trumpettes can't say the same.
There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?
Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?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.Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?
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 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
The wealthy are scared to death they will lose their buddy who keeps handing them money.
As an Amerocan, I don't give a shit about voters. I care about justice and the US Constitution.
Too band you Trumpettes can't say the same.
No. Thanks for asking!Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.No. Thanks for asking!Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
Ooops, also false. Thanks for posting!Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.No. Thanks for asking!Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
Let the voters decide. Seems simple.Ooops, also false. Thanks for posting!Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.No. Thanks for asking!Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?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.Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?
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 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
The wealthy are scared to death they will lose their buddy who keeps handing them money.
As an Amerocan, I don't give a shit about voters. I care about justice and the US Constitution.
Too band you Trumpettes can't say the same.
What IM2 really means is that Schiff-for-Brains doesn't want him to testify.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.
If Republicans could force him to testify, Schiff would Schiff himself. Because the whistleblower under oath would have to state exactly what took place that brought us here. He would have to testify who he alerted first, who prepared his statement, and it would all lead back to this guy.
View attachment 289759
More blatant liesKeeping his job. If it was exposed that he used his position as VP to get his crackhead son, who had zero experience in oil and gas, and zero experience in Ukraine, a no-show position based solely on his last name on the Board of Directors of a Ukranian oil and gas company, Biden would have been toast.What political gain?????You just described what Biden did.Trump isn't corrupt stop lying. The only real corruption to emerge from this mess is the Biden's corruption.
Using foreign aid to extort for political gain is corruption.
There is ZERO evidence of Biden soliciting a job for his son
If you cared about justice you wouldn't be on here telling everyone how the rich should be looted.Jesus fucking Christ. How long was the Starr investigation? How many subjects did they try?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.Surely Trump could put this issue to bed very quickly by co-operating with the enquiry?
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 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
The wealthy are scared to death they will lose their buddy who keeps handing them money.
As an Amerocan, I don't give a shit about voters. I care about justice and the US Constitution.
Too band you Trumpettes can't say the same.
What evidence was that?There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.Maybe we should just ask the russians. They were on the call.Really, was this phantom staffer part of the call, or did they just report what they imagined they heard?
Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???
Yes there would, fool.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.The House did not look, Trump flaunted it in their faces.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.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
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.
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.
