Offical Impeachment Thread

[Faun]

Dumbfuck...

​

Perhaps that's why Trump asked for cooperation with the AG 4 times during the call.

.

Then why didn't Trump ever actually call upon his Attorney General to contact Ukraine?

How do you know he didn't, the DOJ doesn't discuss investigations, perhaps Durham is looking into it along with other things that happened. If it was ongoing, there would be no need to discuss it, would there?

.

Justice Department: Trump never asked Barr to talk to Ukraine

Funny, I heard him do it on TV several times. But once again, how do you know they aren't already looking into it?

.

From the article ...

DOJ says no such call between Barr and the Ukrainians ended up taking place.​

 

[bripat9643]

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

You claimed it barred the President from using it. You failed to show where it does that, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You're fucking deranged, dumbfuck.

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

Another fail by you, dumbfuck.

Where does the treaty say the President can't use it, dumbfuck?

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You poor, deranged dumbfuck, it doesn't say you can't request such assistance under that treaty -- that doesn't mean that treaty allows you to request the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever???

Sure it does. Of course, you are likely to be ignored unless you are the President of the United States.

 

[IM2]

Since 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.

Fishing without a license
Tearing the label off a pillow, etc

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..

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.

Clinton was impeached by the house and then acquitted by the senate.
View attachment 289838

That's actually wrong. The House Writes Articles of Impeachment, and that is all they can do. They vote on The Articles of Impeachment to decide whether they are to be approved by a majority and then sent to The Senate. They then send them to The Senate.

The Senate Impeaches.

The senate convicts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. Thanks for asking!

Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.

Ooops, also false. Thanks for posting!

Let the voters decide. Seems simple.

We can't have that. The voters did decide last election, and that's what this impeachment is all about. Trump didn't get permission from the Democrats or the establishment to take the job. We the people just gave it to him.

This impeachment has nothing to do with the election.

It has to do with Trump breaking the law.

No, it has to do with the Nazis taking one baby step towards removal of a President. It has to do with tarnishing his name for any slight hope of the commies winning the next election. That's what it has to do with.

 

[bripat9643]

No such crime.

Lying fucking moron...

• The Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon

Article II
ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to 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 disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.​

• H. Rept. 105-830 - IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

D. Article IV--Abuse of Power

Article IV - 1
1. The President abused his power by refusing and failing to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him by the Committee​

Quote the statute titled "Abuse of power." The fact that a bunch of Dims made up a crime means nothing.

There doesn't have to be a statute, ya lying fucking moron.

Have you learned nothing at all??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

Wrong. For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute. Otherwise it's just a whine.

Lying fucking moron, impeachment is a political procedure, not a criminal one. Didn't you learn anything from Lindsey Graham??

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors." That would mean you had to commit an actual crime of some kind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.

If they were, then Trump had nothing to do with it. A 2 year 45 million tax dollar investigation proved that. So tell me, why did DumBama allow that to go on??

It did prove that. And Obama didn't have 140+ meetings with the Russians during his campaign.

Even if he did, there is no law against it. Furthermore the Mueller investigation revealed (and I'm using Mueller's own words) No American had anything to do with colluding with Russia.

 

[IM2]

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.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

There's a constitutional definition of treason, tell the class how it applies to a freaking phone call.

.

I know you want to try playing this off as just a phone call. But during that call there was a conversation and in that conversation Trump committed bribery and extortion.

Exact words please, and no commie interpretations either.

There are no commie interpretations and you know the exact words.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Yes, dope. That's why the Obama admin withheld aid until the corrupt prosecutor was sacked.

Get it now?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. Thanks for asking!

Fake Dossier. A bunch of HRC BS.

Ooops, also false. Thanks for posting!

Let the voters decide. Seems simple.

We can't have that. The voters did decide last election, and that's what this impeachment is all about. Trump didn't get permission from the Democrats or the establishment to take the job. We the people just gave it to him.

The voters decided for Clinton.

Then why isn't she President today?

 

[bripat9643]

Since you can't back up that claim, dumbfuck...... link us up to the part of the treaty that says the President can't use it.

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

Where does it say the president can't simply make a personal request?

Lying fucking moron, it says who can. No one else outside of that can. Your moronic position is like saying the Judiciary can impeach a president because the Constitution doesn't say they can't.

Are you ever not a lying fucking moron, ya lying fucking moron??

Ever???

It says who is entitled to receive services, moron. It doesn't say that it's against the law for anyone else to ask. You analogy is gross bullshit, of course.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

There's a constitutional definition of treason, tell the class how it applies to a freaking phone call.

.

I know you want to try playing this off as just a phone call. But during that call there was a conversation and in that conversation Trump committed bribery and extortion.

Exact words please, and no commie interpretations either.

There are no commie interpretations and you know the exact words.

If I did, I must be the only one between us because you obviously can't answer my question.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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.

If you cared about justice you wouldn't be on here telling everyone how the rich should be looted.

Why not? The rich are the ones robbing everybody else.

Really? Then why don't you have them arrested?

 

[IM2]

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

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.

If they were, then Trump had nothing to do with it. A 2 year 45 million tax dollar investigation proved that. So tell me, why did DumBama allow that to go on??

It did prove that. And Obama didn't have 140+ meetings with the Russians during his campaign.

Even if he did, there is no law against it. Furthermore the Mueller investigation revealed (and I'm using Mueller's own words) No American had anything to do with colluding with Russia.

You are not using Mueller's words because Mueller's words say they weren't looking for collusion.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Isn't that what started the collusion investigation; Trump jokingly asking Russia for Hillary's emails???

There was already evidence that the Russians were helping Trump.

What evidence was that?

Really assfuck. Pull your head out of your fast ass & become better informed.

Obviously you can't name any example of the Russians helping Trump.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck...

​

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

Where does it say the president can't simply make a personal request?

Lying fucking moron, it says who can. No one else outside of that can. Your moronic position is like saying the Judiciary can impeach a president because the Constitution doesn't say they can't.

Are you ever not a lying fucking moron, ya lying fucking moron??

Ever???

We've already been over this multiple times, dumbass. If they go outside the channels specified in the treaty, then they aren't entitle to receive the services they are requesting. That's all the treaty says. It's certainly not against the law for them to do so.

You've come down on both sides of this issue now, and you claimed I'm a dumbass in both cases.

Lying fucking moron, even you posted this from the treaty (even though you don't understand it) ...

Each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this Treaty.​

It also states ...

Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General VI or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General. The article provides that the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty.​

Are you ever not a lying fucking moron, lying fucking moron?

Ever???

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

.

You were comparing Obama and Trump policy, dope.

Obama's policy is irrelevant to Trump's abuse of power.

Are you capable of reading more than one sentence at a time. Try it. Otherwise be more specific in your responses.

.

LOL....I gave you two, double spaced sentences that went over your head, dope.

 

[IM2]

Bribery and Treason are the two specific reasons a president can be impeached for. Likewise if the people see a valid reason to remove the President not acted on because of a partisan vote, they can also revolt at the ballot box.

There's a constitutional definition of treason, tell the class how it applies to a freaking phone call.

.

I know you want to try playing this off as just a phone call. But during that call there was a conversation and in that conversation Trump committed bribery and extortion.

Exact words please, and no commie interpretations either.

There are no commie interpretations and you know the exact words.

If I did, I must be the only one between us because you obviously can't answer my question.

There is a difference between can't answer and not going to answer. You know what was said on that call and you know exactly where the bribery occurred in that call.

 

[bripat9643]

Nowhere in there does it say the President can't use it. In fact, it never even mentions the President, dumbfuck.

Try again, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

Where does it say the president can't simply make a personal request?

Lying fucking moron, it says who can. No one else outside of that can. Your moronic position is like saying the Judiciary can impeach a president because the Constitution doesn't say they can't.

Are you ever not a lying fucking moron, ya lying fucking moron??

Ever???

We've already been over this multiple times, dumbass. If they go outside the channels specified in the treaty, then they aren't entitle to receive the services they are requesting. That's all the treaty says. It's certainly not against the law for them to do so.

You've come down on both sides of this issue now, and you claimed I'm a dumbass in both cases.

Lying fucking moron, even you posted this from the treaty (even though you don't understand it) ...

Each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this Treaty.​

It also states ...

Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General VI or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General. The article provides that the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty.​

Are you ever not a lying fucking moron, lying fucking moron?

Ever???

Your post doesn't contradict what I said, moron.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Dumbfuck, what part of, "each Contracting State shall have a Central Authority to make and receive requests pursuant to this treaty," is above your single digit IQ?

You claimed it barred the President from using it. You failed to show where it does that, dumbfuck.

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You're fucking deranged, dumbfuck.

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

Another fail by you, dumbfuck.

Where does the treaty say the President can't use it, dumbfuck?

You lose again, dumbfuck.

LOLOL

You poor, deranged dumbfuck, it doesn't say you can't request such assistance under that treaty -- that doesn't mean that treaty allows you to request the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck, dumbfuck?

Ever???

Sure it does. Of course, you are likely to be ignored unless you are the President of the United States.

Lying fucking moron -- "for the purposes of the Treaty" is limited to the Central Authority. Trump, as president, can still ask the president of Ukraine to investigate his political rival, but it's still illegal to ask that and it's outside the purview of that treaty since it's not abiding by the requirements of the treaty.

 

[jillian]

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

Trumpkin cultists are embarrassing