Offical Impeachment Thread

[bripat9643]

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.

Your post is imbecilic you brain dead loon

Ironic.

 

[OKTexas]

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.​

And of course things never change, RIGHT?

.

 

[IM2]

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?

Let me know how you feel when your tax cut runs out while the rich keep getting them in 1 year and 1.5 months.

 

[regent]

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

Was Lenin a Republican?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

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.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.

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.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

Your understanding is shit. Everyone knows this.

READ: Testimony Of Alexander Vindman, The White House's Ukraine Specialist

Husky is a triggered Leftist. His posts make me laugh.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Let me know how you feel when your tax cut runs out while the rich keep getting them in 1 year and 1.5 months.

If Democrats continue to hold the House, let's see if they sponsor a bill to extend it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

OOPS, I misread it.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

You don’t get it. You’re a triggered Leftist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

That's why I'm asking. I read the transcript about a dozen times or so, and I can't find where Trump stated Ukraine could have US aid if they conduct an investigation on Biden. So I must have missed something, so perhaps you can help. Give me the exact words that I missed, page and paragraph if possible.

 

[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.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

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.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

Your understanding is shit. Everyone knows this.

READ: Testimony Of Alexander Vindman, The White House's Ukraine Specialist

Husky is a triggered Leftist. His posts make me laugh.

Care to expand on that thought? Tell us all what exactly you found funny.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

You don’t get it. You’re a triggered Leftist.

School me, professor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

That's not what he said in cross examination when the Democrats hauled him in for questioning. Wanna see it? I'll dig up the video.

 

[Meister]

 

[Flopper]

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.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

What is Trump suppose to do? Well to start off, he could start acting like a president instead of narcissistic school boy who's only interest is himself. If he had real information that Biden's son has violated the law, then he would have his AG open an investigation instead trying to bribe a foreign government with military aid. There is nothing wrong with Trump asking a foreign country to look into the actives of any American if he does it the right way which means he uses offical channels and goes through his AG. However, he wanted the Ukraine to announce and investigation of Biden without any apparent pressure from the US. This would make the case they are creating against Biden must more believable.

 

[skye]

- I Heard It Through the Grapevine

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

Hearsay is not first hand testimony.

The conversation was about Vindman's testimony. Vindman was on the call, dope.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

My understanding was Vindman wasn't on the call.....his twin brother claimed to be.

Your understanding is shit. Everyone knows this.

READ: Testimony Of Alexander Vindman, The White House's Ukraine Specialist

Husky is a triggered Leftist. His posts make me laugh.

Care to expand on that thought? Tell us all what exactly you found funny.

Who is “us”? You and your other personalities?

 

[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.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

What is Trump suppose to do? Well to start off, he could start acting like a president instead of narcissistic school boy who's only interest is himself. If he had real information that Biden's son has violate the law, then he would have his AG open an investigation instead trying to bribe a foreign government with military aid.

Of course all he really wants is President Zelensky to announce he is opening and investigation into Biden. Then he could spin all kinds of stories about Biden at his rallies. Of course he will probably do that anyway.

1) Trump never bribed anybody.
2) Never was any investigation.
3) Ukraine got the US aid.

 

[IM2]

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.

That's not what he said in cross examination when the Democrats hauled him in for questioning. Wanna see it? I'll dig up the video.

I saw his testimony. I read the report. He stated that collusion is not a crime listed in the US Code. What he did say was he found no evidence of a FORMAL conspiracy, meaning he could not find a FORMAL agreement between the parties. But those 140 meetings just didn't happen by coincidence meaning there was a tacit agreement. And since Trump obstructed by stopping witnesses and he most certainly did not try to get the Russian government to extradite the indicted government officials, a tacit agreement could not be proven.

 

[IM2]

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.

To be honest, the Dems aren't acting too concerned about how this mess affects the entire nation either.

Question: what the EFF is Trump supposed to do? The Dems have been after his ass since the day after the 2016 election, with no actual evidence to base any of their investigations and inquiries on. Has he not released the transcripts of the phone call? Should he not expect reasonable attempts by the Dems to allow him or his people to question the same witnesses and ask whatever questions they deem appropriate?

Question: does Biden get off the hook for whatever he or his son did with respect to Ukraine, because he's running for the Dem nomination? Should we the public not know about whatever took place while Biden was the VP? Why isn't that actually part of his job as President, to look into any possible illegal activities in another country to see if our own laws were broken? Shouldn't he find out?

What is Trump suppose to do? Well to start off, he could start acting like a president instead of narcissistic school boy who's only interest is himself. If he had real information that Biden's son has violate the law, then he would have his AG open an investigation instead trying to bribe a foreign government with military aid.

Of course all he really wants is President Zelensky to announce he is opening and investigation into Biden. Then he could spin all kinds of stories about Biden at his rallies. Of course he will probably do that anyway.

1) Trump never bribed anybody.
2) Never was any investigation.
3) Ukraine got the US aid.

An attempted bribe is a crime Ray.

 

[Faun]

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.

Lying fucking moron, exactly how many times do you need to be informed the Constitution isn't speaking of statutes? Just throw out a number so I can post the following that many times until you understand....

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.

[...]

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

more...​