Offical Impeachment Thread

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Dear class. The fact that there are two reasons specified in the constitution does not mean I was accusing Trumpybear of treason. I think it was attempted bribery. Not the bribery we use to advance out national goals, but a secret one of designed partisan political nature that was exposed.

You might want to check the required elements of bribery, the required elements didn't exist in that call, no matter how you try to spin it.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The people elected Trump. Let him govern until the people decide otherwise. Again, I bet prior presidents did similar shit.

You stumbled across the problem. They don't want Trump governing because when Trump does, he makes things better for the American people. The Democrats certainly don't want that. Look at our border now, look at people making more in wages, and bringing home more in their paychecks. Look at our economy.

Trump is a huge success, and the Democrats need to stop this success, before fence sitting Americans come to the understanding that Democrats don't do anything for the people, Democrats only do things for themselves.

Yep... 100% fact... what's GOOD for America is BAD for democrats. They know it, we know it, the whole damn country knows it by now, and they also know that's why the democrats and their propaganda wing have been on an apoplectic, 24/7, three year long TRASHING campaign to get rid of the president.

I'm afraid the democrats have an absolute BLOODY ASS KICKIN' coming next year, and I think they're beginning to see it. It's breaking through their HATE, and now they're starting to get real worried. There's 31 democrats in areas that Trump won, and they're starting to think Nancy has thrown them under the buss to satisfy the radical goons that are now driving the dem clown show. She put all her faith in Adam ScHITt to get this impeachment across the finish line, but it's pretty clear by now that that isn't going to happen, that it's BACK FIRING, AGAIN, and this was their BIG FINISH, the FINALE, the IMPEACHMENT, the WE'VE GOT HIM NOW #7,901,652. They've SHOT THEIR WAD and now it's OVER, and next year the American people are going to send them PACKING.

Hand over the gavel, Nanc, you had it for two years and COMPLETELY FUCKED YOURSELF and your GUTTER LICKING PARTY with it.

What the Democrats are doing now is an act of desperation. They went into Defcon 1 mode when they learned that Trump was curious as to what took place between Joe and the Ukraine in regards to his son. It was further accelerated when Durham announced that his investigation turned criminal just a few weeks ago.

Investigations usually take a long time before they turn into a criminal investigation, so not only does Durham have something rock solid, it's also something very damaging to the Democrat party and particular members involved. An investigation turning criminal this quickly means there's a hell of a lot out there. Or as Karen Carpenter once sang "It's only just begun."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If there never was an investigation, then what is the corruption Biden is alleged to have engaged in?

That's been discussed repeatedly. Coke head Hunter, who was not only kicked out of the military, and attended rehab three times, got a job in a country he never dealt with before, unfamiliar with the language, in an industry he had no experience in, for 80K a month. Out of the 7.5 billion people on this planet, why would Burisma choose him of all people?

A couple of weeks ago the FOIA forced them to release an email of Burisma dropping Hunter's name to try and setup a meeting between them and the State department. Supposedly, more emails are going to be released in the near future as they get legally processed.

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

No. Bribery is the ask whether it's ultimately delivered or not. Trump released the money because the WB exposed their scheme.

You still did not answer the question. Was there an investigation or not?

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

.

Dear class. The fact that there are two reasons specified in the constitution does not mean I was accusing Trumpybear of treason. I think it was attempted bribery. Not the bribery we use to advance out national goals, but a secret one of designed partisan political nature that was exposed.

You might want to check the required elements of bribery, the required elements didn't exist in that call, no matter how you try to spin it.

.

There is no legal threshold here.
It's not a trial
It's just a political infomercial.

 

[Nostra]

So impeachment supporters. Where is today's 'devastating' evidence? What 'bombshell' has this witness?

Her feelings were hurt.

 

[Billiejeens]

The people elected Trump. Let him govern until the people decide otherwise. Again, I bet prior presidents did similar shit.

You stumbled across the problem. They don't want Trump governing because when Trump does, he makes things better for the American people. The Democrats certainly don't want that. Look at our border now, look at people making more in wages, and bringing home more in their paychecks. Look at our economy.

Trump is a huge success, and the Democrats need to stop this success, before fence sitting Americans come to the understanding that Democrats don't do anything for the people, Democrats only do things for themselves.

Yep... 100% fact... what's GOOD for America is BAD for democrats. They know it, we know it, the whole damn country knows it by now, and they also know that's why the democrats and their propaganda wing have been on an apoplectic, 24/7, three year long TRASHING campaign to get rid of the president.

I'm afraid the democrats have an absolute BLOODY ASS KICKIN' coming next year, and I think they're beginning to see it. It's breaking through their HATE, and now they're starting to get real worried. There's 31 democrats in areas that Trump won, and they're starting to think Nancy has thrown them under the buss to satisfy the radical goons that are now driving the dem clown show. She put all her faith in Adam ScHITt to get this impeachment across the finish line, but it's pretty clear by now that that isn't going to happen, that it's BACK FIRING, AGAIN, and this was their BIG FINISH, the FINALE, the IMPEACHMENT, the WE'VE GOT HIM NOW #7,901,652. They've SHOT THEIR WAD and now it's OVER, and next year the American people are going to send them PACKING.

Hand over the gavel, Nanc, you had it for two years and COMPLETELY FUCKED YOURSELF and your GUTTER LICKING PARTY with it.

What the Democrats are doing now is an act of desperation. They went into Defcon 1 mode when they learned that Trump was curious as to what took place between Joe and the Ukraine in regards to his son. It was further accelerated when Durham announced that his investigation turned criminal just a few weeks ago.

Investigations usually take a long time before they turn into a criminal investigation, so not only does Durham have something rock solid, it's also something very damaging to the Democrat party and particular members involved. An investigation turning criminal this quickly means there's a hell of a lot out there. Or as Karen Carpenter once sang "It's only just begun."

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[jc456]

• "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..."

Please tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with that? To ask to reopen an investigation in corruption that occurred years ago? Hillary and Obama conspired to keep Trump under investigation since before the election.

Because the allegation that Biden stopped the prosecution is not true. In fact the prosecutor they all wanted removed was the one who abruptly stopped the investigation into the corruption. When he was removed it opened the company to further investigations. Of course all of the corruption the Ukrainians investigated happened before Biden was hired

Are you serious? Do you know what your claim here is?

What you are saying is Joe got the Prosecutor General fired because he wasn't doing enough with investigating the company that was paying his son 80K a year??? Really??? You actually believe that?

I have read that from multiple sources. The corruption the Ukraine investigated happened before Biden was offered a job too.

The inside story of Ukraine’s ‘very good’ prosecutor at the centre of Trump's latest scandal

was the Ukraine Prosecutor looking into Burisma? yes or no.

 

[Billiejeens]

So impeachment supporters. Where is today's 'devastating' evidence? What 'bombshell' has this witness?

Her feelings were hurt.

They were.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A public announcement about what,

Excellent question. Trumpybear had receive assurances that Ukraine was going to investigate corruption but that did not satisfy the ol'Trumpybear.

The money was only withheld two weeks later than it was to be released. The only contact between Trump and Ukraine on the Biden matter was that phone call. Nothing else.

Rudy admitted on national television to presuring the Ukranians on Biden.

post the link.

Read up, dope.
‘Of course I did’: Giuliani acknowledges asking Ukraine to investigate Biden

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's been discussed repeatedly. Coke head Hunter, who was not only kicked out of the military, and attended rehab three times, got a job in a country he never dealt with before, unfamiliar with the language, in an industry he had no experience in, for 80K a month. Out of the 7.5 billion people on this planet, why would Burisma choose him of all people?

A couple of weeks ago the FOIA forced them to release an email of Burisma dropping Hunter's name to try and setup a meeting between them and the State department. Supposedly, more emails are going to be released in the near future as they get legally processed.

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

No. Bribery is the ask whether it's ultimately delivered or not. Trump released the money because the WB exposed their scheme.

You still did not answer the question. Was there an investigation or not?

I answered that question several times: to our knowledge, there was no investigation.

If the Democrats wanted to prove that there was bribery or a quid pro quo, they wouldn't have came out this quickly with the whistleblowers claim. They would have given it time until Trump DID get something in return. But as I stated in my last post, they are extremely desperate now that Barr and Durham are exposing what happened in the last administration. As weak of a case as this is, it's do or die for them now to try and stop both Barr and Durham.

 

[jc456]

A public announcement about what,

Excellent question. Trumpybear had receive assurances that Ukraine was going to investigate corruption but that did not satisfy the ol'Trumpybear.

The money was only withheld two weeks later than it was to be released. The only contact between Trump and Ukraine on the Biden matter was that phone call. Nothing else.

Rudy admitted on national television to presuring the Ukranians on Biden.

post the link.

Read up, dope.
‘Of course I did’: Giuliani acknowledges asking Ukraine to investigate Biden

quote the piece that says he pressured........

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Another punk out?
Care to tell us what you found funny in my post?

Again, who is this “us”?

Asked and answered, dope.

I avoid talking to imaginary people. But you gotta do you. Dumb Leftist. What is funny are your posts of delusion and anger. Your sadness makes me very happy. Keep it going.

Still punking out in favor of dopey trolling, I see.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Again, who is this “us”?

Asked and answered, dope.

I avoid talking to imaginary people. But you gotta do you. Dumb Leftist. What is funny are your posts of delusion and anger. Your sadness makes me very happy. Keep it going.

Still punking out in favor of dopey trolling, I see.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

 

[toobfreak]

no one said it was about harming republicans.

That's because it didn't and wasn't designed to.

Nobody ever said it was hidden either, or that it was exposed by a concerned whistle blower, there was nothing controversial about the pressure we applied to get the corrupt prosecutor fired.

After reading the transcript we knew more than your “concerned whistleblower” one word btw, dummy. And that whistleblower is a partisan stooge. Nothingburger.

I disagree. The complaint as released gives a picture of the events leading up to and after the phone call. If it were a nothing burger we wouldn't be here today.

We have had a three year steady diet of nothing burgers

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You didn't answer my question.

The line on Biden's corruption was that he extorted the Ukrainian govt to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

Now you're saying there was never an investigation and the "corruption" is because
"Crackhead" Hunter Biden landed a lucrative job?

Trump said it was about the investigationand the firing. So which is it?

What Trump asked for was for Ukraine to look into it to see if there was anything there. Trump released the money before any investigation even started, and there was still no investigation that we are aware of today.

What Slow Joe did was a quid pro quo, and there's nothing illegal about it unless it did have something to do with his son. Again, that's what Trump was asking Zelensky about. He wants to see if there is indeed a connection, because an energy company just doesn't pay somebody millions of dollars for nothing. Hunter got the job when his father was the US VP.

Given the fact Zelensky nor anybody in the Ukraine government even knew about the hold on US aid until a month after the phone call, tells us that whatever Trump said, Zelensky didn't take as a threat, because he knew nothing about money on hold. That's one of the many reasons this impeachment is a compete farce.

Yes but you're saying now there was never an investigation. So Trump's claim that there was corruption in Biden working to sack the prosecutor to save his son from an investigation was wrong? Or are you wrong?

You seem confused as your explanations are spreading beyond the known facts of what Trump stated in his call.

First of all, Trump only asked Zelensky "to look into it" as a favor, not to conduct an official investigation. Secondly, because there was no investigation, that destroys the Democrats claim of quid pro quo. That's why they aborted it and started to use "bribery" as their new charge.

If Trump's attempt was to issue a quid pro quo, he wouldn't' have released the money until he got something in return. Instead, he released the money anyway.

No. Bribery is the ask whether it's ultimately delivered or not. Trump released the money because the WB exposed their scheme.

You still did not answer the question. Was there an investigation or not?

I answered that question several times: to our knowledge, there was no investigation.

If the Democrats wanted to prove that there was bribery or a quid pro quo, they wouldn't have came out this quickly with the whistleblowers claim. They would have given it time until Trump DID get something in return. But as I stated in my last post, they are extremely desperate now that Barr and Durham are exposing what happened in the last administration. As weak of a case as this is, it's do or die for them now to try and stop both Barr and Durham.

I answered that question several times: to our knowledge, there was no investigation.

Then WTF was Trump asking for then?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Asked and answered, dope.

I avoid talking to imaginary people. But you gotta do you. Dumb Leftist. What is funny are your posts of delusion and anger. Your sadness makes me very happy. Keep it going.

Still punking out in favor of dopey trolling, I see.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Excellent question. Trumpybear had receive assurances that Ukraine was going to investigate corruption but that did not satisfy the ol'Trumpybear.

The money was only withheld two weeks later than it was to be released. The only contact between Trump and Ukraine on the Biden matter was that phone call. Nothing else.

Rudy admitted on national television to presuring the Ukranians on Biden.

post the link.

Read up, dope.
‘Of course I did’: Giuliani acknowledges asking Ukraine to investigate Biden

quote the piece that says he pressured........

I just did, dope.
Trump even named Guiliani as a point man in his call.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I avoid talking to imaginary people. But you gotta do you. Dumb Leftist. What is funny are your posts of delusion and anger. Your sadness makes me very happy. Keep it going.

Still punking out in favor of dopey trolling, I see.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Still punking out in favor of dopey trolling, I see.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

Still punking out in favor of dopey trolling, I see.

Unfortunately you do not see. Therein lies the problem.

I've asked you to explain multiple times but you punk out every time. I understand your apprehension though. It's much easier to be a fool troll than be made a fool by me.

Youre an asshole. You don’t deserve decency.

Right back at ya, dope.

You don't have the capacity to engage in any substantive way. Just a clown.

Why don’t you go back and see who began being a dink. Hint: you. If you want to start from scratch just say so but don’t make the mistake of believing that you didn’t begin this BS.

I've tried to engage you with every post. You chose to troll instead. You punked out as you still are.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

.

Dear class. The fact that there are two reasons specified in the constitution does not mean I was accusing Trumpybear of treason. I think it was attempted bribery. Not the bribery we use to advance out national goals, but a secret one of designed partisan political nature that was exposed.

You might want to check the required elements of bribery, the required elements didn't exist in that call, no matter how you try to spin it.

.

I believe the inquiry is looking at more than just the July 25th call.