Offical Impeachment Thread

[OldLady]

Pretty cut and dry

Sure is. The only thing Jordan failed to mention was that "none of that materialized" because Trump got caught.

Did you catch where Sondland laughed out loud at Jordan? He was highly amused by the trick pony's performance.

He laughed because Jordan got him. We see what we want to see.

Apparently so.

 

[OldLady]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

How is that a criminal act? We have no obligation to give them money. When we do give money, why would we give it to a country that reeks of corruption? When they start cracking down on corruption, then we’ll be willing to to give them aid. Nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal about it.

You also haven’t cited which law this supposedly breaks.

The fact that a corruption investigation would look bad for old Joe, isn’t an excuse to prevent such an investigation. Maybe if Dems don’t like being outted as corrupt then they shouldn’t be such corrupt assholes, eh?

The corruption allegations against Joe Biden were NOT CREDIBLE. According to everyone who has testified so far. Including the million-dollar Trump supporter Sondland, who the Republicans thought were on "their side."

When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee?

 

[The Purge]

So when is Hunter Biden and Eric Charmelo going to be subpeaonad??????

 

[OldLady]

I've got an idea. Instead of just giving me funnies like a bunch of giggling idiots, why don't you try sobering up and trying to have a valid conversation for once?

 

[The Purge]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

How is that a criminal act? We have no obligation to give them money. When we do give money, why would we give it to a country that reeks of corruption? When they start cracking down on corruption, then we’ll be willing to to give them aid. Nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal about it.

You also haven’t cited which law this supposedly breaks.

The fact that a corruption investigation would look bad for old Joe, isn’t an excuse to prevent such an investigation. Maybe if Dems don’t like being outted as corrupt then they shouldn’t be such corrupt assholes, eh?

The corruption allegations against Joe Biden were NOT CREDIBLE. According to everyone who has testified so far. Including the million-dollar Trump supporter Sondland, who the Republicans thought were on "their side."

When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee?

That is another FUCKING LIE there has never been an investigation into Biden, his son and his involvement with HIS EXTORTION....IF SO POST IT, and not just some left wing pundit saying so....we can wait!

 

[theHawk]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

How is that a criminal act? We have no obligation to give them money. When we do give money, why would we give it to a country that reeks of corruption? When they start cracking down on corruption, then we’ll be willing to to give them aid. Nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal about it.

You also haven’t cited which law this supposedly breaks.

The fact that a corruption investigation would look bad for old Joe, isn’t an excuse to prevent such an investigation. Maybe if Dems don’t like being outted as corrupt then they shouldn’t be such corrupt assholes, eh?

The corruption allegations against Joe Biden were NOT CREDIBLE. According to everyone who has testified so far. Including the million-dollar Trump supporter Sondland, who the Republicans thought were on "their side."

When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee?

The corruption investigation in Ukraine was for Burisma, not “Joe Biden”.

If there is no credible link to old Joe, then why are Dems so afraid of an investigation? It must mean he is guilty.

See how that works?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’m sure they will. If you ever come up with anything even resembling a criminal act.

That doesnt make any sense at all. We would have to demonstrate they are guilty of a crime, before they would testify under oath and clear tgemselves of a crime? Listen to yourself. This is gibberish.

And you are SURE they will testify inder oath? Hahaha...really,? You sure?

You at least have to come up with a serious charge. With actual witnesses and shit.

What crime would they be clearing themselves of if they testified today? Hurting your feelings isn’t a crime.

 

[The Purge]

I've got an idea. Instead of just giving me funnies like a bunch of giggling idiots, why don't you try sobering up and trying to have a valid conversation for once?

I just gave you your shot at making me wrong....go for it. Or STFU, imbecile!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The white house threw Rudy right under the bus yesterday.

 

[Faun]

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

How is that a criminal act? We have no obligation to give them money. When we do give money, why would we give it to a country that reeks of corruption? When they start cracking down on corruption, then we’ll be willing to to give them aid. Nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal about it.

You also haven’t cited which law this supposedly breaks.

The fact that a corruption investigation would look bad for old Joe, isn’t an excuse to prevent such an investigation. Maybe if Dems don’t like being outted as corrupt then they shouldn’t be such corrupt assholes, eh?

The corruption allegations against Joe Biden were NOT CREDIBLE. According to everyone who has testified so far. Including the million-dollar Trump supporter Sondland, who the Republicans thought were on "their side."

When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee?

The corruption investigation in Ukraine was for Burisma, not “Joe Biden”.

If there is no credible link to old Joe, then why are Dems so afraid of an investigation? It must mean he is guilty.

See how that works?

Besides rightwingnuts, who said Dems are afraid of Biden being investigated?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

Where is that law written? Presidents in the past (including your big-eared commie) have stalled aid for all kinds of reasons. Sondland testified yesterday that he understood the reason for Trump's insistence of an announcement was because Ukraine was renown for making promises and not keeping them. Making a public announcement would make their promise more binding. So how is that against any law?

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

If the commies are going to impeach based on what other people assumed, then there is nothing they won't try to impeach him for. Nobody ever said they heard Trump say he wanted a quid pro quo, and even if somebody does in the future, it's still not a misdemeanor or high crime.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You at least have to come up with a serious charge. With actual witnesses and shit.

Already done.

And you still sound ridiculous. No, all anyone has to do is subpoena. So your claim is the great president and his gang wont testify, because there is no reason to clear themselves.

Listen to yourself. How can you not see how stupid you sound?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m sure they will. If you ever come up with anything even resembling a criminal act.

That doesnt make any sense at all. We would have to demonstrate they are guilty of a crime, before they would testify under oath and clear tgemselves of a crime? Listen to yourself. This is gibberish.

And you are SURE they will testify inder oath? Hahaha...really,? You sure?

You at least have to come up with a serious charge. With actual witnesses and shit.

What crime would they be clearing themselves of if they testified today? Hurting your feelings isn’t a crime.

They not only have to come up with a charge, but they have to come up with empirical evidence of such crime. Thus far in this farce, that has not happened.

 

[Ame®icano]

I got plenty of facts. Fact 1 and only-if this was truly a hoax or witch hunt, trump would not be hiding documents and blocking witnesses. He'd let it all come out so the hoax and witch hunt would be revealed without question. But trump knows his supporters are dumb and he can tell them anything. So he hides documents, blocks testimonies then runs around talking about how nobody has been able to prove anything and you guys are stupid enough to believe it.

You're pure example of what happen when illiterate try to prove something that isn't.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[NotYourBody]

Yea, he wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption. What’s the crime again?

No, he just wanted Ukraine to say they were investigating Bidens. It didn't actually have to do it, just say it.

And where is the criminal act in that?

The criminal act was withholding the military aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation.

I haven't watched the hearings today, but for a few minutes I had it on while waiting on someone.

One question comes to mind. In this case, could you honestly vote for impeachment of the Republican when the hearings did not allow Republican witnesses and the entire hearings were orchestrated by the Democrats?

The same questions come to mind if a Democrat was being charged with a crime targeting impeachment when the Democrats did not have the same rules as the Republicans?

So, as I hear this evening, maybe impeachment is appropriate, but the way the hearings were handled would make me either vote no or not be present.

What do you think? Try to be honest.

Yes definitely. I've seen enough testimony to convince me that Trump should be impeached. He will have a chance to present his witnesses in the senate trial.

That's how this process works. What we are watching right now is not the trial. That happens after the impeachment.

However, the GOP could attempt some sort of defense in the impeachment hearing. Too bad they chose to take a hard pass on that in favor of squawking and flapping their wings.

How is that a criminal act? We have no obligation to give them money. When we do give money, why would we give it to a country that reeks of corruption? When they start cracking down on corruption, then we’ll be willing to to give them aid. Nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal about it.

You also haven’t cited which law this supposedly breaks.

The fact that a corruption investigation would look bad for old Joe, isn’t an excuse to prevent such an investigation. Maybe if Dems don’t like being outted as corrupt then they shouldn’t be such corrupt assholes, eh?

Trump wanted dirt on his political opponent. He withheld congressionally approved military aid in order to force Ukraine to provide said dirt, or to pretend they would provide it via an 'investigation.'

That sure looks like bribery to me.

I don't need to cite a law, I am not a lawyer, nor am I in charge of any part of the impeachment process. I am an observer, nothing more.

About Joe Biden, why doesn't Trump demand his justice department open an investigation into Joe & Hunter? Why all the secrecy with the hidden call transcript and why all the arm twisting with the Ukrainians?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee?

When somebody actually makes a pot in which to smell.

 

[Dragonlady]

When are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee?

When somebody actually makes a pot in which to smell.

There are none so blind as those who will not see and you're blind as a bat, Ray.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump wanted dirt on his political opponent.

Who is his political opponent, and how did Trump conclude he was? Nobody knows who his opponent is going to be.

About Joe Biden, why doesn't Trump demand his justice department open an investigation into Joe & Hunter?

Because honest people (which Democrats are not) need to provide some kind of evidence of wrongdoing, not just because it looks so bad. It's clear why drug head was hired for a multi-million dollar paying job, but again, no evidence of what was provided in exchange for giving him that gravy job.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Pretty cut and dry

Sure is. The only thing Jordan failed to mention was that "none of that materialized" because Trump got caught.

You used a fact. That's so unfair.

 

[kyzr]

So when is Hunter Biden and Eric Charmelo going to be subpoenaed??????

Ciaramella will be subpoenaed....
During the Senate trial, along with the Hunter Biden, Schiff, and as many deep state conspirators as they want.