Offical Impeachment Thread

[Faun]

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.

Both Biden and Trump are running for the same office.

 

[The Purge]

 

[Faun]

Liar. The right holds that record over Hillary at 26 years (and counting).

 

[Olde Europe]

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?

Failing that, learn to wear the "Funnies" from their quarter as a badge of honor - shouldn't be that hard, since the "Funnies" transmit their admission they don't have the chops for a valid argument.

 

[OldLady]

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!

Oh. THAT investigation. The one investigating the shit you guys made up. There was a clear investigation into Burisma by Ukraine, and the actors/timeline all involved situations BEFORE Hunter went on their board.
There is absolutely no evidence, except an active and hostile imagination on your part, to support that there was any extortion involved.
Fact check: What Joe and Hunter Biden actually did in Ukraine

 

[jc456]

the WB went to congress with an urgent concern after his complaint was going to get buried. when he/she did that - they were then instructed to go to the IG.

And I just proved, the ICIG has no jurisdiction. So this so called WB isn't really a WB. is he? He has no claim to remain anonymous because he took his "concern" to the wrong place. My question now is, if Vidman violated the espionage act by reading in someone, about the call, who didn't have a need to know.

.

vidman is a spy? is that what you are saying???????????????????? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........................

dismissed.

No I said he was a leaker and possibly a criminal if the individual he leaked the call to didn't have a legitimate need to know. You don't read too well, do you?

.

haaaaaa....you think the lt colonel is stupid?

that would be donny's deal.

Well, Vindman is clearly not too bright. In his previous testimony he said he didn't know who the whistleblower was and now he had clearly indicated he was the leak who got this whole thing started: that's perjury. When you look at the chain of events, Vindman told the Whistleblower about the phone call and then the whistleblower goes to Schiff with the information and Schiff then tells him to file a report with the IG, it is clear that Vindman, the Whistleblower and Schiff conspired to stage this impeachment farce to cover up the Bidens' dirty deals in Ukraine. That's why Schiff won't allow the whistleblower to testify for fear that faced with possible prosecution for perjury, he will spill the beans about the conspiracy.

Seriously, I believe Vindman went to Schitt's. There is no person in the intelligence agency and why he can't name one. Until there's a name, there isn't a person. Schitt's is the guy

 

[jc456]

True, but he was not a legitimate WB, period, end of story. He has no protections. shitt is just trying to hid his staffs involvement and coordination with the spy.

.

I think what it's really about is he (or she) would be dragged into the Senate to answer questions Schiff don't want asked, such as, who did he go to first with his complaint? Who authored his complaint, because anybody that read it stated it was done by a legal professional and not the whistleblower. Did he ever discuss the situation personally with Schiff? Is this an anti-trumper?

Schiff is not worried about protecting the whistleblower, he's worried about protecting himself.

Damn, I could swear that's what I just said. But I want to know if the individual Vidman leaked to, about the call, in the intel community had a legitimate need to know. If not Vidman violated protections of classified information, and possibly the espionage act. The FBI needs to look into that aspect of his testimony.

.

But that's not going to happen, so we will file that with the other trump cultist delusions:

*FLUSH*

what's trump's crime again? speaking of delusions?

I am not your mommy. Just make your point. And then we can laugh at you.

It was made by your non answer. thank you! go get your grilled cheese now.

 

[Olde Europe]

Liar. The right holds that record over Hillary at 26 years (and counting).

Yep.

Oh wait... have they learned how to cope with their grievance over Bork? Nixon?

 

[jc456]

it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.[/QUOTE]
Again being deliberately obtuse doesn't help you. This is the impeachment INQUIRY. This is the investigatory process of impeachment where is decided if the charges warrant actual impeachment. It is something that is described in the constitution. Not only that but it STILL doesn't change the simple fact that the house issued subpoenas and the Trump administration is refusing to comply. They can justify it and let the judicial branch rule on it. In the end, the result will be the same as with the Nixon tapes. Were SCOTUS unanimously decided to recognize both the RIGHT of the house to ask and the OBLIGATION for the executive branch to comply.[/QUOTE]
it's either an impeachment, which it isn't, or it's a witch hunt to find a crime. Impeachment occurs in the Judiciary Committee. Until you're there, which you're not, you have a witch hunt looking for a crime. Now do you have a crime other than trump implementing his policy?

 

[jc456]

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.

Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.

it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.[/QUOTE]
only a court can decide that. he's willing to go to court. oh fking well.[/QUOTE]
If he wasn't the president he'd be under arrest. I tell you what try avoiding showing up when you get subpoenaed and see what you get.[/QUOTE]
for what? Name fking something. the congress subpoena's aren't the same as a grand jury subpoena, until you have one of those, you got flavor sticks to suck on.

 

[jc456]

HMM: Ukrainian MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln.

“Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the ‘family’ of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.”
​

Well, stay tuned.

Maybe Trump should have been investigating Franklin Templeton.

Trump isn't investigating anyone.

 

[The Purge]

Liar. The right holds that record over Hillary at 26 years (and counting).

Yes but we have EVIDENCE OF HER FELONIES....



All YOU GOT is HE HURT MY FEELINGS, AND "PRESUMED" with nothing else!

 

[jc456]

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.

Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.

it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.[/QUOTE]
They challenged the subpoenas in court. Try to get some facts for once.[/QUOTE]
Just heard on NBC. The FBI is going to interview the whistleblowner..lol[/QUOTE]
Schitt's is going to be investigated by the FBI? I wanna see that.

 

[jc456]

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.

Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.

it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.

only a court can decide that. he's willing to go to court. oh fking well.[/QUOTE]
If he wasn't the president he'd be under arrest. I tell you what try avoiding showing up when you get subpoenaed and see what you get.[/QUOTE]

The President has executive privilege, the average American does not.

View attachment 290851[/QUOTE]
I wish the left knew what commander in chief meant. holy fk they gots no brains.

 

[Crepitus]

Let's sum up the Impeachment process to date.

Here we go.

View attachment 290731

It's a democrat party and you're the pivot man.

Do you even know what thread you're posting in?

Early onset dementia an ongoing problem for you?

Or maybe a work in progress.

 

[The Purge]

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!

Oh. THAT investigation. The one investigating the shit you guys made up. There was a clear investigation into Burisma by Ukraine, and the actors/timeline all involved situations BEFORE Hunter went on their board.
There is absolutely no evidence, except an active and hostile imagination on your part, to support that there was any extortion involved.
Fact check: What Joe and Hunter Biden actually did in Ukraine

You mean the CORRUPT UKRAINE INVESTIGATING ITSELF...you idiots are the ones that pushed that fallacy...and FACT CHECK is another SOROS FUNDED organization through his shell companies
Now let's get a NEW INVESTIGATION GOING under the NEW PRESIDENT....

Ukraine Wants To Probe the Company That Paid Hunter Biden. But It's 'Too Sensitive'

 

[jc456]

define obstruction. defense of oneself is not obstruction.

Sure it is. If the house subpoenas peoples and documents you are obstructing their investigation. It was in the articles for impeachment for Nixon and Clinton too. You defend yourself by speaking the truth, let other people tell the truth and delivering documents if asked. If you don't you aren't defending yourself but obstructing justice.

oh someone isn't allowed to defend themselves in your fked up brain? too funny. son, you're in the wrong country. go back to russia.

Of course, you are allowed to defend yourself. Defending yourself tough does NOT include the right to withhold evidence. You can't defend yourself by shooting a witness for instance either. There are limits on the right to defend yourself. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is one of those.

it's not an official impeachment. he isn't obstructing shit.

It's official. Refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the house is obstruction whether this is an impeachment inquiry or not.[/QUOTE]
They challenged the subpoenas in court. Try to get some facts for once.[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
how do you know trump is hiding anything? please tell us your source that told you that? come on big man on campus, pound that slimey chest of yours for all to read.

 

[Faun]

Liar. The right holds that record over Hillary at 26 years (and counting).

Yes but we have EVIDENCE OF HER FELONIES....



All YOU GOT is HE HURT MY FEELINGS, AND "PRESUMED" with nothing else!

Lock her up!

 

[jc456]

Dood, you project more than a 24-screen cineplex.

So you're saying the owner of the child molesting pizza parlor should have to testify?

Just which of your cult's idiot conspiracy theories are we supposed to take seriously?

 

[flack]

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.

Both Biden and Trump are running for the same office.

No. Right now Biden is running to be the democrat nominee. Once he wins that race he will then be running against Trump for president.