Offical Impeachment Thread

[beautress]

Well, well, well. Nancy Pelosi lied about "getting things done" in her bid for House Speaker to cover the Party's true goal: to stop at nothing to destroy President Trump.

​

So many things Pelosi would have done, but clouds got in the way? Not hardly! She was just getting herself into a place to eliminate President Trump by any nefarious means possible. And Adam Schiff is the perfect liar to put lipstick on all DNC's pig of falsely accusing the President as their insurance policy, and making him look bad when in actuality, he has done nothing but good. He has given people across this nation jobs. He rebuilt the military the Democrats tried to destroy. And that brought out their faux rage to support their effort to get rid of President Trump.

​

 

[ColonelAngus]

Hearsay evidence is admissible in impeachment hearing, grand juries, probate hearing, parole hearings, etc where there is no cross examination. The reason hearsay evidence is not admissible is that it is generally less reliable and it becomes impossible to cross examine a witness who gives hearsay evidence because the witness can not answer questions about evidence.

Congress is not a court. It’s a legislative body, and it’s not bound by the centuries of common law that built up around the admissibility of hearsay evidence. It will be interesting to see what hearsay evidence will be allowed in the a senate trial since rules of evidence and procedures are government by senate rules that are mostly based on precedent.

However, all this makes little difference since the Senate will vote along party lines as will the House which makes evidence irrelevant.

And if you support that, don't be crying when what comes around goes around. If the commies are able to get away with this, don't expect the Republicans for forgive and forget. Like the filibuster rule with judicial nominations, it will come back to haunt the Democrats, trust me.

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

So Obama should have been impeached for not giving any weapons to Ukraine at all while they were being attacked by Putin.

 

[dudmuck]

it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

There was no quid pro quo. Your hatred for the President is noted.

Quid Pro Quo has been admitted . Your hatred for our Constitution is noted.

Admitted by who?

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump admitted to holding up military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

In other words, he acknowledged doing the very thing he could be impeached for and has repeatedly denied.

Here's the interview. Portions relevant to this article start around the 5:50 mark.

He had every right to hold up aid if the reason was to investigate or find out if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections, and if the Bidens were involved in that corruption over time as well. Not doing these things if have suspicion's of, would constitute a dereliction of duty.

We already know this Ukraine election meddling has been debunked.

But Putin thanks you for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But Ukraine president said he didn't....You fucks just can't handle the truth!

it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

There was no quid pro quo. Your hatred for the President is noted.

Quid Pro Quo has been admitted . Your hatred for our Constitution is noted.

Admitted by who?

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump admitted to holding up military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

In other words, he acknowledged doing the very thing he could be impeached for and has repeatedly denied.

Here's the interview. Portions relevant to this article start around the 5:50 mark.

We were talking about the Biden investigation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hearsay evidence is admissible in impeachment hearing, grand juries, probate hearing, parole hearings, etc where there is no cross examination. The reason hearsay evidence is not admissible is that it is generally less reliable and it becomes impossible to cross examine a witness who gives hearsay evidence because the witness can not answer questions about evidence.

Congress is not a court. It’s a legislative body, and it’s not bound by the centuries of common law that built up around the admissibility of hearsay evidence. It will be interesting to see what hearsay evidence will be allowed in the a senate trial since rules of evidence and procedures are government by senate rules that are mostly based on precedent.

However, all this makes little difference since the Senate will vote along party lines as will the House which makes evidence irrelevant.

And if you support that, don't be crying when what comes around goes around. If the commies are able to get away with this, don't expect the Republicans for forgive and forget. Like the filibuster rule with judicial nominations, it will come back to haunt the Democrats, trust me.

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

A temporary hold on US tax dollars is not against the law. Presidents (including Hussein) have been doing it for years. However perjury has always been against the law.

 

[eagle1462010]

And if you support that, don't be crying when what comes around goes around. If the commies are able to get away with this, don't expect the Republicans for forgive and forget. Like the filibuster rule with judicial nominations, it will come back to haunt the Democrats, trust me.

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

So Obama should have been impeached for not giving any weapons to Ukraine at all while they were being attacked by Putin.

That was a shitty thing to do..........Let's PRESUME some evidence and go with it.

 

[beautress]

No quid pro quo.

All bullshit.

Win at the polls, lefty losers.

Such pathetic losers.

Trump openly admitted to doing precisely that.
Multiple witnesses said he did precisely that, as well.

But Ukraine president said he didn't....You fucks just can't handle the truth!

it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

There was no quid pro quo. Your hatred for the President is noted.

Quid Pro Quo has been admitted . Your hatred for our Constitution is noted.

That's not true. The President told the truth, but he did not commit quid pro quo. That is a dream to change his words just a smidge to accomplish your purpose. You must get a great satisfaction about getting people to believe your loser lies, and you haven't presented one single iota of evidence, only someone else's opinion of someone else's opinion. Holy cow, the more the lies get placed in the light of truth by Republican representatives and senators, the more lies the Democrats dream up to present as truth to an American public who are watching the hearings and discovering that the Democrats are lying and putting lipstick on the swamp pigs.

 

[ColonelAngus]

As far as giving the house to the Democrats...if you voted for Trump, but then voted for a Democrat for house in 2018, you were really stupid to trust Pelosi.

 

[beagle9]

There was no quid pro quo. Your hatred for the President is noted.

Quid Pro Quo has been admitted . Your hatred for our Constitution is noted.

Admitted by who?

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump admitted to holding up military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

In other words, he acknowledged doing the very thing he could be impeached for and has repeatedly denied.

Here's the interview. Portions relevant to this article start around the 5:50 mark.

He had every right to hold up aid if the reason was to investigate or find out if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections, and if the Bidens were involved in that corruption over time as well. Not doing these things if have suspicion's of, would constitute a dereliction of duty.

We already know this Ukraine election meddling has been debunked.

But Putin thanks you for it.

Debunked by who ??? The fluid investigations aren't done, so putting the horse before the cart is always the goal, but why do the cratzies do this ?

 

[NotYourBody]

And if you support that, don't be crying when what comes around goes around. If the commies are able to get away with this, don't expect the Republicans for forgive and forget. Like the filibuster rule with judicial nominations, it will come back to haunt the Democrats, trust me.

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

A temporary hold on US tax dollars is not against the law. Presidents (including Hussein) have been doing it for years. However perjury has always been against the law.

Bribery is impeachable. None of your hollering changes that.

Trump tried to bribe Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rival by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid.

Way worse than lying about a blow job. WAY worse.

You might find this old column helpful -

 

[ColonelAngus]

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

A temporary hold on US tax dollars is not against the law. Presidents (including Hussein) have been doing it for years. However perjury has always been against the law.

Bribery is impeachable. None of your hollering changes that.

Trump tried to bribe Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rival by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid.

Way worse than lying about a blow job. WAY worse.

You might find this old column helpful -

Do you even news?

That was disproven by every single fucking witness.

What is the specific evidence you have that the rest of the planet does not have?

 

[beautress]

Jim Jordan on this impeachment inquiry: This is not about the facts, this is about Nancy Pelosi's attempt to impeach the President who, because he's done such good things he will likely win the 2020 election. They're playing on people's emotions when they hear the same lie repeated time after time on their pwn'd collaborating to destroy the President by Pelosi saying sewer swamp stuff like "President is an imposter." She is determined to destroy the President. She's been the least productive House Speaker in the history of the country. I'm sorry, but she has tarnished women by screwing the Constitution and trying to unseat the President who was elected in a landslide win in the College of electors.

​

Do you honestly think all these lies will boost the Democrats? They just have to lie about why they perpetrated the last lie. The American people are tired of the Democrats lying to them, rehearsing ahead of time their great performances that are supposed to make people accept the lies they're telling, and even that is failing, because quite frankly, the American people are wise to the constant stream of lies perpetrated by actor Schiff, the false narrative's best expert in the DNC.

Oh, wait. All the lies in the Democrat aisle are actually your reality, because Demmie operatives are in the tunnel going down to the deep, deep state where all that Soros money is just waiting to be expropriated by telling tall tales.

 

[eagle1462010]

Jim Jordan on this impeachment inquiry: This is not about the facts, this is about Nancy Pelosi's attempt to impeach the President who, because he's done such good things he will likely win the 2020 election. They're playing on people's emotions when they hear the same lie repeated time after time on their pwn'd collaborating to destroy the President by Pelosi saying sewer swamp stuff like "President is an imposter." She is determined to destroy the President. She's been the least productive House Speaker in the history of the country. I'm sorry, but she has tarnished women by screwing the Constitution and trying to unseat the President who was elected in a landslide win in the College of electors.

​

Do you honestly think all these lies will boost the Democrats? They just have to lie about why they perpetrated the last lie. The American people are tired of the Democrats lying to them, rehearsing ahead of time their great performances that are supposed to make people accept the lies they're telling, and even that is failing, because quite frankly, the American people are wise to the constant stream of lies perpetrated by actor Schiff, the false narrative's best expert in the DNC.

Oh, wait. All the lies in the Democrat aisle are actually your reality, because Demmie operatives are in the tunnel going down to the deep, deep state where all that Soros money is just waiting to be expropriated by telling tall tales.

The Dems are desperate................they know they have a losing scenario in the next election for President.......
They also know that the next one will probably appoint 2 more SCOTUS picks.........

They are flopping around like a fish out of water.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

A temporary hold on US tax dollars is not against the law. Presidents (including Hussein) have been doing it for years. However perjury has always been against the law.

Bribery is impeachable. None of your hollering changes that.

Trump tried to bribe Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rival by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid.

Way worse than lying about a blow job. WAY worse.

You might find this old column helpful -

Then show us where Trump openly stated that's what he was doing. Trump, like other Presidents in the past, temporarily held up aid for various reasons. As Sondland testified, Ukraine is notorious for making promises and not keeping them. Trump wanted that announcement to hold them to their word. He did not threaten to withhold aid for that reason however. All the ambassadors made the assumption he did, but never got any presidential direction that the aid was contingent on that announcement.

 

[beautress]

Spoken like a true partisan. Of course republicans will seek retaliation against the next republican president just as democrats will seek retaliation. That's American politics today. The unstated goal of every political party is a one party state which just happens to be the goal of the communist party.

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

A temporary hold on US tax dollars is not against the law. Presidents (including Hussein) have been doing it for years. However perjury has always been against the law.

Bribery is impeachable. None of your hollering changes that.

Trump tried to bribe Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rival by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid.

Way worse than lying about a blow job. WAY worse.

You might find this old column helpful -

This is not about the hack job the Democrats did on Nixon. This is about America tired of the lies it takes the Democrats to destroy innocent Republicans, and it is done over and over and over.

A little lesson Swamp Democrats are ignoring as they dig the deep state deeper and deeper:

​

 

[beautress]

I will ask again..............Why didn't Obama and Biden give weapons to Ukraine when their people were dying.............

And again............I've that had been me they would have gotten the weapons and told good hunting.........

And 3 years of Russian BS from the left..............No wonder the world laughs at us.

The Grandstanding by the Dimms during the hearings about aid being delayed while Ukrainians were dying from being attacked by Putin was absolutely fucking laughable when Obama didn’t give any weapons for 8 years!

What did Obama do when PUTIN ANNEXED CRIMEA? Jack fucking squat.

'The Russia incursion into the Ukraine was in 2014.

Maybe this stupid fuck Trumpette can explain how Obama did not provide military assistance for 8 years.

I mean really.

Yeah, all that damn bedding Obummer's sole contribution did a lot of good to stop Russian tanks. Dumbunny.

 

[eagle1462010]

I will ask again..............Why didn't Obama and Biden give weapons to Ukraine when their people were dying.............

And again............I've that had been me they would have gotten the weapons and told good hunting.........

And 3 years of Russian BS from the left..............No wonder the world laughs at us.

The Grandstanding by the Dimms during the hearings about aid being delayed while Ukrainians were dying from being attacked by Putin was absolutely fucking laughable when Obama didn’t give any weapons for 8 years!

What did Obama do when PUTIN ANNEXED CRIMEA? Jack fucking squat.

'The Russia incursion into the Ukraine was in 2014.

Maybe this stupid fuck Trumpette can explain how Obama did not provide military assistance for 8 years.

I mean really.

Yeah, all that damn bedding Obummer's sole contribution did a lot of good to stop Russian tanks. Dumbunny.

Well.........they couldn't give them plastic straws with spit balls........that would destroy the planet.

LOL

 

[beautress]

Quid Pro Quo has been admitted . Your hatred for our Constitution is noted.

Admitted by who?

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump admitted to holding up military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

In other words, he acknowledged doing the very thing he could be impeached for and has repeatedly denied.

Here's the interview. Portions relevant to this article start around the 5:50 mark.

He had every right to hold up aid if the reason was to investigate or find out if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections, and if the Bidens were involved in that corruption over time as well. Not doing these things if have suspicion's of, would constitute a dereliction of duty.

We already know this Ukraine election meddling has been debunked.

But Putin thanks you for it.

Debunked by who ??? The fluid investigations aren't done, so putting the horse before the cart is always the goal, but why do the cratzies do this ?

Soros cash and credit, to engender protection from the crime at the surface of the swamp. Just following the money, that's all.

 

[beautress]

Well......the communist and Democrat party. That's why the Democrats became the anti-white party.

It's one thing for people in parties to try and change leadership. That's understandable. But this idiocy would make our founders turn over in their graves. They want to impeach a President over what "they think" he had in mind when he took certain actions, and brought witnesses who also "thought" what Trump had in mind.

The entire impeachment is about suppositions, interpretations, and assumptions, but no real facts. Nixon was a fact; hard core evidence. Clinton was a fact; DNA evidence and court testimony. There are no facts here, and certainly no impeachable offenses.

I think your GOP filter is obscuring the truth. What "he (Trump) had in mind" is critical to whether he was violating both the constitution and campaign election laws when he pressured the Ukraine to open an investigation of the Bidens or just sought to eliminate corruption in the Ukraine. If his intent was to discredit Joe Biden, he is violating the law and the constitution but if his intent is simply to cleanup corruption in the Ukraine, then the Senate should dismiss the applicable charges.

As explained in the Federalist Papers (I think the number is 65), high crimes and misdemeanors is essentially bad conduct, not necessarily a violation of the law. If you look back at previous impeachments you will see articles charging violation of oath of office, improper use of executive powers, behavior unbecoming the office, immoral behavior, drunkenness, etc.

It has become customary that in impeachments today, there be at least one charge of violation of the law but that has not always been the case. You see, our forefathers believed that public officials must be held to much higher standards than the public. Just being a law abiding citizens was not enough. They expected public officials to be of high character. For example in Articles of Impeachment of Andrew Johnson it was claimed that he spoke with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues before congress.

Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they saw who we were electing today.

It's why the GOP could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job.

Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to a country that desperately needed it in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

That is worse than lying about a blow job.

A temporary hold on US tax dollars is not against the law. Presidents (including Hussein) have been doing it for years. However perjury has always been against the law.

Bribery is impeachable. None of your hollering changes that.

Trump tried to bribe Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rival by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid.

Way worse than lying about a blow job. WAY worse.

You might find this old column helpful -

Then show us where Trump openly stated that's what he was doing. Trump, like other Presidents in the past, temporarily held up aid for various reasons. As Sondland testified, Ukraine is notorious for making promises and not keeping them. Trump wanted that announcement to hold them to their word. He did not threaten to withhold aid for that reason however. All the ambassadors made the assumption he did, but never got any presidential direction that the aid was contingent on that announcement.

"Trump wanted that announcement to hold them to their word. He did not threaten to withhold aid for that reason however. All the ambassadors made the assumption he did, but never got any presidential direction that the aid was contingent on that announcement."​

^^^Thanks for summarizing the truth so well, Mr. Ray. Well worth repeating.^^^

 

[The Purge]

But Ukraine president said he didn't....You fucks just can't handle the truth!

it means nothing that Zelenskyy claimed publicly that there was no quid pro quo on the part of Trump. It only means that it would be unwise for the Ukrainian president to criticize the U.S. president.

There was no quid pro quo. Your hatred for the President is noted.

Quid Pro Quo has been admitted . Your hatred for our Constitution is noted.

Admitted by who?

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump admitted to holding up military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

In other words, he acknowledged doing the very thing he could be impeached for and has repeatedly denied.

Here's the interview. Portions relevant to this article start around the 5:50 mark.

Why is that, Jojo ACTUALLY EXTORTED Ukraine, and the Ukraine president who is the one whose belief is all important said there was no pressure....ROTFLMFAO.....Our Commies are getting desperate to try and convince the people who have seen the evidence for themselves and....
Poll finds sharp swing in opposition to impeachment among independents | TheHill
2 days ago · A new national survey finds independent voters leading a ... the poll shows more independents now oppose impeachment ... Since October, Emerson has found Trump's job approval