Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The point is that at the time of the phone call Zelinski didn't know the aid was being held up. In other words, Trump couldn't have been using it as leverage. Of course, your brain damage prevents you from comprehending that.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.He didn't have to say "me" or "my campaign," as he named his political rival. And the proper channels to investigate Biden would have been through his own Department of Justice, not a foreign national, which is against the law.Investigate what happened in 2016. He said do us a favor on the call. Our country has been through a lot. Never says me or my campaign. Now his intent could have been what you stated. But how do you prove that, especially after Comey is back tracking on the FISA and Burisma and withholding $1Bn by Biden until the prosecutor was removed did happen and getting Hunter a BOD gig, did happen.
It is not cut and dry. Hence the parties are divided.
Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.He didn't have to say "me" or "my campaign," as he named his political rival. And the proper channels to investigate Biden would have been through his own Department of Justice, not a foreign national, which is against the law.Investigate what happened in 2016. He said do us a favor on the call. Our country has been through a lot. Never says me or my campaign. Now his intent could have been what you stated. But how do you prove that, especially after Comey is back tracking on the FISA and Burisma and withholding $1Bn by Biden until the prosecutor was removed did happen and getting Hunter a BOD gig, did happen.
It is not cut and dry. Hence the parties are divided.
Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
^^^ too stupid.Slobbers the USMB lying fucking moron. You're not capable of keeping up, lying fucking moron. Remember? You keep asking me to post the same law over and over. My advice to you is to buzz the attending nurse to come change your drool cup and go back to staring at the wall.The fact that Biden is running for office is irrelevant. The evidence shows that he committed a crime. He doesn't become immune from prosecution that minute he decides to run for office.His intent was to have a political rival investigated. What else could his intent have been?Because you have to prove intent and there is no proof of intent. Yes, he is because it is political and in the Senate he will not get convicted. Because it is political. If it were not political it would be bi-partisan. If he "shot someone" as you alluded to then impeachment would be bi-partisan.
None of the criteria advocated by the experts appear in the text of the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
I read English, lying fucking moron.When did you acquire this ability to read minds?His intent was to have a political rival investigated. What else could his intent have been?How is soliciting a foreign national for something of value to his own campaign not an "overt crime?"If he committed an overt crime he would be impeached. Don't be obtuse. In this case only one side of the aisle agrees and not unilaterally. It is partisan.
Oh, and by the way, it's looking very likely like he's getting impeached.
Because you have to prove intent and there is no proof of intent. Yes, he is because it is political and in the Senate he will not get convicted. Because it is political. If it were not political it would be bi-partisan. If he "shot someone" as you alluded to then impeachment would be bi-partisan.
"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... "
^^^ too stupid.Slobbers the USMB lying fucking moron. You're not capable of keeping up, lying fucking moron. Remember? You keep asking me to post the same law over and over. My advice to you is to buzz the attending nurse to come change your drool cup and go back to staring at the wall.The fact that Biden is running for office is irrelevant. The evidence shows that he committed a crime. He doesn't become immune from prosecution that minute he decides to run for office.His intent was to have a political rival investigated. What else could his intent have been?
None of the criteria advocated by the experts appear in the text of the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.
What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.He didn't have to say "me" or "my campaign," as he named his political rival. And the proper channels to investigate Biden would have been through his own Department of Justice, not a foreign national, which is against the law.
Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Again, he is allowed to do that. He also never specified when Barr would reach out to him. It doesn't trouble you at all that this is 100% partisan? Is every Republican in your POV just turning a blind eye?
No mistake, Frannie.Glad you figured out your mistakeNot Donald Trump. He's limited to two 4 year terms.You are not very smart, trump could be in the wh until 2032 or even longer.LOL2028 at the earliestSometime between today and 1.20.2025
Even the Constitution is laughing at you. It states he can serve no more than two 4 year terms.
The constitution allows this too
Play on
LOLOLSlobbers the USMB lying fucking moron. You're not capable of keeping up, lying fucking moron. Remember? You keep asking me to post the same law over and over. My advice to you is to buzz the attending nurse to come change your drool cup and go back to staring at the wall.The fact that Biden is running for office is irrelevant. The evidence shows that he committed a crime. He doesn't become immune from prosecution that minute he decides to run for office.His intent was to have a political rival investigated. What else could his intent have been?How is soliciting a foreign national for something of value to his own campaign not an "overt crime?"
Oh, and by the way, it's looking very likely like he's getting impeached.
Because you have to prove intent and there is no proof of intent. Yes, he is because it is political and in the Senate he will not get convicted. Because it is political. If it were not political it would be bi-partisan. If he "shot someone" as you alluded to then impeachment would be bi-partisan.
You keep running away because you know your claim was horseshit. Remember that?
The more viscous your attack, the more obvious it is that you know you have been caught lying.
You can't do logic and facts, so what choice do you have?
Holding up the funds doesn't even matter, lying fucking moron. Trump still asked for campaign help from a foreign national.The point is that at the time of the phone call Zelinski didn't know the aid was being held up. In other words, Trump couldn't have been using it as leverage. Of course, your brain damage prevents you from comprehending that.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.He didn't have to say "me" or "my campaign," as he named his political rival. And the proper channels to investigate Biden would have been through his own Department of Justice, not a foreign national, which is against the law.
Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Mulvaney didn't mention a "favor." He mentioned corruption. You reached a conclusion that isn't warranted by the facts. Of course, that's your SOP, isn't it?
Holding up the funds doesn't even matter, lying fucking moron. Trump still asked for campaign help from a foreign national.The point is that at the time of the phone call Zelinski didn't know the aid was being held up. In other words, Trump couldn't have been using it as leverage. Of course, your brain damage prevents you from comprehending that.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Mulvaney didn't mention a "favor." He mentioned corruption. You reached a conclusion that isn't warranted by the facts. Of course, that's your SOP, isn't it?
He's not allowed to solicit help towards his campaign from a foreign national. And at least until this became public in late September, he never mentioned it to Barr.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.He didn't have to say "me" or "my campaign," as he named his political rival. And the proper channels to investigate Biden would have been through his own Department of Justice, not a foreign national, which is against the law.
Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Again, he is allowed to do that. He also never specified when Barr would reach out to him. It doesn't trouble you at all that this is 100% partisan? Is every Republican in your POV just turning a blind eye?
He's not allowed to solicit help towards his campaign from a foreign national. And at least until this became public in late September, he never mentioned it to Barr.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.Maybe but that is not how he operates. He said Barr will be in touch. Ultimately he did deliver the weapons and honestly he had zero foresight how the investigation would go and if Biden would be exonerated. Not enough to impeach but enough to educate the voters and let us decide in 2020.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Again, he is allowed to do that. He also never specified when Barr would reach out to him. It doesn't trouble you at all that this is 100% partisan? Is every Republican in your POV just turning a blind eye?
Then explain how trump can not run in 2024No mistake, Frannie.Glad you figured out your mistakeNot Donald Trump. He's limited to two 4 year terms.You are not very smart, trump could be in the wh until 2032 or even longer.LOL2028 at the earliest
Even the Constitution is laughing at you. It states he can serve no more than two 4 year terms.
The constitution allows this too
Play on
LOLOL^^^ too stupid.Slobbers the USMB lying fucking moron. You're not capable of keeping up, lying fucking moron. Remember? You keep asking me to post the same law over and over. My advice to you is to buzz the attending nurse to come change your drool cup and go back to staring at the wall.The fact that Biden is running for office is irrelevant. The evidence shows that he committed a crime. He doesn't become immune from prosecution that minute he decides to run for office.His intent was to have a political rival investigated. What else could his intent have been?
None of the criteria advocated by the experts appear in the text of the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.
LOLI read English, lying fucking moron.When did you acquire this ability to read minds?His intent was to have a political rival investigated. What else could his intent have been?How is soliciting a foreign national for something of value to his own campaign not an "overt crime?"
Oh, and by the way, it's looking very likely like he's getting impeached.
Because you have to prove intent and there is no proof of intent. Yes, he is because it is political and in the Senate he will not get convicted. Because it is political. If it were not political it would be bi-partisan. If he "shot someone" as you alluded to then impeachment would be bi-partisan.
"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... "
Biden is a crook. The fact that he's running for office is irrelevant. Trump doesn't view the world through the same twisted lenses that you use.
LOLOLHolding up the funds doesn't even matter, lying fucking moron. Trump still asked for campaign help from a foreign national.The point is that at the time of the phone call Zelinski didn't know the aid was being held up. In other words, Trump couldn't have been using it as leverage. Of course, your brain damage prevents you from comprehending that.What guessing? Trump didn't inform Barr. That's not a guess. Trump delivered the aid after the whistleblower filed a complaint he was withholding it. That's not a guess. Shit, Trump's own acting chief of staff admitted he was holding up the funds because of a favor trump asked of Zelensky....He lied to Zelensky when he said Barr will be in touch. Itvturned out he never told Barr about his conversation with Zelensky to investigate Biden.
And he only delivered the aid after a whistleblower filed a complaint that he was holding up the aid in exchange for favors. And that was 7 months after Congress approved it.
He did and you have proof of his intent? No. You're guessing. This is fine and the voters should know but this is not enough to impeach. They are impeaching based on "abuse of power". Has there ever been a criminal prosecuted for this ever? No.
This is 100% political IMO and not at all logical. Again, Alan Dershowitz agrees with me. He is a legal expert. He is also a Democrat and a Clinton supporter.
"Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." ~ Mick Mulvaney
(emphasis added)
Mulvaney didn't mention a "favor." He mentioned corruption. You reached a conclusion that isn't warranted by the facts. Of course, that's your SOP, isn't it?
When did he use the words "campaign"?
Because like every president since Eisenhower, Crazy Donald cannot be elected president more than twice.Then explain how trump can not run in 2024No mistake, Frannie.Glad you figured out your mistakeNot Donald Trump. He's limited to two 4 year terms.You are not very smart, trump could be in the wh until 2032 or even longer.LOL
Even the Constitution is laughing at you. It states he can serve no more than two 4 year terms.
The constitution allows this too
Play on
You are really simple
LOLOL^^^ too stupid.Slobbers the USMB lying fucking moron. You're not capable of keeping up, lying fucking moron. Remember? You keep asking me to post the same law over and over. My advice to you is to buzz the attending nurse to come change your drool cup and go back to staring at the wall.The fact that Biden is running for office is irrelevant. The evidence shows that he committed a crime. He doesn't become immune from prosecution that minute he decides to run for office.
None of the criteria advocated by the experts appear in the text of the Constitution, which limits the grounds for impeachment to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
It didn't take long for you to go into ad-hominems. Another victory for moi.
If you think calling you out for saying something completely stupid is a victory for you, then more power to ya.
