Offical Impeachment Thread

[Yarddog]

Trail of Tears genocide, Civil War - 600,000 dead, Jim Crow laws, abortion, now Trump impeachment.

The list of Democratic accomplishments go on and on.

Viet Nam war as well

Eisenhower sent aid and advisors . So who's war is it then. Your scum ball leader is going down and his followers are going back under the rocks they came from. You won't be able to turn this country into a dictatorship as you want and we won't let you piss on our flag and constitution. We have the military and the majority so your threats with all you guns is comical . We will have you run over with your 32 guns on your back with a tank. You can't have my country. God Bless America

Lyndon Johnson moved us to Direct Military involvement in the 60's. Sending aid and advisors wasnt making the decision to bomb or send kids over there. Dems own it.
As far as your civil war fantasy I'm sure it lives on strongly in your heart. Good luck with that one whacko.

 

[EvMetro]

The question of whether or not Trump is guilty isn't up for debate anymore. He's clearly guilty.

The question is if Republicans care.

Can you quote something that Trump is "clearly guilty" of, besides being your political opponent, in regard to the impeachment?

Bribery.

This is an allegation, not a quote.

The reason you "overlooked" the part of my post that specifically asks for a "quote", is because you CANNOT quote something that he is clearly guilty of. You saw that I asked specifically for a quote, and you would have posted a quote, but there is nothing to quote.

 

[BluesLegend]

Looks like the Dems way of trying to get rid of their competition to me

Dem's are always scheming new ways to rig elections.

 

[BluesLegend]

Bribery.

Nobody bribed president Trump snowflake, did you flunk Constitutional law?

 

[keepitreal]

Feel free to quote the part of the treaty that exempts corrupt politicians if their name is Biden.

GO!

You're beyond brain-dead.... I never said it has anything to do with Biden.

Hmmm......then who was the Trump political rival you referenced?

Watch this....................

Dumbfuck, I was talking about the treaty. It matters not what Trump wanted investigated, he was not authorized to use that treaty for any purpose.

Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:

Trump's not authorized by that treaty to ask the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?

Watch this..................

And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.

Shit is going to come out about Burisma,
the fallout in Ukraine began 48 hours ago

Hope you're intelligent enough to understand and follow along

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

You're beyond brain-dead.... I never said it has anything to do with Biden.

Hmmm......then who was the Trump political rival you referenced?

Watch this....................

Dumbfuck, I was talking about the treaty. It matters not what Trump wanted investigated, he was not authorized to use that treaty for any purpose.

Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:

Trump's not authorized by that treaty to ask the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?

Watch this..................

And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.

Shit is going to come out about Burisma,
the fallout in Ukraine began 48 hours ago

Hope you're intelligent enough to understand and follow along

It dropped several hours ago and it's devastating!

HUGE! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor's Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family

BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine.
Twitter

 

[toobfreak]

This isn't a trial. Try to keep up.

So far it is just one massive hearsay slander while the people in question are kept tied and gagged in another room without so much as the chance to defend themselves much less air their side!

Wow, try reading the transcripts. These are people that were involved & know first hand about Trump's extortion demands.

Bullshit. Neither was there. All they had to offer was their opinions and feelings of what they claim others told them.

There is no hearsay evidence. This is not a criminal trial. It's an impeachment inquiry, and is absolutely allowed to be entered into the record.

Ambassador Sondland, who was on the phone call will be corroborating Ambassador Taylors Testimony next week.

Sondland donated $1 million to Trumps campaign, and for that reason was made an Ambassador.

With that information entered into the record, Ol' Gym Jordan is going to look really fucking stupid when he tries to paint Sondland as a never trumper huh?

And anyone that tries to imply he's a DNC witness will come off looking even more stupid than that huh?

See you at the next hearing.

Yes, it is hearsay. It doesn't matter what you call the proceedings, when you are giving your opinion and feelings about what others told you they heard it is the very definition of hearsay.

FOR THE RECORD, let us define Hearsay as evidence provided that you are not first person to, did not experience yourself but are only privy to 2nd hand from another party which you are trusting as accurate then relaying to the court, which then must be sifted through and weighed to determine its credibility, if any.

Since you have no absolute way yourself of knowing the claims are accurate and are taking them purely on faith, then it is at best a 4X greater leap of faith for the court to accept them twice removed.

No president can ever be impeached on such specious grounds for it would invite in the future anyone to claim anything any time someone wanted to remove a president simply because they didn't like him or agree with his policies. A place America does not want to go if it is to remain above a bananas republic.

 

[keepitreal]

Hmmm......then who was the Trump political rival you referenced?

Watch this....................

Dumbfuck, I was talking about the treaty. It matters not what Trump wanted investigated, he was not authorized to use that treaty for any purpose.

Let me refresh your feeble memory about exactly what you said:

Trump's not authorized by that treaty to ask the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

You are now claiming you were not talking about Biden, so who were you referencing?

Watch this..................

And it still doesn't matter what Trump asked to be investigated since he is not authorized by the treaty to invoke it. Something you don't know because you either didn't read the treaty or you're simply not intelligent enough to understand it.

Shit is going to come out about Burisma,
the fallout in Ukraine began 48 hours ago

Hope you're intelligent enough to understand and follow along

It dropped several hours ago and it's devastating!

HUGE! EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: Documents Released by Ukrainian General Prosecutor's Office Reveal MILLIONS Funneled to Hunter Biden and the John Kerry Family

BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine.
Twitter

That's not what I'm talking about, that's indirectly

 

[okfine]

This about Trump. Right?

WELL, since Trump sold them the weapons they needed and obama didn't what was your point of bringing it up?

Are you retarded? WELL? Did I ever mention Obama in this thread? WELL? Whataboutism deluxe.

You want to talk about what's retarded is you saying Trump stalled giving weapons to the Ukrainians when obama never gave them weapons they needed. Which is worse late in giving or not giving at all?

Oh my, please help us all.

There is but one help for people who are affected with TDS that's a bullet.self-inflected

Fuck off Barney

 

[okfine]

That it wasn't legally late doesn't mean a Hold had not been placed on it.

edit oops

For the terminally stupid ABNORMALS...perhaps you need me to explain the English to you?

The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.”

The team that changes every couple of months. Just like the rest of the administration. Bravo.

 

[okfine]

Amb Taylor testified under oath that one of his staffers was walking by and heard Trump on his cell phone talking to Sondland about Ukraine. The only problem with his testimony is he told the committee how Sondland responded to a question by Trump.

If this guy was just walking by and eves dropped on Trump's end of the call, how does he know what Sondland was saying on the other end?

This is how amateurish this entire farce is.

Probably on speaker

 

[okfine]

Okay, seems I understand the DOPers fully here.
the Great Douche being Impeached as involved in Missles-For-Dirt-GATE!
the Great Douche Lies and Deeds are fully illegal. And they are not Americans giving IT Dirt.
Compared to!
Bubba Clinton being Impeached on a Lie over a legal BlowJob.
(Nobody really cares about, really, and as we see the DOPer leader pays Porn stars for sex.).
Where if not done with an underage partner is not illegal. Well, the Great Douche paid for sex and no movie was made to follow the laws on Porn Star Raw Dogging is legal.
So, both of them are liars, and it seems to the DOPers, care more about a lie about a legal Blowjob are more impeachable here?
As we all are okay the Blowjob never put America at risk, like being involved with a foreign county in election fraud on the USA voters.

Clear this up DOPers. Did I miss anythang?

Monica blew the Beverly Hills High School football team so she knew exactly what she was doing.

 

[The Purge]

That it wasn't legally late doesn't mean a Hold had not been placed on it.

edit oops

For the terminally stupid ABNORMALS...perhaps you need me to explain the English to you?

The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.”

The team that changes every couple of months. Just like the rest of the administration. Bravo.

Unfortunately it doesn't. It is career civil service manned! Not surprised you have no idea!

 

[okfine]

That it wasn't legally late doesn't mean a Hold had not been placed on it.

edit oops

For the terminally stupid ABNORMALS...perhaps you need me to explain the English to you?

The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.”

The team that changes every couple of months. Just like the rest of the administration. Bravo.

Unfortunately it doesn't. It is career civil service manned! Not surprised you have no idea!

I suppose Bolton wasn't the NSA? Moron.

 

[The Purge]

That it wasn't legally late doesn't mean a Hold had not been placed on it.

edit oops

For the terminally stupid ABNORMALS...perhaps you need me to explain the English to you?

The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.”

The team that changes every couple of months. Just like the rest of the administration. Bravo.

Unfortunately it doesn't. It is career civil service manned! Not surprised you have no idea!

I suppose Bolton wasn't the NSA? Moron.

Why, did he edit and redact the transcript...idiot!

 

[okfine]

That it wasn't legally late doesn't mean a Hold had not been placed on it.

edit oops

For the terminally stupid ABNORMALS...perhaps you need me to explain the English to you?

The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team to determine the best use of Ukraine security assistance funds to achieve US national security interests,” Office of Management and Budget staff wrote in an email to House Appropriations Committee staff aides. Agencies, OMB said, “must wait to obligate them until the policy review process is complete and the President had made a final determination.”

The team that changes every couple of months. Just like the rest of the administration. Bravo.

Unfortunately it doesn't. It is career civil service manned! Not surprised you have no idea!

I suppose Bolton wasn't the NSA? Moron.

Why, did he edit and redact the transcript...idiot!

You said the following and I replied to it:

"The President had been consulting with his national security leadership team"

 

[2aguy]

Soooooo....

Both of the "Star" witnessess....

Neither one has ever met the President.

Neither one has ever talked to the President.

Neither one listened to the phone call.

Neither one was in the room when the call was made.

Neither one was in the White House when the call was made.

Neither one has first hand information on any aspect of the call.

Both learned about the phone call from staffers who spoke to other people who also were not in on the phone call.

Neither one could define a crime that should lead to impeachment.

Neither one knows any detail of providing aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine got the military aid, actual military weapons to kill russians vs. obama's aid which amounted to blankets and MREs.

Ukraine leaders say they didn't know nuthin bout no quid pro quo.

So....looks like a typical anti-Trump attack......Wiley Coyote would be proud of these democrats........

I don't think schiff understands the concept of "Star Witness."

 

[2aguy]

A good summary....

Jim Jordan Explains Why Trump Held Up the Money to Ukraine Without a Quid Pro Quo

"There was a delay on sending hard-earned tax dollars of the American people to Ukraine," Jordan admitted. "We’re not talking any country, we’re talking Ukraine. Ernst & Young said one of the three most corrupt countries on the planet. … So our president said, 'Time out. Time out, let’s check out this new guy. Let’s see if Zelensky’s the real deal. This new guy who got elected in April, whose party took power in July. Let’s see if he’s legitimate.'"

Jordan continued, "Now, keep in mind, in 2018 President Trump had already done more for Ukraine than Obama did. That’s right, President Trump — who doesn’t like foreign aid, who wanted European countries to do more, who knew how corrupt Ukraine was — did more than Obama because he gave them Javelins, tank-busting Javelins to fight the Russians. Our witnesses have said this, others have said this: 'Obama gave them blankets, Trump gave them missiles.' But when it came time to check out this new guy, President Trump said, 'Let’s just see, let’s just see if he’s legit.'"

"So for 55 days, we checked him out. President Zelensky had five interactions with senior U.S. officials in that timeframe. One was, of course, the phone call, the July 25 phone call," the congressman explained. "And there were four other face-to-face meetings with other senior U.S. officials. And guess what, in not one of those interactions — not one — were security assistance dollars linked to investigating Burisma or Biden.

So what happened during those 55 days? "U.S. senators, Ambassador [John] Bolton, Vice President Pence, all became convinced that Zelensky was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and the real deal and a real change. And guess what? They told the president, 'He’s a reformer, release the money.' And that’s exactly what President Trump did."

Jordan's telling of events squared with the testimony of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, who admitted that there was "no linkage" of funding to Biden investigations in any of the three meetings he had with Zelensky during the time in question.

Jordan's version of events also makes sense considering the fact that Trump released the funding without Zelensky opening an investigation into Hunter Biden, Burisma, or alleged anti-Trump Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election. Yet Democrats will continue to push the quid pro quo "extortion" narrative, because it's politically convenient.

"Now over the next few weeks, we’re going to have more witnesses like we've had today that the Democrats will parade in here and they’re all going to say this: 'So and so said such and such to so and so and therefore we’ve got to impeach the president,'" Jordan continued. He summarized testimony from Gordon Sondland to make his point: "Ambassador Taylor recalls that I told Mr. Taylor that Mr. Morrison, who conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak, in conjunction with Mr. Pence’s visit to Warsaw, for his meeting with President Zelensky."

 

[Olde Europe]

Day 1:

This may come back to bite dems but...is today's hearing pointless?

The reason I ask is, neither if these two had first hand knowledge, but only heard it from other people. That is hearsay. Now, during this portion of the events, it may make for a good show, but, hearsay is not admissible as evidence. What happens if it goes to trial in the senate, and they say that all these testimonies that rely on hearsay are to be disregarded?

Jim Jordan did make a good point to Taylor's, and that is, if he got his information second hand, how does he know the original source is not wrong, or got some facts wrong.

And I know some will say "but this is not a criminal court but a political court", doesnt matter, still cant use hearsay as evidence, people make up stuff all the time.

Brilliant. First, you preclude any and all first-hand witnesses from testifying, and then you turn around and complain about the lack of first-hand witnesses.

Moreover, neither of the two witnesses may have seen Trump firing the shot (metaphor!), but they have seen how it percolated through the U.S. bureaucracy, and / or how the target took the hit.

Moreover, the hold on security assistance is already firmly established as a fact (Trump), as is Trump's extortion attempt (Trump, memorandum of the July 25 call).

Moreover, as to Jim Jordan, the Gish Galloping clown: Yeah, what if the original source is wrong? Did he really try to make a case against original witnesses?

Moreover, the evidence gathering isn't concluded, and, with Sondland, at least one "first hand" witness in apparently quite close contact with Trump is going to testify. The entirety of the testimonies and depositions will then be written into Articles of Impeachment insofar as they mutually confirm and support the already ample evidence, even if that process is too lengthy and complex for your attention span.

Finally, do you guys ever research anything before you bleat? I mean, just in case you care about looking stupid and ignorant:

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contains nearly thirty of these exceptions to providing hearsay evidence.​

Oh, and, just for the fun of it, there is this:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court

There are exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence that apply only when the declarant is unavailable. A declarant is considered unavailable in situations such as when:

* The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
* The declarant refuses to testify;
* The declarant does not remember;
* The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the prevents testimony; or
* The declarant is absent from the trial and has not been located.​

So, since Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton and cohorts refuse to testify, we have the "refuses to testify" exception right there to make, yes, hearsay evidence admissible in court.

Hilarious. You do know that in these judge & jury movies folks are not really lawyers, they just play one on TV, don't you?

 

[SmokeALib]

Trumpers may not be watching but the rest of America will be

Trumpers won't be watching because they'll be at work. You worthless leftist traitors will have all the time in the world to enjoy the clown show. Don't forget to flush.