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.
Well we know a frame job when we see it.So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.
sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
Who heard it 2nd and 3rd hand...Well we know a frame job when we see it.So extortion is legal. Who knew?Well we know a frame job when we see it.
Yes. With testimony from Trump's own appointees.
Who saw the results of it first hand trough their real time interactions with members of the ukranian govt, dope.
Saw what? Dope? Would you say that to my face? No. Keep it civil, prancing Nancy boy.
That person would probably be fired and destroy his career if he revealed he had such a recording, so you're never going to hear it.Someone likely has a recording of the phone call Sondland made to Trump on an unsecured phone from the Ukraine restaurant - either by U.S. intelligence and/or foreigners. That should make Trump very nervous.
It's already clear. Dims can't win the election, so they smeared Trump and are using that to impeach him.Well we know a frame job when we see it.So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
you mean we know a cover up when we see it. why won't donny release the real transcript that's hiding in the vault? why won't donny release any docs that could clear this all up? why won't the state dept, at the di-rection of pompeo release all notes from the witness' if that could get his boss 'exonerated'?
ya............. we know why.
A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.
That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.
sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.
Intent seems obviousAgain, unless intent can be proven there can be no impeachment. This is a waste of a thread.
Is that you're way of admitting that Dims have no evidence of any crimes Trump committed?The house will impeach the ass hole no doubt and the senate even if they found scum bag guilty of raping a 13 year old and then telling her that if she told on him he would kill her. No matter what they found they will keep this pile of shit. And that will be the best day for decades for Dems. knock a few votes off of these politicians that support scum bag during their election and more then a few points off of scum bags next election and that will bring the senate back to the dems and the last president you ever will see from the hate group they call a party Will be walking out the front door of the white house and three states will be lined up on the steps with charges that will keep scum bag in court or in jail for the rest of the ass holes life. Total control by the democrats, and I want them at this point to make sure that the hate party is destroyed, every possible legal action with total control of the government. The real conservatives who care about all the people and don't base there every action on hatred, cruelty and general ugliness will be able to put together a a conservative party but the word Republican won't be used because it will be to poisoned by that time, These people and these supporters of these traitor who spit on our flag and piss on our constitution have to go. They simply are this countries biggest enemy. There is nothing that the hate party can do to wash the piss stain off of themselves . They are for every marked as ugly.You gutless Dem clowns do something about it DO IT impeach Trump.
Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.
Discussion of mod actions edited
Just 5 more years.Get over it.Trump just deleted 30,000 emails.
How’s it feel, Leftards?
High crimes like Blow Jobs?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.
sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.
What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?
Like lying under oath to congressHigh crimes like Blow Jobs?[/QUOTEA shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.
What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?
/——/ You know he never set foot in the Ukraine, do you? He doesn’t speak the language or have any experience in the gas industry. His qualification was his last name - son of US VPThey weren`t getting the money if they refused to fire a corrupt prosecutor. It`s not really the same as asking for a bogus investigation of a political rival. The drive to oust the crooked prosecutor was an international effort. Got anything else?ASKED to DO A FAVOR INSTEAD OF DEMANDING UKRAINE TO DO SOMETHING...OR ELSE....SEEMS WRONGWINGER SPELLED OUT THE ANSWER AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!!!!I would like you to do us a favor thoughAre you really that stupid? Serious question.
"I would like you to do us a favor"
Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?
Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.
Your call...............
A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/
A former VP threatened US aid unless the investigator who was looking into the company his son was working for was fired is not the same?
The idea that his son got this job, making 80K a month, with no experience in the industry, not even able to understand the language, is not suspicious?
And now recently, we found that the company in question, tried to garner favor of the US State Department by dropping Hunter's name in an email, that's something that doesn't need to be looked into?
We have 7.5 billion people on this planet, and out of those 7.5 billion, Hunter Biden was the most qualified for this highly paying job; a guy who was kicked out of the military, and went to rehab multiple times for his drug addiction problem?
You're so correct.........nothing to see here folks.
All of this is bullshit. I believe Biden had run a bank before he was put on this board. He was on the board of Amtrak. He worked in the US Dept. of Commerce. He was qualified to serve on this board, so let's just throw this argument back in the trash can.
Hunter Biden - Wikipedia
Favor regarding 2016 or 2020? 2016 is OK but 2020 is not. Therein lies the intent. How do you prove it was for 2020? I ll wait patiently.I would like you to do us a favor thoughAre you really that stupid? Serious question.Link to his "demand".Trumps demands of Zelensky show intent
Watch this dodge...............
Not only Trump, but the staff Trump told him to deal with
Read my Signature...
"I would like you to do us a favor"
Is a DEMAND in your twisted, demented world?
Please............PLEASE tell us you aren't that stupid. Unless you come to your senses and admit that is in no way a "DEMAND' our only conclusion can be that you are a moron.
Your call...............
A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.
Mulvaney admitted he held it up.Let it happen. Let republicans take until November 1 to remind the other 70 percent of the American people who aren't "we'll do anything for Trump" suckers about how corrupt this president is.
Trump isn't corrupt stop lying. The only real corruption to emerge from this mess is the Biden's corruption.
Using foreign aid to extort for political gain is corruption.
Yes it is, now prove why Trump withheld money, and you'll have an honest case. I know you think your leaders and MSM are mind readers, but believe it or not, our country does not have Thought Police yet like your favorite book.
I would like you to do us a favor though
A direct response to a request to buy Javelin missiles. When talking about the favors, it was clear they were personal in nature.
The usual response to the mention of Javelins should have been:
"The money for assistance has been appropriated. The DoD certified that your country made the required progress, particularly with respect to fighting corruption, for the appropriated funds to be delivered. That process meanders through the bowels of the U.S. bureaucracy, but there are no remaining obstacles to the release of the funds in the coming days."
Any answer other than that would raise alarm in Ukraine, and the ask for a favor doubly so. With that, the extortion attempt is complete. The subsequent ask for investigations of Crowdstrike and the Bidens amounts to soliciting a bribe in the form of a personal political benefit - that is, bribery.
That's the abuse of power right there.
/----/ High crimes like perjury and suborning purgery.High crimes like Blow Jobs?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
ray ray ray.... articles of impeachment do not hafta follow traditional criminal law. doucherwitz is grabbing at straws.
What's wrong with you? Impeachment is a process against the President for committing high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Or are you telling me that Democrats don't need any reason to impeach a President? When did we become the former Soviet Union?
And you are a lying piece of shit and harmful to America!!!Just because Gym Jordan said they were STAR WITNESSES doesn't make it so.
Come on now, you know this. Gym is not a Democrat and doesn't determine their strategy.
The Democrats are BUILDING their case and will save the stars for later. These guys were probably the G league stars.
So even though any criminal or congressional case always starts out with their star witnesses, the Democrats didn't do it this time? You mean they are just warming up???
Cases do not always start with star witnesses. Why do you say that? It's not only a false claim, the reverse is often true - the star witness is withheld until the foundation is laid.
No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.
Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.
If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.
/----/ "Mr. Taylor testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he learned only recently of a July telephone call overheard by one of his aides in which the president was preoccupied with Ukraine’s willingness to say it would look into Mr. Biden and work by his son Hunter Biden for a Ukrainian energy firm. Immediately afterward, Mr. Taylor said, the aide had been informed that Mr. Trump cared more about “investigations of Biden” than he did about Ukraine. "Just because Gym Jordan said they were STAR WITNESSES doesn't make it so.
Come on now, you know this. Gym is not a Democrat and doesn't determine their strategy.
The Democrats are BUILDING their case and will save the stars for later. These guys were probably the G league stars.
So even though any criminal or congressional case always starts out with their star witnesses, the Democrats didn't do it this time? You mean they are just warming up???
Cases do not always start with star witnesses. Why do you say that? It's not only a false claim, the reverse is often true - the star witness is withheld until the foundation is laid.
No, it's a strategy. If you can cast the most doubt in the minds of people that the subject is guilty, it taints their view of less important following witnesses.
Watch if I'm not correct. Their other witnesses will be weaker and more comical than these two clowns. This is the best they have.
If you think those men were clowns, you're an idiot.
Oh please....when Jordan got done with Taylor, he had the look on his face like he just got busted with somebody else's wife. He looked more confused than a baby at a topless bar.
Republicans made an extremely poor showing on the first day of public hearings.
It's what happens when your case is weak and all you can do is distract, defame, discredit and distort, rather than deal with substance.
It's what happens when you have no choice but to try to defend the indefensible, hoping that your lipstick on the pig will somehow be enough.
An amoral, arrogant, ignorant, unstable, irresponsible, knee-jerk-reaction autocrat-wannabe is not exactly an ideal anchor for one's party.
But that's what the Republicans have allowed to happen to them.
So you believe the DOJ is a fourth branch of government?I never said presidents can't tell the DoJ what to do. I said the DoJ doesn't have to do what the president says.You're deranged, lying fucking moron....Yes they do take orders from the President. That's what it means to report to him. What do you believe it means?
We can all tell our bosses to fuck off if we don't care about getting fired.
https://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/files/2018/12/1-Green-Roiphe-1-75.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/file/19191/download
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/03/11/no-trump-cannot-do-whatever-he-wants-with-the-justice-department/?outputType=amp
From you first link:
The Department of Justice and the Special Prosecutor disagreed about whether the President, as head of the Executive Branch under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, could direct individual prosecutions if he so chose. The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon left the issue unresolved and has never revisited it.
Your second link isn't even from this century and the third doesn't work.
But all this is, is more opinions and non-working links, good job commie, GOOD JOB!
.
The first link states:
The history and policy strongly suggest that, as a general matter, the Attorney General and subordinate prosecutors may not accept direction from the President but must make the ultimate decisions about how to conduct individual investigations and prosecutions, even at the risk of being fired for disobeying the President.
Which was proven to be true by Nixon who fired multiple people who refused to follow his orders.
Age of the second link is irrelevant.
And this fixes the link to the third link:
Yeah, ya don't do what the boss says, your job may not be too secure. And your solution for the third link it to put it behind a pay wall, REALLY? BTW presidents have been directing the DOJ since Thomas Jefferson was president. Hell, Eric holder said he was maobamas wing man.
.
