Time to Impeach Joe Biden (Poll)

[kyzr]

And how does that create a high crime or misdemeanor?

Selling influence is a crime. Failing to uphold the LAWs of the US is abuse of power, etc.
I'm sure the House Republicans can list more than a few Articles of impeachment.

 

[Dragonlady]

You need a better link than that one. There are many that confirm what the GAO said
True that the GAO said that Trump broke the Law, but the OMB said that Trump did NOT break the Law.

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that President Trump's administration broke the law by withholding defense aid to Ukraine -- the issue at the heart of the president's impeachment trial.

www.foxnews.com

The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.
“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."
Further, a senior administration official said to Fox News that they believed the GAO was trying to insert itself into impeachment at a time when media attention on the matter is high.

The OMB is under the direct control of the oval office. Prior to becoming Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney was the Director of the OMB, and for a while, held both positions. I’m pretty sure that his replacement would be sufficiently “loyal” provide the kind of “opinion”, that would ensure he could keep his job. Trump fired the Director of the GOA after he issued that report.

 

[Marener]

Selling influence is a crime. Failing to uphold the LAWs of the US is abuse of power, etc.
I'm sure the House Republicans can list more than a few Articles of impeachment.

What was influenced? To be a crime you have to identify a policy that was enacted as a direct connection to the funds and you have to have evidence of this connection.

So, what was the policy that Biden enacted and for whom?

 

[kyzr]

The witnesses in both impeachments were all Republicans working in the White House, who were hand picked and hired by Donald Trump.

Every Republican senator agreed that Trump was guilty of doing the things that were charged in both of the impeachments.

In the first impeachment, Mitch McConnell said that Donald Trump was “elected by the people” and with the election only 10 months away, the American people should be allowed to decide whether they wanted Donald Trump to be their president.

When the American people resoundingly voted Donald Trump out of office, and he mounted an insurrection to overthrow the election of Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell refused again to impeach Donald Trump, on the grounds that he was no longer president, and therefore could not be impeached.

McConnell then asked the justice system to hold Trump accountable for his crimes. But now that the justice system is attempting to do just that, the charges are political, and Trump should not be prosecuted.

1. Liar. There were many democrat witnesses.
2. Liar. Not all senators agreed Trump was guilty for both impeachments
3. Liar. Put up link proving what McConnell said about first impeachment
4. True. When Trump is not president he can't be impeached, i.e. "removed from office" (because he's already out of office, duh)
5. Liar. If Trump is prosecuted by the DOJ McConnell won't say anything.

 

[The5thHorseman]

The senate agreed with OMB dumbass. Impeachment failed. No laws were apparently broken.

We'll see how Joe Biden fares regarding breaking LAWS.

You're full of shit.

 

[Dragonlady]

The senate agreed with OMB dumbass. Impeachment failed. No laws were apparently broken.

We'll see how Joe Biden fares regarding breaking LAWS.

The Senate agreed with the house that Trump committed all of these crimes, but refused to hold Trump accountable. You cannot rewrite history and claim that the Senate exonerated Trump in anyway because they didn’t.

There hasn’t been a single investigation which has cleared Donald Trump of any criminal wrongdoing in these matters. There’s “insufficient evidence” to obtain a conviction, or “let the voters decide”.

The bold fact is that the Republican party is so frightened that their own base will turn on them if they do anything to hold Trump accountable, that they run around, ringing their hands saying “let the law hold him accountable” and then calling it a “political witchhunt” when they when anyone tries to.

 

[kyzr]

The OMB is under the direct control of the oval office. Prior to becoming Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney was the Director of the OMB, and for a while, held both positions. I’m pretty sure that his replacement would be sufficiently “loyal” provide the kind of “opinion”, that would ensure he could keep his job. Trump fired the Director of the GOA after he issued that report.

The OMB can put up an opinion on LAW. If the GAO disagrees they can take it to court, all the way up to the USSC for a final interpretation.
You can't prove that the OMB interpretation is wrong.

 

[kyzr]

What was influenced? To be a crime you have to identify a policy that was enacted as a direct connection to the funds and you have to have evidence of this connection.
So, what was the policy that Biden enacted and for whom?

I'm sure that there are many whistleblowers in the IRS, FBI, DOJ, including Mr. Bobulinsky that can fill in those blanks. Stay tuned.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. Liar. There were many democrat witnesses.
2. Liar. Not all senators agreed Trump was guilty for both impeachments
3. Liar. Put up link proving what McConnell said about first impeachment
4. True. When Trump is not president he can't be impeached, i.e. "removed from office" (because he's already out of office, duh)
5. Liar. If Trump is prosecuted by the DOJ McConnell won't say anything.

Who exactly are these Democrats who testified against Trump?

Anita Hill worked for the Bush Administration. Colonel Vindman was a card carrying Republican, whose family fled communism. The Ambassador to the EU??? He donated $1 million to Donald Trump’s election campaign.

 

[Dragonlady]

The OMB can put up an opinion on LAW. If the GAO disagrees they can take it to court, all the way up to the USSC for a final interpretation.
You can't prove that the OMB interpretation is wrong.

The office about budget management did not offer an opinion on the legality of what Trump did. They made the false, claim that their office held up the payments on “technicalities” and not on orders received from the White House.

You have to actually read the links to the documents that you post in order to have a valid opinion on what they say or what they mean.

 

[Marener]

I'm sure that there are many whistleblowers in the IRS, FBI, DOJ, including Mr. Bobulinsky that can fill in those blanks. Stay tuned.

Is that what you’re going to write in your articles of impeachment? It’s based on assumptions and speculation.

 

[kyzr]

The Senate agreed with the house that Trump committed all of these crimes, but refused to hold Trump accountable. You cannot rewrite history and claim that the Senate exonerated Trump in anyway because they didn’t.
There hasn’t been a single investigation which has cleared Donald Trump of any criminal wrongdoing in these matters. There’s “insufficient evidence” to obtain a conviction, or “let the voters decide”.
The bold fact is that the Republican party is so frightened that their own base will turn on them if they do anything to hold Trump accountable, that they run around, ringing their hands saying “let the law hold him accountable” and then calling it a “political witchhunt” when they when anyone tries to.

1. Prove that the senate agreed with the House on the impeachments. Liar. (Trump was not removed, was he?)
2. More "sour grapes" comments about Trump. Bottom line; Not guilty. (of anything)

 

[kyzr]

Who exactly are these Democrats who testified against Trump?
Anita Hill worked for the Bush Administration. Colonel Vindman was a card carrying Republican, whose family fled communism. The Ambassador to the EU??? He donated $1 million to Donald Trump’s election campaign.

Here's the list. Out of 17 witnesses there are several democrats. Fiona Hill for one, duh. Google them is you're still curious. Fiona was the one who told Obama to send Ukraine MREs and blankets (non-lethal aid) in their fight with Russia. Trump sent them Javelin anti-tank missiles (lethal aid), duh.

Who are the 17 witnesses in the Trump impeachment inquiry and what have they said?

Here are the witnesses who have been interviewed in the Trump impeachment inquiry, why they matter and what we know about their testimony.

www.usatoday.com

 

[kyzr]

Is that what you’re going to write in your articles of impeachment? It’s based on assumptions and speculation.

I'm not writing them, the House impeachment managers are.
Democrats proved that assumptions and speculation work fine as articles.

 

[kyzr]

The office about budget management did not offer an opinion on the legality of what Trump did. They made the false, claim that their office held up the payments on “technicalities” and not on orders received from the White House. You have to actually read the links to the documents that you post in order to have a valid opinion on what they say or what they mean.

LIAR. From my link:
The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.
“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

 

[Marener]

I'm not writing them, the House impeachment managers are.
Democrats proved that assumptions and speculation work fine as articles.

When Democrats impeached Trump, they at least had an actual articulable allegation. Trump used various policies, like providing military aid, to get Zelensky to harm Biden’s campaign.

Your allegation can’t even be fully articulated. Biden received money from people in other countries to do “fill in the blank later”.

I don’t think you guys realize how hard this case is going to be and how Comer really doesn’t really seem up to the task.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. Prove that the senate agreed with the House on the impeachments. Liar. (Trump was not removed, was he?)
2. More "sour grapes" comments about Trump. Bottom line; Not guilty. (of anything)

Read the transcripts of Mitch McConnell’s speeches just prior to the vote. You claim to have watched the impeachments.

I can’t find the “Let the voters decide Speech” from the first impeachment. But you can look up the transcripts.



The problem with doing illegal things in government is that there is there are records of every single thing that anyone in office ever does. Multiple versions of them.

And every single thing that you do is investigated by multiple bodies, and for multiple reasons it’s really fucking hard to cover up criminal conduct.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, except Burisma was NEVER investigated, so Biden earned Hunters $80,000 a month.

That's correct, Shokin never investigated Burisma. Which means Biden wasn't blackmailing Poroshenko to protect his son's job.

 

[Faun]

How is that illegal? What law was broken? HINT: NONE

It's a campaign contribution.

 

[Dragonlady]

LIAR. From my link:
The OMB made clear Thursday, however, that it disagreed with the GAO report.
“We disagree with GAO's opinion," OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said. "OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

That’s not a legal opinion. FOX news is lying when they tell you it is. It’s a denial of the allegation of withholding funds, coupled with an expression of outrage. “How dare you accuse us. Our office would never do any such thing”. The phrase that jumps out to me is that their first priority is the “President’s wishes”.

A legal opinion would read: The OMB withheld the Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, in compliance with [Section, paragraph, subparagraph] of the [name of law, policy etc.] which reads as follows: and then repeats the rule under which aid was withheld.

A legal opinion, would then go on to cite other instances where this regulation was applied to demonstrate this was routine practice.

The failure to cite any specifics law, regulation or policy, is basically an admission of the allegations. All of the conditions stipulated in the Congressional appropriation had been complied with within weeks of the appropriation being passed.

This is the kind of bullshit stuff that Fox News, routinely pulls, to keep you misinformed and believing Trumps lies.