Trump is right to call it "treason"...

[peach174]

Yesterday should have been a great day for all Americans.
We all should have been celebrating that all of our Native American ancestors bones are being sent home from all of Finland's museums to each Tribe, so they can be buried in each individual tribes sacred burial grounds.

Instead we see nothing but impeachment and traitor to our country.

 

[JGalt]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

This is most definitely not "treason". They are attempting to remove a criminal President, using the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. This is the Constitutional removal of a criminal President who should never have been allowed to run for President because of his history and temperment.

"Treason" is defined as aiding and abetting the enemy in the time of war declared by Congress. Unless Democrats are aiding and abetting the Talaban in Afghanistan, they are not committing treason.

treason
noun
trea·son | \ ˈtrē-zᵊn \
Definition of treason


1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY

Trumpybear is not the Government. Impeachment of elected government officials is a constitution process of our government.

Fabricating a crime and then framing Trump for it in order to make it "legal" to remove him from power is treason. If it's not, then there is no such thing as treason.

The call to the Ukrainian President and Trump’s demand they investigate the Biden’s in exchange for American military aid, wasn’t the Democrats fabricating anything. This was Trump behaving in a criminal manner.

Trump has confessed to doing this. So it’s hardly the Democrats framing Trump for something he didn’t do.

Treason is narrowly defined under the US Constitution as “aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war declared by Congress”. The Founders feared foreign powers messing in American politics and they wanted Americans to remove anyone from office who sought aid from foreign.

In other words, the Constitution was written in anticipation of a Trumpian Presidency.

Biden is running for President. How is it wrong to ask Ukraine to help investigate the corruption of a former Vice President, who had corrupt business dealings in that country? Are you saying that you'd have no problem with having a corrupt President if Biden were to win?

And why shouldn't he withhold US aid if Ukraine doesn't cooperate? Isn't foreign aid to countries like El Salvador, Columbia, Mexico, and other countries contingent upontheir fighting corruption and drug production?

Another point: How in the holy fuck is Trump “aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war declared by Congress”? Are we in a state of war with Ukraine? Or Russia? Or even China?

Please tell me if you can, when did Congress declare war on them?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Trumpybear is not the Government. Impeachment of elected government officials is a constitution process of our government.

Fabricating a crime and then framing Trump for it in order to make it "legal" to remove him from power is treason. If it's not, then there is no such thing as treason.

The Democrat controlled House simply doesn't have the power to remove a president from office. Strike two.

So as long as some Republicans go along with it, fabricating a crime is just.

Those who believe the accusations are fabricated would have the chance to produce all the evidence they want during a trial by the Senate. But from a purely partisan perspective, the magic number is what 19?

It may be necessary to break out the rifles and clean the swamp ourselves.

The keyboard commandos are restless!

 

[Seawytch]

[email protected]
Fortunately for our country, impeachment isn't normal procedure for anything. There is no "normal" procedure. I know you can't describe anything the House is doing as being outside what the constitution prescribes for impeachment proceedings.

They will investigate. If they uncover facts they believe rise to an impeachable level, articles will be drafted and voted on then it moves to the Senate where there is a trial.

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2)

Aka THE HOUSE

Not the democrats
Not Nancy Pelosi
THE HOUSE, as in the entirity of the house.

What we have now is a partisan shit show of political gamesmanship

How many Democrats were involved in the Clinton impeachment?

All of them. It was voted on by the house and they thereby had the opportunity to call in any witnesses via subpoena.

That's because, due to the Starr report, the judiciary had no vote and no investigation. It was Republicans that "skipped a step".

Why are you arguing with me when YOU KNOW this is not the right way for this process to proceed ??

I know you're not an idiot so just fess up and let's advance the discussion.

Give the gop equal rights in this process and my complaints stop.

There is no "way" to do it. During the Clinton impeachment, it should have started in the judiciary who would vote, have an investigation then recommend articles that the House votes on. Republicans skipped the judiciary step that Democrats are following.

 

[Seawytch]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

Non-democratic means? You mean using the Constitution? Funny...

Just how "constitutional" is Pelosi's changing the House rules in order to stifle the votes of the House Republicans, and fast track her little "impeachment" fantasy? Remember what happened to you idiots after Harry Reid fucked with the Senate rules?

You probably don't believe this, but you people are setting yourselves up for some major disappointment.

House rules are not a part of the Constitution. They can do it however they like. Republicans will never see a majority in the House unless they change their ways

No, motherfucker, they can't change the constitution without a Constitutional convention, and you need a two thirds vote to amend the constitution.

Nobody is changing the constitution. Everything the Democrats are doing is Constitutional.

 

[JustAGuy1]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

This is most definitely not "treason". They are attempting to remove a criminal President, using the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. This is the Constitutional removal of a criminal President who should never have been allowed to run for President because of his history and temperment.

"Treason" is defined as aiding and abetting the enemy in the time of war declared by Congress. Unless Democrats are aiding and abetting the Talaban in Afghanistan, they are not committing treason.

treason
noun
trea·son | \ ˈtrē-zᵊn \
Definition of treason


1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2: the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY

Trumpybear is not the Government. Impeachment of elected government officials is a constitution process of our government.

Fabricating a crime and then framing Trump for it in order to make it "legal" to remove him from power is treason. If it's not, then there is no such thing as treason.

The call to the Ukrainian President and Trump’s demand they investigate the Biden’s in exchange for American military aid, wasn’t the Democrats fabricating anything. This was Trump behaving in a criminal manner.

Trump has confessed to doing this. So it’s hardly the Democrats framing Trump for something he didn’t do.

Treason is narrowly defined under the US Constitution as “aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of war declared by Congress”. The Founders feared foreign powers messing in American politics and they wanted Americans to remove anyone from office who sought aid from foreign.

In other words, the Constitution was written in anticipation of a Trumpian Presidency.

I don't know that I've ever run across someone so willfully uninformed. You don't any idea as to what's going on. I'm betting you have no idea that's all crashing down right now and Shipp has been completely discredited and demolished. The depth of your ignorance is stunning.

 

[BlindBoo]

He asked them to investigate Crowdstrike.

Nah, was demanding they "play ball" and open the investigations into phony allegations like the one involving Crowdsrike.

It's a pattern of mob diplomacy.

 

[Seawytch]

Instead we see nothing but impeachment and traitor to our country.

Trump?

 

[westwall]

He asked them to investigate Crowdstrike.

Nah, was demanding they "play ball" and open the investigations into phony allegations like the one involving Crowdsrike.

It's a pattern of mob diplomacy.

Video say biden did that, but not trump. But you're blind so the obvious seems to escape you.

 

[Skylar]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

Save of course that treason only consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Neither of which matches your made up definition.

Second, a impeachment isn't 'overthrowing' a president. Its part of a process laid out in the constitution itself to legally and constitutionally remove them.

 

[JustAGuy1]

He asked them to investigate Crowdstrike.

Nah, was demanding they "play ball" and open the investigations into phony allegations like the one involving Crowdsrike.

It's a pattern of mob diplomacy.

LOL, you've never read the full transcript, just the one you've been fed.

 

[westwall]

Fabricating a crime and then framing Trump for it in order to make it "legal" to remove him from power is treason. If it's not, then there is no such thing as treason.

The Democrat controlled House simply doesn't have the power to remove a president from office. Strike two.

So as long as some Republicans go along with it, fabricating a crime is just.

Those who believe the accusations are fabricated would have the chance to produce all the evidence they want during a trial by the Senate. But from a purely partisan perspective, the magic number is what 19?

It may be necessary to break out the rifles and clean the swamp ourselves.

The keyboard commandos are restless!

Indeed you are.

 

[JGalt]

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2)

Aka THE HOUSE

Not the democrats
Not Nancy Pelosi
THE HOUSE, as in the entirity of the house.

What we have now is a partisan shit show of political gamesmanship

How many Democrats were involved in the Clinton impeachment?

All of them. It was voted on by the house and they thereby had the opportunity to call in any witnesses via subpoena.

That's because, due to the Starr report, the judiciary had no vote and no investigation. It was Republicans that "skipped a step".

Why are you arguing with me when YOU KNOW this is not the right way for this process to proceed ??

I know you're not an idiot so just fess up and let's advance the discussion.

Give the gop equal rights in this process and my complaints stop.

There is no "way" to do it. During the Clinton impeachment, it should have started in the judiciary who would vote, have an investigation then recommend articles that the House votes on. Republicans skipped the judiciary step that Democrats are following.

The judiciary didn't need to put it to a vote. The charges arose from an investigation by Ken Starr, an Independent Counsel. Starr was originally dealing with the Whitewater controversy and with the approval of US AG Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses. Those included the Whitewater controversy, the firing of White House travel agents, and the alleged misuse of FBI files.

If Pelosi wanted to conduct her phony "impeachment" she would have asked for an independent council to look into the matter, or put it up for a House vote. She is definitely setting precedence that's going to come back and take a chunk out of the Democrat's asses someday. Just like Harry Reid did when he suspended the Senate rules.

 

[westwall]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

Save of course that treason only consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Neither of which matches your made up definition.

Second, a impeachment isn't 'overthrowing' a president. Its part of a process laid out in the constitution itself to legally and constitutionally remove them.

For just cause, not because you don't like the outcome of an election. You are correct, it isn't treason unless we can prove they are doing pootins, or the Chinese bidding, but it IS sedition.

 

[JGalt]

He asked them to investigate Crowdstrike.

Nah, was demanding they "play ball" and open the investigations into phony allegations like the one involving Crowdsrike.

It's a pattern of mob diplomacy.

LOL, you've never read the full transcript, just the one you've been fed.

You mean like Schiff's kabuki theater version of the transcript that he made up, and was plastered all over CNN and MSNBC.

That's the transcript he "read."

 

[Skylar]

How many Democrats were involved in the Clinton impeachment?

All of them. It was voted on by the house and they thereby had the opportunity to call in any witnesses via subpoena.

That's because, due to the Starr report, the judiciary had no vote and no investigation. It was Republicans that "skipped a step".

Why are you arguing with me when YOU KNOW this is not the right way for this process to proceed ??

I know you're not an idiot so just fess up and let's advance the discussion.

Give the gop equal rights in this process and my complaints stop.

There is no "way" to do it. During the Clinton impeachment, it should have started in the judiciary who would vote, have an investigation then recommend articles that the House votes on. Republicans skipped the judiciary step that Democrats are following.

The judiciary didn't need to put it to a vote. The charges arose from an investigation by Ken Starr, an Independent Counsel. Starr was originally dealing with the Whitewater controversy and with the approval of US AG Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses. Those included the Whitewater controversy, the firing of White House travel agents, and the alleged misuse of FBI files.

If Pelosi wanted to conduct her phony "impeachment" she would have asked for an independent council to look into the matter, or put it up for a House vote. She is definitely setting precedence that's going to come back and take a chunk out of the Democrat's asses someday. Just like Harry Reid did when he suspended the Senate rules.

And where, in statutory law or the constitution, is an independant council required for an impeachment or an impeachment inquiry?

Here's the US constitution. Show me:

Constitution of the United States - We the People

 

[Skylar]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

Save of course that treason only consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Neither of which matches your made up definition.

Second, a impeachment isn't 'overthrowing' a president. Its part of a process laid out in the constitution itself to legally and constitutionally remove them.

For just cause, not because you don't like the outcome of an election. You are correct, it isn't treason unless we can prove they are doing pootins, or the Chinese bidding, but it IS sedition.

For cause....according to the House of Representatives. Not you.

 

[westwall]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

Save of course that treason only consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Neither of which matches your made up definition.

Second, a impeachment isn't 'overthrowing' a president. Its part of a process laid out in the constitution itself to legally and constitutionally remove them.

For just cause, not because you don't like the outcome of an election. You are correct, it isn't treason unless we can prove they are doing pootins, or the Chinese bidding, but it IS sedition.

For cause....according to the House of Representatives. Not you.

Yeah, and they have trotted out manufactured crime after manufactured crime.

The Dems are the law breakers. Not trump

 

[Seawytch]

How many Democrats were involved in the Clinton impeachment?

All of them. It was voted on by the house and they thereby had the opportunity to call in any witnesses via subpoena.

That's because, due to the Starr report, the judiciary had no vote and no investigation. It was Republicans that "skipped a step".

Why are you arguing with me when YOU KNOW this is not the right way for this process to proceed ??

I know you're not an idiot so just fess up and let's advance the discussion.

Give the gop equal rights in this process and my complaints stop.

There is no "way" to do it. During the Clinton impeachment, it should have started in the judiciary who would vote, have an investigation then recommend articles that the House votes on. Republicans skipped the judiciary step that Democrats are following.

The judiciary didn't need to put it to a vote. The charges arose from an investigation by Ken Starr, an Independent Counsel. Starr was originally dealing with the Whitewater controversy and with the approval of US AG Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses. Those included the Whitewater controversy, the firing of White House travel agents, and the alleged misuse of FBI files.

If Pelosi wanted to conduct her phony "impeachment" she would have asked for an independent council to look into the matter, or put it up for a House vote. She is definitely setting precedence that's going to come back and take a chunk out of the Democrat's asses someday. Just like Harry Reid did when he suspended the Senate rules.

The Democrats are following proper procedure. There is an investigation then articles are drafted and voted on. If passed, there is a Senate "trial". If the Senate feels there is not enough evidence to remove him, he won't be. Why so worried? It worked out fine for Clinton.

 

[Skylar]

...they are attempting to overthrow a Democratically-elected President using non-democratic means, and all of is based on lies.

Save of course that treason only consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Neither of which matches your made up definition.

Second, a impeachment isn't 'overthrowing' a president. Its part of a process laid out in the constitution itself to legally and constitutionally remove them.

For just cause, not because you don't like the outcome of an election. You are correct, it isn't treason unless we can prove they are doing pootins, or the Chinese bidding, but it IS sedition.

For cause....according to the House of Representatives. Not you.

Yeah, and they have trotted out manufactured crime after manufactured crime.

The Dems are the law breakers. Not trump

Says you, citing you. I'll stick with the Constitution. And the Constitution puts the judgment of crimes committed by the President of the United States in determining impeachment.......in the hands of the House.

You v. the Constitution has the same winner very time. And its not you.

Remember, disagreeing with you isn't a crime. Its not treason. Its not sedition. Its not anything.