Trump should delay State of the Union until impeachment trial ends

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not to mention the people in Iran are thrilled. They hate their dictators. Lone Leftist and his pussy ilk refuse to discuss that. They are more worried about allowing men to pee in ladies rooms.

Idiot. You hate the Iranian people. You do not care if every one of them is killed today.

The people of Iran want democracy and the want sovereignty. You are OK with banning them from coming here.

Idiot. You have no idea who is who when they come here. Better safe than sorry. You’re a fat loser.

you mean like saudis? the same animals that hit us on 9/11? the same animal from pensicola who was just deemed a terrorist? the same animals deported for kiddie porn? where the same animals that trump made his first official state visit to & wanna protect their oil?

Bingo. Shut the border to those we can’t vet

 

[playtime]

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

 

[playtime]

let me correct myself - there is much reporting saying it will be this week & i've seen nothing nor anyone disputing it. her holding them over xmas vacation gave the more reasonable (R)s time to see what their constituents are saying, & give them a reason to think & question about the total blackout of any witness' & hard copy docs. & by the delay, bolton came fwd about testifying if subpoenaed, & the emails showing more proof of the nefarious shenanigans donny engaged in. & now the house may subpoena bolton if the senate doesn't. AND it drove president dotard nuts & his xmas probably sucked. i say that's a pretty good outcome.

Explosive new documents reveal the lengths to which the Justice Department went to conceal the Pentagon's concerns about Trump's Ukraine aid freeze

I disagree with you, however I thought the House impeachment was a political ploy and the Senate will vote not to convict and it is a political ploy. I think we are wasting time and money.

if it was a political ploy, pelosi woulda done it a lot earlier. she didn't even go after W & had a good shot at him. turtleboy & ms lindsey are blatant about their obvious bias & hopefully justice roberts will have a problem with that.

Pelosi gave in to the political ploy, she had resisted until this fall. Until then she didn't want to move forward however her colleagues, who wanted to impeach before Trump stepped into office showed their hands early on. Not sure who the people you are name calling but it just shows the maturity the country is dealing with when it comes to politics and partisans.

nancy 'gave in'? lol......................... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that's the ticket.

She fought impeachment however the far left would not screaming for impeachment. Nothing surprising about it, the left wing nuts have to believe differently.

uh-huh. you go with that if it makes you feel all comfy.

 

[playtime]

Not to mention the people in Iran are thrilled. They hate their dictators. Lone Leftist and his pussy ilk refuse to discuss that. They are more worried about allowing men to pee in ladies rooms.

Idiot. You hate the Iranian people. You do not care if every one of them is killed today.

The people of Iran want democracy and the want sovereignty. You are OK with banning them from coming here.

Idiot. You have no idea who is who when they come here. Better safe than sorry. You’re a fat loser.

you mean like saudis? the same animals that hit us on 9/11? the same animal from pensicola who was just deemed a terrorist? the same animals deported for kiddie porn? where the same animals that trump made his first official state visit to & wanna protect their oil?

Bingo. Shut the border to those we can’t vet

those pedophiles belong to the saudi military just like the animal that shot our people in pensicola... they are here legally & with full knowledge of our government & are training side by side with our troops.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If you'd like to.

Not especially. He’s not the president. He didn’t lie about any of those strikes like your asshole has.

Next dodge....

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

He killed a terrorist numbnut.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

 

[Billiejeens]

He was giving an opinion.

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

 

[playtime]

Not especially. He’s not the president. He didn’t lie about any of those strikes like your asshole has.

Next dodge....

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

He killed a terrorist numbnut.

he has to justify it per the constitution & so far the lies aren't adding up.

 

[playtime]

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

 

[MAGAman]

that's a lie. wtf are you talking about? he was in on that call AND the so called transcript donny tried peddling is edited per the testimony of the first hand direct knowledge of that phone call.

You're suffering from Fake News.

Vindman testified that he ever witnessed an actual wrongdoing.

He just "Felt" it was wrong.

In fact, Vindman specifically stated under oath Trump clearly said "No quid pro quo."

"Feeling" something isn't evidence that it took place.

 

[playtime]

his opinion that he gave based on the fact he was a participant in transcribing the phone call in which he was a first hand witness (that the idiot you are defending said vindman wasn't)

but he was also an expert witness given his background, & expertise.

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

 

[Billiejeens]

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

Why would there need to be an imminent threat?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

 

[Billiejeens]

An expert on what?

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

Are there any questions that you can answer?
Right now I feel as if you should give me your name, rank, and serial number because you are a fucking casualty here.

 

[playtime]

that's a lie. wtf are you talking about? he was in on that call AND the so called transcript donny tried peddling is edited per the testimony of the first hand direct knowledge of that phone call.

You're suffering from Fake News.

Vindman testified that he ever witnessed an actual wrongdoing.

He just "Felt" it was wrong.

In fact, Vindman specifically stated under oath Trump clearly said "No quid pro quo."

"Feeling" something isn't evidence that it took place.

bullshit. he testified that there was no doubt that a quid pro quo was happening.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course you wouldnt.....dont blame you.
And what lies did Trump tell about the drone strike?

He lied about the reason he did it. He’s still lying. That’s the whole problem. He’s lying to you. You don’t care.

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

donny has to prove it was a justified strike. he hasn't so far & the story keeps changing, so its unlikely he'll be believed given his history of lying.

He killed a terrorist numbnut.

he has to justify it per the constitution & so far the lies aren't adding up.

No he doesnt.
Limited strikes are in his rights just like they were for barry.

 

[playtime]

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well than surely you can prove your assertions.
Right?

Absolutely. It’s clear. He has lied about it since the day it happened. There was no imminent attack. That’s a lie. Period.

Any honest person will tell you the same thing. I’m not going to waste the time with you though. You are far too dishonest.

Define “imminent”
So if he coordinates another 9/11 type attack in August he was not worth killing? You’re such a pussy, Lone Leftist.

where's the proof he was planning anything imminently? there isn't any because he didn't.

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'
Grace Panetta
Jan 13, 2020, 10:25 AM
Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

^^^ not imminent.

So the blood of 600 Americans is not enough for you?

that isn't the point.

is shredding the constitution & totally ignoring the co equal branch's role in this ok with you?

As has been explained to you a million times,the president doesnt need the OK from congress or anyone else for limited strikes.
Go away ya mental midget....

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He is? LOL and he knew Trump’s intent? Does he have ESP?

bend yerself into a pretzil s'more zog... i bet it's easy for you to grab yer ankles for donny.

Stop projecting your fantasies to me. Gross. You’re old. Yuck.

it ain't my fantasy goin' on here.... you're the trump lover.

Wrong again. I am anti Leftist and no one triggers Leftists more than Trump.

oh please.

you love love love him. you live & breathe to exhalt him on this board.

I do? So I have a lot of posts here. Find one that proves your point. Thanks.

 

[playtime]

National Security Council's top Ukraine expert

Which qualifies him to do what?

it's self explanatory. are you really this dumb or just playing up to yer fellow basket dwellers?

Well, then tell yourself to explain it to me

you seem to be too stupid to even grasp the concept of his title or the area he worked in; so it would be a waste of time. if you can't figure it out or research it on yer own, then there's no hope for you anyway. trump loves the poorly educated long time so you just keep on truckin' little buddy.

Are there any questions that you can answer?
Right now I feel as if you should give me your name, rank, and serial number because you are a fucking casualty here.

the only casualty here is yer brain.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).
War Powers | Law Library of Congress