Fire Up the Impeachment Proceedings...

RaceBannon said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Just pathetic

Sad

Stupid


The triple towers of a muellertard

Panic and meltdown. I’m sure you can provide the legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” can’t you?

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

This is what an El Monte hat dance looks like.

salemcoog said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

This is what an El Monte hat dance looks like.

It's hard to dance around a size 2 hat!

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

El Monte is trying to break Hondo's one day Fuck Off total!

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Fuck. You’re better than that even with the typhus.

Go forth. Pontificate. Otherwise you’re throwing BP afraid to face game time conditions.

Frankly, I don’t think you know shit. Just a typical TDS sufferer.

Identify what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means. Can you do that?

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Fuck. You’re better than that even with the typhus.

Go forth. Pontificate. Otherwise you’re throwing BP afraid to face game time conditions.

Frankly, I don’t think you know shit. Just a typical TDS sufferer.

Identify what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means. Can you do that?

Go forth. Build the case.

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.

El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.

You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.

Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.

El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.

You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.

Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.

El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.

You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.

Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?

Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?

CuntWaffle said:

https://twitter.com/rubinreport/status/1176851582891241472?s=21

J F C

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

PurpleThrobber said:

I’ll rephrase for typhus boy.

Give us your opinion on the legal grounds for impeachment based on the words written on a piece of paper detailing the conversation between Trump and the president of the Ukraine.

Most normal English speaking people would call that a transcript but you don’t seem to want to answer that question.

Or are we going to play the ‘depends on what your definition of the word is is’ game?

“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”

You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.

Seriously, this is as bad as any Hondo level bullshit I've seen here. Why even bother? And it comes on the heels of his "it's not a transcript" Kunt act.

You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.

El Monte is now throwing any shit he can come up with against the wall hoping something sticks in a desperate attempt to have people forget that he is dodging like a Kunt the initial question he was asked.

You sound assured impeachment should be off the table but you have no clue what it means, what it implies or how it is rendered.

Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?

Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?

So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?

Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.

Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?

Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.

I’ll be more specific. What high crimes, misdemeanor or treasonous activity did the POTUS commit and what evidence is there of that?

You keep referencing the consequence but, you see, in these United States one must be convicted. And in order for one to be convicted, one must be found guilty based on the evidence of said crimes.

What are the crimes and what is the evidence?

Build the case.