Fire Up the Impeachment Proceedings...
Comments
-
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case. -
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
-
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how. -
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
-
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how. -
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS.
-
It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS. -
Fuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS. -
You should read the Constitution someday. It’s inspiring and informative.PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS. -
It really is patheticRaceBannon said:Biggest CDawg meltdown yet
-
Thud.CuntWaffle said: -
Fuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
Thud.CuntWaffle said: -
What CD is saying here is a rudimentary attempt to cover a talking point that says that Nan isn't actually calling for impeachment she is just calling for a look into whether there should be impeachemnt while saying quite clearly that Trump needs to be impeached
I'd avoid that too if I were CD -
-
No. That’s not it. You’re wrong again.RaceBannon said:What CD is saying here is a rudimentary attempt to cover a talking point that says that Nan isn't actually calling for impeachment she is just calling for a look into whether there should be impeachemnt while saying quite clearly that Trump needs to be impeached
I'd avoid that too if I were CD -
CirrhosisDawg said:
No. That’s not it. You’re wrong again.RaceBannon said:What CD is saying here is a rudimentary attempt to cover a talking point that says that Nan isn't actually calling for impeachment she is just calling for a look into whether there should be impeachemnt while saying quite clearly that Trump needs to be impeached
I'd avoid that too if I were CD
-
People forget that the original accusation of collusion involved Trump fucking over the Ukraine to help PutinGrundleStiltzkin said:
Now the Ukraine sucks again because Trump
By January 2020 the democrats will be working with Putin to defeat Trump
Book it -
Hillary already did that when she paid for the Steele dossier.RaceBannon said:
People forget that the original accusation of collusion involved Trump fucking over the Ukraine to help PutinGrundleStiltzkin said:
Now the Ukraine sucks again because Trump
By January 2020 the democrats will be working with Putin to defeat Trump
Book it -
I don’t believe they are waiting.RaceBannon said:
People forget that the original accusation of collusion involved Trump fucking over the Ukraine to help PutinGrundleStiltzkin said:
Now the Ukraine sucks again because Trump
By January 2020 the democrats will be working with Putin to defeat Trump
Book it -
Yet you hate itCirrhosisDawg said:
You should read the Constitution someday. It’s inspiring and informative.PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS. -
Link? You don’t have any factual point to make at all?MikeDamone said:
Yet you hate itCirrhosisDawg said:
You should read the Constitution someday. It’s inspiring and informative.PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS. -
Call the Fucking vote! Make every deep state fuck put their hand up so citizens know who to vote out of office!
-
Do we really need an impeachment vote to determine those in Congress that need to get voted out?Sledog said:Call the Fucking vote! Make every deep state fuck put their hand up so citizens know who to vote out of office!
-
Impeachment trial in the Senate gives the Trump side the opportunity to subpoena and question whoever the fuck they want about whatever the fuck they want. Comey and his ilk should be shittng bricks with all this talk.2001400ex said:
Do we really need an impeachment vote to determine those in Congress that need to get voted out?Sledog said:Call the Fucking vote! Make every deep state fuck put their hand up so citizens know who to vote out of office!
-
That's not what I was getting at. But ok!PurpleThrobber said:
Impeachment trial in the Senate gives the Trump side the opportunity to subpoena and question whoever the fuck they want about whatever the fuck they want. Comey and his ilk should be shittng bricks with all this talk.2001400ex said:
Do we really need an impeachment vote to determine those in Congress that need to get voted out?Sledog said:Call the Fucking vote! Make every deep state fuck put their hand up so citizens know who to vote out of office!
-
Hate the game, not the player. Typhus boy should be able to explain the trial protocol. Right, typhus boy?2001400ex said:
That's not what I was getting at. But ok!PurpleThrobber said:
Impeachment trial in the Senate gives the Trump side the opportunity to subpoena and question whoever the fuck they want about whatever the fuck they want. Comey and his ilk should be shittng bricks with all this talk.2001400ex said:
Do we really need an impeachment vote to determine those in Congress that need to get voted out?Sledog said:Call the Fucking vote! Make every deep state fuck put their hand up so citizens know who to vote out of office!
Pelosi is stepping on her own party’s dick going down this path.
Can of worms getting opened up unlike nothing ever seen before. Cook it.
-
Life in prison is more my angle. That's the current punishment for treason. Of course the head conspirator isn't in office.2001400ex said:
Do we really need an impeachment vote to determine those in Congress that need to get voted out?Sledog said:Call the Fucking vote! Make every deep state fuck put their hand up so citizens know who to vote out of office!
-
Nobody needs a link to understand the fact you're a fucking moron. Thank you for your service to HH and the comedic value you provide.CirrhosisDawg said:
Link? You don’t have any factual point to make at all?MikeDamone said:
Yet you hate itCirrhosisDawg said:
You should read the Constitution someday. It’s inspiring and informative.PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck.CirrhosisDawg said:
It’s right there in front of you. Pelosi is following article 2 section 4 with exact and precise detail. Impeachment inquiry and hearings followed by a vote. What else do you want? Why is this so hard for you?PurpleThrobber said:
The fuck are you babbling about? I gave you a wide open field.CirrhosisDawg said:
What standard?PurpleThrobber said:
Stake it or STFU. Make the case.CirrhosisDawg said:
Where does it say that’s the standard? Or are you just making shit up?PurpleThrobber said:
Take your pick.CirrhosisDawg said:
First identity what article 2 section 4 requires. Didn’t you say violations of the US constitution or other US laws? You have a cite for that? Mmkay?PurpleThrobber said:
Fuck. Go for it. Educate me. You have a wide open field to showcase your critical thinking skills.CirrhosisDawg said:
So you didn’t read article 2 section 4 of the constitution or you don’t understand it?PurpleThrobber said:
Expand on that. How is the contents of the transcript evidence of violation of the constitution and US law?CirrhosisDawg said:
Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. Could it be more simple?PurpleThrobber said:
Educate them. Or just keep running the belly option to the fullback. Same old shit.CirrhosisDawg said:
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.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
You should provide Congress your legal guidance on impeachment standards. Sanctuary state laws too while you’re at it.SFGbob said:
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.CirrhosisDawg said:
“An opinion on legal grounds for impeachment?”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?
You don’t know what impeachment means nor what a transcript is. Start there.
Or isn’t that included in the central party talking points?
Cmon. Do it. Show us that El Monte magic. Build the case.
You seem pretty hell bent the POTUS is going down. Stake your claim on why and how.
Build your case for impeachment of the current POTUS.
