Impeachment
Comments
-
Trump can indeed do that. Perfectly ok. Stop making Shit up.HHusky said:
Congress provided military aid. Daddy withheld it—and without a word to Congress. That in itself was illegal. But people from both parties came to wonder why the aid wasn’t being sent and Daddy, rather than defending his actions, caved when caught. All obvious hallmarks of total innocence, of course.WestlinnDuck said:The working leftard position was that Trump should be impeached for Russian collusion paid for by PIPS and with false information supplied by Russian intelligence and with information to be gathered with FISA warrants secured by supplying the court with false statements. The leftards next position is that there was nothing wrong with the corrupt Ukrainian gas company paying off the Biden family with millions of dollars paid to a cokehead who knew nothing about the energy industry. In fact, Biden bragged about the threat to hold up aid if the prosecutor looking into Burisma and Hunter corruption if the Ukrainian government didn’t fire the prosecutor – which they did. Pro- Russian Ukrainians were also involved with releasing documents involving Trump campaign officials.
So, it’s okay for leftards to investigate supposed corruption of Trump in 2016 but it’s not okay to investigate real dem corruption in 2016. Biden counseled against providing military aid. Trump provided military aid. And yet, Trump is still alleged by leftards to be Putin’s bitch.
Oh yeah you're an attorney. -
Dems fucked up when they gave up on Russia and pivoted to Ukraine
Russia was at least juicy. They are an enemy and no matter how preposterous as least it piqued some interest.
He's a Russian asset! That sells papers.
But Ukraine? Withholding aid? Some random ambassador? Hunter Biden?
No one cares about this shit.
"He's still a Russian asset! But we kinda gave up on it! But Ukraine!!!" -
-
I agree Daddy himself released the transcript showing he used the aid to extract a personal “favor”. No mystery or intrigue. Open and shut. But not sexy. Just garden variety corruption.Pitchfork51 said:Dems fucked up when they gave up on Russia and pivoted to Ukraine
Russia was at least juicy. They are an enemy and no matter how preposterous as least it piqued some interest.
He's a Russian asset! That sells papers.
But Ukraine? Withholding aid? Some random ambassador? Hunter Biden?
No one cares about this shit.
"He's still a Russian asset! But we kinda gave up on it! But Ukraine!!!" -
Daddy can indeed do that illegally. In the old America, illegal wasn’t “perfectly ok”.Sledog said:
Trump can indeed do that. Perfectly ok. Stop making Shit up.HHusky said:
Congress provided military aid. Daddy withheld it—and without a word to Congress. That in itself was illegal. But people from both parties came to wonder why the aid wasn’t being sent and Daddy, rather than defending his actions, caved when caught. All obvious hallmarks of total innocence, of course.WestlinnDuck said:The working leftard position was that Trump should be impeached for Russian collusion paid for by PIPS and with false information supplied by Russian intelligence and with information to be gathered with FISA warrants secured by supplying the court with false statements. The leftards next position is that there was nothing wrong with the corrupt Ukrainian gas company paying off the Biden family with millions of dollars paid to a cokehead who knew nothing about the energy industry. In fact, Biden bragged about the threat to hold up aid if the prosecutor looking into Burisma and Hunter corruption if the Ukrainian government didn’t fire the prosecutor – which they did. Pro- Russian Ukrainians were also involved with releasing documents involving Trump campaign officials.
So, it’s okay for leftards to investigate supposed corruption of Trump in 2016 but it’s not okay to investigate real dem corruption in 2016. Biden counseled against providing military aid. Trump provided military aid. And yet, Trump is still alleged by leftards to be Putin’s bitch.
Oh yeah you're an attorney. -
The transcript doesn't show that at allHHusky said:
I agree Daddy himself released the transcript showing he used the aid to extract a personal “favor”. No mystery or intrigue. Open and shut. But not sexy. Just garden variety corruption.Pitchfork51 said:Dems fucked up when they gave up on Russia and pivoted to Ukraine
Russia was at least juicy. They are an enemy and no matter how preposterous as least it piqued some interest.
He's a Russian asset! That sells papers.
But Ukraine? Withholding aid? Some random ambassador? Hunter Biden?
No one cares about this shit.
"He's still a Russian asset! But we kinda gave up on it! But Ukraine!!!"
It is getting a bit disturbing how easily the lies roll off your keyboard
-
Coming from a family of attorneys, I know they cover evidentiary standards in law school. So you must have been sick the entire first year?HHusky said:
I agree Daddy himself released the transcript showing he used the aid to extract a personal “favor”. No mystery or intrigue. Open and shut. But not sexy. Just garden variety corruption.Pitchfork51 said:Dems fucked up when they gave up on Russia and pivoted to Ukraine
Russia was at least juicy. They are an enemy and no matter how preposterous as least it piqued some interest.
He's a Russian asset! That sells papers.
But Ukraine? Withholding aid? Some random ambassador? Hunter Biden?
No one cares about this shit.
"He's still a Russian asset! But we kinda gave up on it! But Ukraine!!!" -
-
Feel free to cite the evidentiary failure. It would be so unlike you just to be running your mouth.pawz said:
Coming from a family of attorneys, I know they cover evidentiary standards in law school. So you must have been sick the entire first year?HHusky said:
I agree Daddy himself released the transcript showing he used the aid to extract a personal “favor”. No mystery or intrigue. Open and shut. But not sexy. Just garden variety corruption.Pitchfork51 said:Dems fucked up when they gave up on Russia and pivoted to Ukraine
Russia was at least juicy. They are an enemy and no matter how preposterous as least it piqued some interest.
He's a Russian asset! That sells papers.
But Ukraine? Withholding aid? Some random ambassador? Hunter Biden?
No one cares about this shit.
"He's still a Russian asset! But we kinda gave up on it! But Ukraine!!!" -
4th party word of mouth is accepted as evidence? In which situation/conditions? Legally speaking.HHusky said:
Feel free to cite the evidentiary failure. It would be so unlike you just to be running your mouth.pawz said:
Coming from a family of attorneys, I know they cover evidentiary standards in law school. So you must have been sick the entire first year?HHusky said:
I agree Daddy himself released the transcript showing he used the aid to extract a personal “favor”. No mystery or intrigue. Open and shut. But not sexy. Just garden variety corruption.Pitchfork51 said:Dems fucked up when they gave up on Russia and pivoted to Ukraine
Russia was at least juicy. They are an enemy and no matter how preposterous as least it piqued some interest.
He's a Russian asset! That sells papers.
But Ukraine? Withholding aid? Some random ambassador? Hunter Biden?
No one cares about this shit.
"He's still a Russian asset! But we kinda gave up on it! But Ukraine!!!"
Do tell, *ahem counselor.
