Impeachment
Comments
-
When you read what Charlie says, it's actually quite stunning.
-
Impeachment, acquittal, re-election, cook it. Trump is a national disgrace but so are the dems.
-
WilburHooksHands said:
Impeachment, acquittal, re-election, cook it. Trump is a national disgrace but so are the dems.
most hated republican ever and he is killing the dems daily
-
Just heard Slade Gorton say Trump did a “shake down”. Said he was still thinking about whether that should lead to removal.
Imagine actually having that kind of honest discussion. Unfortunately, we do have to imagine. -
Since no shakedown existed imagination and hatred and lying are indeed required. Oh and envy.HHusky said:Just heard Slade Gorton say Trump did a “shake down”. Said he was still thinking about whether that should lead to removal.
Imagine actually having that kind of honest discussion. Unfortunately, we do have to imagine. -
If this "shake down" is so obvious you wouldn't have to imagine it at all
-
The shakedown is very obvious. The facts are clear; the proffered innocent explanations for holding up Ukraine’s aid are preposterous.RaceBannon said:If this "shake down" is so obvious you wouldn't have to imagine it at all
-
That's kinda my take on it. Trump tried to do a "hey buddy" on that Ukranian. Because Trump's undisciplined, and more importantly because it appears he's widely disliked within the staffer ranks, he got caught. I also think versions of this exchange go on all the time.HHusky said:Just heard Slade Gorton say Trump did a “shake down”. Said he was still thinking about whether that should lead to removal.
Imagine actually having that kind of honest discussion. Unfortunately, we do have to imagine. -
Kind of Mick Mulvaney’s original position?GrundleStiltzkin said:
That's kinda my take on it. Trump tried to do a "hey buddy" on that Ukranian. Because Trump's undisciplined, and more importantly because it appears he's widely disliked within the staffer ranks, he got caught. I also think versions of this exchange go on all the time.
-
If that was the case you and Slade would not be bemoaning no one believing your imaginationHHusky said:
The shakedown is very obvious. The facts are clear; the proffered innocent explanations for holding up Ukraine’s aid are preposterous.
The attempt to criminalize actions of the POTUS you don't like fell apart at the start with the transcript
Now you find yourself having to call the people you claim you are defending liars because they don't have your imagination either
The aid got there unlike under Obama. The Ukraine says no leverage was applied. The key witness Sondland said Trump told him he didn't want anything.,
If you think this is grounds for impeachment go down with the rest of the ship of fools. But spare us the phony moralizing about the future of the Republic -
Who?HHusky said: -
What’s the innocent explanation for withholding the aid in the first place?RaceBannon said:
If that was the case you and Slade would not be bemoaning no one believing your imagination
The attempt to criminalize actions of the POTUS you don't like fell apart at the start with the transcript
Now you find yourself having to call the people you claim you are defending liars because they don't have your imagination either
The aid got there unlike under Obama. The Ukraine says no leverage was applied. The key witness Sondland said Trump told him he didn't want anything.,
If you think this is grounds for impeachment go down with the rest of the ship of fools. But spare us the phony moralizing about the future of the Republic -
Innocence in international politics. Big, if true.HHusky said:
What’s the innocent explanation for withholding the aid in the first place? -
Trump ran on getting the Euros to pay their fair share and to not send money down rat holes to corrupt governmentsHHusky said:
What’s the innocent explanation for withholding the aid in the first place?
He reviewed the aid and it got sent. Unlike under Obama. Were you in favor of impeaching Obama?
And the corruption was real. See, Biden, Hunter -
Aid was delivered weeks before the confessional resolution required it.HHusky said:
What’s the innocent explanation for withholding the aid in the first place?
But how are you a dumbfuck? -
Trump didn’t withhold aid from the previous government. Joe’s brag about getting the corrupt prosecutor fired had been out there for years—not locked up in a top secret server. What had changed? Hint: Joe had entered the race and polls said he’d beat Trump in the general.RaceBannon said:
Trump ran on getting the Euros to pay their fair share and to not send money down rat holes to corrupt governments
He reviewed the aid and it got sent. Unlike under Obama. Were you in favor of impeaching Obama?
And the corruption was real. See, Biden, Hunter
Like I said, the “innocent explanations” are preposterous. -
Didn’t you just go on record saying that it probably was a shakedown?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Innocence in international politics. Big, if true. -
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.
-
Funnier is Trump using a plural when talking about looking into the Bidens and says talk to the attorney general.
Trump should be impeached for reporting criminal activity of three Bidens.
It is Trumps duty to report it but don't let that bother you. -
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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. -
-
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? -
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.
Do tell, *ahem counselor.
