Gosh, I would think the left would be mad about being duped

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

SFGbob said:

Are you happy you brought this worthless piece of shit back?

Actually yes, I am. Watching him get bludgeoned in every thread makes me happy. It's the small things.

Lol delusional people like Bob completely ignoring what is being said, you know the facts, and going on Tucker Carlson style rants lying about literally almost everything in his post, while slobbering on his keyboard is not exactly a bludgeoning.

WestlinnCuck asking the same question that's been answered, and still asking the same idiotic question on repeat cause he is too dumb to understand the answer. Is not exactly a bludgeoning.

WestlinnDuck said:

2001400ex said:

WestlinnDuck said:

Sledog said:

Imagine the elements of the crime don't exist and the person can't be charged.......Rocket science I tell you!

Yeah, I've asked the dazzler (self-proclaimed Pump legal expert) more than a dozen times what federal crime did Trump commit that warranted a Constitutional impeachment? Nothing.

==========

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. ...

I'm sure he told you, you just don't want to listen. It's almost like a Senate trial is political and not an impartial jury trial. Not to mention they didn't even call witnesses in the Senate trial for Trump. Wtf?

Clinton literally coerced witnesses to lie and obstructed Justice, not to mention he lied under oath, and the political winds weren't there to convict him.

Trump on the other hand, had the most members of the same party vote to convict him.

All facts. And facts you don't want to acknowledge.

The pertinent fact was what crime did Trump commit? I know you leftards and some Rinos like to ignore the written law but they wrote shit down for a reason. You suck at thus.

Ok, I'll type slow this time and even include a link from a scholar source, not a media source so maybe you'll understand (you won't because you only understand the conservative echo chamber). But you see WestlinnCuck, there is no defined written law on what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means.

The Constitution provides that the grounds of impeachment are for “treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While the types of conduct constituting treason and bribery are relatively well-understood terms,1 (bribery of public officials and witnesses). See also Act of April 30, 1790 § 21, 1 Stat. 112 (1845) (establishing bribery as a federal criminal offense). the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution or in statute.2 The basic framework for impeachment was inherited from English practice by the colonies in their adoption of state constitutions.3 Both experiences informed the adoption of impeachment provisions in the federal Constitution.

The common method for interpreting the Constitution's impeachment provisions stands in some contrast to that of other constitutional provisions. Whereas judicial precedent drives the prevailing understanding of many provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is essentially a political process that is largely unreviewable by the judicial branch.4 As such, the historical practice of impeachment proceedings, rather than judicial decisions, informs our understanding of the Constitution's meaning in this area. In this vein, the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is informed not by judicial decisions, but by the history of congressional impeachments.5

Impeachment has been used to remove government officers who abuse the power of the office; conduct themselves in a manner incompatible with the purpose and function of their office; or misuse the office for improper or personal gain.6

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-overview

Now, here's another fact that you are too dumb too understand. You see in a real trial there's discovery and the calling of witnesses. And all of that aids in determination of guilt. Neither of Trump's impeachment hearings did they call witnesses. The Republican Senate ignored precedent and just voted to not impeach Trump the same day they voted to allow witnesses.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-impeachment-trial-senate-acquittal/

It's almost like the determination of high crimes and misdemeanors is political. You are seriously the dumbest idiot here and that says a lot with Lil lyin Bob around.

SFGbob said:

Who was indicted for colluding with the Russians to influence the 2016 election Hondo? Now go run and hide Kunt and blame your "pitch count" for doing so.

SFGbob said:

PurpleThrobber said:

The upside of Hondo's return is he's six months behind in his talking points. It's an easy cut and paste of the truth with which the Dazzler and Kobe already got pummeled.

His talking points hasn't changed. You're just too stupid to see that.

TurdBomber said:

I vote for de-platforming Hondo, straight away, for being a faggot.

TurdBomber said:

You still believe the Clinton e-mails were hacked and stolen by Russia.
That says it all.

2001400ex said:

Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

SFGbob said:

It's been obvious for sometime now that the entire Russian collusion narrative was nothing more than a smear job by Hillary with an assist from the Obama Admin's FBI and DOJ. This has been obvious for some time now to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass, and now with the Durham indictments the left won't even have the fig leaves of "but, but Krathammer!!!" and it was the GOP who paid for the Dossier and what about the polling data!!!!


Now if my party and the media I consume had spent the last 4 years lying to me, I'd be pissed. But I don't see the Dazzler being pissed. I see him hiding like a Kunt, but not pissed. It's like he enjoys being lied to. And what happened to all that OUTRAGE about colluding with the Russians? It's undeniable now that Hillary really was colluding with the Russian, and yet the Dazzler or any of the Hondo Bros seem to care.