impeach Trump?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

As speaker Pelosi and many other high ranking democrats, pundits, and legal scholars have said, no one, not even the President, is above the law. Except 20 million illegal aliens. They're ok. And street poopers. They are exempt as well. But no one else. Except the Bidens. 

[fandandy 3,313]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

As speaker Pelosi and many other high ranking democrats, pundits, and legal scholars have said, no one, not even the President, is above the law. Except 20 million illegal aliens. They're ok. And street poopers. They are exempt as well. But no one else. Except the Bidens. 

Not even just the streets anymore.  In San Fran you can sh!t right in the aisle at Safeway.  That dumb c#nt Pelosi needs to focus a bit more of her geriatric energy on her district.

[5-Points 3,766]

21 hours ago, posty said:

For what?

For what Biden did.

[5-Points 3,766]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

No, never threatened to do so.....but DID in fact delay them, as he has done with a handful of others, because as he has plainly stated on a number of occasions, he does not like subsides to other nations to start with, and particularly to ones that are known to be corrupt... so the act itself is perfectly in line with other similar acts elsewhere.

It's all just a ploy.  They hate him, and they know the system, so they are abusing it to achieve a political outcome....

And don't forget that, even with the delay, Ukraine actually received the funds ahead of the deadline. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

12 minutes ago, fandandy said:

Not even just the streets anymore.  In San Fran you can sh!t right in the aisle at Safeway.  That dumb c#nt Pelosi needs to focus a bit more of her geriatric energy on her district.

Saw that. Nice work libtards. 

[NorthernVike 2,095]

1 hour ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Didn't he threaten to withhold funds? I'm honestly tired of it so I haven't been following. 

 

[Baker Boy 1,710]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

No, never threatened to do so.....but DID in fact delay them, as he has done with a handful of others, because as he has plainly stated on a number of occasions, he does not like subsides to other nations to start with, and particularly to ones that are known to be corrupt... so the act itself is perfectly in line with other similar acts elsewhere.

It's all just a ploy.  They hate him, and they know the system, so they are abusing it to achieve a political outcome....

Corruption is the cornerstone of the Democratic Party.

[sderk 1,040]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think this is a decent write up on this, I sense little bias.....really captures the lunacy of the situation.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/474471-democrats-can-read-minds

 

But wait. Didn't George Orwell make Thoughtcrimes punishable by death? Why are the democrats only settling for impeachment trials? They have been following everything else to a 'T'. 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

2 hours ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Didn't he threaten to withhold funds? I'm honestly tired of it so I haven't been following. 

Yes, he did 

[porkbutt 897]

1 hour ago, drobeski said:

Anyone come up with what law/statute he violated yet ? 

Shouldn't there be one, and if there is, shouldn't it be known and publicized?

i guarantee 9 out of 10 people on the street has no clue why he's being impeached. my kids ask me. i don't even know the answer.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

21 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Yes, he did 

Link? To him actually threatening to withhold fund? .” Can you do us a favor”  doesn’t sound very threatening. Unless you accept Schiffs version from his obviously deranged mind. That freak tried to get naked pictures of an old man. Why? 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

2 minutes ago, porkbutt said:

i guarantee 9 out of 10 people on the street has no clue why he's being impeached. my kids ask me. i don't even know the answer.

Well you’d have to be pretty thick to not know the answer. He tried to extort a foreign government into announcing investigations against a political rival for his own personal political gain, including by withholding vital military aid in Ukraine’s battle against a foreign adversary.

 Maybe you disagree with that factually (you can’t though, really); maybe you want to change the subject with various conspiracy theories or other rants; but at the end of the day it’s quite clear why.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Link? To him actually threatening to withhold fund? .” Can you do us a favor”  doesn’t sound very threatening. Unless you accept Schiffs version from his obviously deranged mind. That freak tried to get naked pictures of an old man. Why? 

There’s a six hundred some odd page report that lays it out for you or an executive summary you can look at. They generally cite to the phone call, Mulvaney’s admission, the bill Taylor testimony, Sondland testimony, as well as general timeline of events

[RLLD 4,275]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

There’s a six hundred some odd page report that lays it out for you or an executive summary you can look at

Insufficient.   Speculation and supposition is not enough to impeach a President. 

You should take heart, the Democrats have made it clear that their primary pursuit is to impeach him, over and over.  They clearly have the backing of the FBI, CIA and a variety of internal governmental resources......so the hunt will continue for a reason, well into his second term.

[Strike 6,019]

22 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well you’d have to be pretty thick to not know the answer. He tried to extort a foreign government into announcing investigations against a political rival for his own personal political gain, including by withholding vital military aid in Ukraine’s battle against a foreign adversary.

 Maybe you disagree with that factually (you can’t though, really); maybe you want to change the subject with various conspiracy theories or other rants; but at the end of the day it’s quite clear why.

And yet congress couldn't get ONE person with DIRECT knowledge of anything you just stated to testify. 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

And yet congress couldn't get ONE person with DIRECT knowledge of anything you just stated to testify. 

To testify? Maybe, though Sondland clearly had direct knowledge. But the transcript is direct as is Mulvaney’s admission. Now some people, like Mulvaney, are refusing to testify at the White House’s direction and also the White House won’t produce any documents. They’re even withholding them from people like Sondland. Now I’m not sure that’s illegal, I’d like to know more about the second article of impeachment. If the White House is claiming privilege then that’s probably a stonewalling tactic but a legal one. I don’t know how you categorically withhold witnesses and documents though, which is probably where the illegality charge comes in. Anyway, regardless of whether that aspect is itself an impeachable offense it’s certainly further circumstantial evidence of guilt. 

[sderk 1,040]

26 minutes ago, Strike said:

And yet congress couldn't get ONE person with DIRECT knowledge of anything you just stated to testify. 

Don't forget hearsay. The dems love that word to the point that they think it is way more important than factual evidence. 

 

[NorthernVike 2,095]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

There’s a six hundred some odd page report that lays it out for you or an executive summary you can look at. They generally cite to the phone call, Mulvaney’s admission, the bill Taylor testimony, Sondland testimony, as well as general timeline of events

Watch the video I posted above.

[drobeski 3,061]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Yes, he did 

Link ?

[Strike 6,019]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

To testify? Maybe, though Sondland clearly had direct knowledge. But the transcript is direct as is Mulvaney’s admission. Now some people, like Mulvaney, are refusing to testify at the White House’s direction and also the White House won’t produce any documents. They’re even withholding them from people like Sondland. Now I’m not sure that’s illegal, I’d like to know more about the second article of impeachment. If the White House is claiming privilege then that’s probably a stonewalling tactic but a legal one. I don’t know how you categorically withhold witnesses and documents though, which is probably where the illegality charge comes in. Anyway, regardless of whether that aspect is itself an impeachable offense it’s certainly further circumstantial evidence of guilt. 

I don't know where you get your information from, but you need to find new, better, sources.  You also should become better versed in the reasons someone like Trump might choose not to participate in such a witch hunt.  Any competent attorney should be able to help you understand.

[edjr 6,898]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't know where you get your information from, but you need to find new, better, sources.  You also should become better versed in the reasons someone like Trump might choose not to participate in such a witch hunt.  Any competent attorney should be able to help you understand.

 

Ouch

[IGotWorms 4,063]

24 minutes ago, edjr said:

 

Ouch

I agree, that was pretty embarrassing for Strike

[Utilit99 4,099]

9 hours ago, bandrus1 said:

Who and when what?

 

Trump & likely today

Just checking in with you here. Is he out of office yet? 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,339]

7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

To testify? Maybe, though Sondland clearly had direct knowledge. But the transcript is direct as is Mulvaney’s admission. Now some people, like Mulvaney, are refusing to testify at the White House’s direction and also the White House won’t produce any documents. They’re even withholding them from people like Sondland. Now I’m not sure that’s illegal, I’d like to know more about the second article of impeachment. If the White House is claiming privilege then that’s probably a stonewalling tactic but a legal one. I don’t know how you categorically withhold witnesses and documents though, which is probably where the illegality charge comes in. Anyway, regardless of whether that aspect is itself an impeachable offense it’s certainly further circumstantial evidence of guilt. 

Huh?  He did?  this is news.  This is the same guy that said "I assumed that's what he meant".   This is the same guy that Trump directly told "I want no quid-pro-quo.  I just want him to do his job". 

So, yeah, the only DIRECT knowledge Sondland has was that Trump DIRECTLY told him "no quid-pro-quo".  It appears you've fallen for it again.   Good job.

[bandrus1 413]

2 hours ago, Utilit99 said:

Just checking in with you here. Is he out of office yet? 

Still here.. who said removed from office?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

12 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Huh?  He did?  this is news.  This is the same guy that said "I assumed that's what he meant".   This is the same guy that Trump directly told "I want no quid-pro-quo.  I just want him to do his job". 

So, yeah, the only DIRECT knowledge Sondland has was that Trump DIRECTLY told him "no quid-pro-quo".  It appears you've fallen for it again.   Good job.

It’s amazing Worms could actually state that. It’s almost like he’s been fed all his info from one side. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,339]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s amazing Worms could actually state that. It’s almost like he’s been fed all his info from one side. 

And he just accepts it - no questions asked.  No further thought.   Just "Hey - this is what you believe today" and he says "OK.  Thanks!".

I at least hope he gets a courtesy reach-around when his liberal masters are doing the pokey-pokey with him.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Personally, I see it down the middle.

I absolutely think Trump did a quid pro quo deal to try to tarnish a rival.

That said, I have seen no evidence of same worthy of a conviction. Thus he shouldn't be convicted.

The impeachment proceeding is political grandstanding just like Clinton's was. 

[avoiding injuries 1,652]

21 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Personally, I see it down the middle.

I absolutely think Trump did a quid pro quo deal to try to tarnish a rival.

That said, I have seen no evidence of same worthy of a conviction. Thus he shouldn't be convicted.

The impeachment proceeding is political grandstanding just like Clinton's was. 

I know you’re not alone, but it amazes me that people actually believe quid pro quo happened. 
If I can ask, what is the most compelling evidence that led to your decision?

[Cloaca du jour 2,157]

News saying he is impeached...so...is that it or does the senate have to vote?

[bandrus1 413]

7 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

News saying he is impeached...so...is that it or does the senate have to vote?

He has been impeached

[5-Points 3,766]

6 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

News saying he is impeached...so...is that it or does the senate have to vote?

The House voted to impeach like they said they would since Trump's inauguration. 

The Senate will not convict him of crimes he didnt commit.

Trump will still be POTUS next week and he'll be reelected next year. And the Dems will continue to make fools of themselves all the while. 

Rinse, focking repeat.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

7 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

News saying he is impeached...so...is that it or does the senate have to vote?

The House is saying they may not submit those Articles to the Senate unless it's guaranteed a 'fair' trial. You know, fair like the Dems not allowing Republicans any witnesses. Like a gag order unless the Dems want to leak something. Etc....

 

[bandrus1 413]

I will have a good laugh if John Bolton gets to stick the final knife in.. all this talk of draining the swamp and you let him in the front door

[shorepatrol 1,871]

19 minutes ago, bandrus1 said:

He has been impeached

https://i.redd.it/e3a2oh8klb541.gif

[shorepatrol 1,871]

16 minutes ago, bandrus1 said:

I will have a good laugh if John Bolton gets to stick the final knife in.. all this talk of draining the swamp and you let him in the front door

You're not sleeping well for at least 6 years. 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

41 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

I know you’re not alone, but it amazes me that people actually believe quid pro quo happened. 
If I can ask, what is the most compelling evidence that led to your decision?

Like I said, no compelling evidence really. Just hearsay and supposition and my own gut really. Which is, as I also said, he shouldn't be convicted, or even impeached.

I find the republican defense of "its trumps job to call and try to put a stop to corruption" weak. He just happens to choose a case where Biden is involved? Not buying either that he does so regularly, or that it was coincidence in this case that Biden was involved. 

I will openly admit to bias here. I think Trump is scummy and corrupt. He's just very good at covering it apparently.

So again, I have seen no evidence that should have gotten us to this point, let alone removal. But then I haven't combed through the evidence at all. Just crap I read online, mostly here. 

[tanatastic 2,062]

31 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

News saying he is impeached...so...is that it or does the senate have to vote?

Vote, which is almost assuredly going his way. Here’s a relevant copy 

Republicans hold a 53-47 edge in the chamber. Conviction and removal requires 67 votes. No Senate Republicans have signaled that they would vote to convict Trump.

[shorepatrol 1,871]

1 minute ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Like I said, no compelling evidence really. Just hearsay and supposition and my own gut really. Which is, as I also said, he shouldn't be convicted, or even impeached.

I find the republican defense of "its trumps job to call and try to put a stop to corruption" weak. He just happens to choose a case where Biden is involved? Not buying either that he does so regularly, or that it was coincidence in this case that Biden was involved. 

I will openly admit to bias here. I think Trump is scummy and corrupt. He's just very good at covering it apparently.

So again, I have seen no evidence that should have gotten us to this point, let alone removal. But then I haven't combed through the evidence at all. Just crap I read online, mostly here. 

Orange man bad is what you are saying. Got it. 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

2 minutes ago, tanatastic said:

Vote, which is almost assuredly going his way. Here’s a relevant copy 

Republicans hold a 53-47 edge in the chamber. Conviction and removal requires 67 votes. No Senate Republicans have signaled that they would vote to convict Trump.

The dems won't even get all 47 of theirs, let alone flipping any R's. There are some dem sensors in redish or purple states that will want no part of this.