He was Impeached

[rexdutchman]

Gee lets see , "Muller report" 35 million tax dollars / 500 search warrants 2800 subpoenas and wait for it NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION NO Obstruction . But But the liberal/socialists and LSM still pushing.

A Quote from L Leibovitz Ignore at your own peril: Just because Trump said it doesn't mean its not true"

Sadly people are ignoring the "forest for the trees " Political witch hunt "

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So just a quick review, since Munchie's head is probably spinning.

Spinning or 'sploding?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I have to apologize for my lengthy post in reply to Munchie's assertions that I lied in my responses...

Did he say that? Did munchy really call you a liar?

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

It is a lie by you...

You're repeating your lies again...

Another asshole lie by you....

You (sic) complete story is filled with lie after lie...

You... lie your ass off.

You are a trumptard liar.

Oh yeah, he did! Oh well, no need to apologize, you're in excellent company!!

As you've discovered, Munchy believes whoever calls the other guy a liar more times wins the argument!!

I think I prefer your style, HF.

Instead of screaming "liar, liar!" you calmly and methodically take apart and destroy the poor guy's arguments, one point at a time!

[Munchmasterman]

My response to your post wasn't a defense of impeachment. I never claimed it to be.
What it was (and what it did) was expose the misstatements in your post.
You offered no documented facts that refuted any of the sources I included.
I'm not going to argue with someone who makes no attempt at proving his "version" of the facts. If you can prove any of the sources I quoted are wrong, now is the time to do it.
And in case you forgot, my post wasn't the case for impeachment.
How could we discuss that when you won't try to refute my sourced version with any sources for your version?

PS. Biden was presenting the official position of the US administration. He was a messenger, not the policy maker. Got that? Whether or not that was a quid pro quo or not (I couldn't find proof/links saying it was), it wasn't Biden's (the Vice President's)position. It was the US's position

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This seems to be the argument you are making. That Trump made false statements about Ukraine aid and therefore should be impeached. This is the evidence you presented.


President Donald Trump, who last year froze hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid for Ukraine, claimed “they got all” of it “long before schedule.” That’s false.

The freeze that Trump directed lasted about two months last summer and not all of the money was later disbursed on time.


In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported in November that the Department of Defense still had not disbursed more than $35 million of its $250 million

Here is what the Pentagon said






So you are saying that Trump's "false statement" which amounted to .2% , an easy routine error, an easy mistake to make, he should be impeached? Uh! NO!


But more important to me than the things Trump says, is the question, did the President have the authority to do that, hold up aid because if he didn't, that could be a problem although a problem once brought to his attention or proved in court and corrected, still would not amount to an impeachable offense, unless of course you just wanted him impeached for anything because you just wanted him gone and the law, the Constitution, really doesn't matter to you.


Then you present this


Trump’s decision to hold up the funding, and then ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, is one reason a majority of House members voted to impeach Trump in December.

First, if nobody is above the law, including a former VP running for President, how can he be beyond investigation when corruption in Ukraine was a major issue, an ongoing issue related to aid? And his son was working for the biggest most corrupt company in Ukraine. To ignore this would be a dereliction of duty for a President. Biden doesn't get a pass just because he is running for President any more than a current President gets a pass as the SC just said. Nobody is above the law.


Your next piece of evidence for impeachment.


Trump, Jan. 22: Now, here’s the other thing: They [Ukraine] got their money long before schedule. They got all their money.


And Ukraine did not receive its aid from the U.S. “long before schedule.”


So again, that "false statement", is enough to impeach a President? Are we now going to say a "false statement" by a President is a High crime or Misdemeanor? Any false statement including one with such little significance since the money was released? No, don't think so. Just how many "false statement" did Obama make? Want to check out the "truth o meter" on Politifact as to the number of false statements made by Obama? Naw, didn't think so.


Mark Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security at OMB, testified at his Nov. 16 deposition that approximately $35 million had been left unobligated by the Defense Department. Those funds, he said, “would have expired” if not for Congress stepping in.


Wow, so Ukraine not getting 35 million dollars is worth impeaching a President? Good fucking grief man.


In a Dec. 11 letter to the Government Accountability Office, which later ruled that the aid freeze violated federal law, general counsel for the OMB, Mark Paoletta, said the State Department obligated the $141.5 million for Ukraine before Sept. 30



Now here is the crux of the matter. Did Trump violate federal law





Then you say.


The allegations were made by trump with no evidence any improprieties had occurred. trump directly requested the investigation.


Excuse me while I ROTFL! Unproven allegations were made against Trump in the Russia fiasco but that didn't stop an investigation and to be fair, how do you find evidence without an investigation? Isn't that the excuse Democrats gave? How can we prove these allegations against Trump if we don't investigate they said? What is good for one, is good for bother or neither.


Next subject.



The question of is quid pro quo illegal has been answered many times. Yes, it is illegal.


What is "either fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money" if not a quid pro quo? Even Democrats admit that yes it was a quid pro quo but it was "legal" because Biden had the authority of the President to make it! So yes quid pro quo' are made all the time between the government of the United States and other countries. The whole damn aid package to Ukraine was based on the condition that if you don't prove to us that you have corruption under control, you will not get the aid! Come on man! Some quid pro quos are legal, some are not. Democrats argue that Biden's was of the legal kind, Republicans argue as do I that Trump's was legal. If Biden's was legal because it was backed by a President, why wouldn't Trump's quid pro quo be legal? So you got this answer completely wrong and you don't even understand that the Democrats were making the exact opposite case you are making concerning Biden.



And once again you lie about Biden. It is a lie by you because it has been debunked many times.


That Biden said "fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money" has been debunked? Really? The video is on Youtube if you care to go look at it.



Here is your statement




The part in bold is absolutely true. The argument comes into play over whether he was fired over prosecuting Biden's son. The fact that Biden demanded the prosecutor be fired is not in dispute. What I can't figure out is, are you to dumb to understand this or do you understand it but you can't admit it.


It is a legitimate argument as to whether the firing can be tied to any prosecution of Hunter.


Let's continue.





See those words in bold type? "At least for now we don't see any wrong doing". Isn't that what an investigation is for? When Republicans said "we don't see any wrong doing in the matter of a Trump Russia conspiracy, did that end the matter or was an investigation called for with no evidence. As a matter of fact, we just found out yesterday from another memo by Peter Strzok, the lead investigator into the Trump Russia connection, that on Feb. 14 2017, Peter Strzok told his boss James Comey, that no connection between the Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence was found. The same day as it so happens that the headline in the New York Times reported that there were repeated contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence but that didn't stop the investigation did it.


Or how about this line from your post.
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][I]


Now this has been debunked because we have all read the transcript of the conversation. "About 8 times". You mean there weren't sure? They couldn't count them? Please.


Now just to put a period on to what I said above as to whether Biden threatened to







That is a quid pro quo regardless of the reason. If you demand something for something in return, that is a quid pro quo and Democrats argue that in Biden's case, it was legal. You just argued that it was illegal. One of many things you have gotten wrong.



More proof of Biden's quid pro quo from your post. Thanks for including it and contradicting your own words which is pretty funny.





So if a VP can warn the Ukrainian President that if he doesn't deal with what the VP sees as corruption, he won't get aid but some how a sitting President can not tell the Ukrainian President, excuse me ASK the Ukrainian President to investigate possible corruption, that he won't get aid? Good fucking grief. That's some fucking Alice in Wonderland shit right there.


[SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot][B]


AH! The other excuse why Biden's quid pro quo WAS legal, because a bunch more people agreed with it. Funny how that works huh?


I particularly liked this line of yours.


Plus you try to confuse the issues by adding Obama


Ah! Yes, proving Obama did the same exact thing or similar thing, would be according to you, confusing the issue like when Obama pardoned a General for lying to the FBI but when Trump wants to pardon Flynn for lying to the FBI "that's impeachable". The hypocrisy is staggering.


I wrote



The national security of the US was never in jeopardy, the ally was never in jeopardy because they already had the deterrent in their arsenal, a deterrent that the Obama administration failed to give which probably cost the lives of thousands of Ukrainians before Russia was deterred when Trump sent Ukraine Javelin missiles.
No harm, no foul but Democrats were bound and determined to impeach this President from the day, hell, the day before he took office and raised their hands when asked, about 60 of them as I recall, telling us everything we needed to know as to what Trump could look forward to.


You said


Another asshole lie by you.


Not sure which part you think is a lie. That Obama didn't supply Javelin missiles and thousands of Ukrainian's died, about 14 thousand if I remember correctly or that about 60 House Democrats wanted to impeach Trump the day he took office.


Shit I have to close this out, business to take of. I'll try and get back to some of the stuff I didn't follow through on proving.

[Munchmasterman]

No.
And who?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is Munchie trying to relitigate the failed impeachment?

Does this mean he thinks he's smarter than PissLousy and SHITFACE?

[oeb11]

Blue Meanie is on ignore - but it is evident nothing HF or anyone else wrote in factual debate made a dent in the 'mmarxist' narrative .

[Munchmasterman]

Why?
He didn't refute a single link (or any other number of links). It wasn't a defense of the impeachment.
Just pointing out the many mistakes in the narrative.

Vasoline? That's for the other guys.

I would also point out your comment contributed the same amount as they usually do.
Nothing.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey munchy, time for you to run along in search of some vasoline! Your rectum is bleeding!

[oeb11]

Thank you - BM.
Take a trip to Venezuela and get to know life under a 'mmarxist' regime - Maduro.

Seems to fit your wants.

[Munchmasterman]

Blah, blah, blah.
You show no links to refute anything either.
You can't discuss or debate based on what you "think" is right.
Your core strategy is bluster.

Originally Posted by oeb11

HF - thank you for detailed evaluation of the DPST propaganda Blue Meanie tried to pass off.

Blue(mm) is beyond help or reason in debate - and refuses Facts in favor of XiNN propaganda and Schiff/Nadler/Pelosi /DPST Lies and flagrant partisan mis-management of the Impeachment process.



In many way - You preach to the choir of Conservatives
And to the intellectually Lost DPST adherents and acolytes.

[oeb11]

is BM sober????
since BM has likely never read the Constitution - and understood how it directs the country to operate its' government - perhaps BM would like to just go to DC and walk into the oval office and sit down to take control as POTUS - since there is a belief that 'impeachment' ended the Trump term of office as POTUS.



Let's watch and laugh!

[Munchmasterman]

Arguement?
It wasn't an arguement for impeachment

It was a post pointing out your inaccurate "version" of documented facts. You have yet to refute any of the sources I quoted.

How can things be discussed when you won't acknowledge clear and undisputed facts?

One quick example.
Biden conveyed the position of the US government. It was presented openly.

trump presented the position of the US government (his). He did it behind closed doors and no transcript was made (that we know of) or published. There is a "summary" that is disputed by numerous witnesses.




Wednesday morning the White House released an edited summary of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, the call that appears to have inspired the now-famous whistleblower complaint against Trump. The document, which reads like a transcript, was widely expected to cast the president’s behavior in a more flattering light.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...xGQwpv&ampcf=1

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I have to apologize for my lengthy post in reply to Munchie's assertions that I lied in my responses. A couple of times instead of providing a response, one that might require I do a little research to prove my point, I skipped it and continued thinking I would get back to it but never did because I had to close out the post quickly when something came up that needed my immediate attention.


There were a couple of things like that but one in particular I want to get back to because it is one of two things at the heart of this issue. That the President violated the law by holding up the funds and that he tried to illegally pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. I think I covered the latter adequately but I wanted to address the former in more detail because I just passed over it.




And I left it blank. Yes the GAO says that Trump broke the law. Trump's lawyers and the Director of the OMB says he didn't but guess whose opinion the Democrats went with?


I looked on line for the rebuttal argument and this is about as close as I could get. I'll give my own and you can decide if it makes sense or not.

https://www.axios.com/gao-decision-o...5a88282ee.html


The only recourse the GAO has for a violation of the ICA is to sue the administration to release the funds, per Roll Call. In this case, the withheld aid was already released in September.



The other side: Rachel Semmel, the OMB's communications director, said in a statement, "We disagree with GAO's opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president's priorities and with the law."


So we have two government agencies that disagree with each other. Now read that first one again.



But the Democrats had a different recourse in mind, impeachment. Now surely you've heard over the last almost 4 years, many different agencies suing the President in court because their idea of what the law says and the Presidents, disagree. Who decides? Well, the courts do. But here as far as the Democrats were concerned, this was cut and dry. The GAO says that the President broke the law so we don't need no stinkin' court ruling, we're going to impeach the President and this will be part of his impeachment, that he broke this law.


Sorry Democrats but it doesn't work that way or at least shouldn't. The GAO is not a legal body, part of the Judiciary which decides what laws are broken or not broken, not the GAO. Unless and until a court decides the President broke the law, there is no controlling decision on this matter but of course legal matters don't matter when there is a political opponent to impeach.


No court ever said the President broke the law in this matter, therefore it is incorrect to say that he did. Like a couple of other matters, the Democrats just couldn't wait for legal decisions, they were running out of time so THEY decided to subvert the rule of law and rush to judgement.


But then how can we expect people like Munchie to understand these legal niceties when they just have to get rid of this President by any means possible and by golly Republicans should just go along and not have all these high faluntin' ideas about how legal matters are decided.


Well, Republicans did have ideas about such matters and saw that impeachment was not a reasonable way to resolve these matters. First there is a court to go through, a decision whether this amounts to an illegal action and whether a President is willing to accept the decision and resolve the issue which he did. The funds were released before a court could ever consider the matter.


As PolitiFact like to say "my ruling"


No decision was made by the courts whether the President broke the law or not so one can not say that the President broke the law just because of an opinion by an agency with no authority to make such a decision. An opinion yes, decision no.


Let's hear the argument against that.

[Munchmasterman]

You would think someone higher up the food chain would have brought that up and proved it.
Sorry. Zero points for you.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so Trump was illegally impeached. imagine that.

[Munchmasterman]

I said what I said.
I pointed out your factual errors using credible sources. Your sources are nonexistent. You have yet to refute any of the sources I used.

It only took reading a single paragraph to see you you were arguing points that weren't in my post, you post no sources, and they don't affect or refute the sources I quoted.
All the other points you bring up may or may not be true.
You can continue to post unsupported opinion and I'll continue to post sources info.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So just a quick review, since Munchie's head is probably spinning.


Making False statements can not be an impeachable offense or every President could be impeached.


Withholding aid to Ukraine was never proven in a court of law to be an illegal act. The GAO does not "decide", it gives an opinion which is then decided by a court. In this case that was not necessary because the aid was released. Well, maybe .2% wasn't.


You usually don't have evidence until after an investigation. To dispute that would put the whole Mueller fiasco on trial. Biden presented a quid pro quo. You say any quid pro quo is illegal, Democrats say Biden's was perfectly legal. My opinion is if Biden's was legal, so was Trump's. Trump as President was told by his legal advisers that he could withhold aid to Ukraine until HE was convinced corruption was under control not the Pentagon, not Congress but the President.


The President never gave the President of Ukraine an ultimatum in that phone call. Democrats say he understood it to be an ultimatum. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the President of Ukraine says he did not hear it as an ultimatum. The Democrats say of course he would say that he has to. So we are giving aid to a President willing to lie to Congress? Maybe that is when Democrats should have re-thought about aid.


The national security of the US was never in danger. What a preposterous notion. If Ukraine falls, we fall? The security of Ukraine was not in jeopardy and we know that because Russia made no move while the aid was held up and this was future aid. The previous aid package was in effect and the money never stopped completely.



For about 2 years the war in Ukraine raged under Obama. Thousands of Ukrainians died because they did not have lethal defensive weapons. Obama's excuse was that if we gave Ukraine Javelin tank killer missiles and they used them, Russia would annihilate them. Trump said fuck that, give them the missiles perhaps saving thousands of lives that Obama never did.



That's it in a nutshell

[oeb11]

Watch and l....!

[Munchmasterman]

Stop lying.
I didn't say that or imply it.

I did say trump has lied over 20,000 times.
Is that number near Obama's?

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If Munchie's rule on false statements being an impeachable offense when Obama was President, he could have been impeached at least 71 times according to PolitiFact


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...r=barack-obama




And 60 more "mostly false statements"


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...r=barack-obama