Inquiries and Impeachment of Trump

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

But, but, but, the perfect transcript about the perfect call released by the perfect president cried the trumptards

And all the kings horses and all the horseshit pandering by Shiff and company still couldn't put the case against Trump together.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66
But, but, but, the perfect transcript about the perfect call released by the perfect president cried the trumptards


I don't know of a single person who has ever uttered those words besides Trump. I have to admit, you are better at making up things that were never said better than Schiff

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And all the kings horses and all the horseshit pandering by Shiff and company still couldn't put the case against Trump together.

House Judiciary schedules first impeachment hearing as Trump claims he is protecting the presidency

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled its first impeachment hearing for Dec. 4, as Democrats released transcripts Tuesday of the depositions of two more Trump administration officials.

...only in the mind of the delusional is it over

[rexdutchman]

Constitutional Crisis that's funny, Retreat back into the Fantasy world of the LSM ,,,,

[Jaxson66]

The latest Ukraine revelation spotlights a major gap in Trump’s defense

Mulvaney’s request for information came days after the White House Counsel’s Office was put on notice that an anonymous CIA official had made a complaint to the agency’s general counsel about Trump’s July 25 call to Zelensky during which he requested Ukraine investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as an unfounded theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...o-good-answer/

But, but, but Crowdstrike whimpered the trumptards

[oeb11]

Delusional - look in a mirror - j666

[Jaxson66]

Trump’s big, ‘exonerating’ piece of Ukraine evidence takes a hit

The White House has found no record of a Sept. 9 call between Trump and Sondland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nce-takes-hit/

But, but, but it was the perfect call screamed the fat lying bastard

[Jaxson66]

Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s ‘no quid pro quo’ call

But there is evidence of another call between Trump and Sondland that occurred a few days earlier — one with a very different thrust, in which the president made clear that he wanted his Ukrainian counterpart to personally announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d00_story.html

[oeb11]

The Senate will not convict on the BS "evidence" of Schiff and nadler (McCarthyites), and Pelosi does not want to forward Articles of Impeachment to an open and fair Senate Trial where DPST lies and processes and procedures do not apply.

Poor j666 - the "Impeachment" fantasy is dissolving.



I would like to see an Impeachment Senate trial - it backfired on the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment, and would do so in 2020 also. And will likely improve trump's chance of re-election. Poll support for Impeachment in dissolving.

DPST have put themselves in a lose-lose situation.

Poor DPST's!!!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s ‘no quid pro quo’ call

But there is evidence of another call between Trump and Sondland that occurred a few days earlier — one with a very different thrust, in which the president made clear that he wanted his Ukrainian counterpart to personally announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents.

Yes, announce an investigation not "find dirt even if you have to make it up". Since when is an investigation a bad thing? I'll bet you were all for investigating Trump. How about what we heard ad nauseam from Democrats that if you did nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of an investigation, what happened to that?And Republicans are telling you that they will not vote to impeach a President because of that, period. At best, it is a violation of Federal election law.



Here's a question I'd like you to address. Does Biden get immunity from investigations because he is running for President? Is that a law you would like to see written into our criminal code, run for President and you are immune from investigation? What happens if we fail to investigate, Biden is elected President ( as if ) and an investigation turns up clear evidence that Hunter Biden was involved in corruption and his father knew all about it and did try to cover it up?


We have a prima facie case against Biden already with his quid pro quo "demand" that we have all seen. Democrats say he did nothing wrong in that "demand". Well, that's what an investigation is for to see if he did nothing wrong or do we just take his word for it?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by oeb11

The Senate will not convict on the BS "evidence" of Schiff and nadler (McCarthyites), and Pelosi does not want to forward Articles of Impeachment to an open and fair Senate Trial where DPST lies and processes and procedures do not apply.

Poor j666 - the "Impeachment" fantasy is dissolving.

I would like to see an Impeachment Senate trial - it backfired on the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment, and would do so in 2020 also. And will likely improve trump's chance of re-election. Poll support for Impeachment in dissolving.

DPST have put themselves in a lose-lose situation.

Poor DPST's!!!

First, poll support for impeachment is not dissolving. Impeachment reached a high of 49.5% on October 21st and is at 48.3% as of November 27th. Still +2.5% for impeachment and removal from office. RealClearPolitics summarizes ALL polls on the subject. They couldn't find the poll Trump referred to that has impeachment at 20%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...rump-6957.html

No, the Senate won't convict because Republicans control the Senate and 67 votes are needed to convict. Your opinion is that the House will not impeach. I believe it will. If you are correct, I will congratulate you.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes, announce an investigation not "find dirt even if you have to make it up". Since when is an investigation a bad thing? I'll bet you were all for investigating Trump. How about what we heard ad nauseam from Democrats that if you did nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of an investigation, what happened to that?And Republicans are telling you that they will not vote to impeach a President because of that, period. At best, it is a violation of Federal election law.

Here's a question I'd like you to address. Does Biden get immunity from investigations because he is running for President? Is that a law you would like to see written into our criminal code, run for President and you are immune from investigation? What happens if we fail to investigate, Biden is elected President ( as if ) and an investigation turns up clear evidence that Hunter Biden was involved in corruption and his father knew all about it and did try to cover it up?

We have a prima facie case against Biden already with his quid pro quo "demand" that we have all seen. Democrats say he did nothing wrong in that "demand". Well, that's what an investigation is for to see if he did nothing wrong or do we just take his word for it?

If Biden did in fact do a quid pro quo with the Ukraine by withholding aid until Viktor Shokin was removed from office, do you think it was improper for him to do so? Remember that Trump withheld aid from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador unless they stopped the flow of immigrants to the U.S. A quid pro quo which I had no problem with.

Proper or not proper response if you please.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If Biden did in fact do a quid pro quo with the Ukraine by withholding aid until Viktor Shokin was removed from office, do you think it was improper for him to do so?

what would be the reason to remove Shokin?



if they removed Shokin to stop the Burisma investigation; I think the question here is was the "quid pro quo" proper in this context.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by oeb11

The Senate will not convict on the BS "evidence" of Schiff and nadler (McCarthyites), and Pelosi does not want to forward Articles of Impeachment to an open and fair Senate Trial where DPST lies and processes and procedures do not apply.

Poor j666 - the "Impeachment" fantasy is dissolving.



I would like to see an Impeachment Senate trial - it backfired on the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment, and would do so in 2020 also. And will likely improve trump's chance of re-election. Poll support for Impeachment in dissolving.

DPST have put themselves in a lose-lose situation.

Poor DPST's!!!

Again with the same old regurgitation, do you have any facts to support your bullshit yet?

The Horowitz report is coming and the losers will be your party. There was no spying by Obama, no deep state FISA conspiracy and the lies spewed by that fat lying bastard are once again exposed. Those are facts. I know how you trumptards hate facts but that doesn’t make them untrue.

But, but, but, you wait for the Durham report sniveled the sycophants

[Jaxson66]

Trump faces Dec. 6 deadline to say whether he’ll send lawyer to impeachment hearings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...559_story.html

That fat lying bastard isn’t going to defend himself. He knows Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo and Perry aren’t likely to lie under oath. He knows he can’t let Mcgahn testify under oath about his obstruction of the Mueller investigation. He knows he’s a goddamn liar but he must keep his party ignorant and loyal.

Article III ....Obstruction of Justice