Don't you just love it when you have your adversary by the short hairs.
What difference does that make, shit for fucking brains? Your claim is just a pathetic excuse that TDS suffering douchbags have cooked up to try to bring some sort of legitimacy to their petulant whining, but even if it that bullshit was true, it doesn't change a fucking thing now does it, dunce? The final aid payment was delivered early, in accordance with government regulations and without conditions. What else you got, zero??
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]You're right he was impeached. But whether he is guilty of something illegal and of abuse of power
has yet to be determinded. He will be exonerated, you know it, I know it, hell even Pelosi, Schiff
and Nadler know it. It's just that they have no self-respect. They're clowns and what's even sadder
is they don't give of fuck. It takes a special kind of person to embrace being a loser.[/FONT]
Your sauce gets weaker by the post. Impeached means accused, big whoop. If he did something illegal, it surely would have been named in the articles, but the articles cite NOT ONE SINGLE CRIME nor ANYTHING that is even ILLEGAL. Only in your delusional, brainwashed simpleton mind do these crimes exist. But you keep right on dreaming, clown. Serve up some more of that weak sauce and I'll smash it out of the park for you again.
Yeah don't know how you exonerate someone who openly brags about violating the constitution. But sure, I suppose we will learn more next week as the Senate trial unfolds. I doubt the American voting public will agree with you -- that the president is exonerated -- if the Senate does interview witnesses. Hell put the Bidens up there too if it makes the case for exonerating the president.
It's in the constitution. I would recommend reading it. Article II, Section 4:
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.
https://constitutionus.com/
Yes, bribery. You don't need to go any further than that. High crimes & misdemeanors relate persons of authority who have special duties, or have sworn an oath, and are not crimes shared by common people.
For example:
If I take a bribe from a customer in return for preferential treatment, no problem.
If I take a bribe while in the role of a special duty, that has sworn an oath, and that bribe violates the oath ... that's impeachable. It doesn't even have to be a "crime" it just has to violate the oath of office.
1. At least one TDS sufferer keeps spouting "12 days early!!!!" So, I'll say "What is September 23rd" for $100.
2. September 11th.
I see what you're angling at, but it really doesn't matter. If the reasons for the delay were legitimate and above-board, there wouldn't be a problem with the delay.
The MOTIVE for the delay is why the President was impeached. Congress was in the dark about the delay, the pentagon was in the dark about the delay, even his own diplomats were in the dark. But Giuliani knew, Mulvaney knew (they do it all the time!!), Sondland knew, and Bolton knew.
Trump is on-camera inviting China to dig up dirt on Biden. His own chief of staff said there was a bribe, that they "..do it all the time!"
I've said it before about the Clintons and the same applies to the Bidens: The law is for the lawless. If these people are corrupt, then root it out.
Trumps own DOJ just cleared Hillary Clinton: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/0...foundation-results-in-non-prosecutions-874225
She's either innocent, or the GOP incompetent. Either way, you guys need a new boogyman. Oh wait, I guess that's Biden! haha
Lol....ass clown
Parnas now denies speaking with Trump despite reports he claimed he had
by Dominick Mastrangelo
| January 16, 2020 04:48 PM
Daily Headlines: January 16
Indicted businessman Lev Parnas said he did not speak directly with President Trump about a pressure campaign against Ukraine that sought to benefit Trump politically, despite earlier reports to the contrary.
Last November, CNN reported that Parnas told close associates he had spoken to Trump. "At one point during the party that night, Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President and Giuliani, according to two acquaintances in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting," CNN wrote.
"Eventually, according to what Parnas told his confidants, the topic turned to Ukraine that night," the article continued. "According to those two confidants, Parnas said that 'the big guy,' as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation, talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as 'a secret mission' to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter."
The New York Times told a different story Wednesday, reporting: "Mr. Parnas said that although he did not speak with Mr. Trump about the efforts, he met with the president on several occasions and was told by Mr. Giuliani that Mr. Trump was kept in the loop."
Parnas's decision to go public has led to congressional Democrats demanding that he and other key players in the pressure campaign be called to testify in next week's Senate impeachment trial.
Parnas now denies speaking with Trump despite reports he claimed he had
by Dominick Mastrangelo
| January 16, 2020 04:48 PM
Indicted businessman Lev Parnas said he did not speak directly with President Trump about a pressure campaign against Ukraine that sought to benefit Trump politically, despite earlier reports to the contrary.
Last November, CNN reported that Parnas told close associates he had spoken to Trump. "At one point during the party that night, Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President and Giuliani, according to two acquaintances in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting," CNN wrote.
"Eventually, according to what Parnas told his confidants, the topic turned to Ukraine that night," the article continued. "According to those two confidants, Parnas said that 'the big guy,' as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation, talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as 'a secret mission' to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter."
The New York Times told a different story Wednesday, reporting: "Mr. Parnas said that although he did not speak with Mr. Trump about the efforts, he met with the president on several occasions and was told by Mr. Giuliani that Mr. Trump was kept in the loop."
Parnas's decision to go public has led to congressional Democrats demanding that he and other key players in the pressure campaign be called to testify in next week's Senate impeachment trial.
It says nothing about abuse of power or obstruction of Congress in that and neither of those fall under high crimes and misdemeanors. There was no abuse of power because all aid was delivered early and with no conditions and Trump exercising his legal rights is not obstruction. But again, I know you TDS suffering maggots need something to cling to, hoping, just hoping and praying that maybe, just maybe, 67 US Senators will fall for the dumbest stunt a political party has ever pulled in US history, but knowing deep down inside, it's utterly fucking hopeless, just like you.
So... Where in the transcript, or what has either President on the phone call said "Do this, and I will do that... If you dont do it, I wont do it"?
Where is the "Bribery" evidence as you are claiming? You seem to NOT want to post that evidence, when the evidence, transcript, and what both presidents have said contradict your "Bribery" claim.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]It wasn't China. It was Borneo, Pago Pago, Togo, Ethiopia and Equatorial Guinea all on a conference call.
I was privy to the call and Trump promised a unlimited supply of gruel to any country that could find
dirt on Joey Pedo and his son Humper.
The only country that showed any interest was Ethiopia. Sahle-Work Zewde told Trump and I quote "Fuck your
gruel, I want a slab of Adams Ribs from Chicago and a gallon of Hillary's vaginal discharge."
Trump replied that he could her the ribs but all he could get from Hillary was dust.
He went on to say when he gets reelected he could be more flexible and would she be interested in a gallon
of vaginal discharge from Stormy Daniels? No further negotiations ever took place.
[/FONT]
In the dark? THERE WAS NO FUCKING DELAY!!!! That last payment arrived EARLY. How is something that arrived early considered delayed? Only in the mind of a TDS suffering idiot is that considered 'delayed'. What does Congress, the pentagon and diplomats need to be told here "uh, we're making the payment early?" Get real. What do you think Trump and his team talked about, "Let's see fellas, we have no control over this money, it's being sent to Ukraine on the 30th no matter what, so we have no leverage at all with this money, but let's give it the old college try anyway?" You people are stupid.
How desperate can he be?
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the other House impeachment
managers sent a letter Tuesday to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone seeking to disqualify him
from representing President Donald Trump at the Senate trial.
The argument: because the articles of impeachment allege Trump committed “obstruction of Congress”
by following legal advice to decline subpoenas, the lawyer who advised him is a “material fact witness.”
If Cipollone is to represent the president, Schiff and the Democrats argue, he should have to “disclose
all facts and information to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with
evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President’s legal advocate.”
In other words, Cipollone would have to violate attorney-client privilege and his duty of confidentiality
to his client, effectively disqualifying him from participating.
Let the games begin. All the more reason to call a vote without further ado, exonerate Trump and move on.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the other House impeachment
managers sent a letter Tuesday to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone seeking to disqualify him
from representing President Donald Trump at the Senate trial.
The argument: because the articles of impeachment allege Trump committed “obstruction of Congress”
by following legal advice to decline subpoenas, the lawyer who advised him is a “material fact witness.”
If Cipollone is to represent the president, Schiff and the Democrats argue, he should have to “disclose
all facts and information to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with
evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President’s legal advocate.”
In other words, Cipollone would have to violate attorney-client privilege and his duty of confidentiality
to his client, effectively disqualifying him from participating.
Let the games begin. All the more reason to call a vote without further ado, exonerate Trump and move on.
