███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[jaF0]

Alexander Vindman Will Be a 'Star Witness' for Ukraine Impeachment Probe, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Says
Newsweek.com | Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:24 UTC

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was on the call between President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart and raised concerns about the conversation to a superior.

 

[jomar]

The issue is dead, it has collapsed.

Hardly. Wait until the full package is gift wrapped.

You are mistaken. In 2000, Clinton was not eligible to run for reelection. In 1868, Andrew Johnson, the only other impeached president, did run for reelection, but did not win the nomination.

https://www.270towin.com/1868_Election/

Jeez Box, Clinton couldn’t run because he had been president for eight years already.

 

[beezzz]

Its BS....they DONT have the votes, if they did, they would VOTE

Pelosi On Whatever It Is They Intend To Vote On: It’s Not An Impeachment Resolution

Rebecca Kaplan
✔
@RebeccaRKaplan
Speaker Pelosi, asked by @AlexNBCNews to comment on the impeachment resolution:

“It’s not an impeachment resolution.”


In other words, she’s been pulling people legs for weeks.

 

[zipman]

Hardly. Wait until the full package is gift wrapped.



Jeez Box, Clinton couldn’t run because he had been president for eight years already.

I see you've taken on the job of responding to the extremely stupid comments.

 

[jomar]

I see you've taken on the job of responding to the extremely stupid comments.

Slow morning!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
You are mistaken. In 2000, Clinton was not eligible to run for reelection. In 1868, Andrew Johnson, the only other impeached president, did run for reelection, but did not win the nomination.

Hardly. Wait until the full package is gift wrapped.

Jeez Box, Clinton couldn’t run because he had been president for eight years already.

Well, I know that. So does everybody here. I just mentioned his back of eligibility for background.

 

[coati]

You are mistaken. In 2000, Clinton was not eligible to run for reelection. In 1868, Andrew Johnson, the only other impeached president, did run for reelection, but did not win the nomination.

https://www.270towin.com/1868_Election/

The nomination has already been rigged for Trump. So, unless the Senate Republicans decide to jettison Trump, he will be running. Hell, even if they finally cut a deal like Keith recently suggested and replace him with Pence, he would still run as an independent.

Not much chance of Senate Republicans showing integrity at this point. As Trump himself stated, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and his base would still support him. Sad, but true.

So, Deplorables, get ready to back the first impeached President to ever be on the national presidential ballot.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Hardly. Wait until the full package is gift wrapped.



Jeez Box, Clinton couldn’t run because he had been president for eight years already.

This was one of the very few times when boxlicker was correct when responding to someone. It's rare but it happens.

 

[jomar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
You are mistaken. In 2000, Clinton was not eligible to run for reelection. In 1868, Andrew Johnson, the only other impeached president, did run for reelection, but did not win the nomination.

Well, I know that. So does everybody here. I just mentioned his back of eligibility for background.

Yeah whew, but I've read your posts before so...

 

[jomar]

This was one of the very few times when boxlicker was correct when responding to someone. It's rare but it happens.

True.

 

[Wrong Element]

I don't know if Vindman planned on showing up for the hearing in full uniform prior to his being smeared on State TV last night, but it was a clever move.

 

[Rightguide]

Hardly. Wait until the full package is gift wrapped.



Jeez Box, Clinton couldn’t run because he had been president for eight years already.

You cannot name a single law violated by Trump. Remember Pelosi said she didn't need a vote to continue, why the change of mind? Is she admitting she was full of shit the first time around? Is she admitting Schiff's investigation was illegitimate? Or, is she just a feeble minded clown who doesn't have a clue what she is doing. Why is she telling NBC it's not an impeachment vote?

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

You cannot name a single law violated by Trump. Remember Pelosi said she didn't need a vote to continue, why the change of mind? Is she admitting she was full of shit the first time around? Is she admitting Schiff's investigation was illegitimate? Or, is she just a feeble minded clown who doesn't have a clue what she is doing. Why is she telling NBC it's not an impeachment vote?

OMG you're fucking stupid. You didn't use to be this dumb so it makes me wonder if you had a stroke or something. Maybe the stress of hiding from ISIS?

 

[jomar]

You cannot name a single law violated by Trump. Remember Pelosi said she didn't need a vote to continue, why the change of mind? Is she admitting she was full of shit the first time around? Is she admitting Schiff's investigation was illegitimate? Or, is she just a feeble minded clown who doesn't have a clue what she is doing. Why is she telling NBC it's not an impeachment vote?

You sound panicky.

 

[Rightguide]

They are now saying there isn't going to be a vote on an Impeachment Inquiry. It's going to be a vote on process procedure only. So, Adre and Jomar, you might as well put the lube away unless you want to fap to a big nothing burger.

 

[Rightguide]

You sound panicky.

I told you, Democrats lose no matter what they do. Write that down.

 

[jaF0]

You sound panicky.

CrotchGuard has gone full BB. No longer worthy of replies.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

They are now saying there isn't going to be a vote on an Impeachment Inquiry. It's going to be a vote on process procedure only. So, Adre and Jomar, you might as well put the lube away unless you want to fap to a big nothing burger.

They've been saying that. The fact that you weren't paying attention is your own fault.

 

[Rightguide]

CrotchGuard has gone full BB. No longer worthy of replies.

You can't refute anything I've said, doing so is outside your intellectual capability, so it's time for you to admit defeat and sneak off. There is no crime committed by Donald Trump, so there will be no vote on articles of Impeachment. So suck on that for a while.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

You can't refute anything I've said, doing so is outside your intellectual capability, so it's time for you to admit defeat and sneak off. There is no crime committed by Donald Trump, so there will be no vote on articles of Impeachment. So suck on that for a while.

quoting for future use

 

[RoryN]

The issue is dead, it has collapsed.

quoting for future & current use.

 

[icanhelp1]

You can't refute anything I've said, doing so is outside your intellectual capability, so it's time for you to admit defeat and sneak off. There is no crime committed by Donald Trump, so there will be no vote on articles of Impeachment. So suck on that for a while.

People don't understand that a vote for articles and a full house vote for inquiry are seperate. A full house vote for inquiry, should it pass, will give the house full subpoena powers and eliminates executive privilege, and also allows both parties representation, subpoena powers and conduct witness testimonies out in the open. I'm sure the vote will be along party lines making it a democrat impeachment and a
repub Senate acquittal.

 

[Rightguide]

quoting for future & current use.

Be my guest. He is only guilty of saying things the Democrats don't like. Go ahead and try and make that an article of impeachment.

 

[Rightguide]

People don't understand that a vote for articles and a full house vote for inquiry are seperate. A full house vote for inquiry, should it pass, will give the house full subpoena powers and eliminates executive privilege, and also allows both parties representation, subpoena powers and conduct witness testimonies out in the open. I'm sure the vote will be along party lines making it a democrat impeachment and a
repub Senate acquittal.

Yep, but Nancy just told NBC the vote on Thursday will only be a vote on process and procedure rules, not a vote authorizing an impeachment Inquiry.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yep, but Nancy just told NBC the vote on Thursday will only be a vote on process and procedure rules, not a vote authorizing an impeachment Inquiry.

I wasn't aware of the change. I'm sure they'll tout it as authorizing full subpoena powers. I'm not sure what the difference is, it just sounds like something the rules committee would undertake. Convoluted at best. Another attempt at confusing the public.