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

[cowslinger64]

The Wall Street Journal's reading said that of the 16,500 lines of the Mueller report, 2,050 lines, or approximately 12.4% of the document, are redacted.

Attorney General William Barr selected the redactions, most of which contain information that is either pertinent to ongoing criminal investigations, details examined by a grand jury that were not pursued further, and information that could compromise the privacy or reputation of third parties.

Read more: Read full, redacted report from special counsel Robert Mueller

The Mueller report found the Trump campaign engaged in multiple contacts with Russian operatives during the 2016 US presidential election and that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, but it did not find enough evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to bring charges. Mueller's team also found that Trump exerted effort to hinder the special counsel's investigation. Ultimately, Mueller and his prosecutors chose not to pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump, citing a number of legal hurdles.


A HUGE legal hurdle is Barr.. what a shocker.

The Mueller report has (IIRC) 7 partial sentences and 1 full sentence redacted. That's hardly "heavily redacted".

Claiming such is beneath even you.

Is this lie beneath you? I doubt it.

 

[badbabysitter]

My source was a list of compiled names that the author(s) of the list stated were Republicans.

But he author was not the author, as has been explained to you many many many times. And the author stated that based on their opinion

The article is STILL available via search on Bing and if you copy/past the link it will take you directly to the article without the need to do an internet search.

SO? Round earth articles are available every where, that oesnt mean they are true either

BTW, Big G CENSORS it's search results.

Ah, so its a conspiracy that the authors original article was an opinion

o a Which may be why sum dumfuks can't seem to find the article via a search through them. And citing to Wiki to say that Wiki removed the reference to the article is a bogus deflection without ANY value because ANYONE, including an internet troll, can edit Wiki and do that at any time.

That's your defense? Your opinions are facts but the others peoples opinions are not.

Anyway, back to the topic; since the article CAN be found via search or copy/paste, it was not "deleted". (As if anything on the internet is actually ever "deleted" anyway. )

Deleted from wiki where it was supposed to be... and its still an opinion piece... which once again does not support your claim that Clarkson is a Republican... I am not saying she isnt, I'm saying you havent been able to prove she is

In the final analysis, if you wish to defeat my source as incorrect, then you need to GET OFF YOUR ASS and find a source that refutes mine.

Your source is an opinion. It does not prove she is a Republican. I can say you're Aquaman, my saying something doesnt mkae it true.

PROVE to me she is a Republican and not just a belief

Otherwise all you're doing is pumping out hot air because jumping up and down while screaming "I don't believe you" isn't proof of anything.

You still havent proven anything except that you believe an opinion is a fact

 

[Rightguide]

But he author was not the author, as has been explained to you many many many times. And the author stated that based on their opinion



SO? Round earth articles are available every where, that oesnt mean they are true either





Ah, so its a conspiracy that the authors original article was an opinion



That's your defense? Your opinions are facts but the others peoples opinions are not.



Deleted from wiki where it was supposed to be... and its still an opinion piece... which once again does not support your claim that Clarkson is a Republican... I am not saying she isnt, I'm saying you havent been able to prove she is




Your source is an opinion. It does not prove she is a Republican. I can say you're Aquaman, my saying something doesnt mkae it true.

PROVE to me she is a Republican and not just a belief




You still havent proven anything except that you believe an opinion is a fact

In reality he's removed that man's finger from your rear end and replaced it with his shoe. You'll be eating Thanksgiving dinner standing up, poor thing.

 

[jomar]

No, not in any illegal manner or the Insurgency and Comandante Schiff would have brought it up in the Impeachment Hearings.

So you do agree that he is personally gaining financially from his presidency.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So you do agree that he is personally gaining financially from his presidency.

It's not even a question.

"The Secret Service spent more than a quarter of a million dollars at President Donald Trump’s properties over the course of five months in 2017, newly released documents show."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...ent-more-than-250k-at-trump-properties-072465

 

[Rightguide]

So you do agree that he is personally gaining financially from his presidency.

I believe his business opportunities have been diminished by his election but the law does not require his family businesses to close up shop, nor does it require that he forswear the income generated by those businesses just because he's President. As I've said, Washington and Jefferson both had running businesses while in office. The law only requires him not to make national decisions based on his personal business interests alone. His incoming income has been diminished by his office, so he has not "gained" more income than he would have earned as a private citizen.

 

[jaF0]

I'm less concerned with the SS doing it since they sort of go hand in hand with him, literally. But the USAF (and probably other military) thing is what gets me. Orders should have gone out in December '16 completely barring that.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm less concerned with the SS doing it since they sort of go hand in hand with him, literally. But the USAF (and probably other military) thing is what gets me. Orders should have gone out in December '16 completely barring that.

You can't be that stupid. US Presidents are the CinC of all military organizations and all modern President's have been transported by the Air Force aircraft with the same security as the White House Situation Room.

 

[jaF0]

You can't be that stupid. US Presidents are the CinC of all military organizations and all modern President's have been transported by the Air Force aircraft with the same security as the White House Situation Room.

On official duty while escorting the executive (or other dignitaries) family or staff is one thing.

Casual layovers of other aircrews not involved in those assignments 'just because' is quite another.

 

[KeithD]

I'm less concerned with the SS doing it since they sort of go hand in hand with him, literally. But the USAF (and probably other military) thing is what gets me. Orders should have gone out in December '16 completely barring that.

If he'd met the requirements of the emoluments clause, which are to divest your interests, they wouldn't be his property to be profiting from. If you don't want to let loose of your businesses to be president, don't run for the presidency. His issue is that he didn't plan on being president. Neither did most of the voters. The Russians planned on him being president, though. It's worked out very nicely for them.

 

[Rightguide]

On official duty while escorting the executive (or other dignitaries) family or staff is one thing.

Casual layovers of other aircrews not involved in those assignments 'just because' is quite another.

There's nothing going on with Trump or his family that wasn't afforded to his predecessors. Nothing.

 

[Rightguide]

If he'd met the requirements of the emoluments clause, which are to divest your interests, they wouldn't be his property to be profiting from. If you don't want to let loose of your businesses to be president, don't run for the presidency. His issue is that he didn't plan on being president. Neither did most of the voters. The Russians planned on him being president, though. It's worked out very nicely for them.

Shut up with that emoluments bullshit. The courts have already shot it down.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

"The G7 Summit Trump Awarded To His Own Resort Now Will Go Somewhere Else"

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mattberman/trump-g7-doral-resort

 

[RoryN]

Ukraine aid hold came same day as Trump call

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/ukraine-aid-trump-call-omb/index.html

 

[jomar]

It's not even a question.

"The Secret Service spent more than a quarter of a million dollars at President Donald Trump’s properties over the course of five months in 2017, newly released documents show."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/...ent-more-than-250k-at-trump-properties-072465

I know.

I believe his business opportunities have been diminished by his election but the law does not require his family businesses to close up shop, nor does it require that he forswear the income generated by those businesses just because he's President. As I've said, Washington and Jefferson both had running businesses while in office. The law only requires him not to make national decisions based on his personal business interests alone. His incoming income has been diminished by his office, so he has not "gained" more income than he would have earned as a private citizen.

Personal business interests shouldn't be in a president's national decision equation.

I haven't seen any figures so don't know if his business revenue has been diminished by his being president.

 

[Rightguide]

I know.



Personal business interests shouldn't be in a president's national decision equation.

I haven't seen any figures so don't know if his business revenue has been diminished by his being president.

Read Don Jr's book, he discusses it in detail.

 

[jomar]

Read Don Jr's book, he discusses it in detail.

I just might. Could use a good fiction book about now.

 

[schism666]

Read Don Jr's book, he discusses it in detail.

you already read that book?

 

[Rightguide]

I just might. Could use a good fiction book about now.

It's #1 on the NYTs bestseller list for "Nonfiction"

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Shut up with that emoluments bullshit. The courts have already shot it down.

Translation: "Shut up with that emoluments stuff I don't wanna be reminded of that would totally be a constitutional impeachable issue I'd be harping on daily on this forum had Obama done the exact same thing."

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[KeithD]

It's #1 on the NYTs bestseller list for "Nonfiction"

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/

No, it's not anywhere on the NYT best-seller list this week. it was only on the list last week because the RNC bought nearly $100,000 worth of it from the book stores the NYT uses to construct its best-sellers list. Just another typical Trumpian slight of hand trick. It didn't stay anywhere on the NYT best-seller's list beyond a week of fake buying. And now the RNC is stuck with thousands of copies to pulp or give away at the Republican convention, assuming anyone would take it. I hope the ghostwriters got paid up front. I bet that Donnie Jr. hasn't even read it.

 

[Adre]

I believe his business opportunities have been diminished by his election but the law does not require his family businesses to close up shop, nor does it require that he forswear the income generated by those businesses just because he's President. As I've said, Washington and Jefferson both had running businesses while in office. The law only requires him not to make national decisions based on his personal business interests alone. His incoming income has been diminished by his office, so he has not "gained" more income than he would have earned as a private citizen.

How the fuck do you know anything about his income? Did he release his tax returns and financial records to you? Quit being such a moronic knowitall.

 

[Conager]

Translation: "Shut up with that emoluments stuff I don't wanna be reminded of that would totally be a constitutional impeachable issue I'd be harping on daily on this forum had Obama done the exact same thing."

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

How would that fantasy of yours be possible? Obama never held a legitimate job his entire life. He was handed patronage and "community organizing" (extortion) jobs. He never worked so much as the night clerk at a Motel 6 much less owned anything.

Any number of Obama scandals were impeachment worthy and nobody ever even raised the specter of that.

 

[heathergives]

How would that fantasy of yours be possible? Obama never held a legitimate job his entire life. He was handed patronage and "community organizing" (extortion) jobs. He never worked so much as the night clerk at a Motel 6 much less owned anything.

Any number of Obama scandals were impeachment worthy and nobody ever even raised the specter of that.

Maybe i'm wrong; but does the name "Clinton" come to mind when mentioning these things?

 

[cowslinger64]

How would that fantasy of yours be possible? Obama never held a legitimate job his entire life. He was handed patronage and "community organizing" (extortion) jobs. He never worked so much as the night clerk at a Motel 6 much less owned anything.

Any number of Obama scandals were impeachment worthy and nobody ever even raised the specter of that.

That's not only bullshit, but an absolutely hilarious assessment by a barely employed uber driver with a billion year old pussymobile.

Not to mention being a predator.


You really should just shut the fuck up, professor.