Remember: it's no longer "President Trump" - it's "Impeached President Trump"

[icanhelp1]

You're one of the biggest idiots on the planet..the fact that you can't recognize OBVIOUS obstruction here is just more proof of how little you know.


Trump loves dicksuckers like you and vette...et al.


You should try shutting up more, dudly.

Can someone point to me where the obstruction is?

 

[jaF0]

Can someone point to me where the obstruction is?

Between your ears.

 

[KeithD]

Between your ears.

Pretty much, yes.

 

[icanhelp1]

Does anybody here (not orange) think Roberts will have the cajone's to prevent Moscow Mitch from perverting the process?

You know Jeffro; Derp is right "you are one dumb fuck" He is a non-participant, has no authority over anything. He's presiding or could be a tie breaker ( cause and effect still theory )

 

[cowslinger64]

The reason why! it's because they don't have to!

Because of ignorant idiots like you, and scared, spineless republicans in the senate have allowed trump to do whatever he likes without fear of reprisal. They have allowed him to run wild with the "executive privilege", allowed him to order everyone to just skip the subpoenas, and has obstructed everything in his path for most of his term.


Not only that, he hired his personal assistant, formerly know as the attorney general to run blocker for him.


You people are really fucking dumb.

 

[icanhelp1]

Between your ears.

You are a worthless toad!

 

[butters]

the true test of morality is would they object to anything trump's done if it were done by obama/hillary/almost ANY democratic president (but especially obama and hillary)?

object? they'd have a conniption fit
(uhuh, that's me bein' all southern, y'alls)

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No. He clearly knows Trump is a lawbreaking anti-democratic autocrat, but he'll just roll over for Moscow Mitch.

Does anybody here (not orange) think Roberts will have the cajone's to prevent Moscow Mitch from perverting the process?

 

[icanhelp1]

Because of ignorant idiots like you, and scared, spineless republicans in the senate have allowed trump to do whatever he likes without fear of reprisal. They have allowed him to run wild with the "executive privilege", allowed him to order everyone to just skip the subpoenas, and has obstructed everything in his path for most of his term.

The constitution lets him run wild with executive privilege. Yah, remember Obama's wingman 'Holder'. LMAO.

Not only that, he hired his personal assistant, formerly know as the attorney general to run blocker for him.

Doesn't Trump deserve a wingman? I don't believe Bolton, Pompeo or Mulvaney were subpoenaed, could that be why they didn't show up to the party?

You people are really fucking dumb.

Spineless!! The house didn't do their job, simple as that!

 

[icanhelp1]

Pretty much, yes.

I can see you! shitbag!!

 

[cowslinger64]

Spineless!! The house didn't do their job, simple as that!

A hyper-partisan, idiotic, messageboard troll or:


More Than Five Hundred Law Professors Write A Letter Favoring Impeachment: What Effects Will It Have?

Last week over 500 law professors and other legal scholars signed an open letter stating that Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. The letter, which continues to gain signatures from faculty across the nation, was published by the the advocacy group Protect Democracy, after a December 4, 2019 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

At that hearing, four law professors offered their opinions about the legal basis for the possible impeachment of the President. Democrats called three constitutional experts who argued that the President’s behavior involved impeachable offenses: Noah Feldman from Harvard, Pamela Karlan from Stanford, and Michael Gerhardt from the University of North Carolina. Republicans relied on Jonathan Turley, from George Washington University, to testify against impeachment, a feat of noteworthy pliability given that it contradicted Turley’s testimony in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

 

[icanhelp1]

the true test of morality is would they object to anything trump's done if it were done by obama/hillary/almost ANY democratic president (but especially obama and hillary)?

object? they'd have a conniption fit
(uhuh, that's me bein' all southern, y'alls)

Obama and Hillary aren't out of the woods yet. Under the dems current standards of impeachment, Obama should have been impeached for the open mic incident and sending cash to the Ayatollahs, on pallets, in the dead of night, without congressional approval. Shame on you!

 

[icanhelp1]

A hyper-partisan, idiotic, messageboard troll or:


More Than Five Hundred Law Professors Write A Letter Favoring Impeachment: What Effects Will It Have?

Last week over 500 law professors and other legal scholars signed an open letter stating that Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. The letter, which continues to gain signatures from faculty across the nation, was published by the the advocacy group Protect Democracy, after a December 4, 2019 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

At that hearing, four law professors offered their opinions about the legal basis for the possible impeachment of the President. Democrats called three constitutional experts who argued that the President’s behavior involved impeachable offenses: Noah Feldman from Harvard, Pamela Karlan from Stanford, and Michael Gerhardt from the University of North Carolina. Republicans relied on Jonathan Turley, from George Washington University, to testify against impeachment, a feat of noteworthy pliability given that it contradicted Turley’s testimony in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Well, they're not senators are they!!

 

[adrina]

Dervish your whirls.

The desperation is palpable.

 

[cowslinger64]

Well, they're not senators are they!!

People that obviously know a lot more about the law than them.. Than you..and certainly derpy.

 

[icanhelp1]

People that obviously know a lot more about the law than them.. Than you..and certainly derpy.

For every 500 for impeachment there are 500 against it. The Dems went shopping for legal beagles that bolstered their opinion, for a staged event, an event that stunk of bias Trump haters.

Nancy Pelosi told the whole world that Trump broke the law and yet not one article of impeachment has any statutory relevancy, not one statute was cited nor did any accompany the articles of impeachment. When you accuse someone of breaking the law, it's incumbent on the prosecutor to quote the statute and provide evidence that that particular statute has been violated. Nancy said laws were broken, abuse of power, to coin the phrase, is ambiguous at best, you have to define what you mean by abuse of power, that's what a statute does, it lends a specific definition and narrows the focus on a specific written law by which evidence is used to declare a violation was committed.

Adherence to congress is non-obligatory by the executive branch, each branch is co-equal, each with specific power granted by the constitution, article I, II, III powers specific to each body. Article II powers gives the president the right to confidentiality when dealing with personnel and information under the auspices of the executive branch, which included, by the way, the Mueller report.

 

[cowslinger64]

For every 500 for impeachment there are 500 against it. The Dems went shopping for legal beagles that bolstered their opinion, for a staged event, an event that stunk of bias Trump haters.

Nancy Pelosi told the whole world that Trump broke the law and yet not one article of impeachment has any statutory relevancy, not one statute was cited nor did any accompany the articles of impeachment. When you accuse someone of breaking the law, it's incumbent on the prosecutor to quote the statute and provide evidence that that particular statute has been violated. Nancy said laws were broken, abuse of power, to coin the phrase, is ambiguous at best, you have to define what you mean by abuse of power, that's what a statute does, it lends a specific definition and narrows the focus on a specific written law by which evidence is used to declare a violation was committed.

Adherence to congress is non-obligatory by the executive branch, each branch is co-equal, each with specific power granted by the constitution, article I, II, III powers specific to each body. Article II powers gives the president the right to confidentiality when dealing with personnel and information under the auspices of the executive branch, which included, by the way, the Mueller report.

HE BROKE THE LAW BY HOLDING UP APPROVED AID TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY, BY ATTEMPTING TO GET THEM TO INVESTIGATE A POSSIBLE POLITICAL RIVAL IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

What part of that is fucking illegal do you not get?

 

[butters]

Obama and Hillary aren't out of the woods yet. Under the dems current standards of impeachment, Obama should have been impeached for the open mic incident and sending cash to the Ayatollahs, on pallets, in the dead of night, without congressional approval. Shame on you!

whatever helps you sleep at night

the difference between the dems and trumplettes here is that the dems (and those who think like dems) are totally open and willing for anyone committing political acts of wrongdoing to be investigated and let the truth come out; when it comes to trump and his cronies, the trumplies want to follow his lead, deny deny deny, don't look at facts, at truth, at evidence, block witnesses, block testimonials, block thousands of pages of evidence and pretend it's all some big ol' farcical witch-hunt and a waste of time/public money.

now, off you go, deny reality. just because you do that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. the real world continues to turn and truths and lies are NOT the same things. all that 'alternate facts' shite is a republican construct designed to obfuscate the truth and protect their leader.

 

[Heathergave]

Obama and Hillary aren't out of the woods yet. Under the dems current standards of impeachment, Obama should have been impeached for the open mic incident and sending cash to the Ayatollahs, on pallets, in the dead of night, without congressional approval. Shame on you!

What was wrong with Obama's hot mic incident? The putin one?

 

[jaF0]

whatever helps you sleep at night

She/he hangs upside down in the barn rafters.

 

[Conager]

whatever helps you sleep at night

the difference between the dems and trumplettes here is that the dems (and those who think like dems) are totally open and willing for anyone committing political acts of wrongdoing to be investigated and let the truth come out; when it comes to trump and his cronies, the trumplies want to follow his lead, deny deny deny, don't look at facts, at truth, at evidence, block witnesses, block testimonials, block thousands of pages of evidence and pretend it's all some big ol' farcical witch-hunt and a waste of time/public money.

now, off you go, deny reality. just because you do that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. the real world continues to turn and truths and lies are NOT the same things. all that 'alternate facts' shite is a republican construct designed to obfuscate the truth and protect their leader.

Hahahahahaha

We just had a impeachment because the Dems are outraged (OUTRAGED!) that their front-runner and his son might be investigated.

 

[Conager]

A hyper-partisan, idiotic, messageboard troll or:


More Than Five Hundred Law Professors Write A Letter Favoring Impeachment: What Effects Will It Have?

Last week over 500 law professors and other legal scholars signed an open letter stating that Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. The letter, which continues to gain signatures from faculty across the nation, was published by the the advocacy group Protect Democracy, after a December 4, 2019 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

At that hearing, four law professors offered their opinions about the legal basis for the possible impeachment of the President. Democrats called three constitutional experts who argued that the President’s behavior involved impeachable offenses: Noah Feldman from Harvard, Pamela Karlan from Stanford, and Michael Gerhardt from the University of North Carolina. Republicans relied on Jonathan Turley, from George Washington University, to testify against impeachment, a feat of noteworthy pliability given that it contradicted Turley’s testimony in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

We call that "Butter's logic" here in America.

Nevermind advancing an argument on the merits, just sift through 340,000,000 Americans for the ones with some letters after their names (who are from their long sinecure in academia looking down on the real world from their ivory towers) for 100 to 150 to 500 individuals who agree with your worldview and will sign off on some cobbled together statement of consensus and you don't even need to understand the underlying issues much less articulate and advance a cogent argument supporting your point of view.

This is called by people who are actually educated, "argumentum ad verecundiam" and won't win you any points at all in a seventh grade debate competition. It is only one notch above argumentum ad hominem, which will be your response.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Wrong. It was because he held up aid to do it covertly.

In fact if you watched the hearings, several D reps said Go ahead and investigate--LEGALLY. Just don't break the law and jeapordize national security.

Hahahahahaha

We just had a impeachment because the Dems are outraged (OUTRAGED!) that their front-runner and his son might be investigated.

 

[Conager]

Wrong. It was because he held up aid to do it covertly.

In fact if you watched the hearings, several D reps said Go ahead and investigate--LEGALLY. Just don't break the law and jeapordize national security.

Are we talking the lethal aid that Obama would not even consider sending?

Since you obviously care deeply about the Ukrainians and their safety, welfare, and security, which caused you the most concern? Obama not sending the aid at all or Trump delaying, then sending the aid?

 

[phrodeau]

Are we talking the lethal aid that Obama would not even consider sending?

Since you obviously care deeply about the Ukrainians and their safety, welfare, and security, which caused you the most concern? Obama not sending the aid at all or Trump delaying, then sending the aid?

Did Congress approve lethal aid for Obama to hold back? I’m not sure that happened.