It's all over but the crying now

[revkevsdi]

1 minute ago, Skidooski said:

 Effectively making Impeachment meaningless from here on out  

You've got that right.  They certainly made the impeachment trials of Nixon and Clinton meaningless. 

If the same rules had applied, Nixon would have served out his term, Clinton would have been able successfully tamper with witnesses and refused to co-operate. 

[steve from amherst]

2 minutes ago, Edmo said:

His ignorance to our politics is second to none.

Replace Judges!!!!!!!1!!1  

Is it? Not only do most Americans not know anything about Canadian politics, they don't even know anything about American politics.

[steve from amherst]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

You've got that right.  They certainly made the impeachment trials of Nixon and Clinton meaningless. 

If the same rules had applied, Nixon would have served out his term, Clinton would have been able successfully tamper with witnesses and refused to co-operate. 

The Clinton impeachment was meaningless

[AKIQPilot]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

You've got that right.  They certainly made the impeachment trials of Nixon and Clinton meaningless. 

If the same rules had applied, Nixon would have served out his term, Clinton would have been able successfully tamper with witnesses and refused to co-operate. 

Go drink some Drano or something.  My god you are stupid.  

[Anler]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

How do you call it a sham trial?  Trump and most associated with him were caught in numbers lies. They refused to co-operate and were still obviously guilty. 

""I don't know Lev Parnas"   Here he is on tape, on video, in photos with me, my kids, my associates talking about Ukraine. Not letting anyone testify......   Do you really think the sham was on the Democrat side?

It's over dude, this is the crying part hence the title of the OP. Dems having failed (multiple times now) trying to do to Trump what Republicans wanted to do to Obama but were smart enough to know you can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them. That's the difference here, Republicans (albeit disingenuious) are smarter than the democrat leadership. Smarter and more effective. Democrats need to get rid of their tenured leaders and elect younger smarter leaders who actually give a shit about them, cuz right now they don't. And they are looking really dumb and incompetent on a global stage here. 

[frenchy]

Just now, Anler said:

It's over dude, this is the crying part hence the title of the OP. Dems having failed (multiple times now) trying to do to Trump what Republicans wanted to do to Obama but were smart enough to know you can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them. That's the difference here, Republicans (albeit disingenuious) are smarter than the democrat leadership. Smarter and more effective. Democrats need to get rid of their tenured leaders and elect younger smarter leaders who actually give a shit about them, cuz right now they don't. And they are looking really dumb and incompetent on a global stage here. 

good post  

[AKIQPilot]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

It's over dude, this is the crying part hence the title of the OP. Dems having failed (multiple times now) trying to do to Trump what Republicans wanted to do to Obama but were smart enough to know you can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them. That's the difference here, Republicans (albeit disingenuious) are smarter than the democrat leadership. Smarter and more effective. Democrats need to get rid of their tenured leaders and elect younger smarter leaders who actually give a shit about them, cuz right now they don't. And they are looking really dumb and incompetent on a global stage here. 

Nailed it.  

[ViperGTS/Z1]

33 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

The fact that every republican acknowledges it’s ok for a sitting president to extort a foreign country with us taxpayer dollars for his own personal political gain?

 

The real waste of taxpayer money started with the Russian Hoax investigations and everything else up to and including this Ukraine impeachment sham and your side still isnt done searching for a way to oust Trump with our money.

Edited February 1, 2020 by ViperGTS/Z1

[AKIQPilot]

7 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

You've got that right.  They certainly made the impeachment trials of Nixon and Clinton meaningless. 

If the same rules had applied, Nixon would have served out his term, Clinton would have been able successfully tamper with witnesses and refused to co-operate. 

So tell us again what you know about extruded polystyrene because you don't know shit about American politics.  

[revkevsdi]

7 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

The only part of your post that isn't complete bull shit.  

 

5 minutes ago, frenchy said:

this has to be an act. Are you really this stupid? 

 

4 minutes ago, irv said:

What more proof do you need that they already are? Seek help, dude. 

 

4 minutes ago, Edmo said:

His ignorance to our politics is second to none.

Replace Judges!!!!!!!1!!1  

 

2 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Yes, he really is.  

I guess I’m lucky that I’ve stumbled on this think tank. 
 

perhaps you could explain why these laws no longer matter or why the commentary from the judge is wrong. 
 

The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, this use of the word "crimes" does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes.

For example, as others have suggested, if the president moved to Russia and ran the executive branch from there, or if he announced that Roman Catholics were unfit for office, he would not have committed any crimes. Yet, surely, these acts would be impeachable because, when done by the president, they are the moral equivalent of crimes and are so far removed from constitutional norms as to be impeachable.

In Trump's case, though the House chose delicately not to accuse the president of specific crimes, there is enough evidence here to do so. Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.

That evidence consists of administration officials' emails that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and the aid sat undistributed until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear.

This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.

If the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of the Department of Justice?

When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's folks threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions were lawful and that they imposed a burden on the House to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas.

Such an argument puts the cart before the horse. Under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." The House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials.

We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence.

Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.

What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.

 

 

[Woodtick]

29 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Well the hard to get act worked! You two should get a room.

[AKIQPilot]

4 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

 

 

 

 

I guess I’m lucky that I’ve stumbled on this think tank. 
 

perhaps you could explain why these laws no longer matter or why the commentary from the judge is wrong. 
 

The Constitution prescribes the bases for impeachment as treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, this use of the word "crimes" does not refer to violations of federal criminal statutes. It refers to behavior that is so destructive of the constitutional order that it is the moral equivalent of statutory crimes.

For example, as others have suggested, if the president moved to Russia and ran the executive branch from there, or if he announced that Roman Catholics were unfit for office, he would not have committed any crimes. Yet, surely, these acts would be impeachable because, when done by the president, they are the moral equivalent of crimes and are so far removed from constitutional norms as to be impeachable.

In Trump's case, though the House chose delicately not to accuse the president of specific crimes, there is enough evidence here to do so. Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government. There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light.

That evidence consists of administration officials' emails that were obtained by the media pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Those emails demonstrate conclusively that Trump ordered a halt on the release of the $391 million within minutes of his favor request, and the aid sat undistributed until congressional pressure became too much for Trump to bear.

This implicates two other crimes. One is bribery -- the refusal to perform a government obligation until a thing of value is delivered, whether the thing of value -- here, the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens -- arrives or not. The other is contempt of Congress.

If the request for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens manifested "nothing wrong" as Trump has claimed, why did he whisper it in secret, rather than order it of the Department of Justice?

When the House Select Committee on Intelligence sought the emails unearthed by the press and then sought testimony from their authors, Trump thumbed his nose at the House. Instead of complying with House subpoenas or challenging them in court, Trump's folks threw them in a drawer. Earlier this week, his lawyers argued that those actions were lawful and that they imposed a burden on the House to seek the aid of the courts in enforcing House subpoenas.

Such an argument puts the cart before the horse. Under the Constitution, the House has "the sole power of impeachment." The House does not need the approval of the judiciary to obtain evidence of impeachable offenses from executive branch officials.

We know that obstruction of Congress is a crime. Just ask former New York Yankees pitching great Roger Clemens, who was tried for it and acquitted. We also know that obstruction of Congress -- by ordering subordinates not to comply with House impeachment subpoenas -- is an impeachable offense. We know that because the House Judiciary Committee voted to charge President Nixon with obstruction of Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas. And the full House voted for an article of impeachment against President Clinton when he refused to surrender subpoenaed evidence.

Where does all this leave us at the outset of Trump's Senate trial?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.

What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.

 

 

Cut and paste all you want.  You're still a moron.  And a hypocrite.  

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, Woodtick said:

Well the hard to get act worked! You two should get a room.

I’m throwing him a leaf from the olive branch.  I’ve been hard on the boy the last two weeks.  

 

[Woodtick]

14 minutes ago, Anler said:

It's over dude, this is the crying part hence the title of the OP. Dems having failed (multiple times now) trying to do to Trump what Republicans wanted to do to Obama but were smart enough to know you can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them. That's the difference here, Republicans (albeit disingenuious) are smarter than the democrat leadership. Smarter and more effective. Democrats need to get rid of their tenured leaders and elect younger smarter leaders who actually give a shit about them, cuz right now they don't. And they are looking really dumb and incompetent on a global stage here. 

You are correct sir!

[frenchy]

hey dumbfuck. Never mind the fact that Trump was never found guilty of anything. Look to Canada for a prime example of a guilty leader as Trudeau was guilty of an actual crime, caught with the smoking gun in his hand and Canadians still elected him again. 

Voters don't care. All they care about is what matters to them - jobs, the economy, consumer confidence, feeding their families and getting ahead. That's it. And like it or not Trump has provided them with that opportunity. 

All 2020 is to voters is a referendum on Trump's first term, nothing more. And trump will pass that referendum with flying colours. The dems have nothing and can offer nothing.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Fucking idiot. 

[Mainecat]

19 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

How do you call it a sham trial?  Trump and most associated with him were caught in a number of lies. They refused to co-operate and were still obviously guilty. 

""I don't know Lev Parnas"   Here he is on tape, on video, in photos with me, my kids, my associates talking about Ukraine. Not letting anyone testify......   Do you really think the sham was on the Democrat side?

It’s not a trial. It’s a coverup.

the republicans in Congress have been exposed as accomplices to Trumps wrongdoings. 75% of Americans wanted witnesses and documents. Huge number for sure. See you in November assfucks.

 

[Rigid1]

20 minutes ago, frenchy said:

this has to be an act. Are you really this stupid? 

My vote is for stupid

[Mainecat]

Now you got the little guy angry.

[AKIQPilot]

1 minute ago, frenchy said:

hey dumbfuck. Never mind the fact that Trump was never found guilty of anything. Look to Canada for a prime example of a guilty leader as Trudeau was guilty of an actual crime, caught with the smoking gun in his hand and Canadians still elected him again. 

Voters don't care. All they care about is what matters to them - jobs, the economy, consumer confidence, feeding their families and getting ahead. That's it. And like it or not Trump has provided them with that opportunity. 

All 2020 is to voters is a referendum on Trump's first term, nothing more. And trump will pass that referendum with flying colours. The dems have nothing and can offer nothing.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Fucking idiot. 

BOOM.  Down goes revkev the hypocrite.  

[steve from amherst]

2 minutes ago, frenchy said:

hey dumbfuck. Never mind the fact that Trump was never found guilty of anything. Look to Canada for a prime example of a guilty leader as Trudeau was guilty of an actual crime, caught with the smoking gun in his hand and Canadians still elected him again. 

Voters don't care. All they care about is what matters to them - jobs, the economy, consumer confidence, feeding their families and getting ahead. That's it. And like it or not Trump has provided them with that opportunity. 

All 2020 is to voters is a referendum on Trump's first term, nothing more. And trump will pass that referendum with flying colours. The dems have nothing and can offer nothing.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Fucking idiot. 

this

[frenchy]

Just now, Mainecat said:

Now you got the little guy angry.

says the virtual version of the guy in the mall food court with shit stained pants that everyone points and laughs at every day. 

[Sleepr2]

45 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

The fact that every republican acknowledges it’s ok for a sitting president to extort a foreign country with us taxpayer dollars for his own personal political gain?

 

The fact that Biden actually did extort the Ukraine and you are fine with it shows your complete hypocrisy.

[Snake]

31 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

How do you call it a sham trial?  Trump and most associated with him were caught in a number of lies. They refused to co-operate and were still obviously guilty. 

""I don't know Lev Parnas"   Here he is on tape, on video, in photos with me, my kids, my associates talking about Ukraine. Not letting anyone testify......   Do you really think the sham was on the Democrat side?

[Jimmy Snacks]

47 minutes ago, Anler said:

It's all a dog and pony show, the Dems just cemented Trump's victory with that sham of a trial. They have proven themselves weak and incompetent too many times over. Your party is totally irrelevant and a joke. You should elect smarter and more effective leaders and get rid of the lumps you have now. 

Pelosi was holding strong against impeachment and then she caved...wonder who got to her? It was a horrible move.

[frenchy]

Just now, Jimmy Snacks said:

Pelosi was holding strong against impeachment and then she caved...wonder who got to her? It was a horrible move.

maybe it's age and her realizing this would be her last kick at the can and a lasting legacy if she could. Either way horrible miscalculation.