Some of my less learned posters need a primer on impeachable offences.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Superfreak
Verified User
Jarod, you are an idiot. You don't even comprehend that 'Obstruction of Congress' is PURE NONSENSE.
Pelosi FAILED to let the checks and balances of our government work. She instead, like you, believes that the House should be able to force the President to do whatever she wants. She is wrong. So are you. But you are too ignorant to comprehend just how pathetic that charge is.
Superfreak
Verified User
You began the thread with such, now you bitch about it continuing?
If you would review what you are talking about... you might see I am correct.
Getin the ring
Verified User
what I see,
IS the Democrats using their political office to try and rig an election
thoughts?
IS the Democrats using their political office to try and rig an election
thoughts?
Superfreak
Verified User
Jarud, you are an idiot. You still scared to address the actual issues?
Superfreak
Verified User
LMAO... shocking which of the two Garud tried to respond to. dishonest Garud.
Superfreak
Verified User
Since Garud is again fleeing the questions pertaining to the thread... maybe he will stop by and let us know how his hero Avenatti is enjoying jail
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Now that he's a prisoner, does this mean Avenatti can be put to work manufacturing Nike merchandise?
Superfreak
Verified User
No, he doesn't possess the skills to do anything other than lie, cheat and steal... so perhaps Nike can put him on the board?
Dude you are so easy to get into a frenzy its almost fun.
Now, answer me this, do you still follow Trump*s belief that there must be a specific crime for impeachment.
Getin the ring
Verified User
suppose you take a crack at why Obama and Biden withholding aid from Ukraine until they fired a guy who wouldn't investigate corruption was not high crime and misdemeanor
or
why the democrats using their political office to try and influence the 2020 election is not a crime
What Obama had done was in furtherance of official American foreign policy. What Trump* did was in furtherance of his own personal agenda to get reelected. Can you not understand why one is abuse of office and the other is not?
What Democrats used their personal political office to influence the 2020 election?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
I don't hear many Trump fans who seem to know what 'bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' means.
They say no crime was committed. what's the crime?
In this, they reveal that they see the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to simply mean 'crime.'
But if they were to listen to Democrats explain it in the trial going on right now they would learn that the term refers to a crime of office, which means violation of oath of office. For a President that is a high crime. Violation of oath of office.
He had his lawyer running around working against the security interest of the United States. Congress voted and the President signed into law that we are providing aide to Ukraine. The GAO determined Trump broke the law by withholding the aid. He had no legal right to withhold the aid. And more importantly Trump acted in his own political interest to the detriment of United States' security interest, by showing weakness in support of Ukraine. And when that happened, that helped Putin. It was against the USA interest to help Putin.
It is remarkable that Republicans refuse to acknowledge any of this.
I don't hear many Trump fans who seem to know what 'bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' means.
They say no crime was committed. what's the crime?
In this, they reveal that they see the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to simply mean 'crime.'
But if they were to listen to Democrats explain it in the trial going on right now they would learn that the term refers to a crime of office, which means violation of oath of office. For a President that is a high crime. Violation of oath of office.
He had his lawyer running around working against the security interest of the United States. Congress voted and the President signed into law that we are providing aide to Ukraine. The GAO determined Trump broke the law by withholding the aid. He had no legal right to withhold the aid. And more importantly Trump acted in his own political interest to the detriment of United States' security interest, by showing weakness in support of Ukraine. And when that happened, that helped Putin. It was against the USA interest to help Putin.
It is remarkable that Republicans refuse to acknowledge any of this.
The meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors changes based on whether it is their party's candidate being impeached.
In 1998 Republicans (Graham) said it did not have to be an actual crime but now he says it does.
Democrats said it did have to be a crime in 1998 and today they say it does not. They (Shumer) said he didn't need to be impartial in 1998 and attacks McConnell today for not being impartial.
Dershowitz said it did not have to be a crime in 1998 and today he says it does. He wasn't wrong then, he is just "more right" today
Their justifications and explanations reverse their previous positions telling us they aren't being sincere or honest in their statements.
At the behest and support of NATO, EU, and the IMF, stupid fuck. Tell us, how much aid was withheld?
House Democrats using their constitutional authority, stupid fuck.
It's not as if they haven't been informed. Personally, I've pointed it out multiple times. To no avail to the willfully ignorant.
The founders did not intend there to be a criminal violation when using the term.
I agree, my point was that members of the two parties change their views on that topic based on what their side is saying at the moment.
Democrats who agree with your view now disagreed in the past (as did Republicans).
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Nothing is moving the needle. Democrats are wasting their time. Their words fall upon deaf ears. Minds are already made up. New evidence might change that but Republicans are so determined to not hear the evidence that they will probably not allow it.
It is amazing to see all these texts and emails and then to hear the Republicans saying there is no evidence.
And them to know that the evidence is there but the Republicans will prevent the world from seeing it.
Can you say cover up? It's an entire corrupt party, determined to derail justice.
It's hard enough for them to sit there and see all this current evidence and claim there is none. They certainly don't want to have to look the other way and make up BS as even more convincing evidence is presented.
Nothing is moving the needle. Democrats are wasting their time. Their words fall upon deaf ears. Minds are already made up. New evidence might change that but Republicans are so determined to not hear the evidence that they will probably not allow it.
It is amazing to see all these texts and emails and then to hear the Republicans saying there is no evidence.
And them to know that the evidence is there but the Republicans will prevent the world from seeing it.
Can you say cover up? It's an entire corrupt party, determined to derail justice.
It's hard enough for them to sit there and see all this current evidence and claim there is none. They certainly don't want to have to look the other way and make up BS as even more convincing evidence is presented.