The noose just got tighter

Cite the law. Biden brags about withholding a billion dollars you ignorant muppet....

Lulz. They're not even remotely rationally comparable, chucklefuck.

Biden was acting for the public good on behalf of the gov't for a legitimate gov't purpose.

twump was acting for his own benefit on behalf of himself, abusing gov't power and resources when he had no legal right to do so.

Please stop fucking your own mother.
 
that's hilarious

what you're suggesting is in no way constitutional

where in the constitution does it say the Senate can vote on House Articles of Impeachment if they never received those Articles? Vote on what exactly?

Nancy is in the catbird seat, Moscow and your daddy are shitting bricks

Vote on the articles lol.

They’re in the public domain. The presenting of the articles by the House managers is a formality and part of parliamentary procedure between the two bodies. Before wrapping yourself in the constitution you should be aware that the articles were never intended to be ‘sat on’ and used by the House to leverage the Senate into concessions.

Simple majority vote by the Senate and...poof.
 
Bribery.

He obviously broke tons of laws, but I'm just talking about the Ukraine scandal.

Strange.....Bribery is not included in the articles of impeachment. LMAO. Another false premise. The POTUS has every right to withhold aid if CORRUPTION is suspected. The proof that corruption was suspected? The transcript of the phone call. That's the reason that bribery was not included in the articles of impeachment...there is no evidence of bribery. Other evidence that corruption was suspected? The video evidence of Joe Biden demanding a Quid Pro Quo Bribe. You fire this SOB or you don't get the foreign aid.

This documented evidence will become part of the Senate Impeachment trial record. :cool: There is a formal agreement between the US and UKRAINE that demands cooperation between the 2 nations when corruption is suspected. The president is on record as saying, "I want nothing from Ukraine....no quid pro quo (no threat)…...all I want is for them to do the right thing." -- Donald J. Trump

What was the right thing? Cooperation between the US and Ukraine as demanded by the 1998 signed Treaty, "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty"....signed by Slick Blow Job Willy Bill Clinton.

Reality: The President is the head of the Executive Branch which carries exclusive authority to conduct foreign affairs. (there was a pre-existing Treaty that demanded Ukraine to help with suspected criminal corruption)…...the President said, ".....I simply want Ukraine to DO THE RIGHT THING".

There is no bribery. As chief executive, the POTUS is the only official authorized to request foreign assistance in a corruption investigation...…(running for president over 3 years later does not preclude Joe Biden from being investigated). :bigthink: Biden was not running for POTUS when the corruption was suspected …… the corruption was suspected before the 2016 election. The request to investigate corruption in 2016 and prior is not bribery......ITS THE DUTY of THE PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT.
 
Last edited:
#deflection

Just because it wasn't included doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Strange that you can't prove that he did IT. That's the deflection......you accusing without any evidence. This is not Russia.....the accused is innocent until YOU PROVE there was a crime. There was no crime of Bribery. Congress could not find evidence of bribery. The evidence does not support the false accusation. :cool:

Once again you have proven that Propaganda cannot be subject to documentation......only facts are can be documented. The only Quid Pro Quo evidence in existence is the video of Joe Biden demanding someone be fired or congressional aid will be withheld.....on the authority of BHO. Strange that under your logic (BHO had the authority to demand a Quid Pro Quo...because corruption was suspected but never proven on the record....but Mr Trump must be impeached for withholding aid ………. Biden in on video record, "Don't believe me.....just call Barrack...…." making it known that this Quid Pro Quo of withholding aid was authorized by the POTUS.


Things that make you go...….HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thinking: The really strange thing? Biden was not demanding a legal investigation.....he was demanding that a legal investigation be STOPPED under the 1998 treaty. Strange indeed. Where's the cooperation from the side of the United States of America under the 98 treaty?.....having the prosecutor FIRED does not appear to be cooperation but rather OBSTRUCTION of a legal investigation.

This documented evidence will all become public knowledge in a Senate Impeachment trial.
 
Last edited:
that's hilarious

what you're suggesting is in no way constitutional

where in the constitution does it say the Senate can vote on House Articles of Impeachment if they never received those Articles? Vote on what exactly?

Nancy is in the catbird seat, Moscow and your daddy are shitting bricks

The articles are in the NYT lol.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...cviewer-articlesofimpeachment/assets/amp.html

And Democrats would happily shit on the constitution to get rid of Trump. They already have.
 
What does that have to do with NOT having a 3rd article of impeachment for bribery??? :dunno:

Obviously lol, bribery isn’t in there because they can’t prove it.

The ‘obstruction of congress’ charge is absurd and will get thrown out, immediately. Which leaves abuse of power which is kind of a catch-all—and a dangerous one, given that any president in the last 40-50 years could be charged with ‘abuse of power’.

But they literally don’t care, as long as they can hang ‘impeached’ on Trump. The worst thing the Senate can do is justify this nonsense with a trial. I strongly advocate dismissal by whatever means they can come up with.
 
Strange that you can't prove that he did IT.

Of course I can. We have the notes from the transcript, we have several witnesses' confirmation, and we have a confession from Mulvaney and Giuliani. Trump also refused to release the full transcript and he tried to hide the call. He knew he did something wrong. If you don't think that's enough, you're lying to yourself.
 
What does that have to do with NOT having a 3rd article of impeachment for bribery??? :dunno:

If a person commits a crime, but doesn't get charged, they still committed a crime, correct?

Trump committed bribery. The fact that the Democrats didn't charge him for that doesn't change the fact that he did it.
 
why didn't the democrats end up charging trump with bribery then? :thinking:

Because the Democrats are dumb AF. They thought that the two articles they charged Trump with would be easiest to sell to the Republicans. This is a terrible strategy because the Republicans already made it clear that they're going to defend Trump no matter what he does.
Regardless of the articles, we know that Trump withheld money in return for a personal favor. Not only is this bribery, but it's bribery with our money.
 
Because the Democrats are dumb AF. They thought that the two articles they charged Trump with would be easiest to sell to the Republicans. This is a terrible strategy because the Republicans already made it clear that they're going to defend Trump no matter what he does.
Regardless of the articles, we know that Trump withheld money in return for a personal favor. Not only is this bribery, but it's bribery with our money.

‘We know’ no such thing because Democrats didn’t want to wait on the courts to adjudicate the House subpoenas.

The Democrats were ‘dumb AF’ in thinking the Senate was going to play along with ‘oh, let’s stick Trump with the impeached label before we have all the necessary evidence, and then we’ll continue with investigation in the Senate’.

Or put it this way: if McConnell and Senate Republicans don’t see through this charade they’re dumb AF.
 
Really? The democrat party can’t prove it? But it happened?

Probably the biggest obstacle to a bribery/extortion charge is the alleged victim refuses to come forward lol.

Zelensky’s testimony that he ‘felt no pressure’ gets waved off by the partisans [including media partisans] but it would be a show stopper in anything but a kangaroo court or show-trial and Mitch isn’t going to play along with a show-trial, so yeah.

You can’t dismiss Zelensky’s testimony by *speculating* that he didn’t want to harm the hand that feeds him or whatever. For the simple reason that doesn’t eliminate the distinct possibility that he was telling the truth. No *honest* court would allow his testimony to be dismissed on those grounds.

In fact, Zelensky may the reason democrats had to ‘settle’ for the articles they have.
 
If a person commits a crime, but doesn't get charged, they still committed a crime, correct?

Trump committed bribery. The fact that the Democrats didn't charge him for that doesn't change the fact that he did it.

What does that have to do with NOT having a 3rd article of impeachment for bribery???
 
What does that have to do with NOT having a 3rd article of impeachment for bribery???

Nothing. When Democrats and the left cannot answer something, they just going into babble mode hoping everyone forgets. In all fairness that strategy does work for Democrat politicians on their constituents.....
 
Back
Top