The Impeachment Thread

#34,076
#34,076
BowlBrother85 said:
Hey dumb a$$, Hunter Biden was not on the board of directors for Burisma Holdings for the period of time that they have been under investigation for...: the germane question at hand is whether or not Trump withheld congressionally authorized military aid to the Ukraine, in order to use it as leverage against their President's willingness to perform a campaign favor for him (by going on CNN and announcing an investigation into the Bidens).
Click to expand...

Why are these accusations not cited in articles of impeachment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,087
#34,087
vols40 said:
When was the prosecutor fired? Can you answer that? And who was the vice president? Stop with talking points.
Click to expand...

Hunter was there between 2014-2019 basically right after he was thrown out of the military for drug use. Joe fired a prosecutor ( Jo Bidens words ) in 2016 who said he was about to open an investigation into Burisma. People with brains can connect dots. Gtfoh with your spoon fed rubbish.
I'm done with this intellectually challenged poster
 
#34,089
#34,089
Lev Parnas Steps Back From Texts Alleging Surveillance Of U.S. Ambassador In Ukraine

Parnas was a political donor which gained him access to selfies with all sorts. Gonna have to do better with some evidence other than some selfies and stop perjuring himself already.

“Did you think you were friends?” Cooper asked.

“Absolutely, I mean again, I went from being a top donor, from being at all the events where we would just socialize, to becoming a close friend of Rudy Giuliani’s, to eventually becoming his ally and his asset on the ground in Ukraine,” Parnas said.

parnas-denies-speaking-directly-with-trump-despite-earlier-reports
 
#34,090
#34,090
Mick said:
There were only about 60k fewer votes for hillary in 2016 than obama in 2012 so your theory doesn't hold water
Click to expand...

It’s not a theory when it’s fact mick . Fact is , the candidate your party put up sucked worse than Trump and the election proved that out . Again it’s not complicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#34,093
#34,093
0nelilreb said:
It’s not a theory when it’s fact mick . Fact is , the candidate your party put up sucked worse than Trump and the election proved that out . Again it’s not complicated.
Click to expand...

Actually Trump's Presidency and Impeachment proves that was also incorrect.
 
#34,094
#34,094
luthervol said:
What is his role?
Click to expand...

Basically he just replaces the VP. So figurehead.

It says that the chief justice "shall preside" over the Senate trial of a president. Those who envision a powerful role for Roberts point to Senate rules that would allow him to make decisions on "all questions of evidence." In theory, at least, that might enable Roberts to rule on motions from the House managers seeking to compel testimony from White House aides, like former national security adviser John Bolton, and others who had been blocked by Trump from testifying.

Yet under Senate rules, it is the senators themselves who have the first and last word. They establish the procedures for the trial and can, by majority vote, overturn any of the chief justice's rulings. The extent of the chief's powerlessness was driven home to Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the beginning of President Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial in 1999. When Rehnquist asked Senate Sergeant at Arms James Ziglar how to turn on his microphone, Ziglar replied, "You don't. We control that."

"I don't know if 'shock' is the right word," Ziglar recalls, but Rehnquist certainly had "a sense of dismay" that even though he was going to be the presiding officer at the trial, "he really had absolutely no control of his courtroom."
Click to expand...


At Impeachment Trial, Chief Justice Roberts May Have More Prestige Than Power
 
#34,096
#34,096
vols40 said:
Why are these accusations not cited in articles of impeachment?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? They are included in Article I: Abuse of Power.

A portion of Article I reads as follows: "Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of the Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of the Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations."
 
#34,099
#34,099
lawgator1 said:
I watched Parnas' interview with Maddow and have seen additional clips since then. His account is very credible and fits all of the facts we know from other sources. Trump's explanation does not match the evidence and shifts every time it is proven that the last thing he said is a lie.

This all begs the question: What kind of an idiot would ever believe Trump on this?
Click to expand...
Come on LG. You decided LP was “credible” the second he said something against Trump. I listened to some of it and he had details but so do good liars so that means nothing. The discussion about the texts from Hyde and his association to Hyde sounded like complete BS and CYA to me. I’m sure Parnas is sprinkling in some truths here and there but this is not a credible person and he had zero discussions with Trump directly from what I heard which actually goes right to Trump’s assertion that he doesn’t know Parnas. Getting a picture with someone doesn’t mean squat.

I love how when someone says something you don’t agree with that supports Trump’s story then they are lying in your eyes but if that same person then speaks out against Trump they suddenly are telling the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top