The Dems arguing that Biden's threat to withhold aid is "consistent with official foreign policy" but somehow Trump, who didn't threaten to withhold aid, violated foreign policy. The President, and the President alone, sets official foreign policy, so how can Trump violate anything?

They might as well be arguing that he left the toilet seat up and that abused his male power.

Would love to see DOJ arrest all the House managers immediately at the conclusion of the trial and charge them with sedition.

Biden was not the president of the United States. Biden was acting on behalf of the United States, the European Union, and the IMF. The administration knew exactly what he went to the Ukraine to do. The prosecutor was not fired until the IMF threatened to withhold $40 billion which was a week after Biden had made his threat. The prosecutor was not fired for investigating Barisma or the Bidens. He was fired for not investigating corruption. He was world renowned for his corruption. Trump on the other hand, was only interested in having the Ukraine announce on CNN that they were opening up an investigation into Biden. If Trump was actually concerned with the corruption, he should have gotten Barr to start an investigation. We have agreements with the Ukraine to get their help. He can still do that today. The reason he didn't and he doesn't is because it would be viewed as purely political and would not affect the election where as an announcement on CNN by the Ukrainian government without any apparent motivation from Trump would. The first question I asked myself when I read the transcript is "Why Giuliani?". Has that question been answered yet? Also, Trump didn't threaten to withhold aid based on an investigation but the aid was not released until the news broke about the phone call. Funny coincidence, huh.

I just thought I heard (not rally paying attention) on "The Five" on Fox that Adam Schiff got caught doing "revenge porn." Is that really true and what is that?

Me too!!! And they absolutely should!!!!

BS, Jim. No. Biden was acting to protect his son from a foreign investigator with US money.

If Hunter had been clean, he would have had no worries about letting the investigation continue.

Sprint has ESP.

Amazin thread title.

Knowin QuimfromTN would post that bullshit.

Bravo.

It'd certainly be a double standard (in any reasonable person's eyes) to read into Trump's intentions as being in the wrong, while reading Biden's intentions as being acceptable in comparison. And if you're going after Trump as possibly being in the wrong, then you have to go into Biden possibly being in the wrong first, which would lend much credit to Trump's concerns and subsequent actions. AND nothing happened after Trump's request, while something definitely happened after Biden's.

https://www.ft.com/content/44c1641e-cff7-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

Except for the fact that there was no investigation at the time

remind me again, what law did Trump break?

Using the power of his office to affect the outcome of a US election as well as obstructing a congressional investigation.

ah yeah, sure. If you believe that affected the outcome of the election I've got some ocean front property here in Colo. that I'll sell ya.

Dumbass.

Obama weaponized the entire US Govt against conservatives, for 8 years...and activated intelligence agencies to spy on a rival political campaign... All illegally and unconstitutionally.

How did his actions affect an election that has yet to happen?
How can he "obstruct" an investigation that was started without following the rules?
The full House never got a chance to vote on whether or not to proceed.

hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

What outcome? Whether Trump wins by even more electors than last time? Biden is a joke, people in hell have a better chance of getting ice water than he has of winning any election, dirt or no dirt.

Yep. And remember, Trump said the Bidens were crooked. Hes not lying. Joe's brother gets tons of guaranteed loans, $500,000,000 from Iraq, Hunter gets $1.5 billion deal from China? YGBSM.

Hunter got out of college and was put on the board of directors for Mastercharge when they needed special legislation passed. Yep, Joe saw that it got passed.

Bastards a worth hundreds of millions and never held a real job.

Grifters, getting kickbacks from the countries the US Congress sends money to. That's why Congress has us give them the money.

I guess you forgot about the Treaty Bill Clinton signed in 1998 with the president of Ukraine demanding each country investigate any form of corruption.

There is no law against obstructing Congress, dumbass. That's called separation of powers.

Trump gave Ukraine the military aid and tanks when Russia was amassing on their border. Zero gave them bandages and medicine and stood by when Putin took part of Ukraine called the Crimea 3 or so years after this: heres your corksucker committing treason.

Did you get that from Alex Jones?

Delusional

Hitting the sauce already?

All roads lead back to obama.

I believe the question is actually,

Which U.S. Code(s) did Trump violate?

What is the deal with dumbasses calling other people dumbasses? That makes no sense. Separation of powers don't apply. If it did then congress wouldn't be able to impeach a president. I love arguing with idiots.

Nixon was impeached for obstructing congress,

Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal
criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of
judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation
(18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505),
conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule
and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

Here is another one you gotta love. No attempt to rebut, just a stupid comment. I guess thats because Trump said if you don't like the information you are hearing about him then you can call it fake. That only works in never never land.

Yet the clown from from TN still slobbers over him

This. Dumbasses swallow the CNN crap. Biden was not Trumps political opponent. Biden hasnt won schiett yet as far as becoming Trumps opponent.

Yes, Jimbo, there was an investigation. Ukraine was suffering financially with its youngest and brightest leaving the country for parts unknown to try and survive and a Ukranian investigator wanted to know why the gas co was pissing off $83,000 a month to a dumbass like Hunter.

Biden stopped the investigation and had the investigator fired, contrary to Bill Clinton's 1998 agreement with Ukraine for them to keep getting US money.

I suppose you are too dumb to realize even without that agreement Trump is the nation's top LEO and is obligated to have any and all illigelaties by US citizens investigated.

Hes going to find a lot more dirt on Zero, Hillary, Shifty, Nadler, Piglosi, Feinstein etc before your miserable suffering is over.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Dumbass.

Hide and watch.

The 7 11 by your TN backwards trailer park have old English 800 on sale today?


[

quote=JimFromTN]


Here is another one you gotta love. No attempt to rebut, just a stupid comment. I guess thats because Trump said if you don't like the information you are hearing about him then you can call it fake. That only works in never never land.[/quote]

Jim, you keep forgetting the one time when Hillary was so pissed off she lost her cool and told her crew the truth backstage after the skin head queer MSM hero, Matt Lauer, embarrassed her with an unexpected question on TV.

Her words, if that bastard gets elected we will all hang from nooses. Now why would she say that?

Doesn't matter whether Biden has a chance or not. Trump used his power to ensure Biden could not win. That is an abuse of power.

Its a lovely whataboutism but it is not relevant to the topic

Are you still triggered by all the white and black gun owners that showed up in Virginia?

Truth is never relative to dimocommies.

the truth is that this is the weakest case for impeachment in U.S. history. Truth is that the Dems. are on a witch hunt to over turn the last election because they don't like the results. That is the ONLY reason that the country is being pulled through the mud while witnessing the chit show. The Dems. have no case, so much so that Shift had to make up works when he read the transcript, to make people like Jim THINK that Trump really did something wrong.

the OP is right, this is so stupid.....

This would only "ensure Biden could not win" if Biden had really done something that would make him incapable of winning. That's kind of like blaming somebody for "ensuring" somebody else's prison sentence, because they turned in video footage of the guy bragging about the crime.

Seems like I might remember a Biden video????

Nixon was not impeached.

Use your Google-Fu, if you have Google-Fu to use.




The separation of powers is clearly delineated in the Constitution, and Impeachment is one of the Powers of the Congress.

Your response is clearly that of a dumb ass, who probably never read the Constitution. Need a copy? Use your Google-Fu.

No, Biden was acting on behalf of himself and his son. The VP does not act on behalf of the EU or the IMF-they have their own ambassadors.

You are correct, Biden was not the President, but Biden's action were self serving for his own benefit. Trump, however, is President. And as President, Trump has the SOLE authority to determine the US foreign policy. The request had nothing to do with an election 1 /2 years in the future, it had to do with corruption that the Biden family is still involved in.

Well, ok dumbass. Nixon was not impeached. Obstructing Congress was not one of the articles being considered. CONTEMPT of Congress was article 3....ya know the crime that Holder was convicted of, both civilly and criminally. Obstruction of JUSTICE was article 1. I think you're confused.

That's your opinion! Facts are he is doing his job, investigating corruption! Sure you aren't in Florida, and fell out of a tree and landed on your head?

[quote=JimFromTNBiden was acting on behalf of the United States, the European Union, and the IMF.[/quote]
BS, Biden was acting on behalf of himself, and his son. That's all.

To even the most unbiased audience it rings true as connecting with the other skeletons in the Clinton closet ...

Nixon wasn’t impeached you stupid bastard.

It's amazing the fight that liberals will put up just for the privilege of drinking the poison Kool-Aid.

Not to mention, how do you get a case of strong-arming the Ukrainians, when the Ukrainians had no idea the aid was ever held up?

They want you to subscribe to read their propaganda.
That's pretty lame.

So your unnamed pro-Biden sources claim.

They had no authority to call for witnesses and documents prior to having a vote by the full House to proceed with the impeachment hearings. It's not "obstruction" to challenge them in court, but the House simply didn't want to go to court (knowing they would lose.)

Like what Hillary did to Trump and Sanders?
You're not very good at this.
You should get a new hobby.

This is a straw argument. Had Barr investigated, the left would still have proclaimed it was a political investigation crying that Barr is just Trumps wingman. The investigation would have been sabotaged by leftist career employees that would have undermined and whistle blown in order to protect Biden.

Secondly, the idea that Congress has unlimited power to breach attorney client privilege, executive privilege and the 5th amendment should be terrifying to everyone. Nadler pronouncements that innocent people should not need the protections of the constitution is ludicrous.

This political theatre is angering that silent majority. It is very possible that the left looses the house.

Oh yeah. Like when Obama asked Putin to go easy on missile defense until after the election in 2012. Quid pro would. Obama said he would be more flexible after the election. Caught on an open Mike saying that to Putin's deputy. Now I get it.

Seriously? Have you read the Constitution of the US?

Foreign policy is the expressed domain of the Executive (that's the President for you illiterate morons), so there is no way the President doing anything relative to foreign policy is "obstructing Congress."

Even if Congress passes an unconstitutional "law" requiring the President to conduct foreign policy according to their dictates.

Savy?

Probably not...

I think you misunderstood my post. I was replying to Jim and actually agreeing with your response to him. Yes, I know that the President has sole authority over foreign policy, in fact look at the original post and another response to Jim where I wrote as such. And yes, I have quite a few copies to the constitution.

[b][/b]

I'd guess he got that from paying attention, unlike a CNN bootlikker like yourself!

@sprint11,

My bad. I apologize.

David, no worries.