The Daily Blow by Blow Impeachment Hearings and Trial of Donald Trump

radiant Rudy

radiant Rudy

Well-Known Member
Hundreds of Historians Speak Out on Impeachment


President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president,” the statement says. “The President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, ‘the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.’”
Screenshot_20191216-211935.png
 
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Communist Dreamer said:
Whether they're Satan himself, or just a lowly demon, doesn't matter. They all want to take your soul, and will lie to get it. Satan was once an angel too and fooled Dog into thinking he was his best mate. If you believe any of that garbage. Comparing is futile effort that won't get you anywhere. You can't convince me one lie is better than another.
Click to expand...
look...reality doesn't give a flying fuck at a rolling rats asshole whether you accept it or not.
thats not me saying fuck you, that's just the truth...things are the way they are, either work for change or don't...but you liking or not liking anything makes very little difference to the rest of the world....and makes absolutely no difference to either party at all...so you can ignore them and act like it doesn't matter, or at the very least you can try to pick the least harmful of the choices in a containment effort....
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
HashBucket said:
I"m not so sure that's true, but I admit I'm not an attorney.
But, yes, I would respect resistance of any regulation like that.
The constitution also guarantees privacy "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath ..."

Resisting a subpoena is not a crime, if it's done legally.
I've done it in Superior Court, and got the subpoena quashed.
And I never personally appeared before a judge.

The subpoena issued by congress to Clinton would have easily been overthrown by the SCOTUS. It lacked "a valid legislative purpose" as required by Wilkenson v. United States.
Check it out.

All Bill needed was his balls. He could have borrowed some from Hillary - she collects them.
Click to expand...
that's not resistance, that is treason...the president is a high office holder, has additional responsibilities and the regular rules do not apply to him. he's trying to abrogate the authority of congress to keep him in check, which is one of the key stones of the system of checks and balances. if you want to live in a country where the leader has absolute power and can have you killed if he wants, move to russia or north korea...kind of sounds like you belong there, already
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Rudy keeps confessing on TV...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Giuliani said he needed US ambassador to Ukraine 'out of the way'
www.cnn.com

Rudy Giuliani said he needed US ambassador to Ukraine 'out of the way'

Rudy Giuliani said removing the US ambassador to Ukraine was a key part of his effort to dig up dirt on Democrats on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump, according to a new interview with the President's personal lawyer in The New Yorker.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN)Rudy Giuliani said removing the US ambassador to Ukraine was a key part of his effort to dig up dirt on Democrats on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump, according to a new interview with the President's personal lawyer in The New Yorker.

Marie Yovanovitch, the career diplomat who was removed from her post in Kiev earlier this year, was frustrating his attempts to learn information about Joe Biden from Ukrainian sources, Giuliani said.
"I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way," Giuliani told reporter Adam Entous. "She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody."
Giuliani's admission appears to be the first time someone has directly linked Yovanovitch's removal to the desired investigations into Democrats.
This past summer, Trump began to lean on Ukraine to initiate two criminal investigations that Giuliani had been both publicly and privately pressing: one into Biden's son's involvement with a Ukrainian gas company and another into alleged Democratic collusion with Ukrainians in the 2016 election. No evidence of any criminal wrongdoing in either case has been discovered.
Trump's interest in those investigations culminated on the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump mentioned both issues, asked Zelensky for a "favor" regarding them, and recommended the Ukrainian president speak to either Giuliani or Attorney General William Barr about those investigations.
more...
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Rudy keeps confessing on TV...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Giuliani said he needed US ambassador to Ukraine 'out of the way'
www.cnn.com

Rudy Giuliani said he needed US ambassador to Ukraine 'out of the way'

Rudy Giuliani said removing the US ambassador to Ukraine was a key part of his effort to dig up dirt on Democrats on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump, according to a new interview with the President's personal lawyer in The New Yorker.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN)Rudy Giuliani said removing the US ambassador to Ukraine was a key part of his effort to dig up dirt on Democrats on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump, according to a new interview with the President's personal lawyer in The New Yorker.

Marie Yovanovitch, the career diplomat who was removed from her post in Kiev earlier this year, was frustrating his attempts to learn information about Joe Biden from Ukrainian sources, Giuliani said.
"I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way," Giuliani told reporter Adam Entous. "She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody."
Giuliani's admission appears to be the first time someone has directly linked Yovanovitch's removal to the desired investigations into Democrats.
This past summer, Trump began to lean on Ukraine to initiate two criminal investigations that Giuliani had been both publicly and privately pressing: one into Biden's son's involvement with a Ukrainian gas company and another into alleged Democratic collusion with Ukrainians in the 2016 election. No evidence of any criminal wrongdoing in either case has been discovered.
Trump's interest in those investigations culminated on the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump mentioned both issues, asked Zelensky for a "favor" regarding them, and recommended the Ukrainian president speak to either Giuliani or Attorney General William Barr about those investigations.
more...
Click to expand...
so another way of saying all of this is "trump's insane lawyer persecutes and wrongfully removes U.S. Ambassador with a distinguished career, in order to facilitate the manufacturing of fake dirt on trump's political opponents."
sounds like more of the same from these fucking psychos.....you have to wonder if trump realizes what a liability rudy is...of course, trump doesn't realize what a liability trump is....
 
Dats my bike punk

Dats my bike punk

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
"Could you charge the president with a crime when he leaves office.
"Yes."
"You believe that he committed.. you could charge the president with Obstruction of Justice after he leaves office."
"Yes."

I am not worried, I am confident he knows.
Click to expand...
Dude he was explaining the procedures for charging a sitting president and this was taken out of context. No where does he say that trump committed an act to be charged and that trump himself would be or could be charged.
 
xmatox

xmatox

Well-Known Member
Dats my bike punk said:
Dude he was explaining the procedures for charging a sitting president and this was taken out of context. No where does he say that trump committed an act to be charged and that trump himself would be or could be charged.
Click to expand...
Imagine being this retarded. Did you watch the hearing or just taking talking points from Faux?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top