Pelosi. We are going to impeach

[adamsteve14]

I'll keep wating for your "definition" of evidence that you would finally consider Trump violated his Oath. Which is what this whole discussion was about. You remember right?

What "actual evidence"?

NAME IT.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. I’ll judge any evidence on its own merit. I’ll dumb this down for you-anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As such, our justice system requires the accuser to substantiate their claim with evidence.

An example of evidence I would accept would be this: An authenticated transcript from Trump to Ukraine explaining that aid was withheld because Ukraine refused to investigate Burisma BECAUSE Joe Biden is running against him. You’re short half a dozen evidentiary steps. And the aid was released.

[NYPat]

Trump personally asked Ukraine to look into shady dealings by the former VP. Apparently Democrats think that its wrong unless it's done by proxy (Fusion GPS, Steele, the intel community, etc..). Give me a break.

This issue is like beating a dead horse. Trump supporters can't understand how you anti-Trumpers can't see the wrong in how the Democrats were using foreign nations and intel assets to dig up dirt on him in 2016, yet you seem outraged now, and vice versa.

It is becoming a parody at this point. Just get this stupid impeachment over with, Trump will be re-elected next year, and we will wait to see what Democrats will try to impeach him for again (if for some reason they keep the House). My money is on claims that he somehow rigged the election. They are probably already setting up a Putin narrative just in case.

This is the nonsense I'm talking about. Trump asked Zelensky TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

INTO THE BIDENS.

THE BIDENS.

BIDENS.

BIDEN.





That violates the Oath Trump took when he was sworn in. He has violated his Oath of Office.

[fishnbrah]

extortion, bribery, obstruction of congress. Keep up cucked pahggot..

LMFAO!

when did he do those things?

[NYPat]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. I’ll judge any evidence on its own merit. I’ll dumb this down for you-anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As such, our justice system requires the accuser to substantiate their claim with evidence.

An example of evidence I would accept would be this: An authenticated transcript from Trump to Ukraine explaining that aid was withheld because Ukraine refused to investigate Burisma BECAUSE Joe Biden is running against him. You’re short half a dozen evidentiary steps. And the aid was released.

So the only thing you'd accept as "proof" is an "authenticated" transcript from Trump to Zelensky that aid was withheld BECAUSE Biden was running against him. Only BECAUSE.


This is progress.


So if evidence is brought that the SOLE reason for withholding aid was "because Biden was running against him" then you'd admit Trump should be impeached?

Did I get anything wrong?

[dabbmw2002]

This is the lamest impeachment ever.

At this point no need to argue with leftards, just point, laugh and watch them reeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Darkhare]

This isn't how the whole impeachment thing works.. this is not a judicial court. Jesus..fuking.. Christ.

Sad. You have no respect for law

[adamsteve14]

So the only thing you'd accept as "proof" is an "authenticated" transcript from Trump to Zelensky that aid was withheld BECAUSE Biden was running against him. Only BECAUSE.


This is progress.


So if evidence is brought that the SOLE reason for withholding aid was "because Biden was running against him" then you'd admit Trump should be impeached?

Did I get anything wrong?

Yes, you did. The aid would have to be denied as a result. Evidence means nothing absent a crime.

[NYPat]

Sad. You have no respect for law

Apparently you have no respect for the Constitution.

Sad because I heard there are laws against the 2nd Amendment.

[FatBallz]

That violates the Oath Trump took when he was sworn in. He has violated his Oath of Office.

I guess you're right. He should have had a group like Fusion GPS or a British agent do it. Then the Democrats would have been ok with it.

[NYPat]

Yes, you did. The aid would have to be denied as a result. Evidence means nothing absent a crime.

Absent a crime.. again, learn about the topic we're discussing before making comments.

I mean that as no disrespect because not everyone knows you can be impeached for violating their Oath to Defend the Constitution, and not because a crime was committed. (Which btw, Trump has committed MANY crimes, but has enjoyed his protection from them because he's president).

[Mountaineer92]

This is Pickett's Charge and Pelosi knows it which is why shes snapping.

[NYPat]

This is the lamest impeachment ever.

At this point no need to argue with leftards, just point, laugh and watch them reeeeeeeeeeeee!

Trolling the trolls. Time to brag. Reeee

[adamsteve14]

Absent a crime.. again, learn about the topic we're discussing before making comments.

I mean that as no disrespect because not everyone knows you can be impeached for violating their Oath to Defend the Constitution, and not because a crime was committed. (Which btw, Trump has committed MANY crimes, but has enjoyed his protection from them because he's president).

PROVE.IT

I’m going to bed. You’re making everyone else dumber with your room temperature IQ.

[NYPat]

This is Pickett's Charge and Pelosi knows it which is why shes snapping.

Respect the reference but just lol.

[NYPat]

PROVE.IT

I’m going to bed. You’re making everyone else dumber with your room temperature IQ.

Never claimed to make people smarter..

Night. Night.

[HurfDurf]

I guess you're right. He should have had a group like Fusion GPS or a British agent do it. Then the Democrats would have been ok with it.

Are you slow or something?
Can you not see a difference between a candidate paying a company for Intel on an opponent and the president of the US trying to use public policy to pressure a foreign leader to help him win reelection?

[iifymbro]

the left has cried wolf way too many times over the past 4 years, no one is paying attention to them now

[HurfDurf]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. I’ll judge any evidence on its own merit. I’ll dumb this down for you-anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As such, our justice system requires the accuser to substantiate their claim with evidence.

An example of evidence I would accept would be this: An authenticated transcript from Trump to Ukraine explaining that aid was withheld because Ukraine refused to investigate Burisma BECAUSE Joe Biden is running against him. You’re short half a dozen evidentiary steps. And the aid was released.

Is this the standard now?
Interesting, I see a lot of trumpers claim Hilary had Seth Rich murdered but have yet to see a notarized copy of the contract to the hitman.

[NYPat]

Are you slow or something?
Can you not see a difference between a candidate paying a company for Intel on an opponent and the president of the US trying to use public policy to pressure a foreign leader to help him win reelection?

Private citizens can hire anyone they want. The President, who has sworn an Oath of Office, cannot.

People point to Biden as VP leveraging Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, but they don't understand or intentionally ignore the fact that Biden was sent there to further US and Foreign policy.

NO ONE IN THE OBAMA ADMIN BENEFITED FROM THAT ACTION. THERE WERE NO CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA LET ALONE HUNTER WHEN THAT HAPPENED.

Look it up yourself. Use credible sources.

Post them here. I'll debunk them for you.

[NYPat]

the left has cried wolf way too many times over the past 4 years, no one is paying attention to them now

You mean when Rosenstein, a Republican hand picked by Trump, appointed Mueller, another Republican?

Or do you mean when Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself, and appointed Barr, who applied for the job by writing a job application stating he would never indict a sitting president?..

[FatBallz]

Are you slow or something?
Can you not see a difference between a candidate paying a company for Intel on an opponent and the president of the US trying to use public policy to pressure a foreign leader to help him win reelection?

Trump never said he expected Ukraine to do something in order to get the aid. Ukraine said they had no idea the aid was even held up.

I thought the outrage was about Trump asking a foreign nation to get involved in the election. It's hard to keep track because it seems to change on a daily basis. I hear the Democrats are bringing up Mueller/Russia/Obstruction again. I guess they will try anything to sell impeachment. After all, they've been trying for 3 years.

It's nothing but noise at this point.

[LargePeter]

Lol this is going to be great. Trumpcucks are in shambles.

Uhhhhh, are you watching and reading the same stuff the rest of us are fuko?

Or are you still stuck in echo chamber fantasy land?

[superiorlogic]

Dems gon get rekd in 2020. Nazi Pelosi knows it too

[drLihp]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. I’ll judge any evidence on its own merit. I’ll dumb this down for you-anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As such, our justice system requires the accuser to substantiate their claim with evidence.

An example of evidence I would accept would be this: An authenticated transcript from Trump to Ukraine explaining that aid was withheld because Ukraine refused to investigate Burisma BECAUSE Joe Biden is running against him. You’re short half a dozen evidentiary steps. And the aid was released.

exactly! just a coincidence the aid is released after the whistle blower report

also the libtards wont acknowledge all the non political rivals he asked to be investigated by foreign governments. ( dont worry the white house has been compiling a list and will release it any day now)

[dabbmw2002]

Trolling the trolls. Time to brag. Reeee

[iifymbro]

You mean when Rosenstein, a Republican hand picked by Trump, appointed Mueller, another Republican?

Or do you mean when Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself, and appointed Barr, who applied for the job by writing a job application stating he would never indict a sitting president?..

lmfao you're so blindly partisan you think having a R next to their name means they're 100% in lock step and cover for one another like the dems do. Sad!

You must've forgotten the big 'nevertrumper' push during the election where a bunch of establishment swamp republicans actively tried to rekt trump....

[wesleysh21]

You mean when Rosenstein, a Republican hand picked by Trump, appointed Mueller, another Republican?

Speaking of Mueller

Spoiler!

no collusion

[Trapstar4.4]

keep it moving so the impeachment gift can make it to trump's desk in time for christmas


"happy holidays" mr trump

[NitrogenWidget]

This is the nonsense I'm talking about. Trump asked Zelensky TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

INTO THE BIDENS.

THE BIDENS.

BIDENS.

BIDEN.





That violates the Oath Trump took when he was sworn in. He has violated his Oath of Office.

goodbye pat.

[NitrogenWidget]

keep it moving so the impeachment gift can make it to trump's desk in time for christmas


"happy holidays" mr trump

uhhh...that is EXACTLY what Trump wants.
He has said so himself.

how nice of you to wish your president a happy holidays.

see, not all libs are bad.