Discussion:
"Impeachment probe reaches into White House with new subpoena"
(too old to reply)
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-05 18:26:00 UTC
Permalink
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal.... and the White
House can have the subpoenas quashed as illegal in court.

and if TRUMP chooses to ignore it all as illegal then it will end up in
teh Supreme court 2 years form now. After TRUMP has been re-elected.
Good luck forcing him out after that. Even if he does something
illegals you couldn't get rid of him and TRUMP can then be more
*FLEXIBLE* when working with other foreign leaders.... ;)
--
That's Karma
Eunice Wunderlich
2019-10-05 18:33:46 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-05 19:19:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:33:46 -0700, Eunice Wunderlich
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Nixon was never impeached. You're too stupid to know this.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-05 19:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:33:46 -0700, Eunice Wunderlich
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Nixon was never impeached.
Articles of impeachment against Nixon were approved by the Judiciary
Committee, and Nixon was going to be impeached with 100% certainty.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-06 03:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:33:46 -0700, Eunice Wunderlich
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Nixon was never impeached.
Articles of impeachment against Nixon were approved by the Judiciary
Committee, and Nixon was going to be impeached with 100% certainty.
But never was.
--
That's Karma
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-06 14:22:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:26:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:33:46 -0700, Eunice Wunderlich
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Nixon was never impeached.
Articles of impeachment against Nixon were approved by the Judiciary
Committee, and Nixon was going to be impeached with 100% certainty.
It's assured he would have been had he not resigned. And a guilty
verdict was likely. Ford pardoned Nixon for all federal crimes he may
have committed while President.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-06 14:33:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:22:51 -0700, KWills Shill #3
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:26:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:33:46 -0700, Eunice Wunderlich
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Nixon was never impeached.
Articles of impeachment against Nixon were approved by the Judiciary
Committee, and Nixon was going to be impeached with 100% certainty.
It's assured he would have been had he not resigned. And a guilty
verdict was likely. Ford pardoned Nixon for all federal crimes he may
have committed while President.
Poor Rudy is still reeling from his public lesson, where he learned
that Mr. Hartung was 100% correct in stating that Nixon was NOT
impeached. It never got that far.

Conoza knows this now.
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-07 09:35:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:33:57 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:22:51 -0700, KWills Shill #3
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:26:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 11:33:46 -0700, Eunice Wunderlich
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Nixon was never impeached.
Articles of impeachment against Nixon were approved by the Judiciary
Committee, and Nixon was going to be impeached with 100% certainty.
It's assured he would have been had he not resigned. And a guilty
verdict was likely. Ford pardoned Nixon for all federal crimes he may
have committed while President.
Poor Rudy is still reeling from his public lesson, where he learned
that Mr. Hartung was 100% correct in stating that Nixon was NOT
impeached. It never got that far.
Conoza knows this now.
It is always good to learn.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Just Wondering
2019-10-05 20:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House
subpoena would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction”
and a potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of
impeachment against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
There could be a House "impeachment" without a showing of
treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors. "Fake
impeachment" would be a fitting label for such chicanery.
Rudy Canoza
2019-10-05 20:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Watch! Hansen is going to *freak the fuck out* over this!
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
There could be a House "impeachment" without a showing of
treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.
Impeachable offenses are whatever the Congress decides they are. Of
course, what Trump has committed are without question the high crimes and
misdemeanors the founders had in mind. Trump is aggressively trying to
subvert the Constitution. He has actively attempted to incite political
violence. He calls the press the "enemy of the people" - a totalitarian
minded statement - and he has encouraged foreign dictatorships to arrest
and murder journalists.

The House is not engaging in any kind of "fake" impeachment inquiry.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-06 02:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House
subpoena would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction”
and a potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of
impeachment against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Yep that's what I just said, you do it the way it's supposed to be or
you don't do it at all.

Impeachment is like a trial, if it isn't fair and equal then it's NOT
really a trial, it's just a lynching...
--
That's Karma
Byker
2019-10-06 16:16:02 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/2019 7:58 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Yep that's what I just said
No, you're saying the impeachment inquiry is fake, and you're wrong.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-06 16:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
On 10/5/2019 7:58 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Eunice Wunderlich
On 10/5/2019 11:26 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal
There is no such thing as a "fake impeachment."
Yep that's what I just said
No, you're saying
He said what he's saying. We don't need your third-grade
interpretation of what you THINK he said, because you're usually
either wrong, lying, or both.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-05 21:41:18 UTC
Permalink
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal.... and the White
House can have the subpoenas quashed as illegal in court.

Or if TRUMP chooses to ignore it all as illegal then it will end up in
the Supreme court 2 years from now. After TRUMP has been re-elected.
Good luck forcing him out after that. Even if he does something
illegals you couldn't get rid of him and TRUMP can then be more
*FLEXIBLE* when working with other foreign leaders.... ;)

The Democrat Party that was created by Democrats is now being destroyed
by Radical Marxists.....

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad of Marxists who Obama and Hillary
and others elevated to the power behind the Democrat Party by prying
that power out of the hands of the establishment Democrats, is now about
to take this Democrat party down the road of a Coup D`etat being
disguised as an IMPEACHMENT and this veiled attack on the Constitution
is going to be seen as what it is by Americans, a Coup D`etat by the
DEMOCRAT PARTY which has been taken over by radicalized Marxists.

The implosion of the Democrat Party is now a matter of when NOT if.

The plan seems to be to IMPEACH both TRUMP and Pence at the same time
since the democrats now say PENCE was involved in the Accusations that
there was Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine..... that will leave Pelosi as the
2nd in line to become President. But that's NOT where it ends because
the Marxists in the Democrat Party will assassinate Pelosi leaving Adam
Schiff as the next in line.....

Who started all this..... Adam Schiff.

He thinks that he will be President but it's all going to be a bit
different and Schiff will never get to be President, he's obviously too
stupid for that.
--
That's Karma
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-05 21:45:24 UTC
Permalink
On 10/5/2019 2:41 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment
There is no "fake impeachment." You tried that gag already, and it was
blasted up your asshole.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The Democrat Party
No such thing as the "Democrat" party.
%
2019-10-05 21:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 10/5/2019 2:41 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House
subpoena would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction”
and a potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of
impeachment against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment
There is no "fake impeachment."  You tried that gag already, and it was
blasted up your asshole.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The Democrat Party
No such thing as the "Democrat" party.
everything has gone up the bum
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-06 14:22:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal....
There is no such thing as a fake impeachment.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
and the White
House can have the subpoenas quashed as illegal in court.
If a judge can be convinced they are illegal.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
and if TRUMP chooses to ignore it all as illegal then it will end up in
teh Supreme court 2 years form now. After TRUMP has been re-elected.
*If* he is re-elected.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Good luck forcing him out after that. Even if he does something
illegals you couldn't get rid of him and TRUMP can then be more
*FLEXIBLE* when working with other foreign leaders.... ;)
Cute.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
Loading Image...
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-06 14:35:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:22:35 -0700, KWills Shill #3
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Poor Rudy's infatuation with Mr. Hartung led him to overlook this fact
while he was angrily lashing out. [chuckle]
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-07 09:35:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:35:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:22:35 -0700, KWills Shill #3
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Poor Rudy's infatuation with Mr. Hartung led him to overlook this fact
while he was angrily lashing out. [chuckle]
If Rudy is from outside of the U.S. his not knowing this could be
excused. If he lives in the U.S. then he's exposed a serious flaw in
his education.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-07 13:35:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 02:35:20 -0700, KWills Shill #3
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:35:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 07:22:35 -0700, KWills Shill #3
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Poor Rudy's infatuation with Mr. Hartung led him to overlook this fact
while he was angrily lashing out. [chuckle]
If Rudy is from outside of the U.S. his not knowing this could be
excused. If he lives in the U.S. then he's exposed a serious flaw in
his education.
He's from California, so he's both inside the US *and* outside of it.
:)
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-08 09:44:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 06:35:50 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<***@null.net> wrote:

[...]
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by KWills Shill #3
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by KWills Shill #3
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Poor Rudy's infatuation with Mr. Hartung led him to overlook this fact
while he was angrily lashing out. [chuckle]
If Rudy is from outside of the U.S. his not knowing this could be
excused. If he lives in the U.S. then he's exposed a serious flaw in
his education.
He's from California, so he's both inside the US *and* outside of it.
:)
Well, it's clear his education was left wanting.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
e***@hotmail.com
2019-10-06 20:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
But the articles HAD been written up.
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-07 09:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by KWills Shill #3
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
But the articles HAD been written up.
Articles of Impeachment are written up for every President. This
isn't the same as *being* impeached.
I'm 100% certain Nixon would have been, and probably been found
guilty. But it never reached that level.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-07 13:41:08 UTC
Permalink
You have no problem with felonious conduct on the part of the nation's
highest elected official? You don't see that as a threat to the
constitution?
Hey, fuckwit, the Constitution provides a process to decide if a president
shoukl be removed
And it should be followed when trying to remove a President.... so why
didn't Democrats remove President Obama when he was making laws with
Executive Orders?

Democrats could have impeached Obama for all his Corruption at any time.
In fact the DOJ investigation may show that Obama's was the most
corrupt PRESIDENCY in U.S. history.

That and DEMOCRATS trying and failing to IMPEACH TRUMP for non existent
crimes is *NOT* going to bode well for the DEMOCRAT'S PARTY OF THE
FUTURE.... and that will be the suicide of the DEMOCRAT'S as they are
killing their own PARTY.

The NEW DEMOCRATS PARTY will be teh SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA who will
flounder since no one is really stupid enough to allow the United STates
to become a Socialist NATION.

Capitalism keeps the world fed and to get rid of it would mean that
people have to vote for their own starvation... like they did in
Venezuela....

Venezuela is the 21st century FAILURE of SOCIALISM and it took less than
20 years into this new CENTURY for Socialism to start racking-up failures.

Socialism and Marxism are deadly to the poor... it always is.
--
That's Karma
KWills Shill #3
2019-10-08 09:44:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:41:08 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
You have no problem with felonious conduct on the part of the nation's
highest elected official? You don't see that as a threat to the
constitution?
Hey, fuckwit, the Constitution provides a process to decide if a president
shoukl be removed
And it should be followed when trying to remove a President.... so why
didn't Democrats remove President Obama when he was making laws with
Executive Orders?
Probably for the same reasons no one tried to remove Carter,
Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Bush Jr or Trump for doing the same.
And yes, I am aware that executive orders occurred before Cater,
but I'm sure I made my point without going further back.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Democrats could have impeached Obama for all his Corruption at any time.
In fact the DOJ investigation may show that Obama's was the most
corrupt PRESIDENCY in U.S. history.
It is said anything is possible.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
That and DEMOCRATS trying and failing to IMPEACH TRUMP for non existent
crimes is *NOT* going to bode well for the DEMOCRAT'S PARTY OF THE
FUTURE.... and that will be the suicide of the DEMOCRAT'S as they are
killing their own PARTY.
At this point, Trump is only being investigated for possible
impeachment.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The NEW DEMOCRATS PARTY will be teh SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA who will
flounder since no one is really stupid enough to allow the United STates
to become a Socialist NATION.
I don't know. People like getting, hem, "free" stuff from the
government.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Capitalism keeps the world fed and to get rid of it would mean that
people have to vote for their own starvation... like they did in
Venezuela....
Venezuela's problems are less the result of socialism than of
corruption of those in power.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Venezuela is the 21st century FAILURE of SOCIALISM and it took less than
20 years into this new CENTURY for Socialism to start racking-up failures.
And yet, Scandinavian countries are doing well.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Socialism and Marxism are deadly to the poor... it always is.
Please explain Finland, Sweden, etc.
--
Shill #3.
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-07 15:48:00 UTC
Permalink
On 10/7/2019 8:11 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
On 10/7/2019 6:42 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly
Had Senate Democrats honored their oaths in 1999, Clinton would have
been convicted and removed in disgrace.
Fuck you. I know the Senate will refuse to convict iDJT. It's up to
their
constituents what to do with their Senators.
So it's an exercise in futility meant just to damage the United
States of America.
No.  Even if the filth isn't removed, the impeachment and trial will
*improve* the health of the United States.
You admit that NOTHING will happen.
I'm not "admitting" any such thing.  Bigger and bigger problems and
outrages are going to emerge as this moves along, and Republican support
for Trump will erode as some senators come to realize that it is
becoming political suicide.  If he isn't removed by the Senate, he'll
probably resign.
Even if that doesn't happen, he'll be badly damaged, and that's a good
thing.
When Democrats are exposed then people will wonder why they also
neglected to impeach Obama when they had the chance.

NOT only did Democrats try to falsely and partisanly try to us a FAKE
IMPEACHMENT AS A VEILED, ATTEMPTED COUP D`ETAT against TRUMP, but the
DEMOCRATS also ignored the Obama CRIMES that they should have actually
impeached Obama for. That's a double "stick in the craw" for the
American people both showing that Democrats hate America and teh U.S.
Constituion by the fact they tried to undermine America twice with
obvious abuse of power, why would America give Democrats back any power
ever again?

That will take a long long time for voters to forget.
--
That's Karma
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-10-07 15:56:30 UTC
Permalink
On 10/7/2019 8:48 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/7/2019 8:11 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
On 10/7/2019 6:42 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly
Had Senate Democrats honored their oaths in 1999, Clinton would have
been convicted and removed in disgrace.
Fuck you. I know the Senate will refuse to convict iDJT. It's up to
their
constituents what to do with their Senators.
So it's an exercise in futility meant just to damage the United States
of America.
No.  Even if the filth isn't removed, the impeachment and trial will
*improve* the health of the United States.
You admit that NOTHING will happen.
I'm not "admitting" any such thing.  Bigger and bigger problems and
outrages are going to emerge as this moves along, and Republican support
for Trump will erode as some senators come to realize that it is becoming
political suicide.  If he isn't removed by the Senate, he'll probably
resign.
Even if that doesn't happen, he'll be badly damaged, and that's a good
thing.
When Democrats are exposed
LOL! No.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
then people will wonder why they also neglected
to impeach Obama when they had the chance.
No impeachable offenses. Plenty of bad policy, but that's not
impeachable...and the bad policy was no worse than Trump's.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-07 17:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 10/7/2019 8:48 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/7/2019 8:11 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly
On 10/7/2019 6:42 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet,
Had Senate Democrats honored their oaths in 1999, Clinton would have
been convicted and removed in disgrace.
Fuck you. I know the Senate will refuse to convict iDJT. It's up
to their
constituents what to do with their Senators.
So it's an exercise in futility meant just to damage the United
States of America.
No.  Even if the filth isn't removed, the impeachment and trial
will *improve* the health of the United States.
You admit that NOTHING will happen.
I'm not "admitting" any such thing.  Bigger and bigger problems and
outrages are going to emerge as this moves along, and Republican
support for Trump will erode as some senators come to realize that it
is becoming political suicide.  If he isn't removed by the Senate,
he'll probably resign.
Even if that doesn't happen, he'll be badly damaged, and that's a
good thing.
When Democrats are exposed
LOL!  No.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
then people will wonder why they also neglected to impeach Obama when
they had the chance.
but that's not
impeachable...and the bad policy was no worse than Trump's.
And we're back to why TRUMP is being impeached with NO CRIMES and no
lapses in ethical behavior while in office.


Democrats will be held accountable if Obama is implicated in crimes and
the Democrats didn't do their job and impeach Obama but are willing to
impeach TRUMP for far less.... the can of worms that DEMOCRATS are
opening with impeachment will be their own destruction.

We are NOW talking complete implosion NOT just a loss of some seats but
ACORN type of implosion where the DEMOCRAT brand is forever tainted.

Keep it up I'm having fun.
--
That's Karma
jim
2019-10-07 17:34:30 UTC
Permalink
On 10/7/2019 10:09 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On 10/7/2019 8:48 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/7/2019 8:11 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly
On 10/7/2019 6:42 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly
Had Senate Democrats honored their oaths in 1999, Clinton would have
been convicted and removed in disgrace.
Fuck you. I know the Senate will refuse to convict iDJT. It's up to
their
constituents what to do with their Senators.
So it's an exercise in futility meant just to damage the United
States of America.
No.  Even if the filth isn't removed, the impeachment and trial will
*improve* the health of the United States.
You admit that NOTHING will happen.
I'm not "admitting" any such thing.  Bigger and bigger problems and
outrages are going to emerge as this moves along, and Republican
support for Trump will erode as some senators come to realize that it
is becoming political suicide.  If he isn't removed by the Senate,
he'll probably resign.
Even if that doesn't happen, he'll be badly damaged, and that's a good
thing.
When Democrats are exposed
LOL!  No.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
then people will wonder why they also neglected to impeach Obama when
they had the chance.
but that's not impeachable...and the bad policy was no worse than Trump's.
And we're back to why TRUMP is being impeached with NO CRIMES
That's a lie.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
and no lapses in ethical behavior while in office.
That's another lie.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 15:23:39 UTC
Permalink
On 10/6/19 8:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet,
While Richard Nixon never was impeached, Bill CLinton was.
iDJT can resign today and thus avoid impeachment and conviction
First they have to vote for a legitimate impeachment, and NO one
voting can be running in the election. Democrats tell us that
would be illegal. One candidate undermining another candidate.....
Now that is an interesting thought.
It is nothing but typically unhinged #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty lunacy.
Every word of it is false - complete bullshit.
"NO one voting [for impeachment] can be running in the election" -
bullshit
"Democrats tell us that would be illegal." - bullshit
You are finding "interesting" the ravings of a brain-damaged lunatic.
You don't see any conflict ot interest when a candidate for political
office, casts a vote which could lead to the incumbent being removed?
Legal or not, I see problem.
Of course there's no problem, you fuckwit.  How does someone running
for a House seat have any conflict of interest in voting for
impeachment? He doesn't.  The whole idea is absurd.
It is a problem of a conflict of interest, if the person is running in
the election for the Presidency.....

That is obvious. What kind of idiot are you?

You Democrats just told us that asking the person where a crime took
place to investigate the opposition candidate for that crime is a
conflict of interest and that TRUMP can't do it. So obviously a
Congressperson running for the Presidency can't ask the Senate to go to
an impeachment trial against their Presidential campaign opponent.

It would be NOT just hypocritical for the Presidential Candidates to
vote to impeach, it would be a conflict of interest as they have
something to gain....


Unless of course you admit that they are in a PRIMARY ELECTION OF PARTY
CANDIDATES and the President didn't ask for his opponent to be
investigated because at this point all his opponents are republicans
PARTY PRIMARY CANDIDATES.

But then there would be no need to impeach would there.... sort of a
catch-22 isn't it?

If you try to impeach it means you admit that the Democrat Candidates
for President can't vote for it or they are pretty much admitting they
are unqualified to be President. As they would be guilty of the same
thing as the person they want impeach.
--
That's Karma
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 16:26:40 UTC
Permalink
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on
whether or
not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
You actually believe Scotty? What an idiot.
No, shit for brains. If the president departs, it's Pence, Pelosi,
senate
president pro tem, then back to the executive. No other senator can
replace iDJT.
No one has said otherwise.
No conflict.
As to the next election, the fat fuck has no divine right to be
reelected. He is
supposed to be running on an equal footing to everyone else.
No one has said that he does.
Ha ha ha ha!  You're such a transparent liar.  You *like* that he's
smearing Biden, and the smearing is to give Trump a *superior* position
rather than equal footing.
Rudy's IQ seems to be losing points and were watching it sink....

All I said was that it's a conflict of interest for the opposition who
is running for the Presidency to vote for impeachment of the sitting
President.... during the ELECTION campaign.

The question at hand should be that this is a primary PARTY election and
TRUMP isn't running against any DEMOCRATS yet.

So in reciprocation TRUMP can't be guilty of any ELECTION violations
against BIDEN because they are in different election campaigns one for
the Democrats party and one for the Republican party so they aren't
under any Primary election laws yet.

And that would mean that the Democrats have no reason to impeach TRUMP ,
it's all based on a lie.
--
That's Karma
e***@hotmail.com
2019-10-08 22:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on
whether or
not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
You actually believe Scotty? What an idiot.
No, shit for brains. If the president departs, it's Pence, Pelosi,
senate
president pro tem, then back to the executive. No other senator can
replace iDJT.
No one has said otherwise.
No conflict.
As to the next election, the fat fuck has no divine right to be
reelected. He is
supposed to be running on an equal footing to everyone else.
No one has said that he does.
Ha ha ha ha!  You're such a transparent liar.  You *like* that he's
smearing Biden, and the smearing is to give Trump a *superior* position
rather than equal footing.
Rudy's IQ seems to be losing points and were watching it sink....
All I said was that it's a conflict of interest for the opposition who
is running for the Presidency to vote for impeachment of the sitting
President.... during the ELECTION campaign.
The question at hand should be that this is a primary PARTY election and
TRUMP isn't running against any DEMOCRATS yet.
So in reciprocation TRUMP can't be guilty of any ELECTION violations
against BIDEN because they are in different election campaigns one for
the Democrats party and one for the Republican party so they aren't
under any Primary election laws yet.
And that would mean that the Democrats have no reason to impeach TRUMP ,
it's all based on a lie.
--
That's Karma
If you honestly think that Trump isn't running against Democrats, you don't know Trump. He figures he's got a lock on the Party nomination, so he's not even worrying about that. So he's going after the front runners.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 19:35:46 UTC
Permalink
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether or
not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
You actually believe Scotty? What an idiot.
No, shit for brains. If the president departs, it's Pence, Pelosi, senate
president pro tem, then back to the executive. No other senator can replace iDJT.
Calm down and quit spitting on the screen when you yell into the
post..... it's NOT about the line of succession, it's about *conflict*
*of* *interest* . If TRUMP is NOT allowed any conflict of interest as a
"candidate" who is against the other candidates, then they must be
reciprocal where they can't vote to have TRUMP impeached. So anyone
running for President in this election would have to recuse themselves
from the vote for impeachment.

It's just fair, but then if Democrats running for President in this
election can vote on impeachment then TRUMP can ask they they be
investigated because conflict of interest apparently doesn't exist in
this election system. The irony being is if they want to impeach TRUMP
then the Democrats Candidates and any Republicans if there were any
can't vote on impeachment and if they do want to vote on TRUMP'S
impeachment then they are doing the very thing they're voting to
impeach, they are committing their own conflict of interest crime by
voting to impeach. Because they benefit from it which makes it QUID PRO
QUO. Where the other Candidates increase their chance of winning if they
do vote to impeach.

*This is about the Catch-22 that Democrats have created for themselves*


But the line of succession is an interesting reason for Democrats to try
to impeach TRUMP. If they can work around a few things like getting rid
of both TRUMP and Pence at the same time as co conspirators being
impeached at the same time for the same crime. Impeach them together.

And it looks like that is the Democrats plan.... and remove them both
at the same time. That allows Pelosi to move into the white house and
complete the Coup D`etat.
As to the next election, the fat fuck has no divine right to be reelected. He is
supposed to be running on an equal footing to everyone else.
And he has NOT done anything he couldn't have done if his name was
Hillary.
--
That's Karma
David Hartung
2019-10-08 19:49:51 UTC
Permalink
On 10/8/2019 12:35 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether or
not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
You actually believe Scotty? What an idiot.
No, shit for brains. If the president departs, it's Pence, Pelosi, senate
president pro tem, then back to the executive. No other senator can replace iDJT.
it's NOT about the line of succession, it's about *conflict* *of*
*interest* .
There isn't any, you fucking Nazi.
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 19:47:27 UTC
Permalink
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether or
not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
You actually believe Scotty? What an idiot.
No, shit for brains. If the president departs, it's Pence, Pelosi, senate
president pro tem, then back to the executive. No other senator can replace iDJT.
Calm down and quit spitting on the screen when you yell into the
post..... it's NOT about the line of succession, it's about *conflict*
*of* *interest* . If TRUMP is NOT allowed any conflict of interest as a
"candidate" who is against the other candidates, then they must be
reciprocal where they can't vote to have TRUMP impeached. So anyone
running for President in this election would have to recuse themselves
from the vote for impeachment.

It's just fair, but then if Democrats running for President in this
election can vote on impeachment then TRUMP can ask they they be
investigated because conflict of interest apparently doesn't exist in
this election system. The irony being is if they want to impeach TRUMP
then the Democrats Candidates and any Republicans if there were any
can't vote on impeachment and if they do want to vote on TRUMP'S
impeachment then they are doing the very thing they're voting to
impeach, they are committing their own conflict of interest crime by
voting to impeach. Because they benefit from it which makes it QUID PRO
QUO. Where the other Candidates increase their chance of winning if they
do vote to impeach.

*This is about the Catch-22 that Democrats have created for themselves*


But the line of succession is an interesting reason for Democrats to try
to impeach TRUMP. If they can work around a few things like getting rid
of both TRUMP and Pence at the same time as co conspirators being
impeached at the same time for the same crime. Impeach them together.

And it looks like that is the Democrats plan.... and remove them both
at the same time. That allows Pelosi to move into the white house and
complete the Coup D`etat.


*ADDENDUM*
The Democrats haven't considered that TRUMP can choose a new VP once the
impeachment begins and he could name RUSH LIMBAUGH as his VP so that the
Democrats would NOT be able to force both the President and teh VP out
and that impeachment would fail to get Pelosi in and it would give the
Democrats someone worse than TRUMP to try to deal with....
*think about that one*
As to the next election, the fat fuck has no divine right to be reelected. He is
supposed to be running on an equal footing to everyone else.
And he has NOT done anything he couldn't have done if his name was Hillary.
--
That's Karma
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 20:17:38 UTC
Permalink
On 10/6/19 8:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet,
While Richard Nixon never was impeached, Bill CLinton was.
iDJT can resign today and thus avoid impeachment and conviction
First they have to vote for a legitimate impeachment, and NO one
voting can be running in the election. Democrats tell us that
would be illegal. One candidate undermining another candidate.....
Now that is an interesting thought.
It is nothing but typically unhinged #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty lunacy.
Every word of it is false - complete bullshit.
"NO one voting [for impeachment] can be running in the election" -
bullshit
"Democrats tell us that would be illegal." - bullshit
You are finding "interesting" the ravings of a brain-damaged lunatic.
You don't see any conflict ot interest when a candidate for
political office, casts a vote which could lead to the incumbent
being removed? Legal or not, I see problem.
Of course there's no problem, you fuckwit.  How does someone running
for a House seat have any conflict of interest in voting for
impeachment? He doesn't.  The whole idea is absurd.
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether
or not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
No.  It would be doing what he is constitutionally mandated to do.  The
senator still has to win the election.
I would say the same about TRUMP asking that corruption be pursued....
even if it's Joe Biden who is running for election....

TRUMP is mandated by the Constitution to faithfully execute all laws....
even the ones that the other candidates have violated.

*You have given the reason that this impeachment is a WITCH HUNT*


Thanks for confirming my point that any Congressperson voting for
impeachment would be canceling out the narrative that TRUMP violated the
Federal Election laws. Their vote would be admitting that TRUMP must
also follow the Constitution mandate that he was burdened with.


Every Congressperson that votes to impeach will in essence be testifying
on behalf of TRUMP who is doing the same thing they are doing.... and
it's NOT illegal or even a Conflict of interest or Quid Pro Quo.
--
That's Karma
AlleyCat
2019-10-08 20:22:11 UTC
Permalink
On 10/8/2019 1:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/6/19 8:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet,
While Richard Nixon never was impeached, Bill CLinton was.
iDJT can resign today and thus avoid impeachment and conviction
First they have to vote for a legitimate impeachment, and NO one
voting can be running in the election. Democrats tell us that would
be illegal. One candidate undermining another candidate.....
Now that is an interesting thought.
It is nothing but typically unhinged #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty lunacy.
Every word of it is false - complete bullshit.
"NO one voting [for impeachment] can be running in the election" -
bullshit
"Democrats tell us that would be illegal." - bullshit
You are finding "interesting" the ravings of a brain-damaged lunatic.
You don't see any conflict ot interest when a candidate for political
office, casts a vote which could lead to the incumbent being removed?
Legal or not, I see problem.
Of course there's no problem, you fuckwit.  How does someone running
for a House seat have any conflict of interest in voting for
impeachment? He doesn't.  The whole idea is absurd.
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether or
not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
No.  It would be doing what he is constitutionally mandated to do.  The
senator still has to win the election.
I would say the same about TRUMP
Fuck off with your improper upper case, you mackerel-reeking cunt. The
name is correctly written "Trump."
BeamMeUpScotty
2019-10-08 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On 10/8/2019 1:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/6/19 8:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged
fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a
While Richard Nixon never was impeached, Bill CLinton was.
iDJT can resign today and thus avoid impeachment and conviction
First they have to vote for a legitimate impeachment, and NO
one voting can be running in the election. Democrats tell us
that would be illegal. One candidate undermining another
candidate.....
Now that is an interesting thought.
It is nothing but typically unhinged #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty
lunacy. Every word of it is false - complete bullshit.
"NO one voting [for impeachment] can be running in the election"
- bullshit
"Democrats tell us that would be illegal." - bullshit
You are finding "interesting" the ravings of a brain-damaged lunatic.
You don't see any conflict ot interest when a candidate for
political office, casts a vote which could lead to the incumbent
being removed? Legal or not, I see problem.
Of course there's no problem, you fuckwit.  How does someone
running for a House seat have any conflict of interest in voting
for impeachment? He doesn't.  The whole idea is absurd.
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on
whether or not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
No.  It would be doing what he is constitutionally mandated to do.
The senator still has to win the election.
I would say the same about TRUMP
Fuck off with your improper upper case, you mackerel-reeking cunt.  The
name is correctly written "Trump."
A strange way to word your apology and to admit you have been wrong...
but I'll take it as the best you can do with your limited communications
skills.
--
That's Karma
Gunner Asch
2019-10-08 20:29:53 UTC
Permalink
On 10/8/2019 1:27 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by AlleyCat
On 10/8/2019 1:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/6/19 8:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet,
While Richard Nixon never was impeached, Bill CLinton was.
iDJT can resign today and thus avoid impeachment and conviction
First they have to vote for a legitimate impeachment, and NO one
voting can be running in the election. Democrats tell us that
would be illegal. One candidate undermining another candidate.....
Now that is an interesting thought.
It is nothing but typically unhinged #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty lunacy.
Every word of it is false - complete bullshit.
"NO one voting [for impeachment] can be running in the election" -
bullshit
"Democrats tell us that would be illegal." - bullshit
You are finding "interesting" the ravings of a brain-damaged lunatic.
You don't see any conflict ot interest when a candidate for
political office, casts a vote which could lead to the incumbent
being removed? Legal or not, I see problem.
Of course there's no problem, you fuckwit.  How does someone running
for a House seat have any conflict of interest in voting for
impeachment? He doesn't.  The whole idea is absurd.
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether
or not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
No.  It would be doing what he is constitutionally mandated to do. The
senator still has to win the election.
I would say the same about TRUMP
Fuck off with your improper upper case, you mackerel-reeking cunt.  The
name is correctly written "Trump."
A strange way to word your apology
No apology. You are wrong. You need to apologies for illiteracy.
--
WTF?! Of *COURSE* the AR-15 is an assault rifle!
David Hartung
2019-10-08 20:35:57 UTC
Permalink
On 10/8/2019 1:27 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by AlleyCat
On 10/8/2019 1:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, *FAKE* libertarian and
brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On 10/6/19 8:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard
who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet,
While Richard Nixon never was impeached, Bill CLinton was.
iDJT can resign today and thus avoid impeachment and conviction
First they have to vote for a legitimate impeachment, and NO one
voting can be running in the election. Democrats tell us that
would be illegal. One candidate undermining another candidate.....
Now that is an interesting thought.
It is nothing but typically unhinged #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty lunacy.
Every word of it is false - complete bullshit.
"NO one voting [for impeachment] can be running in the election" -
bullshit
"Democrats tell us that would be illegal." - bullshit
You are finding "interesting" the ravings of a brain-damaged lunatic.
You don't see any conflict ot interest when a candidate for
political office, casts a vote which could lead to the incumbent
being removed? Legal or not, I see problem.
Of course there's no problem, you fuckwit.  How does someone running
for a House seat have any conflict of interest in voting for
impeachment? He doesn't.  The whole idea is absurd.
What about a senator running against the incumbent, voting on whether
or not to remove him from office. Would that be a conflict?
No.  It would be doing what he is constitutionally mandated to do. The
senator still has to win the election.
I would say the same about TRUMP
Fuck off with your improper upper case, you mackerel-reeking cunt.  The
name is correctly written "Trump."
A strange way to
It just would never occur to you to wonder why no one *ever* seriously
engages you, and 95% of people have you kill-filed, would it? No, because
it would require admitting that you don't even attempt to participate in
serious discussion. You're a brain-damaged lunatic, and can't.
joeturn
2019-10-08 20:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
https://apnews.com/1fe55157bfcb4f1c96cf128c2c5f2d99
[...]
But Democrats accused Trump of speeding down “a path of defiance,
obstruction and cover-up” and warned that defying the House subpoena
would in itself be considered “evidence of obstruction” and a
potentially an impeachable offense.
It is.  Remember:  that was one of the articles against Nixon.
1. Nixon was never impeached.
Try again, shitbag:  Obstruction was one of the articles of impeachment
against Nixon.
Good luck proving that a fake impeachment is legal.... and the White
House can have the subpoenas quashed as illegal in court.
and if TRUMP chooses to ignore it all as illegal then it will end up in
teh Supreme court 2 years form now. After TRUMP has been re-elected.
Good luck forcing him out after that. Even if he does something
illegals you couldn't get rid of him and TRUMP can then be more
*FLEXIBLE* when working with other foreign leaders.... ;)
--
That's Karma
Kaye Wills you and Ed Rhodes Please STAND DOWN this thread is for grownups
Loading...