trump Inpeachment...............

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Trump impeachment: More than 600 law academics conclude there is 'overwhelming evidence' for president's removal




https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-imp...010131675.html




His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the constitution.”

The scholars said their conclusion was based on the evidence heard so far in the impeachment hearings of Mr Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival Joe Biden.

That includes testimony from US officials Gordon Sondland and William Taylor and Mr Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president.

The scholars said they were not giving their opinion on whether the president committed a crime.

They concluded: “Ultimately, whether to impeach the President and remove him from office depends on judgments that the Constitution leaves to Congress.

“But if the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers.

Let me go ahead and write your response Chico, I'd like to save you the time.

"Blah blah blah you're just mad you lost the election. It's super pathetic how you can't move on from it."

[Giantone]

LOL, very good. Don't forget to add the obligatory "Obama this or Hillary "that.

[Back2RFK]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Trump impeachment: More than 600 law academics conclude there is 'overwhelming evidence' for president's removal




https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-imp...010131675.html




His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the constitution.”

The scholars said their conclusion was based on the evidence heard so far in the impeachment hearings of Mr Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival Joe Biden.

That includes testimony from US officials Gordon Sondland and William Taylor and Mr Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president.

The scholars said they were not giving their opinion on whether the president committed a crime.

They concluded: “Ultimately, whether to impeach the President and remove him from office depends on judgments that the Constitution leaves to Congress.

“But if the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers.

Are these the same scholars that gave their students a safe place to cry after the election. I cannot take any of them as not bias after the reactions we saw coming out of these places. They didn't even try to hide their reaction.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Back2RFK

Are these the same scholars that gave their students a safe place to cry after the election. I cannot take any of them as not bias after the reactions we saw coming out of these places. They didn't even try to hide their reaction.

LOL, the republican party , the party of ignorance...................Seems you have a problem if education and educators scare you.

[Back2RFK]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, the republican party , the party of ignorance...................Seems you have a problem if education and educators scare you.

I just know they are bias I'm not blind like yourself. One of them even went as low as bringing up Trumps 13 year old son.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Back2RFK

I just know they are bias I'm not blind like yourself. One of them even went as low as bringing up Trumps 13 year old son.

I agree that was wrong I wouldn't have done it but with all the crap trump has pulled and said you have a problem with that,I find it hypocritical where was the outrage when trump made fun of a handicapped person or was grabbing women by the pussy or paying off hookers. Let's not forget it wasn't a joke she was making a point many thought was on target. trump wants to be king and president for life and has said so.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Back2RFK

I just know they are bias I'm not blind like yourself. One of them even went as low as bringing up Trumps 13 year old son.

I agree, there's no sense in bringing Barron into this. You can't pick your family, and I'm sure he's just trying to enjoy being a kid as long as he can.

With that being said, what do you think is lower? Bringing Barron Trump into a conversation he does not belong in, or cheating on your pregnant wife with a pornstar, then paying off that pornstar so she won't go public while you're trying to win an election?

[Chico23231]

I gotta feeling Cocaine Mitch is about to pull a baller move in the Senate...per the usual

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I gotta feeling Cocaine Mitch is about to pull a baller move in the Senate...per the usual

Yeah me too.

Something along the lines of...

"We refuse to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever as this is a sham trial. Shut this shit down boys! The Kin... I mean POTUS is allowed to do whatever he wants as it is always in the best interest of this country"

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

I agree, there's no sense in bringing Barron into this. You can't pick your family, and I'm sure he's just trying to enjoy being a kid as long as he can.

With that being said, what do you think is lower? Bringing Barron Trump into a conversation he does not belong in, or cheating on your pregnant wife with a pornstar, then paying off that pornstar so she won't go public while you're trying to win an election?

Fully agree but let's be honest , no one was picking on trumps son......just the name trump gave him in pointing out trumps desire to be a king.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

Yeah me too.

Something along the lines of...

"We refuse to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever as this is a sham trial. Shut this shit down boys! The Kin... I mean POTUS is allowed to do whatever he wants as it is always in the best interest of this country"

LOL,............wouldn't surprise me .Doesn't Justus Roberts preside over the trial?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Fully agree but let's be honest , no one was picking on trumps son......just the name trump gave him in pointing out trumps desire to be a king.

I'm gonna be honest, I literally have no idea what conversation Barron's name was injected into and unless it was a conversation involving things pedophiles like to do to kids I'm probably not going to care. Also, you really don't need to bring the origin of Barron's name into it when you can directly quote Trump expressing his love of dictators and leaders who have no intention of holding free elections.

[Chico23231]

Yup this is right, IG confirms Adam Schiff was full of shit:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/10...led-with-lies/

Of course the media embraced its lies

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yup this is right, IG confirms Adam Schiff was full of shit:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/10...led-with-lies/

Of course the media embraced its lies

LOL, chico you bias is showing..................again.


Seems the report throws both parties" under the bus.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...7a1_story.html

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, chico you bias is showing..................again.


Seems the report throws both parties" under the bus.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...7a1_story.html

G1, what are you talking about? The article specifically calls out the competing narrative in the opposing memos...the narratives are OPPOSITE...look at the memos:

The Democratic minority on the committee, then led by Rep. Adam Schiff, put out a response memo with competing claims:
1.FBI and DOJ officials did not omit material information from the FISA warrant.
2.The DOJ “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.”
3.In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information that corroborated Steele’s reporting.
4.The Page FISA warrant allowed the FBI to collect “valuable intelligence.”
5.“Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias.”
6.The FBI conducted a “rigorous process” to vet Steele’s allegations, and the Page FISA application explained the FBI’s reasonable basis for finding Steele credible.
7.Steele’s prior reporting was used in “criminal proceedings.”

Each of these claims were found by Horowitz to be false.

Horowitz found that FBI and DOJ officials did in fact omit critical material information from the FISA warrant, including several items exculpatory to Page. Material facts were not just omitted but willfully hidden through doctoring of evidence.