He was Impeached

The impeachment was a pointless waste of time and money. There was literally no point.. even if he was the most guilty man on the face of the Earth, the Senate would not have convicted him. He has said that he could shoot a man on 5th Avenue and people would still support him, and he's right. Impeachment was nothing more than political grandstanding-- because everyone involved knew the outcome before it even started.

The impeachment was a pointless waste of time and money. There was literally no point.. even if he was the most guilty man on the face of the Earth, the Senate would not have convicted him. He has said that he could shoot a man on 5th Avenue and people would still support him, and he's right. Impeachment was nothing more than political grandstanding-- because everyone involved knew the outcome before it even started. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

You are correct.

I hoped it had gone to a trial so the evidence could have been presented. There is no way had I been a Senator would I have voted to have him removed from office. The charges in my opinion, even if 100% true, were not worthy of removal from office.

You are correct.

I hoped it had gone to a trial so the evidence could have been presented. There is no way had I been a Senator would I have voted to have him removed from office. The charges in my opinion, even if 100% true, were not worthy of removal from office. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yeah, there wasn’t any criminal charges in the articles of impeachment. The transcript of the call was available. Which was the evidence. Schiff never released exculpatory testimony. It was a sham. Pelosi knew it but was forced into it.

peelosi is the one who needs to be fumigated. she's is the stankiest of the skanks.

You are correct.

I hoped it had gone to a trial so the evidence could have been presented. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The only evidence available was "presented."* That's all that mattered.

*Apparently there was some EVIDENCE that was withheld by the House Lynchers.

Typical trumptard lie...

I just point out obe is (sic) tells lie after lie...

So you've once again proven that even when you have nothing to say, you'll settle for a dick in your mouth...

Now STFU. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

3 Signs munchy is entering his meltdown phase:


1. Calls everyone a "trumptard" and everything you posted a "lie".

2. Reverts to his favorite topic, dicksucking.

3. Tells you to STFU.

This is what passes for "critical thinking" in munchkinworld!

Blue Meanie is on "IGNORE'!!!!!!

Those 60 house democrats were paying attention. Originally Posted by matchingmole

to what? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

... to how to turn these United States from a democratic republic into a banana republic, of course!

This might be a good time to quote from Bill Barr's excellent recent speech to the Federalist Society.

Pay attention, munchbrain!


"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...morial-lecture

Bill Clinton was also impeached!

JR - SSHHHH - the DPST radicals do not want to remember anything that far back.



"Cancel History, math, and Science. all will be well within the DPST narrative"!!!


One thing the radical anti-captialistic DPST's have forgotten/hide from their minions - when they cancel 'math" as racist and capitalistic - how do they count their gains from graft, crime, and extortion?
How do they keep score of their vote Frauds, How can they decide - other than 'force majeure' - who won an election???
When they indict and try Trump for 'crimes' after he ends his term(s) as POTUS - how will the jury decide????
Or, is a society as in 'Idiocracy" - 2006 - their ultimate goal - My vote is Yes!



The poor little DPST's darlin's will be forced to maintain some 'captalistic math" to keep score.

such a shame - just more Hypocrisy of the leftists.

Someone has to buy the bricks, PVC pipe, and water bottles to throw.

It will be sad day when the Little Runts run out of shit to throw.

You are correct.

I hoped it had gone to a trial so the evidence could have been presented. There is no way had I been a Senator would I have voted to have him removed from office. The charges in my opinion, even if 100% true, were not worthy of removal from office. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Evidence that wasn't presented in the House? Evidence we didn't hear on "the phone call"? What was this evidence other than Trump as President decided he had the authority given to him to hold up funds until he was satisfied public corruption was under control.


You mean testimony from Bolton saying that Trump did indeed tie the transfer of money to Ukraine until something he wanted was done?


For some reason that seems to ring a bell. Oh! Yeah! Biden telling Ukraine, you either fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money!


This was a nothing burger! Neither the national security of the US or the national security of Ukraine was in jeopardy. How do we know this? Because Russia made no advance on Ukraine during the time aid was held up, something a President has the right to do.


But I'll play. Give us a scenario of what evidence might have made a difference. Surely you have given this some thought. You have the hours and hours of testimony in the House. I watched every hour of it. Did you? We have the phone call in which no where did Trump give Zelinsky an ultimatum. Some say Zelinsky had to understand what Trump was saying but then when asked, Zelinsky said he never thought an investigation was a demand he must meet ( which he never did ) before getting funds.


So to Munchie's point that funds were held up, the whole amount was never delivered. Isn't that true with regard to most NATO countries and their 2% obligation which they have never meet? This can be overlooked but holding up aid to Ukraine and when released wasn't the exact amount promised is worth impeachment? Please.

There was no evidence, there were no impeachable crimes committed, just bogus trumped-up charges and lies ..... of course the dipshits knew this but they picked up the ball and ran with it anyways, knowing the televised proceedings were making them look like total idiots on national tv ..... it was a shit show, but yeah they got their votes for impeachment ..... and when the articles were delivered to the Senate, McConnell should have immediately dumped them in the nearest trashcan and set fire to it .....

I'll try to help you but you aren't worth much of my time.


I think that took you A LOT of time to dig up and you are right, it was a waste of your time.



But what the hey, let's look at your evidence since you did take A Lot of time and thought, well, time into it.


Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

This seems to be the argument you are making. That Trump made false statements about Ukraine aid and therefore should be impeached. This is the evidence you presented.


President Donald Trump, who last year froze hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid for Ukraine, claimed “they got all” of it “long before schedule.” That’s false.

The freeze that Trump directed lasted about two months last summer and not all of the money was later disbursed on time.


In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported in November that the Department of Defense still had not disbursed more than $35 million of its $250 million

Here is what the Pentagon said

A Pentagon official told us that, as of Jan. 23, the department had “executed 99.8% of the funds” for Ukraine and was “working to obligate the remainder.”

So you are saying that Trump's "false statement" which amounted to .2% , an easy routine error, an easy mistake to make, he should be impeached? Uh! NO!


But more important to me than the things Trump says, is the question, did the President have the authority to do that, hold up aid because if he didn't, that could be a problem although a problem once brought to his attention or proved in court and corrected, still would not amount to an impeachable offense, unless of course you just wanted him impeached for anything because you just wanted him gone and the law, the Constitution, really doesn't matter to you.


Then you present this


Trump’s decision to hold up the funding, and then ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, is one reason a majority of House members voted to impeach Trump in December.

First, if nobody is above the law, including a former VP running for President, how can he be beyond investigation when corruption in Ukraine was a major issue, an ongoing issue related to aid? And his son was working for the biggest most corrupt company in Ukraine. To ignore this would be a dereliction of duty for a President. Biden doesn't get a pass just because he is running for President any more than a current President gets a pass as the SC just said. Nobody is above the law.


Your next piece of evidence for impeachment.


Trump, Jan. 22: Now, here’s the other thing: They [Ukraine] got their money long before schedule. They got all their money.


And Ukraine did not receive its aid from the U.S. “long before schedule.”


So again, that "false statement", is enough to impeach a President? Are we now going to say a "false statement" by a President is a High crime or Misdemeanor? Any false statement including one with such little significance since the money was released? No, don't think so. Just how many "false statement" did Obama make? Want to check out the "truth o meter" on Politifact as to the number of false statements made by Obama? Naw, didn't think so.


Mark Sandy, the deputy associate director for national security at OMB, testified at his Nov. 16 deposition that approximately $35 million had been left unobligated by the Defense Department. Those funds, he said, “would have expired” if not for Congress stepping in.


Wow, so Ukraine not getting 35 million dollars is worth impeaching a President? Good fucking grief man.


In a Dec. 11 letter to the Government Accountability Office, which later ruled that the aid freeze violated federal law, general counsel for the OMB, Mark Paoletta, said the State Department obligated the $141.5 million for Ukraine before Sept. 30



Now here is the crux of the matter. Did Trump violate federal law





Then you say.


The allegations were made by trump with no evidence any improprieties had occurred. trump directly requested the investigation.


Excuse me while I ROTFL! Unproven allegations were made against Trump in the Russia fiasco but that didn't stop an investigation and to be fair, how do you find evidence without an investigation? Isn't that the excuse Democrats gave? How can we prove these allegations against Trump if we don't investigate they said? What is good for one, is good for bother or neither.


Next subject.



The question of is quid pro quo illegal has been answered many times. Yes, it is illegal.


What is "either fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money" if not a quid pro quo? Even Democrats admit that yes it was a quid pro quo but it was "legal" because Biden had the authority of the President to make it! So yes quid pro quo' are made all the time between the government of the United States and other countries. The whole damn aid package to Ukraine was based on the condition that if you don't prove to us that you have corruption under control, you will not get the aid! Come on man! Some quid pro quos are legal, some are not. Democrats argue that Biden's was of the legal kind, Republicans argue as do I that Trump's was legal. If Biden's was legal because it was backed by a President, why wouldn't Trump's quid pro quo be legal? So you got this answer completely wrong and you don't even understand that the Democrats were making the exact opposite case you are making concerning Biden.



And once again you lie about Biden. It is a lie by you because it has been debunked many times.


That Biden said "fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money" has been debunked? Really? The video is on Youtube if you care to go look at it.



Here is your statement

President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold “billions of dollars to Ukraine” unless it removed the prosecutor general who “was prosecuting” Biden’s son, Hunter.

The part in bold is absolutely true. The argument comes into play over whether he was fired over prosecuting Biden's son. The fact that Biden demanded the prosecutor be fired is not in dispute. What I can't figure out is, are you to dumb to understand this or do you understand it but you can't admit it.


It is a legitimate argument as to whether the firing can be tied to any prosecution of Hunter.


Let's continue.

In May, Ukraine’s top prosecutor at the time said the younger Biden — a former board member for a gas company in Ukraine — was not investigated.

“Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general,

See those words in bold type? "At least for now we don't see any wrong doing". Isn't that what an investigation is for? When Republicans said "we don't see any wrong doing in the matter of a Trump Russia conspiracy, did that end the matter or was an investigation called for with no evidence. As a matter of fact, we just found out yesterday from another memo by Peter Strzok, the lead investigator into the Trump Russia connection, that on Feb. 14 2017, Peter Strzok told his boss James Comey, that no connection between the Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence was found. The same day as it so happens that the headline in the New York Times reported that there were repeated contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence but that didn't stop the investigation did it.


Or how about this line from your post.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump urged “Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with [Trump’s personal attorney] Rudy Giuliani on a probe that could hamper Mr. Trump’s potential 2020 opponent.”

Now this has been debunked because we have all read the transcript of the conversation. "About 8 times". You mean there weren't sure? They couldn't count them? Please.


Now just to put a period on to what I said above as to whether Biden threatened to

Trump said Biden threatened to withhold U.S. assistance to Ukraine unless it fired Shokin, which is true, but then implied without proof that it was done to protect Hunter Biden from prosecution.

That is a quid pro quo regardless of the reason. If you demand something for something in return, that is a quid pro quo and Democrats argue that in Biden's case, it was legal. You just argued that it was illegal. One of many things you have gotten wrong.



More proof of Biden's quid pro quo from your post. Thanks for including it and contradicting your own words which is pretty funny.

In January 2018, Biden disclosed that during a trip to Kyiv he privately warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, and then-prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to deal with corruption and remove Shokin as its prosecutor general.

So if a VP can warn the Ukrainian President that if he doesn't deal with what the VP sees as corruption, he won't get aid but some how a sitting President can not tell the Ukrainian President, excuse me ASK the Ukrainian President to investigate possible corruption, that he won't get aid? Good fucking grief. That's some fucking Alice in Wonderland shit right there.

But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

AH! The other excuse why Biden's quid pro quo WAS legal, because a bunch more people agreed with it. Funny how that works huh?


I particularly liked this line of yours.


Plus you try to confuse the issues by adding Obama


Ah! Yes, proving Obama did the same exact thing or similar thing, would be according to you, confusing the issue like when Obama pardoned a General for lying to the FBI but when Trump wants to pardon Flynn for lying to the FBI "that's impeachable". The hypocrisy is staggering.


I wrote



The national security of the US was never in jeopardy, the ally was never in jeopardy because they already had the deterrent in their arsenal, a deterrent that the Obama administration failed to give which probably cost the lives of thousands of Ukrainians before Russia was deterred when Trump sent Ukraine Javelin missiles.
No harm, no foul but Democrats were bound and determined to impeach this President from the day, hell, the day before he took office and raised their hands when asked, about 60 of them as I recall, telling us everything we needed to know as to what Trump could look forward to.


You said


Another asshole lie by you.


Not sure which part you think is a lie. That Obama didn't supply Javelin missiles and thousands of Ukrainian's died, about 14 thousand if I remember correctly or that about 60 House Democrats wanted to impeach Trump the day he took office.


Shit I have to close this out, business to take of. I'll try and get back to some of the stuff I didn't follow through on proving.

This seems to be the argument you are making. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Is Munchie trying to relitigate the failed impeachment?

Does this mean he thinks he's smarter than PissLousy and SHITFACE?