The trial of Donald J. Trump

Moscow Mitch gets pissed off when Schiff says "the Second Article . . . ." I wish I could see his OMG/are-you kidding-me face as he threw his hands up in frustration.

Please don't get One's Blood pressure up - serious consequences can occur.

Some self control about the inevitable outcome of the Fascist DPST charade of Impeachment will benefit those entranced by the Gollum ring of impeachment.


BTW - feel free to notify the Fascist DPST prosecutors to add "Cippolone's 'Lie"' - to the Articles of Impeachment.

It is , after all, a living document and subject to modification and change any time the Fascist DPST prosecutors desire.

As in the Fantasy fascist DPST's believe because they "want it to be Narrative Truth"!

They must have 50 TVs on and 9 have the trial going. It reminds me of that legal saying:

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound the table.
If you have neither on your side and Adam Shiff is representing you, pound sand.

He's filibustering and making up shit. It's obvious.

Is anybody at the gym just listening to the impeachment? You know I'd rather be at a bar watching a game and not listening to it. Than watching two talking heads and not hearing them. It's been listening pleasure.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leading ally of President Trump, said Wednesday that 45 Republicans are ready to dismiss the charges against the president and he would keep pushing to rally a majority of GOP senators to end the impeachment trial.

“There are 45, with about five to eight wanting to hear a little more,” Paul said in an interview with The Washington Post. “I still would like to dismiss it, but there aren’t the votes to do it just yet.”

With support from other Trump allies, Paul said he would continue to pressure his colleagues in the coming days to move on from the trial and listening to the House’s Democratic managers, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).

“I will push it at some point,” Paul said. “The more Adam Schiff speaks, the more we become unified.”

Viva la Acquittal!!

Will 9500 throw hands up in frustration at the verdict of acquittal -

Or, just cheer nazi pelosi for her "Impeach 45 in 2021 " campaign????
Or, just go play at Nukes with Eric Swalwell - nuke middle America and H.... will have the electoral college votes to win the Oval office - sounds like a Fascist DPST 2020 election strategy for sure.

Illegal. He broke the law holding up the funds. But it is the opinion of this DOJ (and I use that term loosely) that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He chooses his top law enforcer, so be it.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

So it's your position that if the GAO says a President and or his administration broke the law, he should be impeached?


https://thefederalistpapers.org/opin...broke-law-list


Seven Times the GAO Found Former President Obama Broke the Law



Yesterday the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report stating that the President had broken the law by withholding aid to Ukraine.


The report did not say what laws had been broken and the timing, the day the Senate opened President Trump’s impeachment trial, seems very, very suspicious.


While the GOA is theoretically non-partisan, the agency works for the House and we know who controls the House.


Oddly the GOA also found that former President Obama violated the law seven times, yet no impeachment. Weird.


Anyway here are seven times the Obama administration was found by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to have violated federal law
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Secret Service (USSS) were found to have violated section 503 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Antideficiency Act, in 2009 after the Secret Service reported that it had overspent on candidate protection in 2008 by $5,100,000, and used money from another program to cover the shortfall. DHS failed to notify Congress 15 days in advance of the “reprogramming.”


The Department of the Treasury was found to have violated the Antideficiency Act in 2014 when it used the voluntary services of four individuals. “Treasury did not appoint any of the individuals to federal employment, nor did any individual qualify as a student who may, under certain circumstances, perform voluntary service,” the GAO found, adding that there was no emergency that might have justified using the individuals to perform several months of work without receiving pay.


The Department of Defense was found to have violated the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 and the Antideficiency Act in the infamous Bowe Bergdahl swap, when President Barack Obama traded five high-level Taliban detainees for a U.S. Army deserter. The administration transferred the five Taliban from Guantanamo Bay without notifying relevant congressional committees 30 days in advance, as required by law. Republicans complained; Democrats were silent.


The Department of Housing and Urban Development was found to have violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Antideficiency Act in 2014 when the deputy secretary of the department sent an email to “friends and colleagues” asking them to lobby the Senate in favor of a bill appropriating money to the department, and against amendments offered by Republican Senators.


The Environmental Protection Agency was found to have violated “publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions” in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act in 2015 by using some of the department’s social media accounts in rule-making for the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulations (which have since been repealed under the Trump administration).


Two officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development were found in 2016 to have violated Section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act by attempting to prevent a regional director within the agency from being interviewed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (Notably, the GAO reversed its earlier decision that the department’s general counsel had not violated the law once it was presented with more evidence.)


The Federal Maritime Commission was found to have violated Section 711 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, as well as the Antideficiency Act, in 2016 when it failed to notify the relevant Senate and House committees that it had spent more than $5,000 to furnish and redecorate the office of its former director in 2010. (The total amount spent was $12,084 over three years, as noted by the GAO in a footnote reference to an inspector general’s report on the excessive expenditures.)


Given all of this, former President Obama should have been impeached seven different times.


Sure seems like Democrats have a double-standard when it comes to the law.


Is it your opinion that if a President refuses to turn over documents subpoenaed by Congress he should be impeached?


https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/polit...sts/index.html


On Tuesday President Donald Trump suggested his administration won't cooperate with House Democrats' recent request for information and documents from more than 80 groups, organizations and individuals, as part of their investigation into Trump's campaign, businesses, post-election transition and administration.

In doing so, Trump tried to draw a comparison to former President Barack Obama by claiming he didn't comply with congressional inquiries either.
"President Obama, from what they tell me, was under a similar kind of a thing," said Trump. "They didn't give one letter. They didn't do anything. They didn't give one letter of the requests. Many requests were made. They didn't give a letter."


Facts First: Though Trump is vague about what exactly he's referring to, it's untrue to say that the Obama administration refused to comply with congressional requests for information. There were a handful of occasions where the Obama administration initially rebuffed extensive congressional document requests, but ultimately complied, either voluntarily or under court order.
So Obama could wait for a court order but Trump can't?

During the Fast and Furious botched weapons sting investigation, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee in 2012 recommended that then-Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over requested documents. They made the recommendation after Obama asserted executive privilege over some documents sought by the committee.
But two years later, under court order, the Obama Justice Department did turn over nearly 65,000 pages of Fast and Furious-related documents.


So is it your opinion that if a President is accused of abusing the power of his office, he should be impeached?


https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency

Top 10 Ways Obama Violated the Constitution during His Presidency

Why wasn't Obama impeached if he broke the law, abused his power and obstructed subpoena's by Congress

Antiabortion, pro-Trump protester interrupts trial

A man yelling in support of Trump and against abortion was ejected from the Senate visitor gallery around 6:20 p.m. Wednesday.

The man, who appeared to be in his 50s, was then observed on the floor outside the chamber, surrounded by police with reporters watching from a nearby hallway. Within a few minutes, the police escorted the man away as he screamed “abortion” and “dismiss the charges against President Trump.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...LHSAS4H2BQAFAI

I’m waiting for Pam Bondi to jump on the table, rip her blouse open and scream “ Crowdstrike “ for her Fuhrer. She’s a fanatic also, like the trumptard in the gallery.

Antiabortion, pro-Trump protester interrupts trial

A man yelling in support of Trump and against abortion was ejected from the Senate visitor gallery around 6:20 p.m. Wednesday.

The man, who appeared to be in his 50s, was then observed on the floor outside the chamber, surrounded by police with reporters watching from a nearby hallway. Within a few minutes, the police escorted the man away as he screamed “abortion” and “dismiss the charges against President Trump.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...LHSAS4H2BQAFAI

I’m waiting for Pam Bondi to jump on the table, rip her blouse open and scream “ Crowdstrike “ for her Fuhrer. She’s a fanatic also, like the trumptard in the gallery. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

And this is what you post when you've got nuthin. How about a comment on the GAO finding Obama broke the law 7 times, got a comment on that or Obama refusing subpoena's, any comment on that?

More talking points bitching about money in Washington. No talk of the substance of the case. Calls from Republicans on C-SPAN

More talking points bitching about money in Washington. No talk of the substance of the case. Calls from Republicans on C-SPAN Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

how can one discuss the substance of something without substance? isn't that a double negative?


BAHHAHHAHAAAA

Illegal. He broke the law holding up the funds. But it is the opinion of this DOJ (and I use that term loosely) that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He chooses his top law enforcer, so be it.
















Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Wrong, first of all holding up funds isn't against the Law. It's also against Foreign Policy to give funds to a country that is corrupt, Ukraine happens to have a history of corruption. What Trump essentially did was delay funds until he felt satisfied the new Ukrainian administration was serious about combating corruption. Furthermore the House Of Rep doesn't set policy the President does.

And this is what you post when you've got nuthin. How about a comment on the GAO finding Obama broke the law 7 times, got a comment on that or Obama refusing subpoena's, any comment on that? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Obama isn’t standing trial and never will be, So why would I ....seems like more whataboutism to me.

He should have notified Congress. So . . . yeah, he broke the law. Doing it, and keeping it a secret. Double Whammy. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Maybe you failed to notice how Pelosi, gNadless and Schitty completely failed to put a statute to that bullshit charge in the impeachment document.

Oh, and there are four government investigations that have concluded you're a liar every time you claim the Republicans colluded with Russia, and that lying shit Schitty lied when he made that charge in his opening statements as did gNadless when he appeared on MSDNC Sunday. Lie, lie, lie, it's all your ilk does.

Wrong, first of all holding up funds isn't against the Law. It's also against Foreign Policy to give funds to a country that is corrupt, Ukraine happens to have a history of corruption. What Trump essentially did was delay funds until he felt satisfied the new Ukrainian administration was serious about combating corruption. Furthermore the House Of Rep doesn't set policy the President does. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Whatever the Executive's foreign policy stance, the way he held up the money is against the law. Without informing Congress. Numerous agencies warned him of it. Drug deal, anyone?

But, like usual, he does it without thinking. He does it, then asks someone to justify it. He does not listen to his advisors. That's why Rex Tillerson called him a moron. Precisely, I might add.

awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions". Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid