The trial of Donald J. Trump

Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

And yet actual 20th century crimes were alleged, and I would suggest, proven in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. This will be the first time in history where no crime is spelled out, only abuse of power, which the opposing party of every President has proposed. As I pointed out in the Obama Presidency.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

"And yet actual 20th century crimes were alleged, and I would suggest, proven in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. This will be the first time in history where no crime is spelled out, only abuse of power, which the opposing party of every president has proposed. As I pointed out in the Obama presidency." HeedFo

When you came on the scene, you will remember, I stated, for the record, I liked your writing. I know it is an effrontery to you that I edit your post, but this way I hope you use more commas.

I recall a teacher of mine telling me I use too many. Hence, I've learned to use more semi-colons and dashes. "Learned" is a stretch.

Anyway. I have not been around this earth as long as you, but I have been around for a while. I'm in my forties. Opposing parties of the presidency have had to deal with this shit for years in the past.

People think Florida is weird. Get a load of this cripple in the great state of . . .

Texas: 44 Lawsuits, One Opponent: Obama Administration


https://www.wsj.com/articles/abbotts...ion-1466778976

DALLAS—When a deadlocked Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama’s plan to give millions of illegal immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, it marked a pivotal victory for the administration’s most relentless legal adversary: the state of Texas.

The president “is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws,” responded Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, whose myriad lawsuits against the Obama administration, including the state’s lead role in the immigration case, have been a...

I've used my two articles, for each browser I use, for the month. I need to clear my history.

So.....
The Dims are almost done presenting and.....
Where's the actual evidence of High crimes and/or treason?

The he said, and someone else said, stuff is putting me to sleep.

Schiff ended with asking for a fair trial. But I have posted here before, and I will repost it, that nobody should be bitching about a fair trial.

9500 - on the side of open borders and terating illegals with more free stuff than any citizen who pays taxes would get.

On the side of Iran and murdering terrorists who kill Americans.

On the side of brnie's "good" bradlines and dictatorial socialism.

On the side of Linda Sarsour and other rabid Anti-semitic racists.

On the side the racebaiter Al Sharpton who wants every "black American" to reparations for slavery and be supported for life by the US Govt.

Criticizing the Texas Attorney General - who actually filed the suits - and jumping on a guy in a wheelchair.

Swallowing all of Schiff and Naaler's accusations - of precisely what the Fascist DPST's are doing themselves - as indictment of the POTUS.
Try clearing your mind of the fascist DPST Marxist narrative you parrot!


And wants to go play at nukes to drop on Middle America with Eric Swalwell. For gun Control!

"And yet actual 20th century crimes were alleged, and I would suggest, proven in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. This will be the first time in history where no crime is spelled out, only abuse of power, which the opposing party of every president has proposed. As I pointed out in the Obama presidency." HeedFo

When you came on the scene, you will remember, I stated, for the record, I liked your writing. I know it is an effrontery to you that I edit your post, but this way I hope you use more commas.



Never took a writing class and probably ( as you say, a long, long time ago ) got at best C's in English composition but just for you, I'll try harder but I will continue to make mistakes, on that you can count on..


I recall a teacher of mine telling me I use too many. Hence, I've learned to use more semi-colons and dashes. "Learned" is a stretch.

Anyway. I have not been around this earth as long as you, but I have been around for a while. I'm in my forties. Opposing parties of the presidency have had to deal with this shit for years in the past.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Want to comment on my "whataboutism" analysis?

Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

And yet actual 20th century crimes were alleged and I would suggest proven in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. This will be the first time in history were no crime is spelled out, only abuse of power which the opposing party of every President has proposed as I pointed out in the Obama Presidency.


So yeah, you don't need a "crime" but it sure would help

It won't help now that the precedent has been set. As per this DOJ. A crime does not help removal. Extremely disheartening.

but then again, I don't think anybody would debate that Bill Clinton committed actual crimes in lying to a grand jury and was still not convicted of those crimes, Hmmm, imagine that, broke the law but it wasn't enough for 67 Senators to come to the conclusion that it was enough to convict which is exactly what this Senate will decide now and the Democrats will yell TRAITOR'S!....... But only when it's a Republican and not a Democrat that actually broke defined laws.

Only those who see just the tip of the iceberg will say that, and the other side will claim that. I fear you are in that situation. There is bigger cause for tribulation.

Remember that the Democrats have accused Trump of Bribery and Treason, actual crimes in the Constitution but didn't include them in the Articles because they know it was bullshit.

No. It just wasn't worth it with this Senate and Judiciary.

They also yelled extortion and again didn't include that defined crime in the Articles. They say they had the President dead to right on obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation but failed to include that in the Articles. They were so flummoxed as to what to accuse the President of since they couldn't offer an actual legal term, that they settled with "abuse of power" precisely because they could make that mean anything they want it to like 9500 suggests and that is exactly what Madison warned against, the opposition party making up shit because they want to undo an election.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That quote wasn't mine. About abuse of power definition.

Here's a question I would like to ask. Remember when Obama was caught on a hot mike telling Medvedev of Russia implying, "do me a favor" notice not us a favor but me a favor

I don't. Was that just in the conservatives' conspiracy theory circle? Can you post a video, link or article? Credible as much as we can agree.

when he asked the Russians to not push him on missile defense in Poland so close to his re-election? "Wait till I get re-elected and I'll have more "flexibility" Obama said. That could be seen as asking a foreign country, Russia no less, to involve themselves in our election. If they put pressure on Obama to do something they wanted, he might not win re-election. So what did Obama promise in return for the Russians turning down the pressure on him so he could get re-elected? Was there a quid pro quo?



9500, I'd like to address this to you since you are so hung up on "whataboutism".


For good reason. I think I'm giving you too much credit. You're starting to sound like Ranky on this post. But you sounded like you were coming around on the post response to the conservative National Review piece.

Should Black people stop saying "what about Black people getting pulled over by police more than Whites"?

I don't know about that. Your "whataboutism" is a deflection. A distraction. Redirecrion. The minority community keeps the focus on the issue. Themselves.

What about Blacks getting harsher sentences for the same drug crimes Whites commit?

Again. This is not a "whataboutism".

What about Black children getting punished more harshly in school when White kids do the same things and don't receive the same punishment?

I'm just glad you see these issues are worth talking about.

Should Blacks just shut up about "whataboutisms" or is it legitimate to point out what they see as hypocrisy? Are they just making that case to over look the crimes that Blacks commit or do they have a legitimate grievance? Oh how I would love to hear Olivor tackle that question?


I think Blacks would tell you and Olivor that it is necessary sometimes to ask "what about".

We are all free to have our opinions. As baseless as they are.

And when one group of politicians are willing to over look the same actions as "their guy" commits but want to impeach a guy from the other party for the exact same thing, you're damn right "whataboutism" is a legitimate topic for discussion. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Want to comment on my "whataboutism" analysis?
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That good?

New audio appears to capture Trump saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired


https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/aud...fired-68516528

President Donald Trump is apparently heard in an April 2018 recording reviewed by ABC News telling associates, including Lev Parnas, that he wants US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired.

Trump wanted Yovanovitch fired. so what. she got fired. He has that right. so why are you complaining about that.

9500 - on the side of open borders and terating illegals with more free stuff than any citizen who pays taxes would get.

On the side of Iran and murdering terrorists who kill Americans.

On the side of brnie's "good" bradlines and dictatorial socialism.

On the side of Linda Sarsour and other rabid Anti-semitic racists.

On the side the racebaiter Al Sharpton who wants every "black American" to reparations for slavery and be supported for life by the US Govt.

Criticizing the Texas Attorney General - who actually filed the suits - and jumping on a guy in a wheelchair.

Swallowing all of Schiff and Naaler's accusations - of precisely what the Fascist DPST's are doing themselves - as indictment of the POTUS.
Try clearing your mind of the fascist DPST Marxist narrative you parrot!


And wants to go play at nukes to drop on Middle America with Eric Swalwell. For gun Control! Originally Posted by oeb11

You better hope you never get close to either of my sides...

Trump wanted Yovanovitch fired. so what. she got fired. He has that right. so why are you complaining about that. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Jesus Christ you dimwit....do you think it ok for Rudy to make up shit about an Ambassador to get them fired.

You are correct about Trump being able to fire her. Had he done that...no problem.

But he didn't...he had Rudy make up a bunch of crap about her because of this Crowdsource lie he wanted to spread.

God Damn man, wake the fuck up.

So.....
The Dims are almost done presenting and.....
Where's the actual evidence of High crimes and/or treason?
... Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

President Trump is guilty of felony butthurt. Just look at WTF, eccieloser666 and Assup for evidence.

Hopefully next term the Dims can impeach him for manslaughter. Like that girl who convinced her weak minded ex-boyfriend to kill himself.

Evidence and crimes the ijjits are believing the box ,, again

Lindsey Graham will oppose subpoena of Hunter Biden

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he will vote against a motion to subpoena Hunter Biden if a majority of colleagues agree next week that additional witnesses and documents need to be summoned for President Trump's impeachment trial.

If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Graham said "I vote against it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...nter-biden?amp

President Trump is guilty of felony butthurt. Just look at WTF, eccieloser666 and Assup for evidence.

Hopefully next term the Dims can impeach him for manslaughter. Like that girl who convinced her weak minded ex-boyfriend to kill himself. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Hopefully your boyfriend can convince you to do the same....if you're listening lustylad....do the right thing!

Lindsey Graham will oppose subpoena of Hunter Biden

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he will vote against a motion to subpoena Hunter Biden if a majority of colleagues agree next week that additional witnesses and documents need to be summoned for President Trump's impeachment trial.

If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Graham said "I vote against it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...nter-biden?amp Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Lindsey knows he is in a pickle.

Trump and the stupid mutherfuckers on here calling for Hunter Biden to testify understand that they have the votes to make that happen. But they know the truth that Rudy and Donald having been lying about will come out if Biden testifies.

God Damn idiots in this forum will believe anything Trump says....Hell he got Ted Cruz to believe his daddy killed JFK.

Which blows up dilbert conspiracy theory.