Pam Bondi DROPS A MOAB ON Joe Biden and Son Hunter Biden at Senate Impeachment Trial

LOL yeap don't you remember those mind changing face book ads that cost 160k that changed the face of the election. I promise you if dems believed that every damn dem candidate would have Putin on speed dialing letting him know they had 160k if he run their facebook campaign. What an f'ing joke you Russian collusion truthers have pushed on us.

 

Let me summarize the gops new view of impeachment.
You can only impeach for crimes.
The house can’t investigate crimes.
The president can’t be investigated for crimes by anyone.
So basically the gop is view is impeachment is unconstitutional....or at best requires the presidents own AG to accuse him of a crime.

 

It's an administrative difference of opinion between the GAO and OMB, not impeachable and the MONEY WAS RELEASED. It wasn't a crime.

It's a civil matter at best.

I don't have to explain it but the date was coming up and his advisors were advising him to do so and you don't get to put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head.

You did not listen to the Democrat witnesses during the impeachment? They passed warnings about, did they obtain his banking records? Did they depose him? And State Department does not do criminal investigations into corruption. What did they determine was the reason he was hired by Burisma?

Plenary right.

Reelection, he was apparently afraid his buddy buddy relationship with Russia would effect it.

Your side is arguing he went against official policy, who manages that official policy? He doesn't have to report his foreign policy deliberations to Congress and the Democrats in Congress would leak whatever they were told in a heartbeat. He used the state department where he saw fit and private envoys where he saw fit, his decision. Why did Schiff lie about everything?

 

*rolling eyes*

Take a look at the polls. Bonespurs isn't exactly killing it.

 

So what is the crime?

 

Who ordered him to "back off"?

Just PRETENDING that something is "fact" doesn't make it so WITHOUT credible substantiating!

Your abysmal track record when it comes to producing credible substantiation leaves a great deal to be desired.

 

Got to wonder which member id BB was using back in 2016?

 

Let's look at the timeline......

CNN said in late 2015 the investigation went inactive......Gee I wonder why. The Republicans need to call U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt, put 'em under oath.

 

Read the article posted.

 

FauxNoise has ZERO CREDIBILITY!

The FACTS are that the CORRUPT president Poroshenko of Ukraine was in bed with Shokin when it came to PROTECTING corruption in Ukraine. He appointed Shokin to STOP the investigations and he is the ONLY person who had any authority to TELL Shokin what to do and not do!

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-poroshenko-doesn-t-deserve-a-second-term/

Shokin was Poroshenko's lackey and BOTH of them are corrupt LIARS!

 

That is one complaint I have of Trump, he hasn't learned to separate himself from issues that should be handled by others. He should have seen how top Democrats always have underlings doing their dirty work in order to have plausible deniability. Of course Trump probably also thinks he should have the same confidentiality that all other presidents have and doesn't expect so many leaks.

 

Is the reason why "Shotkin was a corrupt prosecutor who would take bribes to not prosecute, but would also keep investigations as 'dormant' so that he could threaten companies and individuals with renewing the investigation unless they also paid him money?"

 

"Underlings"----like Rudy? Like Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman? Or, like when Bonespurs wants to float another idiotic claim, he has Sham Insanity do it for him?

 

*LOL*

He's playing t-ball, and he struck out.

His "theories" are fringe, whacko theories. They've never been anywhere close to accepted. They make little sense logically, in light of the fact that federal crimes were predated by the Constitution, so he's wholly disregarding what the drafters were thinking when the Constitution became effective. It's utter crap, but easily digested by the gullible and people without any legal education.

 

I see these latest moves to focus on Biden as their alternative to Trump's original plan of the 'investigation'. He must be so pleased.

 

You have posted this article several times.

Clearly, you have not taken the time - short as it would be - to research Viktor Shokin.

Why not?

 

Actually he was playing MLB and taught the Congress especially the House managers a lesson on impeachment historically, constitutionally and legally.


https://books.google.com/books?id=5...law dictionary misdemeanor synonymous&f=false

 

*LOL*

That's not what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means as it is used in the Constitution.

Please look it up.

His definition of impeachable offenses is defined AROUND what Bonespurs did. He basically made it up. He sucked.

 

He's looking to create a narrative to support Bonespurs's nonsensical position. That could be a full-time career.

 

Dershowitz already did.

 

He did? Where---Breitbart?

By his own admission, a "presuhdint" couldn't be impeached under his definition of an impeachable offense if they allowed the Russians invade Alaska!

That's never been the definition. NEVER. He defined it around Bonespurs' conduct so that he could make that ridiculous argument.

 

Sorry you missed the impeachment, you should be watching it if you are going to comment on it.

 

I didn't, my woefully uninformed chum.

Would you like to see the quote directly from ******owitz?

 

This is ******owitz "playing MLB", according to Bluesguy:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/alan-dershowitzs-radical-case-against-impeachment/

Dershowitz goes so far as to argue that even if a president were to allow Russia to invade and reclaim Alaska, this would still not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“A president cannot be convicted of a crime for merely exercising his constitutional authority to fire, pardon or end an investigation,” he writes, and even “collusion with a foreign power during an election” is “not currently a crime under the federal criminal code.” In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on federal statutes’ definition of corruption and “not all political actions that smell or look like corruption can be prosecuted criminally without Congress specifically making such conduct criminal” with precise legislation.

Virtually all other academics and scholars disagree that “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be interpreted so narrowly.

 

https://www.whois.com/whois/atlanticcouncil.org

You expect us to believe an anonymous kook blog has more credibility than Fox News? Some folks will believe ANYTHING!