Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

What does it matter? The Articles could be about Trump's raping to death the Firstborn daughters of his Senators on National TV and these same Senators wouldn't even call themselves as witnesses before acquitting him. They are the Lickspittle Legion, Trump's total toadies and will all vote whatever makes him able to continue Keeping America Great and enables them to re-insert their noses into his anus. Fine, the voting public is not blind and not even ephemeral increases in our 401K's are worth losing the country that enables us to have them in the first place; not just Trump but most of the entire Republican PARTY will be gone in 2020.

 

Ahh, I thought you meant in discussions, not in the clinton created media conglomerate monstrosity we see today.

Cause he resigned before he could be.

And I see it here numerous times. The draft dodging too. Wish his BS telecommunications act was brought up more

I disagree

 

but you are fully aware this one isn't either. There are numerous witnesses with sworn testimony (evidence) Don's own statements (evidence) and the transcript of the call itself (evidence).

 

LOL, sworn testimony that they observed no crimes, that they presumed, and Trumps only statement, sworn to under oath, was that he wanted nothing, and the call shows no quid pro quo but hey, up is down, right is left, hot is cold in the Bizarro world of the sufferers.

 

no, sworn testimony that they did observe crimes. The call clearly shows quid pro quo, and he admitted to it on the white house law. I know reality tends to shatter righty ideology, but reality doesn't go away because you don't like it.

 

you don't get to violate the Houses constitutional right to impeach simply because you claim (without a shred of evidence) that the Impeachment is lacking facts. Once again we see how Trump violates the constitution, the rule of law and our democracy just to save his own skin. Not only is he one of the few presidents to be impeache but also the only one to loose the popular vote by 3 million. Let's retire Trumps gang of never-truthers.

 

I cannot verify what people say in their own political discussions, nor am I astute connoisseur of political talking points. What I can say is that it's the media's job to portray the narrative and public perceptions of political figures. Losing the popular vote (in the case of Bush) and impeachment (in the case of Clinton) were not very significant points in their Presidency. These points are normally concentrated in the opinion post

 

Obama's assertion of EP in the F&F investigation was limited to certain documents, not the comprehensive, all encompassing blanket privilege your Orange Messiah is claiming in all matters pertaining to.................everything. Not to mention that AG Holder testified 9 times and produced 7,600 documents at Congress's request while Trump stonewalls everything.

 

LOL, guess you didn't watch any of the testimony. They were each asked individually if they observed and crimes and the answer was no. A quid pro quo requires a quid and a quo. One was missing in the call.

 

You evidently don't know how this works. The court ALWAYS settles disputes between Congress and the Executive. The dem clown show was in too much of rush to follow procedure.

 

Winston tastes good like a cigarette should!
Coke, It's the Real Thing!
I've got Lance in my Pants!
Have it Your Way at Burger King!
...

Where's the Beef?

 

Trump clearly stated on the readout of the call right after Zelinsky requested desperately needed Javelin missiles for a favor regarding Ukrainian investigation into the Biden's and told zelinsky to talk with his best man Gulienne for help.. Live witnesses on the call testified to hearing the same thing. It's not up to the witnesses to claim they knew a crime was committed(that's bogus B.S to cover the president) their job was only to report suspicious behavior on the part of the president. Its the content of the testimony which matches the content of the readout of the call that that shows us bribery on Trumps part. . Zelinsky would never have asked for the Missiles he if already possed them but Trump held them back deliberately. Trump cannot override the constitution, or our Democracy because he was caught.

 

"if it's possible". No quid pro quo like Biden's.

 

Democrats should do something they rarely do, stop and think for a second, and then hope and pray that SCOTUS undoes the second count of impeachment. It would prevent the same shenanigans done against them in the future, and far more importantly, allows them and their vast MSM propaganda arm to claim a "conservative activist" court, and not their own folly in adding a nebulous, spurious count to the articles instead of a statutory violation, undid part of their "lawful" impeachment. They could then rely on the general ignorance of the public and claim that a biased SCOTUS undid the WHOLE Impeachment. That would be the best possible result for Democrats at this point in facial egg removal.

 

This is a fragmented unrecognizable sentence. Clearly you have lost this debate:
I said: Trump clearly stated on the readout of the call right after Zelinsky requested desperately needed Javelin missiles for a Ukranian investigation into the Biden's and told zelinsky to talk with his best man Gulienne for help.. Live witnesses on the call testified to hearing the same thing. It's not up to the witnesses to claim they knew a crime was committed(that's bogus B.S to cover the president) their job was only to report suspicious behavior on the part of the president. Its the content of the testimony which matches the content of the readout of the call that that shows us bribery on Trumps part. . Zelinsky would never have asked for the Missiles if he if already possed them but Trump held them back deliberately. Trump cannot override the constitution, or our Democracy because he was caught.

 

That's ok. I wasn't make any sort of statistical claim of 'mentions vs labels'. Merely an anecdotal expression of what I've seen here over the last 7 years or so.

Losing the popular vote for Bush would have defined him if he hadn't dealt with 9/11 or invading Iraq. Those things most definitely overshadow his first election to the POTUS by the Supreme Court.

Clinton, is definitely more defined by his Impeachment then Bush is by his Election.

 

Yet, still no quid pro quo. Go figure.

 

To bad the only support for that you have rumors and assumptions and no real facts at all

 

The reason why Bush's Presidency isn't defined by the popular vote is because there is no basis to establish that we would have lost with or without one because of the Florida recount. Bush might have lost the recount; he might have won the recount and ended up with more votes than Gore. We just don't know, because the Supreme Court ruled that the recount was unconstitutional and that is what defined his Presidency; not losing the popular vote.

Clinton is simply defined by someone who received oral sex in the oval office, and he wasn't impeached for that. Again, these narratives of the popular vote and impeachment when it comes to Bush and Clinton are not pervasive. They're primarily driven by people who believe the election of these two people is illegitimate.

 

Except Mulvaney admitted it was a QPQ and tried to play it off as a regular day to day action.

This is the problem with Trump and the Rights story; it's shifted so much depending on information as it leaked.
First it didn't happen at all
then it was just a normal bit of diplomacy
then it was Trump trying to tackle corruption (even though the supposed 'corruption' of Hunter being on the board had been happening for 2 years without nary a word)


I mean, when they constantly shift arguments based on constant revealing of info that destroys the previous argument, it ends up like arguing with a child who doesn't want to admit being wrong, so will use any hook possible to find a loophole or reason to justify the behavior.

 

What he was talking about is and has been for 8000 years that I know of.

 

Asking for dirt on Biden as a favor while deliberately holding back missiles is Bribery. Trump's gang of never-truthers is on the march.

 

What a bunch of small minded grotesque hate filled partisan crap.

 

By taking the position that the executive branch can refuse a congressional subpoena, the executive branch is denying Congress a right they have enshrined in the constitution pending a review by the courts. The courts in this case can decide to take this up now as they did in Gore v Bush or wait until the next term thereby delaying the inevitable decision supporting the Congresses right to oversee the executive. If anyone thinks they will allow the President the right to deny the Congress the right to oversee them via a valid subpoena then you are cynically accepting a monarchy instead of a republic. If the courts rule in favor of Trump, they too will be creating a monarchy by making the President unaccountable to any other branch. I doubt if Roberts will let them do this but nothing surprises me with this group of Republicans. The harm in waiting for this ruling is obvious, Trump can do as he wishes in the interim including cheating to gain advantage in 2020 and risking national security in the process. Time is of the essence here. If Roberts wanted, he could rule tomorrow. But he shows no sign of wanting to expedite this ruling because he does not want to risk losing the Senate and the executive if he does. Its that simple folks.

 

The reply was in regards to Clinton impeachment, I used Nixon as an example of a President brought up more on PF in regards to impeachment debate..