Watching Shiffy, Nadler, and the Motley Crew press conference this morning

[DoogieMcDoogerson]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

 

[DoogieMcDoogerson]

So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?

If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.

Why does trump’s impeachment [/b]that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?

This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution.

Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.

This post explains precisely why the federal government is an abject abomination and needs to be reduced to the federalist constricts outlined in the constitution.

I don't even know where to begin with this...coming from you. You can't have it both ways with the constitution...

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?

If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.

Why does trump’s impeachment [/b]that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?

This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution.

Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.

This post explains precisely why the federal government is an abject abomination and needs to be reduced to the federalist constricts outlined in the constitution.

I don't even know where to begin with this...coming from you. You can't have it both ways with the constitution...

You’re confused frequently.

 

[RoadTrip]

I can't believe Pelosi allowed herself to be goaded into this. She is a cunt, but she is shrewd. She has to know there is no upside here at all. Zero percent chance the Senate does anything other than acquit. So nothing comes of this, at all. But, conservatives are energized and she has turned off some portion of independents who see this for what it is. All she did is give Trump a better chance of getting reelected.

Makes little sense except when viewed through the prism of TDS.

Support for trump’s impeachment is approximately 50%
Trump’s approval rating is approximately 40%

Then again, you’ve proudly proclaimed for years now that you’re an idiot.

You keep believing and smoking those poles. Any normal human being would tell the caller to fuck off and die if they even bothered to answer the solicitation. Only freaks like you answer and respond.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

I can't believe Pelosi allowed herself to be goaded into this. She is a cunt, but she is shrewd. She has to know there is no upside here at all. Zero percent chance the Senate does anything other than acquit. So nothing comes of this, at all. But, conservatives are energized and she has turned off some portion of independents who see this for what it is. All she did is give Trump a better chance of getting reelected.

Makes little sense except when viewed through the prism of TDS.

Support for trump’s impeachment is approximately 50%
Trump’s approval rating is approximately 40%

Then again, you’ve proudly proclaimed for years now that you’re an idiot.

You keep believing and smoking those poles. Any normal human being would tell the caller to fuck off and die if they even bothered to answer the solicitation. Only freaks like you answer and respond.

Do you know any normal human beings?

 

[GDS]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

 

[Bendintheriver]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.

If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.

If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.

 

[pawz]

I can't believe Pelosi allowed herself to be goaded into this. She is a cunt, but she is shrewd. She has to know there is no upside here at all. Zero percent chance the Senate does anything other than acquit. So nothing comes of this, at all. But, conservatives are energized and she has turned off some portion of independents who see this for what it is. All she did is give Trump a better chance of getting reelected.

Makes little sense except when viewed through the prism of TDS.

Btw, neither you nor any other trumptard has defined tds. What is it?

@allpurpleallgold @TheKobeStopper @TierbsHsotBoobs

 

[pawz]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact.[/i][/b] You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.

Also, Tulsi Gabbard.

Remember, stick to "documented facts".

 

[GDS]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact.[/i][/b] You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Speaking of documented facts, tell us more about Assad using gas on his own people. Allegedly.

Also, Tulsi Gabbard.

Remember, stick to "documented facts".

It's sad that you and your alt Turd Burglar are still on tilt about inconvenient facts being posted about your dream girl Tulsi. I did find it funny today when she claimed she was bailing on the next debate even when it was clear she wasn't going to qualify anyway.

 

[GDS]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.

If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.

If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.

huh? It was in the transcript Atl...Trump asked for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens...fucking hell man you have really lost it...sad.

 

[TurdBomber]

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Crawl back under your rock, Pedophile.

And Fuck Off when you get there.

 

[TurdBomber]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.

If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.

If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.

huh? It was in the transcript Atl...Trump asked for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens...fucking hell man you have really lost it[/b]...sad.

Did you "lose it" before you became a pedophile, @GDS?

 

[Bendintheriver]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.

If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.

If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.

huh? It was in the transcript Atl...Trump asked for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens...fucking hell man you have really lost it...sad.

No it wasn't in the transcript you idiot. We all read it. You must say this shit and think no one knows anything about the lies you are telling. Quit lying. Just stop it.

 

[GDS]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.

If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.

If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.

huh? It was in the transcript Atl...Trump asked for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens...fucking hell man you have really lost it...sad.

No it wasn't in the transcript you idiot. We all read it. You must say this shit and think no one knows anything about the lies you are telling. Quit lying. Just stop it.

hahaha - so you don't think Trump asked Zelenskyy for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens in the July 25th call? bwahahahahaha.

 

[RaceBannon]

If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.

Some pretty rich shit in this.

Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.

No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?

Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.

You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...

Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?

I'll try to help you understand:

Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
[/b]Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
[/b]He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.

Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
[/b]President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.

Discredited by whom?[/b]
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.

I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.

Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.

None of the claims you produced are lies. The first sentence - that's a documented fact. You can go down the list of the numerous witnesses and to the July 25th transcript itself all of which show that Trump and his underlings were soliciting for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.

Second quote you claim is a lie - again proven fact that Trump and his minions were soliciting Ukraine for the an announcement of an investigation.

Third quote you claim to be a lie is not a lie and the facts we know thus far show a pattern that confirm this allegation.

Fourth quote you claim to be a lie has been discredited by our intelligence agencies as well as the Mueller investigation.

So when asked for the lies that you claim where in the article you can't produce any?

Hey scotti, quit with the bullshit. Answer one question: Who saw or heard FIRSTHAND the President demand these accusations of the Ukraine President? Name one person.

If you can't (and you can't) then your entire post is a flat out lie. The President of Ukraine has said multiple times that he was never under pressure or was asked to do these things. They are made up by rats who couldn't find one person with first hand knowledge of any of the accusations.

If this was a court of law, the whole charade would have been thrown out and every lawyer knows it.

huh? It was in the transcript Atl...Trump asked for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens...fucking hell man you have really lost it...sad.

No it wasn't in the transcript you idiot. We all read it. You must say this shit and think no one knows anything about the lies you are telling. Quit lying. Just stop it.

hahaha - so you don't think Trump asked Zelenskyy for an investigation of Crowdstrike and the Bidens in the July 25th call? bwahahahahaha.

He didn't but why are Biden and Crowdstrike above the law? We have the democrats in year 4 of investigating an opponent

This is why you guys are so full of shit and you know you are

We read the transcript pathological liar

 

[Bendintheriver]

How do you like lying scotti?

 

[GDS]

How do you like lying scotti?

I wouldn't know Atl but your aversion to the truth is on full display in this thread. At least you have Race here now to as Blob would call it "tongue your asshole".

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

 

[Bendintheriver]

I am curious scotti, where in the following conversation did Trump go for Quid Pro Quo? When did he tell the President that he would withhold funds until he investigated Biden's son? Where, exactly is the corruption? Biden stopped an investigation into his son and his company by threatening to withhold funding and then bragged about it. That is corruption. In addition, there were Ukrainians who were interfering in our elections. Remember that behavior that you rats used to care so much about when you falsely claimed Trump colluded with the Russians in our elections but now seem to want to ignore when it is the Ukrainians and biden?

There was zero quid pro quo. The man is doing his job and protecting our tax dollars and not giving it to a corrupt country without making sure things are right. Your side is guilty and didn't like it so they ginned up the QPQ, then focus grouped it and called it bribing, then focus grouped it again and called it obstruction and some other thing that is as far away from the original QPQ as it can get. Get over it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-zelensky-summary-july-phone-call/2440399001/

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," Trump began his reply.

He went on to ask Zelensky to look into details about a company that investigated hacking of the Democratic National Committee prior to the 2016 election that was linked back to Russia.

"We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine," Zelensky said in his response.

"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and that he was shut down and that's really unfair," Trump said to Zelensky in the transcript summary.

"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great," Trump adds. "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

Zelensky said he is "knowledgeable about the situation." He also said the next prosecutor general would be backed by him.

 

[GDS]

I am curious scotti, where in the following conversation did Trump go for Quid Pro Quo? When did he tell the President that he would withhold funds until he investigated Biden's son? Where, exactly is the corruption? Biden stopped an investigation into his son and his company by threatening to withhold funding and then bragged about it. That is corruption. In addition, there were Ukrainians who were interfering in our elections. Remember that behavior that you rats used to care so much about when you falsely claimed Trump colluded with the Russians in our elections but now seem to want to ignore when it is the Ukrainians and biden?

There was zero quid pro quo. The man is doing his job and protecting our tax dollars and not giving it to a corrupt country without making sure things are right. Your side is guilty and didn't like it so they ginned up the QPQ, then focus grouped it and called it bribing, then focus grouped it again and called it obstruction and some other thing that is as far away from the original QPQ as it can get. Get over it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-zelensky-summary-july-phone-call/2440399001/

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," Trump began his reply.

He went on to ask Zelensky to look into details about a company that investigated hacking of the Democratic National Committee prior to the 2016 election that was linked back to Russia.

"We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine," Zelensky said in his response.

"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and that he was shut down and that's really unfair," Trump said to Zelensky in the transcript summary.

"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great," Trump adds. "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

Zelensky said he is "knowledgeable about the situation." He also said the next prosecutor general would be backed by him.

LOL look at Atl the liar move the goalposts! At least you now have admitted you lied when you claimed Trump didn't ask for an investigation of Crowdstrike and Biden in the call. You should tell Race that he lied as well.