Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Machismo]

Stop kidding yourself.
She got scared, all the accusations about Trump-Ukraine were utter bullshit.
Imaginary story.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

[Orbitus]

Stop kidding yourself.
She got scared, all the accusations about Trump-Ukraine were utter bullshit.
Imaginary story.

So, not only is your picture bullshit, but so is your post otherwise. Come back when you have something from reality to post.

[omerome]

Stop kidding yourself.
She got scared, all the accusations about Trump-Ukraine were utter bullshit.
Imaginary story.

Give actual proof that your claim is true and not some image from an unknown source.

[Shaqur]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

The call did happen, but it was not about what the whistle blower claimed it out to be.
Listen it yourself and draw conclusion from there. Its available online, you won't have any problems finding it.

[Machismo]

The call did happen, but it was not about what the whistle blower claimed it out to be.
Listen it yourself and draw conclusion from there. Its available online, you won't have any problems finding it.

I want evidence. You made a very clear claim, where is your evidence?

You have the audio of it? I'd love to have that link, thanks.

(this is the part where you either disappear, or you try to ramble on and on about how you didn't just get caught in a complete fucking lie)

[Breccia]

According to the Associated Press, Kurdish leaders contacted Russia and Syria to make a deal, probably to keep themselves from being genocided by Turkey.

But also, they called Trump first.

The commander of the Kurdish-led forces, Mazloum Abdi, said Trump essentially gave the go-ahead for the deal in a phone call Monday.

The Kurds’ deal, announced Sunday, came after Trump ordered U.S. troops to step aside as Turkey launched its attack last week. Under the agreement, forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad effectively replace the U.S. troops on the ground in the border areas, with Moscow guaranteeing the deal.

“We told (Trump) that we are contacting the Syrian regime and the Russians in order to protect our country and land,” Abdi, better known by his nom de guerre Mazloum Kobani, told a local TV station, Ronahi TV. “He said, ‘We are not against that. We support that.’”

Vice President Mike Pence, heading a U.S. delegation that includes Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is set to arrive in Turkey Thursday afternoon, aiming to press Turkey to accept a cease-fire in its offensive. Before their arrival, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu met with White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien.

But on Wednesday, Trump dismissed the very crisis he sent his aides on an emergency mission to douse. Trump said the situation in northern Syria was under control and that the Syrian government was now protecting the Kurds.

[Orbitus]

The call did happen, but it was not about what the whistle blower claimed it out to be.
Listen it yourself and draw conclusion from there. Its available online, you won't have any problems finding it.

Except the transcript, released by the whitehouse, PROVED, that it did. But hey, you do you, you ignore reality. Then we have the Volker Texts, the Sondland Texts, The Yavonovich testimony, Perry's statement, and we have a few more coming out that are going to confirm everything, but again, YOU DO YOU. Ignore reality.

[omerome]

The call did happen, but it was not about what the whistle blower claimed it out to be.
Listen it yourself and draw conclusion from there. Its available online, you won't have any problems finding it.

So not only are you not going to give a credible source for a baseless claim, but you're telling others to just find the information for themselves. Alright then...

[zenkai]

There is no rule that states that they have to hold an impeachment inquiry.

Read this: https://www.cnn.com/opinions/live-ne...nse/index.html



They have the same question that you are whining about, and the full answer is here:


There is nothing in Article I of the constitution that requires a vote. And Democrats are just doing what Republicans do and ignore precedent. You know, like with abortion laws and everything else. Why the fuck should Pelosi have to follow precedent if you Republicans/Trump supporters don't?

So, yes, SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO, IS GOOD ENOUGH.

LOL I already spoke on breaking Precedent but you double down "Well, I don't have too!" You won't even address why they are breaking precedent other than "We don't have too!" what a shit argument that should keep you up at night, not keep you warm.

[Shaqur]

Except the transcript, released by the whitehouse, PROVED, that it did. But hey, you do you, you ignore reality. Then we have the Volker Texts, the Sondland Texts, The Yavonovich testimony, Perry's statement, and we have a few more coming out that are going to confirm everything, but again, YOU DO YOU. Ignore reality.

I think that you are the one ignoring the reality.
You know yourself impeachment is never going to happen.
Even WSJ's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBXnmMf9IU4 act of how the call went clearly proves there was nothing wrong.

But hey, you do you.

Ignore the reality and keep believing that silent majority won't vote for Trump yet again.

[Machismo]

Except the transcript, released by the whitehouse, PROVED, that it did. But hey, you do you, you ignore reality. Then we have the Volker Texts, the Sondland Texts, The Yavonovich testimony, Perry's statement, and we have a few more coming out that are going to confirm everything, but again, YOU DO YOU. Ignore reality.

He said for us to "listen to it," and I do not believe that they have declassified that call.

I love watching devout Trumpsters getting caught in their lies.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that you are the one ignoring the reality.
You know yourself impeachment is never going to happen.
Even WSJ's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBXnmMf9IU4 act of how the call went clearly proves there was nothing wrong.

But hey, you do you.

Ignore the reality and keep believing that silent majority won't vote for Trump yet again.

You told me to listen to the call, where is the audio of the call?

[Orbitus]

LOL I already spoke on breaking Precedent but you double down "Well, I don't have too!" You won't even address why they are breaking precedent other than "We don't have too!" what a shit argument that should keep you up at night, not keep you warm.

Again, precedent means ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL when dealing with this president. And no, she doesn't have to. When Trump breaks precedent on a daily fucking basis, why the fuck should Pelosi listen to Trump?

[szechuan]

Ignore the reality and keep believing that silent majority won't vote for Trump yet again.

That's funny because the Majority actually voted for Hillary.

[Orbitus]

I think that you are the one ignoring the reality.
You know yourself impeachment is never going to happen.
Even WSJ's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBXnmMf9IU4 act of how the call went clearly proves there was nothing wrong.

But hey, you do you.

Ignore the reality and keep believing that silent majority won't vote for Trump yet again.

You have to be fucking delusional to think that the transcript helps you in ANY FUCKING WAY. Oh, and Trump got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary. Guarantee Trump isn't going to get a majority in 2020 either.

[Machismo]

The call did happen, but it was not about what the whistle blower claimed it out to be.
Listen it yourself and draw conclusion from there. Its available online, you won't have any problems finding it.

I am definitely having a problem finding the audio of the call online, perhaps you can show me where you listened to it, yourself.

[zenkai]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50061727

With almost every Democrat in the House on board, Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass an impeachment inquiry resolution. So why hasn't she pulled the trigger?

The House speaker might be trying to protect the handful of holdout Democrats or view the move as a waste of time. She might also be afraid that a House vote would encourage Republicans to press for the kinds of investigatory powers that congressional minority parties had in past impeachment proceedings.

The last thing Democrats want is congressional Republicans subpoenaing Joe or Hunter Biden in an attempt to shift the focus away from Donald Trump.

Ms Pelosi could also be hoping that the longer the investigation grinds on, the greater the chance Democrats could uncover that damning bit of evidence that breaks Republicans ranks. She may believe that it would be easier for Republicans to support impeachment if they weren't on the record voting against an investigation.


Without a vote, however, Trump administration officials will continue to cite it as a reason why they should not comply with requests for documents and depositions.

It's a judgement call, and for the moment Ms Pelosi decided it's a move she doesn't need to make.




Why not vote and take that excuse away from Trump?

[Shaqur]

You have to be fucking delusional to think that the transcript helps you in ANY FUCKING WAY. Oh, and Trump got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary. Guarantee Trump isn't going to get a majority in 2020 either.

I hope you are kidding about the "majority" votes thing.
Electoral college exists for that sole purpose.

[zenkai]

Again, precedent means ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL when dealing with this president. And no, she doesn't have to. When Trump breaks precedent on a daily fucking basis, why the fuck should Pelosi listen to Trump?

That's not true, no one but a die hard Democrat would believe this.

[szechuan]

I hope you are kidding about the "majority" votes thing.
Electoral college exists for that sole purpose.

You're the one suggesting the Majority Voted for Trump.

[Machismo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50061727

With almost every Democrat in the House on board, Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass an impeachment inquiry resolution. So why hasn't she pulled the trigger?

The House speaker might be trying to protect the handful of holdout Democrats or view the move as a waste of time. She might also be afraid that a House vote would encourage Republicans to press for the kinds of investigatory powers that congressional minority parties had in past impeachment proceedings.

The last thing Democrats want is congressional Republicans subpoenaing Joe or Hunter Biden in an attempt to shift the focus away from Donald Trump.

Ms Pelosi could also be hoping that the longer the investigation grinds on, the greater the chance Democrats could uncover that damning bit of evidence that breaks Republicans ranks. She may believe that it would be easier for Republicans to support impeachment if they weren't on the record voting against an investigation.


Without a vote, however, Trump administration officials will continue to cite it as a reason why they should not comply with requests for documents and depositions.

It's a judgement call, and for the moment Ms Pelosi decided it's a move she doesn't need to make.




Why not vote and take that excuse away from Trump?

Why vote,and pander to the Trumspters?

She holds all the cards, and gets to watch while Trump and the Trumspters bitch and whine. Why on Earth would she deny herself that pleasure?

You are answering your own question, she's not afraid, she's the one with all the power.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not true, no one but a die hard Democrat would believe this.

Trump is a die-hard Democrat? Who knew...