Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has violated the emoluments clause since day 1.

And now, he has violated more.

Then why wasn't he impeached for it?

Because the cases that involve making him provide the information to provide evidence are still working through the courts. One was in the appeals court today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-business-dealings-argued-at-federal-appeals-court-in-emoluments-case/2019/12/09/84ee5286-1792-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html#click=https://t.co/FypjsRcaTm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has violated the emoluments clause since day 1.

And now, he has violated more.

Then why wasn't he impeached for it?

Because the cases that involve making him provide the information to provide evidence are still working through the courts. One was in the appeals court today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-business-dealings-argued-at-federal-appeals-court-in-emoluments-case/2019/12/09/84ee5286-1792-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html#click=https://t.co/FypjsRcaTm

If you're the poster who's been talking about nullification, you sure do make some declarative statements for someone who knows so little about American government and current developments.

[Anonymous]

I just googled Doug Collins to learn a bit about him since I had never heard of him before today. He was so loud and angry that he got my attention.

The first thing that came up was the Collins for Congress website. It states:

"Donate to the Doug Collins for Congress campaign to help Doug defend President Trump and fight for conservative principles in Congress."

Just in case we wonder sometimes why these politicians defend Trump so loudly and passionately--it's a totally self-serving fundraising tactic! Yuck, makes me want to take a shower.....

https://secure.winred.com/collins-for-congress/search?utm_source=search&utm_medium=adwords&utm_campaign=december&utm_content=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA_rfvBRCPARIsANlV66OvrVIm4jHj7e4zZEjUeeXGpN1iOAAyifWO7ZKijRpkOCOt2f5C4mMaAmWgEALw_wcB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has violated the emoluments clause since day 1.

And now, he has violated more.

Then why wasn't he impeached for it?

Because the cases that involve making him provide the information to provide evidence are still working through the courts. One was in the appeals court today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/trump-business-dealings-argued-at-federal-appeals-court-in-emoluments-case/2019/12/09/84ee5286-1792-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html#click=https://t.co/FypjsRcaTm

If you're the poster who's been talking about nullification, you sure do make some declarative statements for someone who knows so little about American government and current developments.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect. Care to be more specific?

[Anonymous]

So the Stephen Castor thread got locked so I have to post here. Looks like he’s becoming popular for his business style.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7773177/GOP-impeachment-attorney-brings-papers-hearing-reusable-supermarket-bag.html

[Anonymous]

https://mobile.twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/1204164336681463808

I was one of the people who didn’t get to watch yesterday, but I enjoyed this clip. It’s Eric Swalwell questioning the two counsel and in under five minutes it makes Donald Trump’s criminality clear as a bell.

Which is not helpful of course when stupid people are plugging their ears, but if you’re reading this thread and thinking, I don’t get what’s happening? this clip is for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McClintock is full of it.

I'm livid hearing this. Impeachment is not nullification. Impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you've been screaming impeachment since the election, it is nullification.

Gaetz last night about Goldman and the Dems:

“It’s take your donor to work day”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McClintock is full of it.

I'm livid hearing this. Impeachment is not nullification. Impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you've been screaming impeachment since the election, it is nullification.

So, screaming impeachment since the election gives Trump license to break the law?

Who said that? What does that have to do with nullification?

You don't seem to understand the definition of nullification and that it is literally impossible to do that via impeachment.

Sure it is. If it is purely politically motivated, it is.

So do you honestly believe the goal of this process is to instate Hillary Clinton as president?

Are you really, really THAT stupid?

No one said that. The goal, since the day he started, has been to get rid of him.

To go through all this effort? Makes me wonder what they think he will discover....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Stephen Castor thread got locked so I have to post here. Looks like he’s becoming popular for his business style.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7773177/GOP-impeachment-attorney-brings-papers-hearing-reusable-supermarket-bag.html

I kind of liked making fun of him on his own thread.

But what's with his mumbling and his "i don't know" nothin' answers. Reminds me of that Chris Rock bit about people love not to know. (don't look that up at work).

[Anonymous]

What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McClintock is full of it.

I'm livid hearing this. Impeachment is not nullification. Impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you've been screaming impeachment since the election, it is nullification.

So, screaming impeachment since the election gives Trump license to break the law?

Who said that? What does that have to do with nullification?

You don't seem to understand the definition of nullification and that it is literally impossible to do that via impeachment.

Sure it is. If it is purely politically motivated, it is.

Again proving you don't understand the words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

I'm so disappointed. I don't think the obstruction of Congress will stick since Congress didn't work its way through the court. Abuse of Power, yes but I'm really disappointed in the Obstruction of Justice from the Mueller investigation getting dropped. I understand the logic, just don't agree with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/1204164336681463808

I was one of the people who didn’t get to watch yesterday, but I enjoyed this clip. It’s Eric Swalwell questioning the two counsel and in under five minutes it makes Donald Trump’s criminality clear as a bell.

Which is not helpful of course when stupid people are plugging their ears, but if you’re reading this thread and thinking, I don’t get what’s happening? this clip is for you.

Thank you for posting, I was not able to watch, but listened where I could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What?? No bribery charge???

They spent their time and money polling "bribery" and it didn't make the cut????

They don't want the GOP to muddy the waters with the statutory definition, so they are making this as simple and straightforward as possible.

LOL. Nice try. They got nothing.

This will be dismissed in the Senate.
One can argue that every single president since GW himself has committed "abuse of power."
And, obstruction? LOL. They failed to go to the court to enforce subpoenas.

This is a joke. I am going to wait to see how the 31 Dems in the Trump districts vote.