Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

This is how it works. This is how it worked for Nixon in Watergate, as well, and for the Clinton investigation -- a subcommittee initiated an investigation and then recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. I mean, the House could just hold a floor vote, but why on earth would you think that is the only way forward?

**Care to cite a source for that claim?**

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/impeachment-trump-explained.html?module=inline
How the Impeachment Process Works

Your source is behind a paywall.

Question for you: Do you believe it's inappropriate for the President, VP, or a member of Congress to work with a foreign government, especially one that is hostile, to get information on an opponent? Does that meet the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

Trump admitted to a crime before we even saw the transcript. And people - including Adam Schiff and the rest of Congress - knew that the aid to Ukraine had been held up the White House with no explanation.
Add to that the Acting DNI refusing to turn the whistleblower's complaint over to Congress. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 and 2 together.

Remember, at the time the impeachment inquiry was announced, they still hadn't agreed to turn over the whistleblower's complaint. Or the phone call. Pelosi outmanouvered them.

Nope, no such admission. I know that's the narrative though. And Ukraine didn't know the aid was held up. (https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/ukraine-government-trump-aid-freeze-phone-call/)

Schiff was tweeting about the whisleblower's complaint in August. He already had it.

Yes, Trump did admit it before Pelosi's announcement. https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-trump-admitted-crime

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

This is how it works. This is how it worked for Nixon in Watergate, as well, and for the Clinton investigation -- a subcommittee initiated an investigation and then recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. I mean, the House could just hold a floor vote, but why on earth would you think that is the only way forward?

**Care to cite a source for that claim?**

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/impeachment-trump-explained.html?module=inline
How the Impeachment Process Works

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

Trump admitted to a crime before we even saw the transcript. And people - including Adam Schiff and the rest of Congress - knew that the aid to Ukraine had been held up the White House with no explanation.
Add to that the Acting DNI refusing to turn the whistleblower's complaint over to Congress. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 and 2 together.

Remember, at the time the impeachment inquiry was announced, they still hadn't agreed to turn over the whistleblower's complaint. Or the phone call. Pelosi outmanouvered them.

Nope, no such admission. I know that's the narrative though. And Ukraine didn't know the aid was held up. (https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/ukraine-government-trump-aid-freeze-phone-call/)

Schiff was tweeting about the whisleblower's complaint in August. He already had it.

Giuliani's actions were public, published in various news articles. So was the Ukraine aid hold.

The subject of the whistleblower complaint was all public, but the public was missing it, amidst everything else happening.

This has all played out in the open. We've all been a bit lackadaisical but we've finally noticed.

Anonymous wrote:"Schiff ordered the investigation on Sept. 9, hours before he received the first of two letters from the intelligence community inspector general revealing the existence of a whistleblower complaint. Multiple news outlets reported this week that the complaint involved, at least in part, a phone conversation between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/analysis-does-schiff-already-know-the-trump-whistleblowers-story

The impeachment inquiry didn't start until September 24.

Don't like the Daily Caller? From the NYT:

“Mr. Trump did not discuss the delay in the military assistance on the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky, according to people familiar with the conversation. A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call,” the Times reported.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

Trump admitted to a crime before we even saw the transcript. And people - including Adam Schiff and the rest of Congress - knew that the aid to Ukraine had been held up the White House with no explanation.
Add to that the Acting DNI refusing to turn the whistleblower's complaint over to Congress. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 and 2 together.

Remember, at the time the impeachment inquiry was announced, they still hadn't agreed to turn over the whistleblower's complaint. Or the phone call. Pelosi outmanouvered them.

Nope, no such admission. I know that's the narrative though. And Ukraine didn't know the aid was held up. (https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/ukraine-government-trump-aid-freeze-phone-call/)

Schiff was tweeting about the whisleblower's complaint in August. He already had it.

"Schiff ordered the investigation on Sept. 9, hours before he received the first of two letters from the intelligence community inspector general revealing the existence of a whistleblower complaint. Multiple news outlets reported this week that the complaint involved, at least in part, a phone conversation between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/analysis-does-schiff-already-know-the-trump-whistleblowers-story

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

Trump admitted to a crime before we even saw the transcript. And people - including Adam Schiff and the rest of Congress - knew that the aid to Ukraine had been held up the White House with no explanation.
Add to that the Acting DNI refusing to turn the whistleblower's complaint over to Congress. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 and 2 together.

Remember, at the time the impeachment inquiry was announced, they still hadn't agreed to turn over the whistleblower's complaint. Or the phone call. Pelosi outmanouvered them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

DP.
One is outlined in the Constitution. The other is not.

And which are you saying has been "announced?"

The "impeachment inquiry." The "process" dreamed up by the Democrats to quell the cries of the left-wing to make it appear they are doing something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

Nobody expected a transcript because nobody should have it. Trump shouldn't have released it.

But the report? I read it and wowie. It's painful.

So what you are saying is that a whistleblower can make accusations and Trump or any president should not release the transcript of the call to ANYBODY?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

Here is Schiff's August Tweet:


Adam Schiff
?
@RepAdamSchiff
Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent.

It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.

Or how destructive it is to our national security. https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1166839608811970560 …

Natasha Bertrand
?
@NatashaBertrand
BREAKING: Trump has asked his national security team to review funding for Ukraine, to ensure the money is being used “in the best interests” of the US. The funding has been put on hold.
News comes days after Trump advocated for reinstating Russia to G7. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531 …

^^ I mean, *you,* not the PP I was quoting, because it's clear that the PP thinks an impeachment has been announced.