ITS HAPPENING, LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>senate is majority republicans
>need 2/3 majority vote to remove from office

0% chance of impeachment despite them trying.

he's moved on to Greta's

Attached: 1571415103701.jpg (1080x1350, 387K)

Is a high crime or misdemeanor required for impeachment?

He's already been impeached so, 100% chance of impeachment :)

not anymore apparently

It's about fulfilling obligation to oath of office. if our representatives dont do this we would be living in a dictatorship. oh wait. shit.

I mean you can be happy about it, but he won't be removed from office.

Your tax dollars at work :^) fucking retarded government

Not necessarily but, it's all that the Democrats have been saying about impeaching Trump. Hell it was part of their opening statement. "Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors."

Although you need an impeachment article to impeach the president. Abuse of power is 100% impeachable however, there has been literally no real proof that Trump abused his power in the ways they are accusing him of doing.

there is plenty of proof. nancy and chuck say so. ergo, tis true.

remember, you are not allowed to be president unless democrat leadership says so.

The dems should be punished for this shit if it amounts to nothing.

if trump is a dictator for urging ukraine to investigate corruption on the part of joe biden's son, then i want a motherfucking dictator in office, permanently.

fuck the bidens and fuck the establishment

True which is why I say we chop California into 2 states like they want. Drop the power they have in the house by about 60%.

And he is still your President

Fuck it we don't need 50 states. I say let commifornia become its own shit hole and all the mexicans can go there.

They're already there

Just happy to correct your mistake is all. Don't really care about Trump one way or another

Well the part that wants to separate into New Jefferson isn't that bad of a shit hole if you can get the right people to put it back on it's feet. It's the shit leaders they are electing that's running the whole state into the ground.

i would gladly let mexico have southern california, hell, half of its citizens already live there

It wasn't a mistake. I didn't know I had to be so careful with my words just so you could have a conversation on an internet forum.

>> And he is still your President
Every time you post this, I post this. Learn how these things work.

Attached: Presidents who have been impeached.jpg (900x736, 299K)

Attached: Trumpset.png (661x377, 346K)

Yes he is. And he has already been impeached. We're both correct. Yay for us

Calm down. It's ok to make mistakes. Everyone does :)

stumpy trumpy?

I bet you voted for bernie.

It’s funny how when the south left the union a war broke out. Nobody will give 2 shits if California left

a war broke out because the southern states delivered nearly 80% of the revenue to the federal government. abe lincoln fought because the union he was left to preside over would've been broke without taking back the southern states

I didn't vote, which is why I don't care what happens to Trump. Wouldn't be right of me to complain if I didn't vote. Don't you agree?

>Cause your boy done fucked up, jackass
5 more years of your pathetic screeching online.

KYS

Attached: imp.jpg (960x960, 64K)

>. Nobody will give 2 shits if California left
a giant fucking chunk of the economy walking with most of our pacific access? bullshit no one would care. get your head out of your ass

If you don't care you wouldn't find this amusing and wouldn't be here.

Oh, the show trial before the Senate finds Trump innocent and he's re-elected....yeah, most boomers you advanced age are watching that right now, OP. Everyone else realizes it's only going to get Trump even more votes in November and will cost Democrats control of the House, and given Pelosi's advanced age, this will be her last term as speaker because it'll be at least a decade before democrats hold the House again.

No if you have a problem with the way things are run. You should voice your opinion.

The reason for this is because when you do vote for someone the precedent that is being laid out makes it very easy to kick him out of office. If things keep going the way they are a President can be impeached because "he said he didn't like the house." They will and can impeach him over any little thing if you let them.

sanders supporter here. yet this impeachment is patently stupid because the dems are practically pushing swing votes into the republicunts arms

i am fucking pissed and every die hard democrat should be too

nancy, you don goofed

CaN anyone give a leaf a quick run down ?

Impeached by only the house if you're trying to be correct

>Bernie supporter
>diehard democrat

Pick one please. The dnc fucked Bernie so hard last time he should be an independent

Act like all that tech money would live in little Mexico long term. Please, show everyone how retarded you are.
If California did split, all that silicon valley money would just move to portland or seattle. No way it would stay in communist Mexico land.

I care about fixing mistakes. It was said that Trump will not be impeached. He already has been impeached. Fixing that mistake made me happy, so I smiled.

I don't have any problems with the way things are being run.

Still got Oregon and Washington states and California is more broke than puertoo RICO also once gone all the businesses like Silicon Valley will move to one our states because we won’t tax them 90% to pay for illegals

bernie is our party's only hope, it should be obvious. the dnc only fucked bernie over because the fucking clintons own the damn party, but that ship has sailed now. this is bernie's year

#FeeltheBern

House Congressmen hate Trump. Wanted to impeach him over everything since day 1.

Change rules so whistle-blower can be classified under everything rather than 1st hand information.

Get a fake whistle-blower to say Trump blackmailed Ukraine.

House puts on show acting like Trump blackmailed Ukraine and called "witnesses" who said Trump did do it. However, do not have any actual proof or reliable witnesses.

House impeaches Trump.

Impeachment now in Senate Trial.

He has ONLY been impeached by the house, or more specifically democrats as a party, your degree of correctness is skewed

So, it's fine for them to get rid of a President because they don't like him?

Impeached is impeached, so I guess I agree with you. Yes.

no. he fought because the banks paid him to, read some books.

There's a slight problem with that. California is home to 32 military bases that are Federal property. Not just army bases, but also those that are home to bomber wings, aircraft carriers, submarines, etc. Not to mention any undisclosed nuclear launch facilities. Uncle Sam isn't letting any of that shit go. Those of you who studied history may even remember that similar circumstances led to open warfare between the confederates and the Union troops who refused to abandon Fort Jackson when SC seceded.

Yes, that's what I said. Impeached. Again, we agree.

it's a good enough excuse for women to kill their babies, so why not?

Attached: 1571370626989.jpg (227x288, 14K)

Using vague terms so as to avoid the more concrete facts, I bet you're a reporter

I suggest "When in the Course of Human Events: The Case for Southern Secession". that will edumucate you real good.

hey how did you get my picture?

It's fine for them to try to get rid of a president, sure.

Well you're more than welcome to lay down and let them shove their dicks in you but, I'm not down for that.

The fact that you just had to drag abortion into this proves to me that you only care about your opinion and anyone else who says other is wrong.

Go make another thread btard.

Clinton just said what he did nothing and nobody likes him. Is she attempting to take him out again ?

Based comment, fuck Sanders. but it's not the fact how bad trump is, it's the fact how bad Democratic candidates are

If Dems actually had real candidates that weren't power political climate money hungry career politician monsters there might be a legitimate discussion to be had,
But it's BLATANTLY clear how corrupt the Democrat party is now, pretty weird to be honest. Dems do absolutely nothing but insult, we should swap them the Iranian protesters to be honest.

THIS.
All day every day we hear that Trump wanted Biden investigated, but the never mention FOR WHAT.

SPOILER:
Holding up aid money to get an investigation into Hunter Biden cancelled.

So funny that he has joined a Clinton in this line up and Obama isn't.

Attached: 1535454394838.jpg (408x254, 34K)

100 percent agree

Yet there is not real reason to get rid of him.

The President is elected by the people to direct the United States in the direction that is seen fit. If they can just remove him for something as simple as they don't like him. Then we can never move forward since no one is bound to be loved by everyone.

Now I have to admit a mistake. I was under the assumption that "impeachment" was well defined. If you're saying that's wrong, then I'll believe you. I don't have time to look up definitions.

you introduced "because they don't like them" as if that was not a valid excuse

yet every day such a valid excuse is used by women to kill their babies

i'm not making this about abortion, i'm providing an example of how the excuse which YOU deem as invalid has already been well established in the United States as perfectly valid

so stick that in your ass and chew on it

What you gonna do? Give them spankings? YOU should be punished for being such a whiney snowflake turbocuck faggot, and the punishment should be watching your family decimated by cartel members.

that bitch doesn't stand a chance, too many democrats know it was her pathetic work during the last election that proved she is not the future of the party

The dems are so stupid that Maxine waters said if this doesn’t work they will do it again wtf. They r so butthurt over Trump delivering on all his campaign promises

The Ukrainian president himself said he wanted to investigate. As the country is full of corruption and he is not about that shit. Trump was just being a cool friend.

Well it seems that the reason for removal is what's being debated. Both sides seem to have their arguments. They probably know more about it than we do, so I'm going to trust the process. After all, Congress was voted in just like the president.

That guy right now coming up with excuses left right and centre, instead of actually doing his job.

Wow that is pure desperation.

I mean they should hold no power since it seems they are abusing our tax paid money.

>Backpedaling despite necessity
>Your conscience weighs a ton

im check it out
>my recommendation is here
>US Money Vs Corporation Currency: The Aldrich Plan, creation of the federal reserve
archive.org/details/usmoneyvscorpor00crozgoog/page/n6

Attached: Screenshot_20200121-131639_Brave.jpg (483x476, 170K)

>yet every day such a valid excuse is used by women to kill their babies
Not the same thing. Those women aren't killing those babies because they dislike that particular baby, the way the Dems dislike this particular president. Those women are killing their babies because they know they'll be complete failures as parents anyway.

So, since I used "because they don't like them" does that mean I can bring up MS 13 and we should kill them? How about the Cartel can we go and kill them.

Using vague language to steer one conversation to another direction is not hard. But, that's not what this thread is a about. It's about Trumps impeachment.

Personally I don't give 2 shits about abortion due to the fact I'll never have to deal with it. The Presidency I will have to deal with thus I care about it. Now stop forcing the conversation fucktard.

Y'all dont know shit.

Fucking idiots

Attached: p7ltZYY.jpg (200x200, 29K)

"Nobody" being the little microcosm of brainlets you associate with at Walmart.

crickets to this reply. Libs can't handle facts very well

Attached: Jerry-Nadler.jpg (410x615, 150K)

The House of Congress just last year got the majority for Democrat. And the only people who voted to impeach Trump is Democrats. You can't say it's the will of the people when the minute they have the chance they impeach him over something that has no proof.

You made this about abortion?

L. O. L.

>but the never mention FOR WHAT.
Yeah they have.
1. How did he get a job in the formerly corrupt Ukraine energy company? Ukraine & other western democracies do no think so.
2. Did he trade on his father being vice-president to get the job?
Probably. But almost all & everybody in the Congress will trade on their time in Congress to get lucrative jobs in the private sector once they leave.
Perhaps they shouldn't but it is permitted and not illegal.
3. When Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine to sack the corrupt AG of Ukraine, did do it to protect his son?
The AG was extremely corrupt, all western powers wanted him gone (including the IMF, World Bank, UN and EU) and it seems it was within the powers of the Obama admin to do this. With Trump it wasn't legal.

I guess because maybe they did allow it?

Either they had to by law, in which case I'm sure they would comply to cover their asses....or they weren't required by law in which case who gives a fuck?

Why not? A minority of voters got Trump elected

Nixon was never impeached dumbass. He resigned before they could impeach him. Then had Ford pardon him.

Everyone keeps saying there's no proof, but I'd have to imagine that they have SOME kind of proof. A lot of these people in Congress are lawyers. They probably know how to put together a legal case.

What was delivered? And please cite your sources.

Attached: 1571370807875.jpg (682x682, 64K)

It's a moot point, California cannot secede. There was even a Supreme Court ruling after the Civil War where Texas wanted some Federal Bonds back that the CSA had sold for the war effort and the Supreme Court ruled in Texas favor because the sale by the CSA was illegitimate since at no time was any confederate state recognized by the Union as no longer being a part of the Union. There is no framework in US law for a state to secede peaceably. It would have to be an open insurrection, which would immediately result in a naval and postal blockade until everyone gives up because the walmarts aren't getting restocked.

Maybe is the wrong answer cellar dweller. Again aversion to facts. Defense was NOT allowed to call witnesses

1. He had no experience for the job nor any background in that field yet he was a "consultant" for the board and made $83,000 a year for doing nothing.
2. It is illegal. It's actually considered Bribery.
3. The AG for Ukraine was not corrupt. Here is a run down what happened there.
- Biden blackmails Ukraine.
- Ukraine Fire AG and presses charges and freezes all his assets.
- One year later new AG starts process for trial against "corrupt" AG
- After new AG starts paper work he is fired
- Third AG drops all charges against "corrupt" AG.
- The original AG flee'd Ukraine to go to France.

That original AG still has yet to be charge or convicted of corruption. Instead whenever someone looked into it they were fired or taken off the case.

What happens when McDonalds can't give us two Big Macs for $5? I'm really scared to think how much blood will be shed...

>there is not real reason to get rid of him
Yeah, there could be. That is the point of the trial. Did you not watch the hearings in the house?
>President is elected by the people to direct the United States in the direction that is seen fit.
Not entirely true. The Founding Fathers were afraid that a president should not be allowed to have that kind of power by themself. Hence the chesk and balances. Trump thinks he can do what he wants but he can't.
>remove him for something as simple as they don't like him
This is one of the most absurd defenses people use of him. Yes people don't like him but that is NOT what has happened.

I remember my first time on Cred Forums.

They are required by law. The fifth amendment.

Which is why they wanted to impeach him fast. Trump had to go to the courts to fight that and they didn't want that.

Is that legal?

Lol are you serious? He practically drained the swamp and cleared mass amounts of corruption,lowest unemployment, highest military budget, good trade deals, stocks highest it's ever been, oil production, jobs coming back, immigration reform, the list goes on for days dude.

Please don't be subjectuvely brainwashed and not able to accept reality facts.

Memories are fun

Hea right tho. Currently there's no repercussion for a false claim ( for either party) so there's no reason NOT to put this circus on. If there was some sort of penalty or sanction, then at least those going through the impeachment trials would have to put in some real effort.

"I won the popular vote but, lost the Presidency" - Hillary

Just because 20 million people in California wanted Hillary doesn't mean they can decide the other 18 million in 5 different states. Each state has it's own priorities and likes. Which is why everyone votes for someone different and is also why we have the electoral college to vote for the President. But, since California has 40 million people living in it. And roughly 2-5 million of those are illegal immigrants. That means they can impeach a President if they don't get their vote? No that's just stupid.

Idk, I just read that that is false and has been debunked. Maybe one or both of us is reading bad information. Who knows. That's what courts are for. We're not experts so no point in exchanging ignorance with each other.

Go ahead and watch all the judiciary proceedings. All you will hear is.

"I think."
"I don't think he should say that."
"I assumed that's what he wanted."

All their evidence was nothing more than peoples hurt feelings and their own assumptions. No evidence. They just pushed it through because they wanted to impeach him for any reason.

>is also why we have the electoral college to vote for the President
You need to read more about why the College is there coz it ain't this.

This is the face of psychopathy

Attached: 20180204_schiff.jpg (631x374, 21K)

Attached: 34lxkn.jpg (720x404, 56K)

Some people obv only see what they want to or they just lift talking points from some Republican newsletter written by the FSB or the GRU.

Political discussion

gg/vrUnUr

If we are at war. We will most likely elect a President who can navigate the waters of war. If we want our economy to prosper we will most likely vote in a President who has a background in economics.

We vote the President in based off the what the people want.

As for them removing him for not liking him. How is this "NOT" what has happened? They just impeached him with no real evidence and the only crime they can say is "Abuse of Power" without saying how exactly he did that.

Attached: Screenshot_20190717_153319.png (580x178, 31K)

They know how to dance around an issue. Ultimately this is just a huge circle jerking waste of taxpayer money because side A doesnt like side B. Its super short sighted by the dems as it makes them look petty and not focusing on the actual governing of america, and it makes the repubs look shady and untrustworthy. Either way its going to die when repubs vote against, so it's just wasting billions of tax dollars to gain a couple votes in the upcoming election

Everyone involved should be forced to resign.

Abuse of power is not impeachable unless an actual, legally-defined crime has been committed. If abuse of power was a crime all on its own, Trump could be impeached over pulling the US out of the climate change accord, or the Solemani assassination, just because a majority of people didnt agree with it. What this impeachment amounts to is a power grab by the House, a subversion of the checks and balances that keep our government branches in line.

Well it was enough for them to impeach. Whether outsiders feel it was warranted or not won't change it. Reds will continue to support him and blues will continue to attack him. All we can do is complain.

>psychopathy
Did someone help you with that word?
>I don't know what it means but I posted it so it must be true.

No, actually, that's exactly why we have it. It's to reassure less populated states that they weren't just exchanging absentee rule by old england for absentee rule by new england. If we didn't have that, a handful of densely populated states would dictate every election to the whole country every time.

Yes the courts would decide correct?

So, why is there an impeachment article for "Obstruction of Congress." They say he was obstructing their investigation however, what Trump did was go to the courts. This is one of the impeachment articles.... Like how do you defend that?

Clearly there is more to it however, I'm not typing a 30 page essay. The biggest state doesn't get to run the U.S. All the states participate in that and we all contribute to it.

>> crickets to this reply. Libs can't handle facts very well
Dude, we're all just embarrassed for you.

Attached: Dyslexic Don.jpg (1600x840, 736K)

Don't you find this line a bit pathetic?

when did Cred Forums become such a large cluster of fucking lefty pussies?

I'm not really sure what they claim that he was obstructing. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with the courts?

Go ahead and cherry pick some quotes from those witnesses. The full quote will show it all. All that evidence was nothing more than hearsay, conjecture, and feelings. (^.^)

Hes made leftists cry for years. He was charged with abuse of their feelings. Ill never understand why they dont just chill. They'll get their turn in 2024.

I believe you got your quote wrong. Schiff pointed out Cipollone's claim that no Republicans were allowed in the SCIF was false, and it absolutely was.

The fact that the subject being investigated (Trump) wasn't allowed to have a lawyer present during the House investigative pre-impeachment hearings is completely standard procedure. It was the same standard held during the Clinton and Nixon hearings.

It's painfully obvious that Cipollone is whining untruthfully about procedure because he can't defend Trump on the merits of the case.

The US has been at war for 19 years. It has spent that last half of the 20th century at war.
The US is a perpetually war economy.
The economy does not need war to protect war is what makes it work.

No evidence? Are you really that ill informed?

Everyone technically has a seat at the table but youd be retarded not to give more weight to the guy with more money.

If there were two guys, one with $1 and one with $100000. You would bet that people would listen to guy Bs proposals more.

It is completely pathetic

>DRUMPF IS LITERALLY TOO FOCUSED ON ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE TO PLAY THE SILLY HANDS GAME IMPEACH HIM NOW Dx

learn to quote fagget

I guess they feel that, if he did withhold funds to Ukraine for personal gain, and people lost their lives because of it, then that's a bad thing for a president to do. Not saying I'm 100% sure that's what happened, but if it did happen then I agree it's not nice.

Do you agree that if he actually did do that, that he should be removed? Emphasis on IF

Here is what happened.

Congress issued subpoenas to Trumps personal staff.

Trump told them don't go and to talk to the courts to see if they are required by law to go to the house summons.

Congress repealed their subpoenas and charged Trump with that impeachment article.

it's just shareblue, nothing to worry about.

Attached: god_emperor_trump.jpg (520x353, 50K)

California gets more electoral votes than smaller states. What's your point?

>haha what do you mean no evidence theres tons of evidence we have so much evidence haha hes done for xD
>...
>...
>...well?
>well what?
>whats the evidence?
>SHUT UP BIGOT Dx

I don't think abuse of feelings is the actual charge. That's also not an answer to the question, but I understand your contempt.

Tech money? You're forgetting about agriculture, fashion, pretty much all media... California has the 6th largest economy in the world, it's literally the crown jewel of the United States. Nobody is letting California secede, it's just an amusing headline every 4 years.

That's not democracy, that's aristocracy.
We fought a war to get rid of that, around 250 years ago.

It doesn't matter. Funding was withheld, but the UK was not made aware and was interested in what Trump said anyway and funding was provided on time anyway. It is the facts. No threats were made it was a suggestion made by Trump.

Why do you think he told them not to go?

sorry not UK you k now what I meant.

He made comments about both of those situations. However, I quoted the right one.

As for him not having a lawyer present that is false. He is allowed to have a lawyer present especially during an impeachment inquiry based off the 5th amendment. Yet they denied it and Adam Schiff said they didn't deny it. Schiff also didn't mention the fact that they denied Trump the right to face his accuser and cross examine the so called "witnesses" being summoned by Congress.

Attached: CipolloneAndSekulow.png (1208x814, 230K)

That's what it boils down to. I dont have contempt, it's boring.

I'm drinking to this lol
I've been following because its amusing how fucking dumb the dems are. I like how one of the dems just put it into perspective. They had to take action on their own to start this and what they want is to pry into someone else's business so they can dig up evidence for impeachment. If it was warranted then the reasons would have been made clear previous to starting this whole thing. If they really cared about the reasons impeachment is an option they could have waited to do it legitimately, but they are scared of 2020's election.

What some random guy said. Thanks I guess. Top kek.

Yes, they're retarded, but we both know your side will just do it to the next dem president. Dont presume the moral high ground.

You can call the "War on Terrorism" a war. However, that is not a real war. The last actual war we've had was against Iraq. Which you can't even call it that since it was a one-sided slaughter. Us going out and "hunting" for ISIS members is not a war.

As for the no evidence claim. No I'm not ill informed. However, you're more then welcome to try to prove me wrong.

No problem I understand.

But in a hypothetical situation where it is proven beyond doubt that Trump was withholding funds in exchange for political gain, do you think he should be removed?

He made $83,000 A MONTH for his zero experience. I make $83k a year and I'm still broke as fuck.

Doesn't really matter since he could have been settled in court. Although he claimed they were protected under executive privilege.

It just sounds weird because they're supposed to be on his side, and could have potentially exonerated him. In a similar situation, if innocent, I would want everyone and their pets testifying. But I don't know all the facts so it's hard to put myself in his shoes.

It's legal because an impeachment inquiry is not a legal proceeding and entirely up to the discretion of the majority party. So, is it legal to deny minority participation in a partisan hackjob? Sure.

Withhold funds is one thing, but using it as a threat is another. If it is the latter situation then yes. Otherwise it is our money to keep if we wanted to.

I doubt it. No one could believe Trump would win. The only reason they think they can get away with this is because Trump is not a politician.

>He is allowed to have a lawyer present especially during an impeachment inquiry based off the 5th amendment.
False. The 5th amendment guarantees one the right to have counsel present during one's trial, but not during the investigative interviews of witnesses before the trial.

Turn your brain on and think about this for two seconds and you'll see the difference.

> they denied Trump the right to face his accuser and cross examine the so called "witnesses" being summoned by Congress.
Again, you are misunderstanding the phases here. Trump does not have a right to cross examine witnesses during investigate interviews that precede the trial. Think about how entirely different our criminal justice system would be if investigators were hampered by such a requirement.

Seriously, how can this possibly be confusing? Are you just pretending to not get it?

Makes sense. Don't see anything wrong with that then

Your vote doesn't count during a presidential election, asshole dumbass

Think of it from his perspective. Those are his personal advisers. They advise him on classified matters all the time. If they are forced to testify those classified projects could be forcibly unclassified. But if he went to a court they could determine that they have to testify however, they won't answer questions that will declassify certain subjects.

Also Trump is spiteful... He knew they would impeach him no matter what evidence came out. They also denied him the right to summon witnesses, question witnesses, and to have a representative present. So, he probably told them not to go to annoy Congress and force them to go to court.

That’s specifically what the constitution says is required. Do dems care about a silly piece of paper from hundreds of years ago? Obviously not

Everyone's vote counts dumbass. You just don't think it's worth it.

Makes sense. I do, however, get the feeling that a lot of people would still support him even if it was proven that he threatened. It's a shame how delusional party pride will make people. And that goes for both parties.

This guy is right.
Most of the objections people are making makes for great soundbites to the base to swallow but is based an flawed understanding of the process and nature of what happened in the house.

Add to that the general apathy and unwillingness to learn.

Trump only wanted an announcement of an investigation, not an actual investigation.

Understandable. Was probably smart, but personally I despise that spiteful attitude for a president. His demeanor is really the only thing I don't care for. Every president does good stuff and bad stuff, but the ego on this guy is kind of embarrassing. Just a personal opinion though, not an argument for removal.

It's like that stunt where Republican House members tried to storm the closed door hearing demanding entry.
Hoping that Republicans at home would not know that many of the "stormers" were entitled to enter already and they were not being locked out.
Makes for great TV but it is all bullshit messaging.

Do red states not realize how subsidies from blue states work? Federal Tax from blue states mostly go govt services in red states since they don't generate enough tax revenue to sustain themselves. You separate from the wealthy states and you will basically become a third world country.

The problem is that the documents produced by the non-legal impeachment inquiry is used as the basis for a legal trial. So let's say that I'm getting divorced, and I spend the months leading up to the divorce hearing snooping on my ex, contacting her ex boyfriends, demanding she give me her bank statements and emails with zero judicial enforcement, and then write 800 pages on what an absolute cunt she is, how all her previous boyfriends say shes a cunt too, presenting their assumptions and accusations as fact, and then I take that to a judge and say "here are my findings" and expect the judge to take it seriously.

FUGGGGGG

Attached: Screenshot_20200121_230153.png (1340x777, 632K)

Prove it. Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

most of the subsidies to red states are for programs mandated by the federal government
if you take those out red states are self sufficient

This is the most compelling sign of guilt. If the president was just concerned about corruption then why were his agents told that the Ukraine president didn't have to hold an investigation.
Only announce one.
So the objective was to cast a shadow over the Bidens and not about dealing with corruption. Hence is was about the 2020 election and not about the national interest.

> your pathetic screeching
where?

It been all over the news and in the House records of the testimony.
ffs do your own fact checking

>0% chance of impeachment
he's already been impeached, you fucking moron.

SLEEPY JOE IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT

You dont think he will be too old in 2024?

>red states are self sufficient
Holy fuck!

Not the user you're replying to, but Sondland testified to this under oath, and Parnas has also said as much.

More sworn testimony from firsthand witnesses, such as Bolton, could strengthen or dispute this claim, which is why it is imperative that we hear from them.

Didnt need to hear from him before, what's changed?

Depends on if the Hunter/Joe Biden corruption allegations are valid. If they are, the request for an investigation is valid and Biden being a potential candidate does not mean he's immune from investigation, even at the request of his political opponent.

good job reading the entire 2 line post

>0% chance of impeachment despite them trying.
Too late to get your money back. That race has been run and he lost.

I did and I still disagree with you.
>Alabama for just one example

Trust, I've followed closely each day of this presidency from a wide variety of sources. There's no evidence that aid was contingent on the mere announcement of investigations.
Parnas is an extremely unreliable witness trying to cut deals to minimize his own criminality. Nobody who takes Parnas seriously can be taken seriously, which is why none of his "evidence" has been admitted or even considered by House Managers, they've merely leveraged it in the media to influence public opinion.

>Didnt need to hear from him before, what's changed?
That's never changed in my opinion. I didn't fully understand the reasoning for declining to subpoena Bolton during the House hearings. I mean, Bolton made it clear that he would not honor such a subpoena unless a court ruled that he had to, so I guess House leadership decided that would take too long.

But since then, Bolton has said he would honor a subpoena to speak before the Senate trial without a court order, so things are different now. He absolutely must be called.

Hes not testifying sweet cheeks. Knowone that matters cares.

Attached: 1579634197414.jpg (952x630, 58K)

>Parnas is an extremely unreliable witness trying to cut deals to minimize his own criminality.
Very likely, which is why this question needs to be cleared up by other witnesses, like Bolton.

>Nobody who takes Parnas seriously can be taken seriously,
I agree. It's outrageous that this man was allowed to be such a powerful player in the president's inner circle.

> Knowone

Trump's base, ladies and gentlemen.

Dont worry snowflake, you'll get a crazy guy in in 2025.

>I didn't vote
Then why are you even commenting at all you stupid fuck?

yeah, President Pence

Race has been RAN

>Race has been RAN
>has been ran?
wtf?

>Race has been RAN
Wait wait wait. Do you think the past participle of "to run" is "ran"?

Trump's base, ladies and gentlemen.

Attached: retar_edZOOM.jpg (363x300, 38K)