To IMPEACH ????

[Hoid]

Sen. Susan Collins

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1221822472292634625

tweets this morning that Bolton book strengthens the case for witnesses and has sparked a "number of conversations" among her colleagues.

 

[Hoid]

Sen Mitt Romney

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/m...-we-need-to-hear-from-john-bolton-77626949809

Increasingly apparent we need to hear from John Bolton

 

[Twin_Moose]

And well it should it is scathing, we'll see if the defence team addresses it sufficiently?

Hunter and "Quid pro quo" Joe should be called as well as the whistle leaker, they are the center of the whole impeachment.

Edit: It should be investigated on who leaked the manuscript to the NYT as well.

 

[Mockingbird]

So, no laws broken.

Wow, in both your responses to my post we have six words, a period and a comma. We're making progress Walter! But still, sadly it's a fail.

 

[Mockingbird]

So he broke all those laws In Your Opinion, yeah Ok he should be tarred, feathered, and thrown into the hoosegow
Just to be clear /sarcasm off

Yeah, in my opinion he did. Tarred, feathered and thrown in the hoosegow? If that's your interpretation of charged, convicted and sent to prison, some of his associates/staff have already met that fate and once he is no longer in office, who knows?

 

[Twin_Moose]

Yeah, in my opinion he did. Tarred, feathered and thrown in the hoosegow? If that's your interpretation of charged, convicted and sent to prison, some of his associates/staff have already met that fate and once he is no longer in office, who knows?

Not for anything to do with the Trump administration so your argument is moot

 

[Mockingbird]

I think it's back in your court, dearie. If you were to give HIM the list I think you may get more than two word answers. I'm also interested to hear what they are complete with What, When, Where, Why, Who and How complete with the sentence imposed.

The "list" you so desire is available to anyone who cares to seek it out. And since I am neither HIS nor your fact finder I'll leave that to you... dearie.

 

[Mockingbird]

Not for anything to do with the Trump administration so your argument is moot

Well, that's your opinion. I'll stick with mine.

 

[Mockingbird]

Can the impeachment of Trump have more than one purpose?

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/news...hment-control-of-senate/ar-BBZmZD4?li=AAggFp5

 

[Serryah]

Pretty nebulous statement!

It was good enough to put Nixon and Clinton on trials. Differences here though this time around, there's ample proofs and more coming.

 

[Hoid]

the impeachment case against Trump is much stronger than it was against either Nixon or Clinton.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Well, that's your opinion. I'll stick with mine.

What had any of the indictments have to do with Trump? Even Papadopoulos indictment has been proven to be a set up

 

[Hoid]

Andrew McCarthy: Bolton blows up Trump Team's foolhardy quid pro quo defense

For months, I’ve been arguing that the president’s team should stop claiming there was no quid pro quo conditioning the defense aid Congress had authorized for Ukraine on Kyiv’s conducting of investigations the president wanted. Trials and impeachment itself are unpredictable. You don’t know what previously undisclosed facts might emerge during the trial that could turn the momentum against you. So you want to mount your best defense, the one that can withstand any damaging new revelations.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Here, the president’s best defense has always been that Ukraine got its security aid, and President Volodymyr Zelensky got his coveted high-profile audience with the president of the United States (albeit at the U.N., rather than at the White House). Kyiv barely knew defense aid was being withheld, the very temporary delay had no impact whatsoever on Ukraine’s capacity to counter Russian aggression, and Zelensky was required neither to order nor to announce any investigation of the Bidens.

https://www.foxnews.com/person/m/andrew-mccarthy

yep

 

[Mockingbird]

I have a question and a suggestion for you. Q- Is a person with a criminal record eligible to run for president of the United States? I suggest the laws you have claim that Trump BROKE may more accurately have just been BENT a little.

Answer to your question:

While I am not currently employed as a lawyer (photography is more my thing) considering that Lyndon LaRouche ran for President in 1992 from a prison cell after a 1988 conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud the IRS of more than $30 million in loans from campaign supporters, I think that yes, an individual with a criminal record can run for president of the United States.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...idential-candidate-1976-2004-dead/2868084002/

Oh and then there's Eugene V. Debs who in 1920 also ran for President while serving, I believe it was 10 years, after being convicted on federal charges.

https://progressive.org/dispatches/...resident-as-convict-number-9653-Weber-161102/

So, there's that...

Bent, broke... I guess that depends on from which side they are seen.

 

[JLM]

Answer to your question:

While I am not currently employed as a lawyer (photography is more my thing) considering that Lyndon LaRouche ran for President in 1992 from a prison cell after a 1988 conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud the IRS of more than $30 million in loans from campaign supporters, I think that yes, an individual with a criminal record can run for president of the United States.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...idential-candidate-1976-2004-dead/2868084002/

Oh and then there's Eugene V. Debs who in 1920 also ran for President while serving, I believe it was 10 years, after being convicted on federal charges.

https://progressive.org/dispatches/...resident-as-convict-number-9653-Weber-161102/

So, there's that...

Bent, broke... I guess that depends on from which side they are seen.

I would imagine had Lyndon LaRouche been considered as having ANY chance at all of winning, it would be a different story. Pursuing the matter might have been a huge waste of taxpayer's money.

 

[Mockingbird]

What had any of the indictments have to do with Trump? Even Papadopoulos indictment has been proven to be a set up

Ask Michael Cohen:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4401066/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-campaign-tax-evasion/

 

[Mockingbird]

I would imagine had Lyndon LaRouche been considered as having ANY chance at all of winning, it would be a different story. Pursuing the matter might have been a huge waste of taxpayer's money.

But still answers your question as to whether an individual with a criminal past can run for President. Turns out they can.

 

[JLM]

the impeachment case against Trump is much stronger than it was against either Nixon or Clinton.

Determined by what measures? Lay them out for us so we can be assured they are not just more of your bull shit!

 

[Twin_Moose]

For tax evasion? Good catch

 

[JLM]

It was good enough to put Nixon and Clinton on trials. Differences here though this time around, there's ample proofs and more coming.

We keep hearing lots of innuendos but so far we've seen nothing that amounts to a substantiated fact.