titan said:

---

Well this is the official impeachment thread so that is stupid ***** incarnate, is it not? Hahaha.

---

Oh, it's dumb. And someone grabbed the mace to lead the band.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

The weird thing about this thread and this board is the general consensus that this is a total witch hunt with no evidence. And only the fringiest of lunatics, the 5% of the hard left are buying it. Any posting of new evidence or news from reputable sources is immediately dismissed.

If you cocoon yourself off on this board, alt/right reddit, and Breitbart, you might miss something.

---

Weird that only 70% of MSNBC/ABC viewers who are 99% Libs think that....

Hmmm..... what does that mean?

Look again. Ipsos.

Gary is a microcosm illustration of the the senate trial. The senate should dismiss the charges and be done with this BS, but it will humor the charges and make this impeachment look credible.

Let's bring out the crackhead son and the Brennan pajama boy whistleblower and get crazy if you really want a fair trial. I doubt that republicans have learned anything though.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

MSNBC? Oh yeah that's a good poll!

---

Look again, genius.

---

Don't need to Gary

---

I know you don't. It's for the people that know how to read graphics and notations and might be interested.

---

ABC, MSNBC, doesn't matter. We know they're libs. Oh by the way, hildog isn't President. Those polls were wrong.

Gary has anger management issues like most liberals. The only way to quiet them is run them thru the ringer. I hope that's exactly what the Senate does.

Ok???

Guilty of what?

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

If Trump confesses and resigns you won't believe him cause he's a never-Trumper lib.

---

https://vlipsy.com/embed/ogx5Okgw

Rockdoc said:

---

Guilty of what?

---

That stuff...duh

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Gary is a microcosm illustration of the the senate trial. The senate should dismiss the charges and be done with this BS, but it will humor the charges and make this impeachment look credible.

Let's bring out the crackhead son and the Brennan pajama boy whistleblower and get crazy if you really want a fair trial. I doubt that republicans have learned anything though.

---

If we're gonna make this thing a circus with irrelevant witnesses why stop there? Let's go full Jerry Springer.

Stormy Daniels, paternity reveals, Hunter's crack dealer, Baron Trump, the server, stiffed Atlantic City subcontractors, Cosmic Pizza, Alex Jones, Vladimir Putin.


Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani. That's all that matters. They can exonerate or bury him. He'll never let them testify if he can help it. Because he's guilty.

---

Guilty of what? Are you serious?

You've lost your ****in mind. The House didn't even go as far as you have.

And there you have it. Insanity!

Who is Parnas? Why do we care?

"You're a bunch of dopes and babies."

So f'ing embarrassing.

You have two usernames and you dare call anyone out on anything. Good god that's funny. You do have TDS.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Look again. Ipsos.

---

How opinion polls work:

To a Conservative:
POLLSTER - this is so and so with such and such....
CONSERVATIVE <click>

To a Liberal:
POLLSTER - this is so and so with such and such....
LIBERAL - I HATE TRUMP
POLLSTER - are you Dem or Rep
Liberal - uhhh errr... <some say Dem, some say moderate, some say Rep>

To a Moderate/Libertarian/etc.
POLLSTER - this is so and so with such and such....asking about yadda yadda yadda
MODERATE - <might say yes or might say no>
POLLSTER - are you a Dem or Rep
MODERATE - <Dem, Rep or neither>

Pollsters Tally:
70% HATE TRUMP and 40% were Dem, 40% Rep and 20% neither

HTH

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Guilty of what?

---

High crimes. That's why he'll block evidence and witnesses as long as he can instead of owning the libs. Even in a Senate trial with rules he dictated he's scared.

---

Obstructing congress is one of the purposes of the 2 other branches of government.

Good luck proving he broke the impoundment law when it's not in the articles of impeachment.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Wall of words.

Do you think the average American family regularly discusses crimes over the dinner table? If not therefore we should excuse criminals. That was essentially the point you were feebly trying to make. Trump caught 3 years of a 10 year expansion. He is not the economy, it'll be fine without him.

I'm not a "dem coup leader". never voted for a dem. 10% of Republicans loath Trump.

---

Quote:

---

"Prove it"

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Guilty of what?

---

High crimes. That's why he'll block evidence and witnesses as long as he can instead of owning the libs. Even in a Senate trial with rules he dictated he's scared.

---

Obstructing congress is one of the purposes of the 2 other branches of government.

Good luck proving he broke the impoundment law when it's not in the articles of impeachment.

---

Dersh has an article out that refutes the GAO opinion quite handily.

Quote:

---

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" the Impoundment Control Act"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money which was eventually sent without strings he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.

---

More here

I don't trust any dirt on Nunes. The left hates him so much that there have been a ton of lies against him.

aggiehawg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Guilty of what?

---

High crimes. That's why he'll block evidence and witnesses as long as he can instead of owning the libs. Even in a Senate trial with rules he dictated he's scared.

---

Obstructing congress is one of the purposes of the 2 other branches of government.

Good luck proving he broke the impoundment law when it's not in the articles of impeachment.

---

Dersh has an article out that refutes the GAO opinion quite handily.

Quote:

---

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has gotten the constitutional law exactly backwards. It said that the "faithful execution of the law" the Impoundment Control Act"does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those congress has enacted into law ." Yes, it does when it comes to foreign policy. The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Congress allocates funds to Cuba (or Iran or Venezuela). The president says that is inconsistent with his foreign policy and refuses to release the funds. Surely the president would be within his constitutional authority. Or consider the actual situation that former President Barack Obama created when he unilaterally made the Iran deal and sent that enemy of America billions of dollars without congressional approval. I do not recall the GAO complaining about that presidential decision, despite the reality that the Iran deal was, in effect, a treaty that should require senate approval that was never given.

Whatever one may think about the substantive merits of what President Donald Trump did or did not do with regard to the Ukrainian money which was eventually sent without strings he certainly had the authority to delay sending the funds. The GAO was simply wrong in alleging that he violated the law, which includes the Constitution, by doing so.

---

More here

---

I've already brought up the first section of the impoundment act that expressly states the act does supersede the constitutional prerogatives of duties of the President or of Congress. Did not read the article, but I'm kind of disappointed that issue keeps getting missed.

Quote:

---

I've already brought up the first section of the impoundment act that expressly states the act does supersede the constitutional prerogatives of duties of the President or of Congress. Did not read the article, but I'm kind of disappointed that issue keeps getting missed.

---

That's Dersh's argument that to the extent the act portends to supercede those constitutional prerogatives it is unconstitutional. In any event it is a civil penalty and not a criminal one.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I've already brought up the first section of the impoundment act that expressly states the act does supersede the constitutional prerogatives of duties of the President or of Congress. Did not read the article, but I'm kind of disappointed that issue keeps getting missed.

---

That's Dersh's argument that to the extent the act portends to supercede those constitutional prerogatives it is unconstitutional. In any event it is a civil penalty and not a criminal one.

---

You missed my point. The act cannot supersede the Constitution because the Act itself expressly says it does not.