Transcript of diplomat Bill Taylor’s testimony to impeachment panel released

You can certainly keep repeating yourself, but that's also a sign of trying to convince yourself.

 

It would behoove you to read Sondland's entire transcript, most especially paragraph 4.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/julio...timony-does-not-confirm-quid-pro-quo-n2555965


Looks like you are down to Volker.


Volker Testimony Directly Contradicted Democrat ...
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/t
Testimony from Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, obtained by The Federalist, directly contradicts the Democrat impeachment narrative against Donald Trump.


Ooops…..then again. Looks like its back to the impeachment drawing board.

 

Poor Democrats.

 

He was a federal employee at the time that the impeachment proceeding was launched, so that seems like a far cry from people who were long since removed from federal office. Also, you can obtain the same position after being impeached - Donald Trump is about to try for that in a year.

I know of no case where someone who was not a federal employee could suddenly be impeached years after leaving the federal employment.

 

I'm glad you agree that Donald Trump has demonstrated a hatred for the US Constitution.

 

Enjoy.

 

And he wasn't when the trial occurred.

As I said, impeachment is also used to prevent someone from holding future office.....if convicted.

If you read the Constitution, you'll see that there is no explicit context that says it can only be done while in office.

And no, you can't hold the same position after you're impeached....if convicted.

My "try reading" suggestion still stands.

 

I didn't, but I appreciate you agreeing about the WB lawyer.

 

So the Republican defense at this point, in regards to Sondland altering his sworn testimony to note that - indeed - he delivered a quid pro quo to the Ukrainians, is that Sondland does not know for certain that Trump REALLY wanted that statement made before aid would be released?

 

I didn't, but I appreciate you agreeing about Donald Trump.

 

Here's some reading for you:

"So even if Trump were impeached and convicted, there is the possibility that he could be reelected to the same office from which he had been removed."

https://qz.com/1720279/could-trump-be-impeached-convicted-and-then-re-elected/

 

Yeah I've seen stuff like that before.

 

Proving my point ...

 

When you say, "like that," you mean "nothing like that," right?

 

That was probably written by a Democrat.

I know, let's check the Constitution. I know Democrats have only started reading it recently, but here you go:

Article 1, Section 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice are not impeachable offenses in your mind?

 

No, I mean exactly like that, from exactly the same people.

 

You can try anything you'd like.

Go ahead and pick something you'd like me to dismantle.

 

I love how you folks think that putting portions of the Constitution in bold or italics or underlining or changing the color of the font is a sufficient method for analyzing and dismissing Constitutional analysis from actual legal scholars.

Quick Question: Is the Office of the Presidency explicitly defined anywhere in the Constitution as an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States?"

 

You are much to merciful.

 

So you haven't figured out why "Support for impeachment" is not the same as "Will he be impeached?"

 

Oh yes, those legal scholars at QZ. Woe is me.

So what you're saying, is that the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to the POTUS?

Your lack of Constitutional knowledge is stunning.

 

Uhm that is Nov 5th 2019.


Mark Meadows

✔ @RepMarkMeadows




Seeing many overblown (and outright false) reports about Ambassador Sondland's testimony. Here's what he actually said.

1. I did not (and still don't) know why aid was held up
2. I "PRESUMED" it was because of corruption
3. I told Yermak my assumption

See paragraph 4 here:



Oops again for the leftness.

 

So you haven't figured out "support for election" is not the same as "will be elected"?

 

Cmon now, they still haven't figured out whats going to take place when their impeachment scam goes to the Senate. Let alone figuring anything else out.