Only in your own mind buttercup. Keep stretching for any warped semantic interpretation you can manage.

"it" = The Watergate criminal investigation, upon which the issued subpoenas, on which that particular article of impeachment was based. IE those subpoenas had the force of law of an active criminal investigation giving it legal authority and the ability to be substance for an article of impeachment, thus not a valid comparison to the letters issued to Trump pretending to be subpoenas.

You mean like your very first subject heading post in this thread?

"Conspiratard Media Waves Poop Stick At Biden"


Zerohedge is largely what is called an aggregator site, meaning they largely post articles from other sources, many of them mainstream. If the information presented was so bad you should easily be able to argue against it rather than taking the intellectually lazy fallacious route of attacking the source. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. You probably think CNN is more reliable than Zero Hedge even though they are documented as regularly and overtly publishing false information and refusing to issue retractions. It is a simple task to say "source X" is invalid because I say so, and conveniently absolves you of any responsibility of addressing any of the content of the presented information.



Yes, a different poll.. because it is comparing the previous Democrat sample size with the latest one with an increased Democrat sample size. At least I can read stick boy.

Furthermore, campaign finance disclosure laws are there to make sure undue influence is not being placed on candidates in secret. Did Donald Trump place undue secret influence on HIMSELF? His money went from his pocket to "his campaign" (or so the argument is right or wrong). The premise that he violated campaign finance laws is asinine. There is a argument Cohen did, but by far not any argument Trump did.

Not at all what I said, but have fun speaking for me and then telling me I am wrong if it makes you feel better Nutilduhhh.

Exactly. There needs to be a vote, a vote of the full house. This is exactly what she is NOT doing because it gives the president rights to subpoena his own witnesses and bring his own evidence. Instead of holding a vote she is engaging in this extralegal partisan display, calling it impeachment, and acting OUTSIDE of the law.

Cool story bro. Where did you get your psychology license. I wasn't aware even trained professionals could diagnose people over the internet. With skills like that what are you doing wasting your time here when you could be making the big bucks? You were saying something about how I was making this personal?

P.S. I don't consider being exceptionally more informed than you a difficult bar to meet.


Regarding your rigged Fox poll...

"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/




Is there evidence Trump committed a crime? Present it then. Your argument is he made illegal campaign contributions to HIMSELF using HIS OWN MONEY? WHAT? Like I said Cohen committed the crime, not Trump. Additionally he has been proven to perjure himself in the court of law, making his testimony totally useless. Your speculation of what you think happened is not evidence of anything but your desperation to get Trump. As usual, more of the same...




More: "Get the Popcorn!… Biden Just Tossed Obama Under the Bus, “Obama White House Approved Hunter Biden’s Position”"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/get-the-popcorn-biden-just-tossed-obama-under-the-bus-obama-white-house-approved-hunter-bidens-position/

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.



No, the point is they are not comparable. You used it as an example and claimed Trump could be impeached on this fact alone, when in fact he was not legally subpoenaed, which requires force of law with a penalty for defiance. The two situations are not at all comparable. The precedent says, as I documented above, that there first needs to be a vote before a subpoena with force of law can be issued. What the democrats are doing is unprecedented in an impeachment process.



"“There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas,” the piece, published Thursday, began.

“You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued,” he said. “The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.”

“What is portrayed as an ‘impeachment inquiry’ is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.”
Do you think that Donald Trump will be impeached?

McCarthy pointed out something we’ve noted and most the establishment media hasn’t: An impeachment inquiry is a very specific thing usually requiring a vote in the House Judiciary Committee to commence. That vote hasn’t happened and presumably won’t."

"The committees aren’t using their subpoena power — in part or in whole, McCarthy says, “because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object.”

“Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court,” he wrote. “They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply ‘shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.’ What a crock.”


“In criminal proceedings, prosecutors demand information all the time and witnesses often resist — just as congressional Democrats encouraged the Justice Department and FBI to resist when Republican-controlled committees were trying to investigate such matters as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse,” he wrote.

“Presumptively, resisting an information request is not evidence of obstruction. It is evidence that the recipient of the demand believes he or she has a legal privilege that excuses compliance. The recipient can be wrong about that without being guilty of obstruction.”


“Congressional Democrats know this, of course — many of them are lawyers. They are issuing partisan letters that pose legally offensive threats, rather than subpoenas, because this is a show, not an impeachment inquiry.”"

"“Every presidential impeachment inquiry, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, has been the subject of bipartisan consultation and debate. The House has recognized that its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its most solemn actions, must be based on the consideration of the whole body, not the diktat of a few partisan bosses,” he wrote.

“Not this one. This one is a misadventure in exactly the bare-knuckles partisanship the Framers feared. To be sure, no one has the power to prevent willful House leadership from misbehaving this way. But we’re not required to pretend the charade is real.”"


"Ex-Fed. Prosecutor McCarthy: Despite Dem Antics, No Impeachment Inquiry Happening"

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

I was making a direct reply to this argument.


The subpoenas issued to Nixon were based upon criminal proceedings upon which the articles of impeachment against him were based. There are no such criminal proceedings on which the subpoenas issued to Trump are based. You keep struggling for that W, no mater how small it is thirsty boi.

Well shit, Trump quotes Fox, clearly that means conservatives supports Fox. Case closed! I never claimed to be extraordinary, but I could see how I would look that way to you. I am only extraordinary when compared to your lowly state of intellect.

You sure are a thirsty boi now aren't you?

"The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

The subpoenas were issued based upon a criminal proceeding.

Actually I just pointed out how stupid people like you are for believing that Fox news represents conservatives. It wasn't even an attempt at discrediting the information presented, but whatever you can imagineer for more NO U! moments, go for it. I don't at all think I am infallible. As I explained before I have invested way more time into informing myself on these subjects over a period of decades than most people, and certainly more than you. I have gone to the gym every day and built my muscles while you sat on the couch and picked your ass, and you wonder why I treat you like an insect. I am not infallible, but compared to you I might as well be. I am very sorry you haven't invested more time into educating yourself, but your feels and boo boos ren't my concern.

Thanks Captain Obvious. The point is it was based on criminal activity of which Nixon was involved in, which was of primary relevance to their oversight ability. What criminal act is this current impeachment based on? Oh right, 3 years and not a shred of evidence of criminal activity on Trump's part has been presented. Even Nixon had a vote for his subpoenas to be issued. This investigation and resulting subpoenas are a farce.

Fuck Steve Cur. Deport his ass to China so they can boil him alive and eat him in the dog meat festival. Also Nike is about to enter center stage in these boycotts, just you watch.

When did I use the term "fake news"? I don't just refute the sparse amounts of evidence you bother to present, I counter it with my own documentation and logic based arguments. You, you have to wait for me to say something clever, change it around a bit, repeat it back to me, and then...

Are you capable of an original thought, or do you have to wait for me to have one first so you can repeat it back to me? The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding. I gave well sourced documentation of why this is not only unprecedented but outside of their authority. You, you just repeated yourself.


I often wonder what kind of morons buy this kind of empty sophistry, then I only have to look at you two screaming over and over...

Whatever you want to tell yourself buttercup. I have logic based arguments backed by documentation and evidence, you have...

Congress absolutely has oversight authority, but it does in fact specify how impeachment is initiated and processed, otherwise congress could simply unseat any sitting president any time they liked by inventing an inequitable process. The idea that there are no rules or protocols for impeachment is totally asinine and nonsensical. This authority exists within the protocol of law, it can't just be invented as they go along, this is not oversight, this is outside of their authority. The currently issued subpoenas have ZERO AUTHORITY under the law because they are issued OUTSIDE of this protocol, unlike the Nixon impeachment, which was a criminal proceeding, unlike the current investigation.

"Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations."

"The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” the president in question."

"Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member “acting jointly.” If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship.”"

"The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”"

"Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. The resolutions authorizing both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings granted the judiciary committee this authority."

"It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive."

"The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

As you can see, the house is operating outside of its authority, and furthermore these actions are completely unprecedented in any previous impeachment proceedings. This is not due process, this is just more of the same endless and basel3ss politically motivated investigations.

"Cohen pleaded guilty to failure to report personal income taxes for the five-year period beginning in 2012. He also admitted to making false statements to a financial institution tied to a credit decision around February 2015, to willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution from at least June 2016 to October 2016, and to making an excessive campaign contribution on October 27, 2016, according to his plea agreement."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/michael-cohen-appears-in-court-over-hush-payments-plea-update

I see crimes Michael Cohen is responsible for. The only evidence of wrong doing on the part of Trump is the testimony of a man facing prosecution that has been a proven liar in the court of law. No conclusions about Trump's guilt were made in the proceedings of this case, let alone any accusations against him.




You never cease to amaze me with how shallow your attempt at a logical argument is. I tell you you are just projecting and detail the strategy of accusing your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of, and how do you respond? You once again accuse me of what I just accused you of in a perpetual loop. Ironic indeed. You have zero arguments and thus completely rely on this pathetic strategy in an attempt to confuse the situation perpetually in a last ditch attempt to escape culpability.

I want to make this personal? Who was it that brought external forum trust system issues into this discussion? Oh right, you. Just because you repeatedly eat the vomit of your favorite echo chamber and puke it up over any over again doesn't make it any closer to reality. You suffer from the delusion that the media defines reality. Biden doesn't have a chance against Trump, and the list of names that will be prosecuted related to this corruption will blow your head out of your ass with so much force you will suffer a prolapse. Just like 2016 the hubris of leftards like you assured of your correctitude and victory will lead to 4 more years of Trump, so thanks for being your own worst enemy.

Killery only escaped prosecution because of the complicity in corruption of those leading the organizations responsible for investigating and prosecuting her. Also, she was required to testify under the law, the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

As usual your argument...

Absolutely nothing? Uh, no. There is plenty of evidence of his criminal activity already in the public domain. Evidence such as that is completely lacking during the 3 years of the Russian collusion delusion inquisitions. What the fuck are you even rambling about "due process in your own mind?" Are you retarded or just that desperate to project and mirror these accusations in order to synthesize the artificial appearance of equivalence, or both? Are you arguing now I am not free to draw my own conclusions until you and or the court tells me what I should be thinking? Is my free thought offensive to you and oppressive to the Bidens? Am I guilty of wrongthink? I am having a hard time warping and contorting my mind severely enough to even understand your attempt at a premise here.

Regarding the photo of Biden with Burisma board members, this is significant because Joe Biden claimed to not have ever discussed the issue with his own  son let alone the other board member, and this is significant evidence contradicting that claim. Furthermore, as far as I know, no one was charged, because the investigation was forced to be ended prematurely. The investigation was never completed, meaning they most certainly are not in the clear.

Regarding the claims against Giulianni... again this is a pathetically transparent attempt at once again, ad nauseam trying to accuse their opponent of the crimes they themselves are guilty of in order to create a sense of equivalence and thus distract from their own crimes. This is getting to be a disgustingly predictable tactic with diminishing returns. It would almost be humorous how retarded people like you look constantly screeching "NO U!!!1" if it were not so destructive to the fabric of our nation.

The toddler like levels of intellect mirroring and projecting would be quite amusing. Of course you don't give a shit about that living thousands of miles away in Asia now do you captain expat? Some how you still feel you have a right to dictate our domestic policy even though you have little to no stake in the situation from your safety thousands of miles outside of our borders. The accusations against Giuliani amount to guilt via association, and there is no evidence he acted improperly as an agent of Parnas or Fruman.

Furthermore he, as per your own source reported the information he obtained from them to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. You would think if he was up to something illicit he would refrain from tying himself to these people in any way now wouldn't you? In summary, like the unrelenting politically motivated and insubstantial investigations are just more of the same tactic of synthesizing false equivalence, and without actual evidence it consists of nothing more than this...



NO U!!!1