In response to the liars saying, "Trump does not deny the facts."

[Steeltime]

The lefties are harping and chirping false talking points, as always, and the most recent idiocy, repeated ad nauseum by lightweights pretending to be intellectuals, is that "Trump does not deny the facts underlying the allegations against him, only the process." Two points.

First, the process defects are palpable, overwhelming and serious. The idiocy of (D)ims just skipping by the process issues are disgusting. Did you know that four of the ten amendments to the Constitution, know as the "bill of rights," are process guarantees? (4th Amendment - probable cause for issuance of warrant, right against unreasonable search-and-seizure), 5th Amendment (right to be free from testifying against oneself, double jeopardy protection, guarantee of due process of law), 6th Amendment (right to a speedy and public trial, right to a jury trial, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses ... hello, anonymous whistleblower, time to honor the Constitution, right to counsel), and 8th Amendment (right to bail, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment) - all "process" guarantees. Given their present asinine posture, I can only presume (D)ims would take the same line of reasoning for the "dunking" test during the Salem witch trials? That test consisted of repeatedly dunking the suspected witch and holding her under water for increasing amounts of time to have her confess. If she confessed, she was a witch and burned. If she drowned, she was not a witch and ... drowned. "But nobody is arguing the outcome, just the process!!" /s Stupid (D)ims.

Second, Trump and his supporters have repeatedly, specifically, and pointedly DENIED the allegations. The only admissible "evidence" and the only evidence that actually matters relative to the allegations are the opinions of the six people whose opinions actually matter - Zelensky, Trump, Pompeo, Vadym Prystaiko (Ukranian foreign minister), Petro Poroshenko (former Ukranian President), and Gordon Sondland (EU ambassador). They were the only ones actually involved in the exchange, and the only ones who can say what happened, or why. And every goddamn one of them says no bribery, extortion, etc. Here is what each has said about the phone call:

• Trump: There was no pressure, no quid pro quo, no withholding of any aid to Ukraine. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/key-witness-trump-said-no-quid-pro-quo.php
• Pompeo: There was no pressure, no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide to Ukraine for any favor returned.https://www.theepochtimes.com/pompe...d-pro-quo-tied-to-aid-to-ukraine_3121913.html
• Zelensky: There was no pressure, no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide to Ukraine in return for anything. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-president-backs-trump-says-no-pressure-on-biden-probe ["“Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said. "We had a great phone call. It was normal"]
• Prystaiko: There was no pressure, no quid pro quo, no withholding of aide to Ukraine in return for anything. https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/21/...ter-prystaiko-defends-trump-talk-no-pressure/
• Zelensky's predecessor, Petro Poroshenko: Stated that he felt no pressure from Trump to "open an investigation" of Biden. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-01/former-ukrainian-president-poroshenko-trump
• The EU ambassador, Gordon Sondland: Trump told him explicitly, "I want nothing from Ukraine, I want no quid pro quo." https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...trump-wanted-nothing-ukraine-no-quid-pro-quo/
• The actual transcript of the call shows NO QUID PRO QUO OR BRIBERY. None. That is in fact why the left spent so much time calling witnesses to offer opinions about what they think happened and what others meant.
• Such opinion evidence is inadmissible since lay opinion testimony on another person's intent is simply not permitted. [Fed. Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 ["If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception," i.e., first-hand observation].
• The oft-referenced military aid was completely unrelated to any phone call or investigation, according to the left's beloved ambassador, Yavonovich. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...in-missiles-for-investigations-did-not-exist/ [Meadows: "The foreign aid that was has been reported as being held up, it doesn’t relate to Javelins, does it?” “No. At least I’m not aware that it does,” said Yovanovitch]
• No person on earth, except gerbil-abusing liberals, believes that Biden failed to pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor looking into the blatant corruption of a Ukranian gas company inexplicably paying coke-head, *****-impregnating, dishonorably-discharged, ineligible for a security clearance loser Hunter Biden $1 million per year to do ... nothing. In other words, we have clear evidence of illegal conduct by a guy the (D)ims give a free pass.
• So is the President committing a crime when asking for a favor in having Ukraine work with the Attorney General to investigate that blatant, obvious, palpable, direct evidence of corruption by a senile, corrupt former Vice President? Of course not. The opposite is true. https://dcwhispers.com/doh-did-you-...regarding-cooperation-for-prosecuting-crimes/ ["The Treaty ... [requiring cooperation between allied for corruption investigations] includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification.” Signed, William Jefferson Clinton.
• As to any remote, unfounded claim of "bribery" ... Ukraine never started any "investigation."
• All aide was delivered, BEFORE any "whistleblower blowing whistles he did not have" even occurred. https://www.theepochtimes.com/milit...-schedule-budget-office-confirms_3105264.html
• The military aid had literally nothing to do with this entire ******* scenario according to every witness. Somebody should let those battle-hardened (D)ims like Shiela Jackson Lee and Zoe Lofgren know ... oh, I guess they are too busy doing battle at the buffet line.
• Ukraine saw no connection, ever, to any investigation and aide. https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/
• Any delay in aide came as Trump's foreign policy team investigated the patent corruption in Ukraine, and was done BEFORE any phone call, for reasons having NOTHING to do with any investigation (which never took place), and done pursuant to a treaty between the nations designed to investigate corruption. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-biden-ukraine.html
• The whistleblower, it turns out, is such a partisan hack shill lying know-nothing that Schiffty is afraid to have him testify.
• Therefore, as a matter of fact and law, there could not POSSIBLY be any bribery or extortion, since the alleged value (investigation) never took place, the return (aid) was delivered without the value before the administration knew about the spy, uhh, "whistleblower" who Schiff promises to have testify, Zelensky had no idea aid was delayed, the delay came before any discussion about aid, the Ukranians did not believe they were pressured, the Americans say there was no pressure, the entire process took place as it had for generations, and the questions about corruption were raised pursuant to a treaty. You know, actual laws.
• The House of Lying Liars Telling Lies obviously agrees, since they DID NOT CHARGE TRUMP WITH BRIBERY. You know that, right, Tibs??
• The Constitution reflected a deep mistrust by the Founders of the impeachment process, where the majority could use impeachment as a tool to force the Executive to its whims, and is thus specifically limited to impeachment for "treason, bribery, or OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS." Constitution, Article 2, Section 4 ["The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanor"]
• Numbnuts claiming a President can be removed from office "without a crime" are lying idiot shills who should do the world a favor and use the Epstein exit. They are lying liars who either never took Constitutional law, or simply don't care what they learned.
• The absolute, undeniable fact is that the current group of stupid, lying, corrupt, diseased (D)ims HAVE NOT CHARGED THE PRESIDENT WITH ANY CRIME. None. As in, NO ******* CRIME CHARGED.
• "Abuse of power" is non-existent as a grounds for impeachment. It does not exist.
• "Abuse of power" is not a crime, treason, bribery or misdemeanor. Even ******* Wikipedia knows this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_power ["Abuse of power, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official misconduct," is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties"].
• The "obstruction of Congress" is a violation of the separation of powers, where Congress tries to supplement the court's rule in ruling on disputes between the branches and rule on the viability of the objections to the asinine demands for documents, i.e., decide "what the law is." That has NOT been the rule in our nation for 216 years, and every lawyer ... okay, every COMPETENT lawyer knows this. (Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 ["It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is"]
• Congress has blatantly abused its investigatory and subpoena powers, and the President has objected - like basically every President has done for the past 50 years.
• The President cited very specific legal grounds for the objections - privilege, including the well-recognized executive privilege.
• It is for the courts - NOT CONGRESS - to resolve that dispute.

So to sum up for the retards who think the impeachment is worth a steaming pile of dogshit ... no crime. No crime, no impeachment. If otherwise, then the bloated, disgusting, vile, contemptible, lying weasels in the House have just implemented the parliamentary system in our government, with endless ******* "no confidence" votes and endless elections.

**** them. I hope to live long enough for me to **** on their graves as they burn in hell.

Game over, *******.