![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Impeachment: Call to order!
As Sergeant at Arms of the ILLINOISMatmen House, I have been asked by the Speaker to conduct a Roll Call of votes on the issue of the Articles of Impeachment in the matter of ILLINOISMatmen House of Representatives versus President Donald J. Trump.
All those in favor of Impeachment signify by "Aye," all those opposed, say "Nay." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
.
"As the Representative from the City of Myrtle Beach, I ask for a Point of Order, Speaker. It is my opinion that this was an outcome we should all have expected. Since we were little, sitting in front of our TVs on Saturday mornings, play-fighting with our siblings, or holding our favorite stuffed animal, we have been taught one over-arching lesson, to wit: . . With that, the right honorable Gentleman from Myrtle Beach votes, 'AYE!'" . |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Can we read the articles of impeachment first?
I don't think Nancy is trying to speed up the impeachment process. I think she is trying to control it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A duly-elected member of the ILLINOISMatmen Parliament has requested a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Ergo, we shall read the Articles of Impeachment:
Article One: EMBEZZLEMENT/CHARITY FRAUD. At this time, the State of New York is proceeding with a civil case against Trump and his family for his many charity frauds. This doesn’t mean it cannot become a criminal case in the future. Moreover, it certainly doesn’t mean it cannot be part of impeachment proceedings. Marc S. Owens, a former head of the IRS’s nonprofit division, called the suit “an extraordinary catalogue of how not to run a private foundation. There’s little else [Trump] could have done that would have made it worse.” It is most likely that all of these crimes occurred before Trump assumed office. Does the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Clause of the Constitution allow for offenses committed prior to federal political or judicial office? The answer is yes. New York would charge these crimes under their embezzlement/larceny statute, which requires the Government to prove the following elements per Section 155.05 of the New York Penal Law: Quote:
The “Allen W” referenced in Trump’s handwriting is Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s CFO for many years. He also cut many of the checks for the Trump Foundation. What kind of Monster steals from Charity? The reading of the Articles of Impeachment will continue … later. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Article Two: BRIBERY.
The Government must prove these elements of Bribery pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 666, although reasonable inferences can be drawn: Quote:
Bondi did not pursue criminal charges against Trump University. The reasonable inference here is that Trump corruptly intended to influence the prosecutorial discretion of the Florida Attorney General. If there is a record of one communication between Trump and Bondi or Trump and the Bondi PAC during those six days (or shortly thereafter), the crime is basically proven. Moreover, this is a two-fer! The president of your country used a check from his charity to pay off Bondi. Yes, he stole from his charity to bribe a politician! It's insane, but true, my friends. Here's the check: The reading of the Articles of Impeachment will continue ... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I would like to call for a recess so I can review the documents and take a dump.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
All of the document appear to be in order and indisputable. That gives us only one option...we must follow the precedent set by a previous congress and the honorable land swindler from the great state of Arizona (Harry Reed).
I, the honorable gentleman from the great estate of Kaczynski (in the woods) will vote nay on impeachment. Why doesn't anybody ever put toilet paper back on the holder? (((fawhooshhhhh))) Last edited by MAL; 09-27-2019 at 09:17 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Article Three: VIOLATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is quite clear that an individual cannot donate more than $2,700.00 to a candidate for federal office during an election cycle, and that corporations cannot donate to an individual candidate for federal office. There are two felony counts that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt based upon public information. Stanford Law Professor and former Federal prosecutor David Sklansky takes over from here: Quote:
These violations can be established beyond a reasonable doubt because we can show the payments made and received, we have the testimony of some of the individuals involved, and, most importantly, the taped admissions from Donald Trump. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Unfortunately, because the corruption is almost inexhaustible and my time is limited, the Articles will probably not be completed for a couple of weeks. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Can I call a point of orderves...Nadlers committee had a bucket Of KFC the other day...can we have chicken? It has come to my attention that the whistleblower had no first hand knowledge of the events that he testified about. It has been argued by some that hearsay does not qualify a witness for whistleblower status. Adam Schiff had the Whistle blower report since August...he wouldn't let me see it, but I found it. He had in the center fold of his November 1972 playboy...right between...uh...well...it was there. This whistleblower story only has About a week till it fizzles out. Then they open the drawer and find out what else Shiff is sitting on waiting for the right time to release. |
Sponsored Links |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|