"David Hartung" <
shitbag...@shitbags.r.us> wrote in message
news:wMtVK.42521$OR4c...@fx46.iad...
Nope. If the President says it is no longer classified, then it isn't.
Otherwise, publish these "protocols" you claim exist.
>
>>
>>> Trump didn't declassify a fucking thing.
>>
>> Phone call with Ukraine was de-classified by Trump
>
> No, it was not. It was never classified in the first place.
SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN (strike through)
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified by order of the President
September 24, 2019
EYES-ONLY (strike through)
DO NOT COPY (strike through)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html
Yea, clearly it WAS classified, and Trump ordered it to be declassified and
released to the public.
So... now I suppose the only question is are you ignorant, stupid and/or a
liar?
You certainly proved that your claims and assertions mean NOTHING.
>> And speaking of which.. when are we going to impeach Biden for his?
>
> Biden wasn't president when he called for the firing of the corrupt
> Ukraine prosecutor.
He was Vice President, wasn't he? You don't think a Vice-President can't be
impeached under the Constitution?
Article II, 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 Misdemeanors.
If doing this was enough to impeach the President, then it's enough to
impeach the Vice-President.. or now that he's President... to impeach the
President.
Either way Biden is guilty, by his own admission, of the crime Democrats
tried to impeach Trump for.. so why aren't they working to impeach Biden?
I mean we have his video taped confession.
>> I mean we have his freely admitted confession on video.
>
> Biden was carrying out the official policy of the U.S. government, the EU
> and the IMF and World Bank. *Everyone* wanted that corrupt, do-nothing
> Ukrainian prosecutor fired. He wasn't prosecuting corruption.
Nice assertion but I don't see you producing any evidence of that
1} It was the official policy of the US government
2) It was the official policy of the EU
3) It was the official policy of the IMF
4) That it was the official policy of the World Bank
5) That *Everyone* wanted the prosecutor fired
6) That the prosecutor was corrupt
7) That there was no corruption, or other crime, to prosecute.
8) The prosecutor was a do-nothing
#8 being of particular interest because if he was a do nothing.. then it
brings into question the validity of assertions 1-7. Those could only apply
if the prosecutor was actually doing something.
So how much of what you claimed is a lie? 1-7? 8? or all of it?
...and I certainly don't see how an ILLEGAL action by the Vice-President
could be justified even if that were the case. After all the Vice-President
is suppose to obey the law just as much, if not more so, than other people.
Further, let's say that what you said is true.. It would require an order of
the President to make the Vice-President do this..
Are you suggesting that Obama should have been impeached as well.. and since
the question was raised for Trump... could Obama be impeached today for what
Biden did then?
Yea, you're just making the issue even larger by trying to 'clean it up' to
justify your double standard.