candide

Yes yes! Links please! ????

That's why I mentioned " if it is an admissible evidence". If it is admissible, it will likely be examined one day or another.

A new constitution would require the approval of one third of the Senate.

If It's an admissible evidence, then he should be indicted. No problem.

There will be a new batch of Senators, by a complex mechanism ensuring that the yellow-green establishment will control the process. So the establishment only needs to succeed to select more than two third of the Senators who are on their side.

I was tempted to make a comparison, but that would have offended prostitutes.

In order to scrap it, they would need the approval of at least one third of Senators, as required by the current Constitution.

She wanted to make sure people would pay attention and watch it! ????

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) tweeted that the photos revealed that “perhaps we should call Hunter Biden the ‘Big Guy,’” ???? https://news.yahoo.com/revenge-porn-mtg-inflicts-hunter-212230591.html

Same information in the right-wing NYPost https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/ukraine-busts-bribe-scheme-for-company-that-hired-hunter-biden/ "The millions in American $100 bills they put on display, wrapped in rubber bands and held in clear plastic bags, was intended as a payoff to two top anti-corruption officials, according to the Kyiv Post. Three people, including a current and a former tax official, have been detained"

It's worth mentioning this: "Raskin has now countered with a document of his own — a three-page transcript of a 2019 interview between Zlochevsky and an acquaintance of Rudy Giuliani, who at the time was publicly seeking dirt on Biden on behalf of then-President Donald Trump."

You forgot to mention the title of the article: "This weak and hypocritical impeachment bill won’t bring down Joe Biden"

Trump changed affiliation five times in his life. If he was so "loved", why did he switched to the GOP? (My opinion about it: He thought he had no chance to hijack the Dem party as he did later with the GOP)

The problem is that McCarty is not sure he could get a House majority to expunge the impeachment (in case it would be legal to do so). In case it wouldn't pass, it could be perceived as a confirmation of Trump's impeachment.

It is amusing to see that Republican congressmen are so desperate that they pretend to trust information which has previously been considered as unreliable by a Republican DOJ. It is also amusing that in the link you provided, the source stated that he was “is not able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity of Zlochevsky’s aforementioned statements.”

Stop making up things. It is not a "democrat" fact, It's a "Giuliani" fact. Parnas was sent by Giuliani to get dirt on the Biden, and came back with this statement from Zlochevsky exonerating the Bidens instead of incriminating them (Parnas was expecting to get dirt on the Bidens). This information has also been given to the "Republican" Senate committee investing the Burisma case. As to the Information you mention, this is old stuff which has been dismissed by a Republican" DOJ as unreliable. It was all "Republican" and not "Democrat".

Impeach for what? Where are the recordings of Biden's "perfect phone calls" incriminating him? Did he try to overturn elections?

Well as MTG said: “When evidence and proof of a crime is presented, no prosecution should be denied no matter who the person is.” ???? https://greene.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=479

Ooops! Again

Multiple posting

In short, according to the Constitution, the new Senators will be selected by committees and panels, according to a complex system of representation of diverse categories (professions, etc...). The composition of the committees is defined to give a majority to members of the establishment, ex heads of government agencies. Now guess who will select the members of the selection committees? The yellow EC! All is under control and the elected government has no influence on the process. So it will likely be a Senate dominated by the yellow-green establishment. They may not be able to get a 100% yellow Senate as the system is quite complex, but they only need to control more than 2/3 of the Senate in order to block any amendment of the constitution they don't like. The only good news, if I understand well, is that the new Senate will not participate in the election of a PM any more.

How could Garland be responsible for what happened before his mandate?

Most of the examples cited occurred under Barr's and Trump's mandates. So they were fascist according to you????? Clear double-standards: investigate Hunter but not Jared or Ivanka, and pardon corrupt Trumps aides such as Manafort or Flynn!

Apparently, my question was not clear enough. We have a court (which are generally yellow in Thailand) (on top of it, established in 2016) going against the yellow EC when the EC seems to carry the will of the establishment. Some divergence inside the yellow-green establishment?

It has been discussed many times. Other parties were also practising vote buying. Its effectiveness has also been questioned, in particular considering the high number of votes (ex Yingluck got around 40% more votes than Abhisit). I agree with you that both groups are crooked (to a certain extent). However, I prefer the one which always submitted to the vote of the people, and could be voted out.