Impeachment Collection

[JonNC]

I agree.The anti Trumpster rhetoric is getting beyond tiresome.

You can complain about it, but that’s what is supposed to happen in a society that defends free speech.
The alternative is what we are seeing progressives do on college campuses and in social media.

 

[Theo520]

Source.
Your definition here makes impeachment a sort of recall process. That’s not what it is supposed to be. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is a necessary precondition. The fact that some people don’t like his behavior isn’t enough.

I agree it is essentially a just “recall process”
The irony is it’s just the same people who vehemently hated him winning are pushing this angle, and it’s a distinct minority of Congress.

 

[JonNC]

The real problem is his attitude toward the laws in general, and the Constitution in particular. During the transition period, he said: “this is what I want, and this is how I want it”. When he was told that the method how he wanted it is forbidden by the law, his answer was “F*CK the law!”. THAT is the problem! Not his lack of manners.

Progressives have been doing that for 100 years, sometimes without the language.

When he wanted his southern border to prevent the “browning of America”

Unless you can show where he said this, it is a lie. It is the kind of vile race baiting that Democrats and progressives have done for decades.

He sided with vicious tyrants, autocrats against his own country, that is unforgivable

How many billions did he send in cash to any of them?

Of course the Russians interfered on his behalf, even if there is no actual evidence for it.

It seems obvious they tried to interfere. The interference was pathetic and of little consequence when compared to how the MSM with an almost unified voice promoted his opponent.

The Russian interference is beyond dispute. The fact that the republicans in the Senate (led by a “turtle” ) reject even the attempt to prevent the further interference makes them co-conspirators in selling out their country. Bad manners??? Who cares?

Let’s remember that all of this interference happened when the “brilliant, reliable” Obama administration was in office, when scoundrels like Brennan and Clapper and Comey were in charge. They missed it because they were too busy spying on the Trump campaign.

But the the attack on the Constitution is unforgivable. That is what he was elected for, to uphold and protect the Constitution. So forget his nekulturny behavior. Concentrate on the real issue.

His attack on the constitution comes from signing a spending bill where upwards of 3/4 of the spending has no mandate in Article 1 section 8. But that’s okay because the authoritarian progressives are all in favor of it.

 

[Theo520]

Where is it in the regulation that the SC spends $35 m and two years and then says, “duh, I don’t know.”

EXACTLY, he was paid to investigate and come to a conclusion.

As the Dems see it, Mueller is just a starting point to their investigating all over again.

 

[PaulinVA]

With the hand of my sweet wife of 35 years in one hand and a cold lager in the other.

Doesn’t sound like we disagree on very much.

Hey, my wife and I have been married for 35 years, too! 30 years of wedded bliss…

 

[MidwestGuy]

Hey, my wife and I have been married for 35 years, too! 30 years of wedded bliss…

LOL - I’m guessing she doesn’t read these forums

 

[Economist]

Progressives have been doing that for 100 years, sometimes without the language.

Really, show me an example with the language. The fact that none of you has any evidence to exonerate Trump’s actions, only repeat: “Johnny did it, too” takes all your credibility away. Not just you, but everyone of you tries that childish “defense”: “But, Mommy, Johnny did it, too!”

Unless you can show where he said this, it is a lie.

Nonsense. The words: “There were very good people on BOTH sides”, does not explicitly take the side of the KKK, but every thinking person can decipher what he meant. It is useful to read between the lines.

How many billions did he send in cash to any of them?

No one said that the support was monetary. But it was obvious. The words: “why would he?” was quickly replaced with “why wouldn’t he?” when he talked about accepting Putin’s words over his own intelligence people. Unfortunately for him, the evidence is still there.

Defending Kim about the slaughter of Otto Warmbier is ridiculous. Kim said he was innocent, and that is sufficient for Trump. “And then we fell in love!” said about a bloodthirsty dictator.

It seems obvious they tried to interfere. The interference was pathetic and of little consequence when compared to how the MSM with an almost unified voice promoted his opponent.

Baloney. It was a very effective and concentrated effort. And ultimately successful. In a slip of tongue Trump even admitted it, and then quickly tried to disown it. Not to mention that his defense was even more hilarious! "The Russians did not elect me! I elected myself! Not the people… he elected himself.

His attack on the constitution comes from signing a spending bill where upwards of 3/4 of the spending has no mandate in Article 1 section 8.

Easy to close your eyes and disregard the reality. But even if that would have been the only instance, that would be enough. Of course it was just one of them. Nepotism, overriding the recommendation against giving top secret qualification to his family, and but a few others. Of course, none of them matters to you. “Saint Donald said it; I believe it; that is the end of it!”

 

[Ridgerunner]

It was a very effective and concentrated effort. And ultimately successful. In a slip of tongue Trump even admitted it, and then quickly tried to disown it. Not to mention that his defense was even more hilarious! "The Russians did not elect me! I elected myself! Not the people… he elected himself

Even Obama said it didn’t amount to much of anything. Why was he wrong? How many votes did the Russians affect?

 

[Ridgerunner]

As the Dems see it, Mueller is just a starting point to their investigating all over again.

I doubt they expect to find anything Mueller didn’t find. But they can impeach just because they don’t like him.

 

[Economist]

Even Obama said it didn’t amount to much of anything.

One grain of sand can tip the scale to the other side.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One grain of sand can tip the scale to the other side.

So Obama was wrong, then?

 

[JonNC]

Progressives have been doing that for 100 years, sometimes without the language.

How dishonest. The second part of that sentence was “sometimes without the language.”
I know progressives don’t believe in it, but the fact that he wasn’t accused, wasn’t charged, wasn’t indicted, is exoneration. It is called presumption of innocence.

Nonsense. The words: “There were very good people on BOTH sides”, does not explicitly take the side of the KKK, but every thinking person can decipher what he meant. It is useful to read between the lines.

Actually, any honest person would read what he actually said:

Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
…
"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.”

No one said that the support was monetary. But it was obvious. The words: “why would he?” was quickly replaced with “why wouldn’t he?”

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe he wouldn’t want to do for Putin what his predecessor did for Putin’s close ally in Iran. John Kerry is still trying to help Obama’s buddies in Iran.

Baloney. It was a very effective and concentrated effort.

Absolute nonsense. A few thousands of dollars of ads on Facebook? Clinton got exponentially more help from Don Leman.

Easy to close your eyes and disregard the reality. But even if that would have been the only instance, that would be enough.

You won’t even respond to the reality.
Not surprised by the answers here.

 

[JonNC]

Economist:

One grain of sand can tip the scale to the other side.

So Obama was wrong, then?

Apparently, so was Rosenstein.

“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.”

 

[Economist]

So Obama was wrong, then?

If he said it, then he was wrong. IF he did. No big deal. Obama is not worshipped like Saint Donald.

How dishonest. The second part of that sentence was “sometimes without the language.”

If sometimes it was without the language, then also sometimes it was WITH the words: “F*ck the law”. So I want to see an example of it. Verbatim. Said by a “progressive”.

I know progressives don’t believe in it, but the fact that he wasn’t accused, wasn’t charged, wasn’t indicted, is exoneration. It is called presumption of innocence.

Baloney. The presumption of innocence is only applicable in a criminal trial. Maybe it will happen. Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone and several others will happily embrace Trump when his turn comes around.

Actually, any honest person would read what he actually said:

I read it. It was the attempt to whitewash what he originally said. Trump has this unfortunate habit of ad-libbing, and then he tries to explain away what he actually said. Does not work. Anyone, who does not explicitly and forcefully disassociate himself from those people who chant: “Jews will not replace us!” - IS a supremacist. Even if later he tries to explain it away with mumbling something about Robert E. Lee.

When he was asked if he sees a problem with the growing trend of hostile nationalism and xenophobia, he said that it is not a problem. And it happened right after a massacre occurred in New Zealand.

Oh, I don’t know.

That is an excellent summary of your problem. He agreed with Putin, and when it became politically non-expedient, then he tried to explain it away. Taking the side of tyrants can be evaluated as treason. Especially since the exercise of freedom of the press is already treason in his eyes. As long as it is “fake news”, of course. And the definition of “fake news” is disagreement with him.

Absolute nonsense. A few thousands of dollars of ads on Facebook

Better look up what actually happened. Hacking into the servers of DNC, stealing data, leaking it when and where it could cause the greatest damage. And since the Russians are far from stupid (after all they produced several chess champions), they could cause a lot of harm. Quite possibly all the way of making Trump the president.

Not surprised by the answers here.

I am not surprised at the lack of your surprise. Trying to wrestle away the power of Congress is already an impeachable offense.

I can understand your (in general) support for Trump, even though I don’t share it. But you should open your eyes, just a little bit and see that he is the enemy of the country.

I hope that the stupid democrats will eventually use a slogan, something like: “It is the democracy, STUPID!”. Its variant worked for Clinton. Remains to be seen.

 

[JonNC]

Obama is not worshipped like Saint Donald.

. Did you sleep through his eight years in office?
Fact is, in this instance, he was right.

If sometimes it was without the language, then also sometimes it was WITH the words: “F*ck the law”. So I want to see an example of it. Verbatim. Said by a “progressive”.

I’m really not interested in that game. Biden certainly wasn’t afraid of the word. LBJ used the n word. Seems to me reasonable to expect, considering their consistent efforts to undermine the constitution, bad language was involved.

Baloney. The presumption of innocence is only applicable in a criminal trial.

The presumption of innocence ALWAYS applies. This is precisely what I mean by progressives being intent on undermining individual rights.

Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone and several others will happily embrace Trump when his turn comes around.

I feel particularly bad for Flynn, and Popadopoulos. The thug tactics and perjury traps were despicable. The raid on Stone’s House was Jack boot tactics.
Such was Mueller’s “integrity”.
I suspect there’s a chance the turns actually belong to Comey, McCabe and some others.

I read it. It was the attempt to whitewash what he originally said.

Actually, it was was he said. It was the lies told about it by the leftist media.
That said, I actually find is comment too kind. There were no good people on either side. The fascist Antifa are no better than the white supremacists and BLM and the KKK are two sides of the same coin.

That is an excellent summary of your problem. He agreed with Putin, and when it became politically non-expedient, then he tried to explain it away. Taking the side of tyrants can be evaluated as treason. Especially since the exercise of freedom of the press is already treason in his eyes. As long as it is “fake news”, of course. And the definition of “fake news” is disagreement with him.

Do, let’s see if this charade is any more true than the Charlottesville misrepresentation.

https://www.gop.com/trump-admins-tough-actions-against-russia-rsr/

You see, in years past, the left had a monopoly on information. Not so anymore.
The truth can actually come out now.

Better look up what actually happened. Hacking into the servers of DNC, stealing data, leaking it when and where it could cause the greatest damage. And since the Russians are far from stupid (after all they produced several chess champions), they could cause a lot of harm. Quite possibly all the way of making Trump the president.

Blithering nonsense. Again, compared to the lock stop 95% support for Clinton in the MSM, whatever the Russians were permitted to do by Clapper, Brennan and Obama was minor.

 

[JonNC]

I am not surprised at the lack of your surprise. Trying to wrestle away the power of Congress is already an impeachable offense.

Oh, you mean like using a pen and a phone? That was the last president.

I can understand your (in general) support for Trump, even though I don’t share it. But you should open your eyes, just a little bit and see that he is the enemy of the country.

My general “support” for Trump has to do with the fact that he seems less willing to attack my individual rights than progressives who have made it their platform.

I hope that the stupid democrats will eventually use a slogan, something like: “ It is the democracy, STUPID! ”. Its variant worked for Clinton. Remains to be seen.

That would be stupid. Try, “It is the REPUBLIC, stupid”. Oh, I forgot. They don’t like the republic.

 

[Economist]

I’m really not interested in that game.

You started it.

Seems to me reasonable to expect, considering their consistent efforts to undermine the constitution, bad language was involved.

Not interested in what you find reasonable. You claimed that progressives used the expression “F*ck the law”. I challenge you to substantiate it, or admit that you are wrong.

 

[JonNC]

Not interested in what you find reasonable.

Of course you’re not.

You claimed that progressives used the expression “F*ck the law”. I challenge you to substantiate it, or admit that you are wrong.

That’s not what I said. Go back and look at what I said. I was responding to your statement about how Trump views the law. But their very actions, for a hundred years, progressives have set out to destroy the constitution. In other words, —- the constitution.

 

[grotto]

Well done!

 

[Ridgerunner]

If he said it, then he was wrong. IF he did. No big deal. Obama is not worshipped like Saint Donald

Obama was massively worshipped; so worshipped that he didn’t actually have to perform, and didn’t. Witness his winning the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything at all. Trump not only has to perform, he has to do it in face of the toughest media and political headwinds any president has ever faced in modern times.