Impeachment Collection

[JonNC]

Jon, I think he did exactly what he meant to do, and was not incompetent

The fact that he did what he wanted then means he was complicit in the attempt to overturn an election. I prefer to think him merely incompetent.

 

[vz71]

Ergo, the attempt to define a human BEING as having a a specific DNA is incorrect. And that was pointed out many times.

And just as many times, it has been shown that the objects you point to are merely parts of another.

The human created at conception is fully alive and also unique from either father or mother.

This is not the case with a tumor or an organ. The comparison fails.

 

[vz71]

You can try to use different words, but the fact remains: “forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, contrary to her desires” - means that she is “de facto” relegated her to become a breeding sack. As I said, I understand that this is your opinion, but be up-front and honest about it.

It is sad that you cannot see any more of women then sexual gratification and perversion.
There is much more to women then the sexual organs.

 

[JonNC]

That is not the problem. The question is: “what constitutes a human BEING”? Not “virtually”, “scientifically”.

The DNA of an organism, just like another other organism.

You can try to use different words, but the fact remains: “forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, contrary to her desires” - means that she is “de facto” relegated her to become a breeding sack. As I said, I understand that this is your opinion, but be up-front and honest about it.

Again, you are expressing your view of women and child bearing, not mine. In America, you are welcome to yours.

Of course I do.

Your language contradicts this.

I merely ask to present a coherent definition of “what is a human BEING”. And so far did not get an answer.

Oh, you got an answer. It is just inconvenient to the gospel of abortion. I believe a human being exists at conception. I recognize that we live in a pluralist society, so I’m reluctantly willing to accept heartbeat as a minimum.

 

[PaulinVA]

The fact that he did what he wanted then means he was complicit in the attempt to overturn an election. I prefer to think him merely incompetent.

I think what is lost on you, and others, is that it is really hard to conduct a coup through the bureaucracy. Almost impossible. Saying that the special counsel was complicit in a plot to overthrow the election is overblown hyperbolic rhetoric.

Trump is, in the minds of some (including me), a criminal, a grifter,. It doesn’t matter if he’s convinced you he shares your views or will overturn Roe or brings jobs back to America or keep those terrible brown people out or whatever else you believe. At his core he’s not worthy of the Office.

BUT, at the same time, the election is the election. He won. He’s the President. We are not trying to overthrow the election - we are hoping that he is held accountable for his actions.

 

[Theo520]

I think what is lost on you, and others, is that it is really hard to conduct a coup through the bureaucracy. Almost impossible. Saying that the special counsel was complicit in a plot to overthrow the election is overblown hyperbolic rhetoric.

It’s more of an ‘ousting’ than a coup.

Deep state was forced to eat something they didn’t like and reacted against it. A deep state version of puking.

 

[PaulinVA]

Deep state was forced to eat something they didn’t like and reacted against it. A deep state version of puking.

If Trump was an upstanding citizen and just not liked by some in government I think your idea might have some legs. But that’s not the case.

On just one simple point, nepotism, do you think any other person who conceivably would have won the Presidency would have Jared and Ivanka as top advisors? Anyone? No.

 

[JonNC]

I think what is lost on you, and others, is that it is really hard to conduct a coup through the bureaucracy. Almost impossible. Saying that the special counsel was complicit in a plot to overthrow the election is overblown hyperbolic rhetoric.

I agree, though this is probably the
Most serious attempt in American history

Trump is, in the minds of some (including me), a criminal, a grifter,. It doesn’t matter if he’s convinced you he shares your views or will overturn Roe or brings jobs back to America or keep those terrible brown people out or whatever else you believe. At his core he’s not worthy of the Office.

And yet no criminal indictment was extant in the report.
I am moderately pleased with his policies.
I think it is a bald faced lie that his immigration policy is about keeping brown people out.
He is worthy of the office because he was elected to it. The claim he isn’t worthy is precisely the excuse for an attempted coup.

BUT, at the same time, the election is the election. He won. He’s the President. We are not trying to overthrow the election - we are hoping that he is held accountable for his actions.

I don’t think those involved in the Russia hoax share your willingness to accept that he is president.
And the investigation brought no charges, no indictment, no criminal act and no criminal intent.

 

[JonNC]

If Trump was an upstanding citizen and just not liked by some in government I think your idea might have some legs. But that’s not the case.

Again. No crimes, no indictment, no charges.

On just one simple point, nepotism, do you think any other person who conceivably would have won the Presidency would have Jared and Ivanka as top advisors? Anyone? No.

Oh, you mean like JFK and RFK?
No. The president is not limited on who he/she chooses for advisers. We look at the host of corrupt actors that Obama had - Holder, Comey, Clapper, Brennan. Jared and Ivanka, by comparison, are a breath of fresh air.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t think those involved in the Russia hoax share your willingness to accept that he is president.
And the investigation brought no charges, no indictment, no criminal act and no criminal intent.

Volume I of the report said that Mueller found not enough evidence of collusion/conspiracy due to a lack of cooperation and witnesses taking the fifth, etc.

Volume II has at least ten occurrences of possible collusion that Mueller felt he could not charge the President with.

So, no, I don’t accept no charges, no indictment, no criminal act and no criminal intent. as a synopsis of the report.

I see Russian intervention, attempted coordination with Russians, obstruction and witness tampering.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yeah, The Daily Beast. That is where I always go for the latest news.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Is that the latest spin on The Mueller
Report?

 

[JimG]

If Congress wishes to oust the President from office, the Constitution provides the means. Impeachment is the constitutional method. So if Congress wishes to oust the President, they should abide by the Constitution. Apparently, some Democrats are onboard with that. The Constitution does not contain a method of ouster by special counsel. What happens though, if a president is removed by impeachment and subsequently re-elected?

 

[JonNC]

Volume I of the report said that Mueller found not enough evidence of collusion/conspiracy due to a lack of cooperation and witnesses taking the fifth, etc.

Over a million documents turned over. Not a single incident of executive privilege or attorney client privilege. Absolutely no obstruction. He had absolute complete cooperation from the president, except the president chose not to submit to a perjury trap.

Volume II has at least ten occurrences of possible collusion that Mueller felt he could not charge the President with.

If he thought they were obstruction he had an obligation to charge it, or state without wavering that they were obstruction. Otherwise, they are not obstruction.

So, no, I don’t accept no charges, no indictment, no criminal act and no criminal intent. as a synopsis of the report.

Then you are reading your bias into it. The DOJ, Deputy AG and AG disagree with you, and by his actions, so did Mueller.

 

[PaulinVA]

No. The president is not limited on who he/she chooses for advisers. We look at the host of corrupt actors that Obama had - Holder, Comey, Clapper, Brennan. Jared and Ivanka, by comparison, are a breath of fresh air.

Please state why the people you mentioned are “corrupt”.

As for Javanka - they are simply not qualified to be Presidential advisors, and, consequently, the President is not getting the best advice possible. RFK is the precise reason for the anti-nepotism laws.

But, please, tell us how Jared and Ivanka are such great political forces that any other President would have tapped them as senior advisors. You can’t.

 

[Theo520]

If Trump was an upstanding citizen and just not liked by some in government I think your idea might have some legs. But that’s not the case.

You say it’s not the case but fail to support yourself. It is not disputed that Trump is not popular in the DC beltway. I doubt the Struck and Page tweets were out of the ordinary in spite of their lack of ethics.

On just one simple point, nepotism, do you think any other person who conceivably would have won the Presidency would have Jared and Ivanka as top advisors? Anyone? No.

You’re joking right? It’s allowed and expected POTUS will bring in friends and family into his inner circle, people POTUS believes they can rely upon.

Obama hired his Chicago crowd into key positions when he started
Clinton had his wife lead the charge on Healthcare (she failed)
Kennedy’s did some serious nepotism

Jared and Ivanka are volunteer staff, they don’t take salaries and they don’t run any departments of the Government. They didn’t take a job from someone else. At most you can focus whether they are at all effective in an advisory role.

You have some serious DTS to call that nepotism.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Why do you keep referring to women as a breeding sack?

 

[vz71]

Sure it is yours. You just do not wish to be honest about it.

You are the one arguing it.
No one else has made such a claim.
In fact, your arguments for abortion are rooted in proposing motherhood is a distortion of a natural process.

It is an untruth, but then, that is what one must expect when an immoral act is argues as moral.

 

[Theo520]

Why do you keep referring to women as a breeding sack?

His posts indicate PR is a more likely background than economics.
It’s all about the emotional spin

 

[JonNC]

Please state why the people you mentioned are “corrupt”.

Holder- gun walking
Comey - leaked information. Complicit in the plan to get the Clinton/Russia Dossier into the press.
Brennan- lied regularly in the media about having specific information about collusion. He probably obstructed justice
Clapper- lies under oath

As for Javanka - they are simply not qualified to be Presidential advisors, and, consequently, the President is not getting the best advice possible. RFK is the precise reason for the anti-nepotism laws.

That’s not for you to say. The president can choose advisers.

But, please, tell us how Jared and Ivanka are such great political forces that any other President would have tapped them as senior advisors. You can’t.

It doesn’t matter. They have the president’s trust.