Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 12:10:19 PM

Title: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 12:10:19 PM
As I've indicated in other threads, I think the impeachment talk is premature.  I think if Obama either gave or had knowledge of the stand down order in Benghazi, or the IRS abuse, then the talk carries much more weight.  

But keep in mind that if Obama is impeached, we get President Biden.  Be careful what you wish for.    

Here is a summary of the process:

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed. Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

[edit] Impeachable offensesIn the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[4] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[5] Four years later, Gerald Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment.

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment and conviction. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.[citation needed]

[edit] Officials subject to impeachmentThe central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of Congress are officers of the United States. The Constitution grants the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." [4] It has been suggested that members of Congress are not officers of the United States.[6] Others, however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to impeachment.[citation needed]

The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once:[7] Senator William Blount, in 1798. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction.[8] Left unsettled was the question whether members of Congress were civil officers of the United States. The House has not impeached a Member of Congress since Blount. As each House has the authority to expel its own members without involving the other chamber, expulsion has been the method used for removing Members of Congress.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[9] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

[edit] ProcessThe impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 12:24:37 PM
has there been any testimony that suggested that if any suggested action would have netted a different outcome in Bengazi. Or is the narrative "there was a cover up on the source of the raid"...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Enigma on May 13, 2013, 12:26:09 PM



Impeachment?

Try treason.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 12:28:45 PM
has there been any testimony that suggested that if any suggested action would have netted a different outcome in Bengazi. Or is the narrative "there was a cover up on the source of the raid"...

You should watch the testimony. 

We don't know what the outcome would have been.  The facts are those people were defenseless, they were under attack for hours, a stand down order was given, we didnt' even try to help them, and then our government repeatedly lied about it. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Necrosis on May 13, 2013, 12:42:52 PM
You should watch the testimony. 

We don't know what the outcome would have been.  The facts are those people were defenseless, they were under attack for hours, a stand down order was given, we didnt' even try to help them, and then our government repeatedly lied about it. 

what Lies? what world do you live in?

nevermind you think evolution is false, that the world is 6000 years old and that ben stein made a documentary not a fantasy film.

I perceive you as being delusional as you hold many beliefs that cannot be verified. Not little beliefs like wearing yellow socks makes you feel better but on topics of life and death importance.

Fucking amazing how stupid America is, it's like a sitcom.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 12:48:31 PM
what Lies? what world do you live in?

nevermind you think evolution is false, that the world is 6000 years old and that ben stein made a documentary not a fantasy film.

I perceive you as being delusional as you hold many beliefs that cannot be verified. Not little beliefs like wearing yellow socks makes you feel better but on topics of life and death importance.

Fucking amazing how stupid America is, it's like a sitcom.

Yawn.  ::)   If you want to have a dialogue about this, you let me know.  In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 13, 2013, 01:18:15 PM
As I've indicated in other threads, I think the impeachment talk is premature.  I think if Obama either gave or had knowledge of the stand down order in Benghazi, or the IRS abuse, then the talk carries much more weight. 

But keep in mind that if Obama is impeached, we get President Biden.  Be careful what you wish for.   


Can someone explain to me why the Bush Appointed head of the IRS would cover for Obama
The guy first said in March that this wasn't happening and then said it was a decision at a field office which is probably easily verifiable or not.  


Regarding the so called "stand down order" I posted this last week but I guess I'll keep posting it as long as people choose to keep bringing it

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/
The Claim - A Special Forces Team that could have saved lives was told to stand down
Quote
One of the most shocking reveals in the lead-up to today’s hearing was that a team of Special Forces in Tripoli were told not to deploy to Benghazi during the attack. That decision has led to an uproar on the right, including claims of dereliction of duty towards Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey for not taking actions that could have saved lives.
During questioning, Hicks confirmed that the team was ready to be deployed — not to join the fighting at the CIA annex — but “to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from Benghazi after the mortar attack.” Hicks also confirmed that it was the second such team to be readied for deployment, with the first having proceeded to Benghazi earlier. Despite the second team not deploying, the staff was all evacuated first to Tripoli, then to Germany, within 18 hours of the attack taking place.

Maddow did a montage last week showing how many times the Repubs have been talking about impeaching Obama starting within about 3 months after the took office.  The Repubs are a complete joke at this point
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 03:27:35 PM
DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'


AP  |  By By MARK SHERMAN Posted: 05/13/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 6:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 13, 2013, 03:32:41 PM
DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'


AP  |  By By MARK SHERMAN Posted: 05/13/2013 4:20 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 6:00 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html



Good grief.   >:(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 03:40:34 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/13/its-time-to-appoint-special-counsel-explore-impeachment-of-president-obama


Nice - its coming.


F obama - he is a communist piece of shit
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 03:43:21 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/05/13/its-time-to-appoint-special-counsel-explore-impeachment-of-president-obama


Nice - its coming.


F obama - he is a communist piece of shit

whats coming....a LANDSLIDE...

you walked right into that one
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 03:45:48 PM
whats coming....a LANDSLIDE...

you walked right into that one


Keep spinning for obama just cause he is black - makes you look even worse as the days go on. 

Obama is a disgrace to all black people EVERYWHERE
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 03:46:34 PM

Keep spinning for obama just cause he is black - makes you look even worse as the days go on. 

Obama is a disgrace to all black people EVERYWHERE

i just asked what was coming.. how did my blackness get into this.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 03:47:38 PM
i just asked what was coming.. how did my blackness get into this.

Very simple - its very obvious you have only one reason to support this criminal in office at this point. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on May 13, 2013, 03:56:45 PM
Very simple - its very obvious you have only one reason to support this criminal in office at this point. 

landslide coming?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 13, 2013, 04:47:45 PM
33,

how long will the weak liberals refuse to impeach obama?   What fuels their lack of honesty about his criminal cabal? 

Why do they want to keep obama in office?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 04:49:42 PM
33,

how long will the weak liberals refuse to impeach obama?   What fuels their lack of honesty about his criminal cabal? 

Why do they want to keep obama in office?

They are going to turn on obama eventually as they see he has failed them and is leading them to ruin. 

These last two weeks and the next two are going to be a disaster for obama as now he turned on his best ally - the media. 

Pissing off AP and the ACLU will be his worst mistake ever. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 13, 2013, 04:51:45 PM
landslide coming?

"Tsunami".   Never mind the fact the Redumblicans already said that impeachment was not an option.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skip8282 on May 13, 2013, 05:01:32 PM
Impeachment is going nowhere.  But Obama should man the fuck up and start firing some of these fuck ups in his admin.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 13, 2013, 05:02:31 PM
They are going to turn on obama eventually as they see he has failed them and is leading them to ruin. 

These last two weeks and the next two are going to be a disaster for obama as now he turned on his best ally - the media. 

Pissing off AP and the ACLU will be his worst mistake ever. 

What about the REPUBS who voted Romney, but dont have the balls to say he needs to be impeached?

Are they the same ones without the balls to question the birth cert?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 13, 2013, 05:03:45 PM
What about the REPUBS who voted Romney, but dont have the balls to say he needs to be impeached?

Are they the same ones without the balls to question the birth cert?

Yes!  They are a disgrace too
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 13, 2013, 05:06:11 PM
So not buying into your delusions = disgrace?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Necrosis on May 13, 2013, 07:01:03 PM
Yes!  They are a disgrace too

You are absolutely delusional, I assume most people here have normal lives but different views. Are you mentally challenged. Just read 240 trolling you and you just amping up the crazy.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on May 13, 2013, 07:08:18 PM
In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 

 ;D

lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Fury on May 13, 2013, 07:10:02 PM
In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 

LOL!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 09:55:46 AM
Charlie Rangel: Obama answers not enough
By: Kevin Robillard
May 15, 2013 08:11 AM EDT
 
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he believes President Barack Obama owes the American public explanations for both the seizure of Associated Press phone records by the Department of Justice and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

“I don’t think anyone truly believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer for America, much less the press,” Rangel said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think this is just the beginning and the whole idea of comparing this with Nixon, I really think is just, it doesn’t make much sense. But the president has to come forward and share why he did not alert the press they were going to do this. He has to tell the Americans, including me: What was this national security question? You just can’t raise the flag and expect to salute it every time without any reason and the same thing applies to the IRS.”

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

The White House has said Obama wasn’t involved in either the IRS decision to target conservative groups — a position backed up by an inspector general report released Tuesday — or in the DOJ’s decision to broadly subpoena phone records for 20 Associated Press phone lines in three cities.

Rangel is a member of the House Ways And Means Committee, which will hold a hearing on why the IRS gave tougher scrutiny to conservative groups’ non-profits applications on Friday morning.

“In Watergate, Senator Baker said it all, everybody uses this: ‘What did he know and when did he know it?’” Rangel said. “I am confident that the President is angry as hell about this, as he should be. The IRS is no place for partisanship, Democrat or Republican.”

(Also on POLITICO: TOP 5 Obama scandal responses)

But Rangel, a staunch Obama ally, said the press should give Obama time to sort out what happened.

“We have to give him an opportunity to root out any wrongdoing, whether it’s just negligence or criminal,” Rangel said. “But, for right now, to say that the president should be doubted? No. He has to come forward and give more of an answer than he has done.”

Follow @politico
 
© 2013 POLITICO LLC
 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 15, 2013, 10:19:32 AM
Watch... Rangel will be calling for impeachment before Mccain and graham lol.........
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 10:48:09 AM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 10:48:52 AM
Obama escaping ScandalFest 

[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x2
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 11:57:18 AM
Axelrod: Government ‘So Vast,‘ Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing
 NRO ^ | May 15, 2013 | Andrew Johnson

Posted on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:29:03 PM by COUNTrecount

Axelrod: Government ‘So Vast,‘ Obama Can't Know About Wrongdoing

By Andrew Johnson

May 15, 2013 9:13 AM

The government is simply too big for President Obama to keep track of all the wrongdoing taking place on his watch, his former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC. “Part of being president is there’s so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast,” he explained.

Axelrod also defended the administration against criticism of the Department of Justice’s decision to seize reporters’ phone records, noting that Joe Scarborough had criticized the administration for the number of national-security leaks that had occurred. Scarborough was having none of it: ”I’ve heard the president’s defenders trying to say this, and I congratulate you guys for going off into a room, calling each other, and coming up with this bogus argument, but never did I suggest that 100 AP reporters have all of their phone records seized, their cell-phone records seized, their home phone numbers seized.”

“So please, save that for somebody else to buy into that,” he demanded. “Answer my question.”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 12:02:29 PM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x3
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2013, 12:06:04 PM
How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 12:33:31 PM
How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   :)

As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

To think you clowns thought obama would be n rushmore one day. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 12:35:52 PM
To think you clowns thought obama would be n rushmore one day. 

I never said that.

Nor did I ever say he would be divorced, resigning, deported, not running, etc.. etc.. etc...

Once again when impeachment doesn't occur this time, just like the last half dozen of times you got your panties wet for it, what is your excuse going to be? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: blacken700 on May 15, 2013, 12:47:52 PM
the stupid party in full swing  :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 12:59:07 PM
Even liberals are talking about impeachment

May 15, 2013 by Joe Saunders Leave a Comment







0
inShare.




Email

Print

American Prospect, a liberal flagship publication co-founded by longtime Clinton family friend Robert Reich, is openly worrying about the possibility President Obama could face impeachment over the Benghazi bumbling.
 
And blaming the media!
 
American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman writes that given “the media’s inability to resist a presidential scandal story … this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.”
 
That paragraph comes right after Waldman writes that “just a few days ago it looked for all the world like Benghazi would take its place with Solyndra and ‘Fast and Furious’ as one more wished-for scandal that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, failed to take flight.”
 
“Failed to take flight,” though, is really another way of saying “were ignored or explained away” by a supposedly adversarial press. Try to imagine how “Katrina,” “Abu Ghraib” or “enhanced interrogation” a few years back “failed to take flight.”
 
Waldman doesn’t explain how the media’s “inability to resist a presidential scandal story.” somehow managed to resist two of them — one that involved the loss of a half-billion taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, another that led to the death of an American border guard and God knows how many others.
 
He also doesn’t mention the media’s “inability to resist” covering for Obama going back to the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” days.
 
And now, four Americans are dead at the hands of foreign savages, the administration is exposed as lying about it from Day One, and Waldman wants his readers to believe Obama’s troubles are all the fault of Fox News, naturally, conservative talk radio, and a Washington press corps that’s suddenly, unaccountably taking an interest in the underside of an administration it’s spent four years cheerleading for.
 
“The [impeachment] train is moving and there may be no way to stop it,” Waldman concludes.
 
A pity, that.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/15/even-liberals-are-talking-about-impeachment-69565

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 03:43:14 PM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x4
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 15, 2013, 04:20:09 PM
Even liberals are talking about impeachment

May 15, 2013 by Joe Saunders Leave a Comment

American Prospect, a liberal flagship publication co-founded by longtime Clinton family friend Robert Reich, is openly worrying about the possibility President Obama could face impeachment over the Benghazi bumbling.
 
And blaming the media!
 
American Prospect contributing editor Paul Waldman writes that given “the media’s inability to resist a presidential scandal story … this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.”
 
That paragraph comes right after Waldman writes that “just a few days ago it looked for all the world like Benghazi would take its place with Solyndra and ‘Fast and Furious’ as one more wished-for scandal that, despite the best efforts of Republicans, failed to take flight.”
 
“Failed to take flight,” though, is really another way of saying “were ignored or explained away” by a supposedly adversarial press. Try to imagine how “Katrina,” “Abu Ghraib” or “enhanced interrogation” a few years back “failed to take flight.”
 
Waldman doesn’t explain how the media’s “inability to resist a presidential scandal story.” somehow managed to resist two of them — one that involved the loss of a half-billion taxpayer dollars to White House cronies, another that led to the death of an American border guard and God knows how many others.
 
He also doesn’t mention the media’s “inability to resist” covering for Obama going back to the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” days.
 
And now, four Americans are dead at the hands of foreign savages, the administration is exposed as lying about it from Day One, and Waldman wants his readers to believe Obama’s troubles are all the fault of Fox News, naturally, conservative talk radio, and a Washington press corps that’s suddenly, unaccountably taking an interest in the underside of an administration it’s spent four years cheerleading for.
 
“The [impeachment] train is moving and there may be no way to stop it,” Waldman concludes.
 
A pity, that.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/15/even-liberals-are-talking-about-impeachment-69565



Hmmm, I wonder why the good people at bizpacreview.com didn't bother to include the paragraph that immediately follows the statement about impeachment. 

I guess that have to exclude the parts that contradict their claim so the dumb fucks who read their site won't get the actual full story but only the bizpacreview approved spin

Let's take a look

http://prospect.org/article/scandal-makers

Quote
So suddenly it looks like this isn't going away, not because there was appalling malfeasance (or any malfeasance at all), but because once the train is moving, it's almost impossible to stop. Put together the right's desperate longing for an Obama scandal—turn on Fox News or listen to conservative radio, and you'll see eyelids fluttering in ecstasy as this story gains momentum—with congressional Republicans' helplessness in the face of pressure from their base, and the media's inability to resist a presidential scandal story, and this whole thing might not end unless and until Barack Obama is impeached.

"But that's crazy," you may say. And yes, it is. Furthermore, it would be unbelievably stupid of Republicans to push it that far, just from the perspective of their own political self-interest. But that doesn't mean they won't do it. It's a little glib to say that they'd do it because they're nuts, but the truth is that impeachment could well become the inevitable end point of a process that has nothing to do with the actual facts, with all the different parts of the conservative machine feeding coal into the boiler as the train gets faster and faster.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2013, 08:17:47 PM

Eagan: Even liberals are leaping off bandwagon



Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Margery Eagan



You know the worm has turned when even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow hold their noses at the stench from Barack Obama’s scandals — when so many stories from the so-called liberal press now describe the erstwhile Messiah as “aloof,” “arrogant” and “holier than thou.”

Obama announced the acting IRS chief’s resignation last night. It’s a start. But not quite enough to make up for the continuous late-night news loop from the Benghazi cover-up to the IRS scandal to the seizing of phone records of Associated Press editors and reporters.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — the chief news source for millions of young and liberal Obama voters — has laced into the president nonstop over White House claims that the president has learned of all this malfeasance on the TV news, just like any old bar stool Joe.



.

The way things are going, Stewart said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if President Obama learned Osama bin Laden had been killed when he saw himself announcing it on television.”

The same media types accused of covering Obama on bended knee — such as myself — are now turning our collective backs. And no wonder. What we’re learning about his administration has undermined our basic trust in government.

Yet the president seems oblivious to how serious and unsettling these scandals are, and how much damage he’s done to his own agenda. And how he’s fed right into the fears of the tin-foil hat set who can point to these very scary power grabs and say, “See? He really is coming to get us.”

Obama is no Nixon — at least not yet. Tricky Dick was the prime mover behind the White House “plumbers,” the notorious “enemies list” and the Watergate break-in, while Obama remains oddly passive in the face of his own administration’s perfect storm of scandals.

As for the IRS, we can’t forget its long and disgraceful history of targeting citizens for political payback: from Clinton ladies Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones to Martin Luther King Jr. to the John Birch Society and supposed communist sympathizers. The Wall Street Journal just reported that congressmen from both parties are seeking hundreds of politically motivated audits in the Clinton era.

Until now, whenever Obama screwed up, Hillary voters could say, “I told you so.” But that ended when Hillary, inexplicably, told congressmen pressing her on why Americans at our embassy were killed, “What difference does it make?”

Now we die-hard Dems are depressed, discouraged ... and bracing for “Joe Biden in 2016.”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 08:26:33 PM
It's fun watching idiots reveling with delight in what they think is an accumulation of crap that will either make Obama resign or be impeached. If the President plays his cards right, he might last out the week.   :D

At least the meltdowns are amusing for the rest of us.

x5
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2013, 08:32:58 PM
x5

lol

Quote
How many times can Lurker quote himself in one thread?  My money is on 5 to 10.   :)

I wonder how many times I can quote myself in one thread??  lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on May 15, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
As many times as it is relevant.  How many times will that be based on the whining it is directed at?  5 to 10?

x2
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 15, 2013, 09:39:58 PM
This rep won't call for it - but says it's not "off table".  THAT is as ballsy as they get?  Where are the other top repubs on this?  



Jason Chaffetz: Impeachment not off table


 
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz says he’s not taking impeachment off the table when it comes to President Obama’s handling of the attacks in Benghazi.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported Monday that the Utah Republican had called the handling of Benghazi an “impeachable offense,” and that he had vowed to keep searching for answers from the White House."

"Asked Tuesday on CNN what he meant by the comments, Chaffetz said it wasn’t what he was hoping for, but that impeachment was in the “realm of possibility.”

“It’s not something I’m seeking, it’s not the endgame, it’s not what we’re playing for,” he said. “I was simply asked if it was within the realm of possibilities, and I’d say ‘yes.’”


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/jason-chaffetz-impeachment-91385.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 16, 2013, 06:54:25 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/rachel-maddow-obama-ap-irrevocable-harm_n_3284975.html

Madcow is off the reservation now too
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 01:58:47 PM
The Nixon Articles of Impeachment:

Articles of Impeachment
This is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.

■Analysis of the Judiciary Committee Votes
Article 1
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1.making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2.withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

3.approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

4.interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

5.approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

6.endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

7.disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

8.making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

9.endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 02:01:53 PM
President Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted:

On February 24, three days after Johnson's dismissal of Stanton, the House of Representatives voted 126 to 47 in favor of a resolution to impeach the president of high crimes and misdemeanors. The two sponsors of the resolution, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham, were immediately dispatched to inform the Senate that the House had officially voted for impeachment.

One week later, the House adopted eleven articles of impeachment against the president. The articles charged Johnson with:

1.Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated.
2.Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid.
3.Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate.
4.Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown," to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office.
5.Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act.
6.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War."
7.Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
8.Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War."
9.Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act.
10.Making three speeches with intent to show disrespect for the Congress among the citizens of the United States.
The eleventh article was a summation of the first ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson#Impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 02:08:50 PM
President Bill Clinton

Articles of Impeachment and
Judiciary Committee Roll Call Votes
Updated Sunday, December 19, 1998

Following are the text and roll call votes for the four articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on December 11 and 12, 1998. Also see the text and votes on a censure resolution.


UPDATE: The Full House's Impeachment Vote

1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
House: Passed 228-206
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition.

House: Failed 229-205
Committee: Passed 20-17
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
House: Passed 221-212
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote

4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. (Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version.)
House: Failed 285-148
Committee: Passed 21-16
Full Text
Roll Call Vote
 
(Editor's Note: Members' names link to their Congressional Guide profiles, which contain their e-mail and other contact information. Also see profiles of Judiciary Committee members.)

Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testi mony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article I passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)


Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:
(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article II passed on a 20-17 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Article III


In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article III passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Article IV


Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article IV passed on a 21-16 vote.

Voting Aye
Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

 Voting Nay
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm
 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 16, 2013, 03:07:51 PM
Still haven't seen anyone who can articulate exactly what the scandal is

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 05:34:40 PM
Interesting discussion of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  We impeached a judge for "chronic intoxication" in 1804.  I doubt any judge or president would be impeached today for being an alcoholic.

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

In the Washington Post reprinting of the Judiciary Committee's review of Impeachment in 1974, the review states, ""High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has traditionally been considered a "term of art", like such other constitutional phrases as "levying war" and "due process." The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

"It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[citation needed]

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[citation needed] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[citation needed]

As can be found in[2] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[3]

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, "Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges."[4]

The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.

Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[2]

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[citation needed]

In the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s for perjury, the exact meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors became the subject of debate. A particular subject of debate is exactly what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Some felt[who?] that the act of perjury, a federal crime, rose to that level. Others felt[who?] that this particular act of perjury, while illegal, did not reach that level because the lie was specifically in regard to a matter of personal infidelity and that the questioning that led to it was allegedly politically motivated.

The legacy of high crimes and misdemeanors persists in military justice, where those having contractual obligations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) may be punished for offenses that would not be crimes if committed by civilians.[citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 16, 2013, 05:38:00 PM
still waiting for someone (anyone) to tell us what the "high crime and misdemeanor" is

As far as I can tell it's Darrell Issa's personal interpretation of "act of terror” vs. “terrorist attack.”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on May 16, 2013, 06:18:09 PM
I love it when people talk about impeachment, say "this is what people are saying", quote past impeachments...

but don't have the balls to say we should be impeaching obama.


stop sitting on the fence.  own it.  say it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Shockwave on May 16, 2013, 06:19:23 PM
I don't believe we'll ever see another President face impeachment. Far too many politics involved.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2013, 07:25:48 PM
I don't believe we'll ever see another President face impeachment. Far too many politics involved.

Probably not.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 21, 2013, 05:42:11 PM
Portion of Nixon's resignation speech.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 21, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Still not a single person on this board who can articulate a valid reason for impeachment

All they can seem to do is fantasize about it
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 21, 2013, 06:07:58 PM
Still not a single person on this board who can articulate a valid reason for impeachment

All they can seem to do is fantasize about it

Obama is a twink and is black.   How about that?   :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 21, 2013, 01:34:45 PM
Glenn Beck Has Had Enough: ‘I, Personally, Am Calling To Impeach The President’
By Brian Carey on September 18, 2013 S
Subscribe to Brian Carey's Feed@brianmcarey 

Glenn Beck is fed up with this President, and he wants him out of office. In fact, he wants President Obama out of office well before January of 2017, when he is scheduled to leave office.

Just yesterday on his own television network, BlazeTV, Beck personally called for the impeachment of President Obama. This is the first time that he has done that.

“I called today for the very first time in my career,” Beck said, “on this President. I, personally, I have said before, ‘That’s impeachable.’ I, personally, am calling to impeach the President of the United States. This is impeachable.”

And what, exactly, does Beck mean by “this”? What is it that President Obama is doing that rises to the constitutionally defined level of “high crimes” and/or “misdemeanors”?

Beck believes that the President should be impeached because he is willing to arm the Syrian rebels. “He is arming known terrorists,” Beck said, “and people like John McCain should be impeached as well.”

John McCain should be impeached? We didn’t see that one coming.

“If you don’t want your vote back,” Beck continued, “what will it take? If you in Arizona said, ‘I voted for John McCain because I thought John McCain was strong on defense and better than the other guy.’ Whatever the deal is, if them saying, ‘We’re going to arm al-Qaeda’ and yes, we know that some of the arms are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda… if that’s not an impeachable offense for Lindsey Graham, for John McCain, for John Boehner, for the President of the United States, I don’t know what an impeachable offense is.”

Have a look at the video below.




http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/glenn-beck-has-had-enough-i-personally-am-calling-to-impeach-the-president/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:37:37 PM
Obama is a twink and is black.   How about that?   :D

Being black is most definitely one of the reasons that Repubs would like to impeach him

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 01:38:21 PM
He should be deported to Kenya via a wooden ship and put in steerage
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 01:39:20 PM
We didn't impeach our former President unfortunately, I have a feeling we won't be impeaching Obama either.  :-\
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 01:39:58 PM
He should be deported to Kenya via a wooden ship and put in steerage

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:47:26 PM
Glenn Beck Has Had Enough: ‘I, Personally, Am Calling To Impeach The President’
By Brian Carey on September 18, 2013 S
Subscribe to Brian Carey's Feed@brianmcarey 

Glenn Beck is fed up with this President, and he wants him out of office. In fact, he wants President Obama out of office well before January of 2017, when he is scheduled to leave office.

Just yesterday on his own television network, BlazeTV, Beck personally called for the impeachment of President Obama. This is the first time that he has done that.

“I called today for the very first time in my career,” Beck said, “on this President. I, personally, I have said before, ‘That’s impeachable.’ I, personally, am calling to impeach the President of the United States. This is impeachable.”

And what, exactly, does Beck mean by “this”? What is it that President Obama is doing that rises to the constitutionally defined level of “high crimes” and/or “misdemeanors”?

Beck believes that the President should be impeached because he is willing to arm the Syrian rebels. “He is arming known terrorists,” Beck said, “and people like John McCain should be impeached as well.”

John McCain should be impeached? We didn’t see that one coming.

“If you don’t want your vote back,” Beck continued, “what will it take? If you in Arizona said, ‘I voted for John McCain because I thought John McCain was strong on defense and better than the other guy.’ Whatever the deal is, if them saying, ‘We’re going to arm al-Qaeda’ and yes, we know that some of the arms are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda… if that’s not an impeachable offense for Lindsey Graham, for John McCain, for John Boehner, for the President of the United States, I don’t know what an impeachable offense is.”

Have a look at the video below.




http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/glenn-beck-has-had-enough-i-personally-am-calling-to-impeach-the-president/

since when does anyone gives a shit what Glenn Beck thinks?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:48:10 PM
We didn't impeach our former President unfortunately, I have a feeling we won't be impeaching Obama either.  :-\

no shit Sherlock

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 01:48:49 PM
since when does anyone gives a shit what Glenn Beck thinks?

I like him...  

(http://rebelwithmomentum.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/embarrassed-smiley-face-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:49:00 PM
He should be deported to Kenya via a wooden ship and put in steerage

why didn't you share any of your racist hatred of Obama when you had your 10 seconds of national infamy and humiliation

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 01:50:34 PM
no shit Sherlock

On the other hand, Obama has hurt Americans much worse than George W ever did so maybe there is still hope?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:51:28 PM
I like him...  

(http://rebelwithmomentum.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/embarrassed-smiley-face-2.jpg)

sorry, I should have said since when does anyone other than mental patients and morons give a shit what Glenn Beck thinks

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:51:59 PM
On the other hand, Obama has hurt Americans much worse than George W ever did so maybe there is still hope?

for example
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 01:54:52 PM
for example

ObamaCare
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
Fast n Furious and Grenade Walking
Crushing small business people w his communism

and on and on and on and on. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 01:57:01 PM
ObamaCare
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
Fast n Furious and Grenade Walking
Crushing small business people w his communism

and on and on and on and on. 

so basically you got nothing except for imaginary shit you and Repubs like to tell each other

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 01:58:20 PM
sorry, I should have said since when does anyone other than mental patients and morons give a shit what Glenn Beck thinks

I can't wait until a Republican president is raping us so you and I can agree with each other again. 

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Roger Bacon on October 21, 2013, 02:01:42 PM
ObamaCare
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
Fast n Furious and Grenade Walking
Crushing small business people w his communism

and on and on and on and on.  

If George W. was responsible for all this corruption, scandals, and outright treason Straw Man would be going nuts.  He's truly worse than Coach even, the most partisan mother fucker on this board.  :-\
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 02:05:06 PM
I can't wait until a Republican president is raping us so you and I can agree with each other again. 

weird that you are desiring to be raped

I actually remember the last few months of the Bush Administration and it was pretty fucking horrible

Millions of jobs being lost, stock market crashing, housing market crashing.....almost every American being harmed in some way or another, some quite profoundly

Let's not forget the thousand that died based on a bunch of lies and the many thousands who are maimed or had their lives altered forever

You want all that again just so that you can agree with me that it sucks?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 02:05:55 PM
weird that you are desiring to be raped

I actually remember the last few months of the Bush Administration and it was pretty fucking horrible

Millions of jobs being lost, stock market crashing, housing market crashing.....almost every American being harmed in some way or another, some quite profoundly

Let's not forget the thousand that died based on a bunch of lies and the many thousands who are maimed or had their lives altered forever

You want all that again just so that you can agree with me that it sucks?

More soldiers have died under Obama than W - get your facts straight twink
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 02:06:47 PM
If George W. was responsible for all this corruption, scandals, and outright treason Straw Man would be going nuts.  He's truly worse than Coach even, the most partisan mother fucker on this board.  :-\

I have spoken at length and with facts about why most of the stuff on that list is complete and utter nonsense

I've also criticized Obama many times

The only difference between you and me is that I don't criticize him for make believe nonsense or just because he's black
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 02:07:50 PM
More soldiers have died under Obama than W - get your facts straight twink

yeah and we would't even be there is it weren't for W

Those are his wars ...remember

no, of course you don't remember that

that would require you to have the normal brain function of the average 8th grader
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 03:06:20 PM
yeah and we would't even be there is it weren't for W

Those are his wars ...remember

no, of course you don't remember that

that would require you to have the normal brain function of the average 8th grader

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on October 21, 2013, 03:52:30 PM
Insane that it took Beck until Sept 2013 to call for impeachement.

more insane that some other wimp repubs on getbig won't call for impeachment.  Benghazi alone is enough.

I can see dems or moderates passing on it, you are letting politics blind you, but okay.

however, REPUBLICANS?  Turn in your voter IDs and go jump off something tall onto something sharp already.  Impeach.  Stop being wimps with the "let's give obama 3 more years to realllly make a mess of things!"  You idiots.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on October 21, 2013, 03:55:32 PM
Insane that it took Beck until Sept 2013 to call for impeachement.

more insane that some other wimp repubs on getbig won't call for impeachment.  Benghazi alone is enough.

I can see dems or moderates passing on it, you are letting politics blind you, but okay.

however, REPUBLICANS?  Turn in your voter IDs and go jump off something tall onto something sharp already.  Impeach.  Stop being wimps with the "let's give obama 3 more years to realllly make a mess of things!"  You idiots.

I assume this is a joke

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on October 21, 2013, 06:24:00 PM
More soldiers have died under Obama than W - get your facts straight twink

And why is that?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 06:30:27 PM
And why is that?

Rules of Engagement have changed
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on October 21, 2013, 06:32:17 PM
Rules of Engagement have changed


You have to be a little more specific.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2013, 06:35:08 PM

You have to be a little more specific.

Look it up - HH6 will explain
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on October 22, 2013, 04:40:50 AM
Look it up - HH6 will explain


So you have time to copypaste 20+ articles each day but cant be bothered to explain something that might actually have value.

You really are nothing but a troll.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 08:52:23 AM
House Republicans to Try to Impeach Holder
Thursday, 14 Nov 2013

Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, in the hopes of removing a cabinet member they say has lied to Congress as well as failed to uphold federal law.

"This was not a decision that I made lightly. Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued," Texas Rep. Pete Olson, who drafted the articles, said in a statement provided to Reuters on Wednesday.

"The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action."

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on the possibility of an impeachment move.

The resolution could pass the Republican-dominated House but would likely sputter in the Democratic-dominated Senate, which would have to hold a trial to remove Holder, who has been attorney general since 2009, from office.

Still, an impeachment drive would further fuel the tensions that exist between the federal government's top law enforcement officer and conservative lawmakers. According to the media firm CQ Roll Call, 10 other Republicans would co-sponsor the articles of impeachment, five of whom are from Texas.

According to an outline, the first article is based on "Operation Fast and Furious" a bungled attempt to build cases against major gun traffickers who supplied firearms to Mexican drug cartels, while electing not to immediately prosecute low-level traffickers even as they bought 2,000 potentially illegal guns.

The operation came to light after two of those firearms were found in Arizona at the scene of the fatal shooting of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

After Holder refused to give a congressional committee subpoenaed documents about the Justice Department's involvement in "Fast and Furious" he was found in contempt of Congress. The House oversight committee has also sued for the documents.

The other impeachment articles rest on issues that have raised conservatives' ire in recent years, including Holder's decisions not to enforce laws on same-sex marriage, on prison sentences for certain drug crimes and not to prosecute an official in the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative political activists.

They also say Holder lied to Congress about a Justice Department investigation into Fox News correspondent James Rosen.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/house-republicans-impeach-holder/2013/11/14/id/536551#ixzz2kdiUAjc5
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 14, 2013, 09:54:09 AM
House Republicans to Try to Impeach Holder
Thursday, 14 Nov 2013

Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to introduce articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday, in the hopes of removing a cabinet member they say has lied to Congress as well as failed to uphold federal law.

"This was not a decision that I made lightly. Since the House voted in 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued," Texas Rep. Pete Olson, who drafted the articles, said in a statement provided to Reuters on Wednesday.

"The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action."

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on the possibility of an impeachment move.

The resolution could pass the Republican-dominated House but would likely sputter in the Democratic-dominated Senate, which would have to hold a trial to remove Holder, who has been attorney general since 2009, from office.

Still, an impeachment drive would further fuel the tensions that exist between the federal government's top law enforcement officer and conservative lawmakers. According to the media firm CQ Roll Call, 10 other Republicans would co-sponsor the articles of impeachment, five of whom are from Texas.

According to an outline, the first article is based on "Operation Fast and Furious" a bungled attempt to build cases against major gun traffickers who supplied firearms to Mexican drug cartels, while electing not to immediately prosecute low-level traffickers even as they bought 2,000 potentially illegal guns.

The operation came to light after two of those firearms were found in Arizona at the scene of the fatal shooting of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

After Holder refused to give a congressional committee subpoenaed documents about the Justice Department's involvement in "Fast and Furious" he was found in contempt of Congress. The House oversight committee has also sued for the documents.

The other impeachment articles rest on issues that have raised conservatives' ire in recent years, including Holder's decisions not to enforce laws on same-sex marriage, on prison sentences for certain drug crimes and not to prosecute an official in the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative political activists.

They also say Holder lied to Congress about a Justice Department investigation into Fox News correspondent James Rosen.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/house-republicans-impeach-holder/2013/11/14/id/536551#ixzz2kdiUAjc5


Jesus H Christ....

Does this shit play in the public?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
Jesus H Christ....

Does this shit play in the public?

It's not going to happen, but I don't blame them. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Only 11 total republicans will impeach Holder.  

Disgusting.   Just plain vile.  

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 12:12:36 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2013, 12:36:42 PM
Jesus H Christ....

Does this shit play in the public?

If Holder was white he would be executed
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AndreaRyc on November 14, 2013, 02:26:44 PM
See?  This thread is what I'm talking about.

Right wing filth lives in its own fantastic sewage.  Only amongst this garbage is talk of 'impeachment' a somber yet necessary act.

Fine.  Ok.  Draw up your articles of impeachment.  Granted none of you dimwits have the slightest idea of what that means but I'm sure I'll get some links and 'Booms" thrown out there.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
See?  This thread is what I'm talking about.

Right wing filth lives in its own fantastic sewage.  Only amongst this garbage is talk of 'impeachment' a somber yet necessary act.

Fine.  Ok.  Draw up your articles of impeachment.  Granted none of you dimwits have the slightest idea of what that means but I'm sure I'll get some links and 'Booms" thrown out there.



Filth?  Sewage??  Well that's pretty mean garebear.  I think I like the unfunny comic relief version better. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on November 14, 2013, 04:29:39 PM
Only 11 total republicans will impeach Holder.  

Disgusting.   Just plain vile.  




Thats actually a good point.

If Obama (and Holder) is destroying the country why not impeach ??? Because its BS ???
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: whork on November 14, 2013, 04:32:05 PM
See?  This thread is what I'm talking about.

Right wing filth lives in its own fantastic sewage.  Only amongst this garbage is talk of 'impeachment' a somber yet necessary act.



Relax there fellow, Rightwingers is people as well no need for that kind of rhetoric.
They are pretty fucking dumb but people none the less.



Fine.  Ok.  Draw up your articles of impeachment.  Granted none of you dimwits have the slightest idea of what that means but I'm sure I'll get some links and 'Booms" thrown out there.




Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2013, 04:39:30 PM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2013, 08:15:02 PM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 

OTWINK hould have been impeached in 2008
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AndreaRyc on November 15, 2013, 06:56:26 AM
Filth?  Sewage??  Well that's pretty mean garebear.  I think I like the unfunny comic relief version better. 
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.

Is this really queerbear........another douchbag lib whining and crying about the failure of "HIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE".....ur guy is an utter asshat and u have no idea what to do now do u.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 07:04:32 AM
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.

LMFAO 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 15, 2013, 07:08:29 AM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 

They would call for impeachment if he wore white after labor day
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 07:10:43 AM
They would call for impeachment if he wore white after labor day


Nice way to avoid 240's point. 

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:12:02 AM
Impeachment is a mistake.....unless its so clear cut that not to impeach would be criminal. Obama has accelerated lame duck status with the Obamacare disaster and that won't fully play out until thew hole law is out there. He's not getting immigration and I suspect we'll have a few more foreign policy messes befoe this is all done. Let the house of cards fail...get out of the way and let grab some popcorn.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 07:16:16 AM
Impeachment is a mistake.....unless its so clear cut that not to impeach would be criminal. Obama has accelerated lame duck status with the Obamacare disaster and that won't fully play out until thew hole law is out there. He's not getting immigration and I suspect we'll have a few more foreign policy messes befoe this is all done. Let the house of cards fail...get out of the way and let grab some popcorn.

Correct - its better to let Obama's disasters and scandal burn down his corrupt worthless admn so the GOP can steamroll the communists next year./ 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 07:29:49 AM
Yawn.  ::)   If you want to have a dialogue about this, you let me know.  In the meantime, keep in mind you're Canadian. 


Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:31:31 AM
Yeah...last thing we need is...'you just don't like black people' as they cart this asshat away. First off..he's half white folks....half white. Clinton was blacker then this guy and way cooler. Barry couldn't act black if he had lessons. He can't shoot a basketball..there's video of that, he drinks beer like a fag..which he might be.....and he plays golf...only Tiger plays golf and he's half asian. Yeah I know rascist post...blah blah blah....Christie is a fat whop fuck....feel better.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on November 15, 2013, 07:33:44 AM

Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



Comment all you want but we're gonna repeatedly as you why you care. Worry about Canada, great country..taxes are way to high..plenty of natural resources, beautiful scenary...Montreal is awsome...great Hockey....bad gun laws but getting better, maybe.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 08:32:19 AM
You have the balls to say my vitriol is worse than the garbage posted by your fellow brownshirts?  No pal.  I'm spot on.  You stand with sadistic traitorous scum.  It's a given.

For christ's sake just look at the TITLES of some of these threads.  Well old man, as moderator, you're doing a hell of bad job.

Holy smokes.  Quite the angry little buggah. 

And, garebear, how big of a loser do you have to be to get yourself banned from a message board full of "sadistic traitorous scum" and come back to that same board as a gimmick?   :-\
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 08:32:46 AM
Is this really queerbear........another douchbag lib whining and crying about the failure of "HIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE".....ur guy is an utter asshat and u have no idea what to do now do u.

Yes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 15, 2013, 08:42:04 AM
Nice way to avoid 240's point. 



Oh...so 240 has a point now?...because its  negative towards the president?

Lol...shut up dumbass

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on November 15, 2013, 08:43:00 AM
Yeah...last thing we need is...'you just don't like black people' as they cart this asshat away. First off..he's half white folks....half white. Clinton was blacker then this guy and way cooler. Barry couldn't act black if he had lessons. He can't shoot a basketball..there's video of that, he drinks beer like a fag..which he might be.....and he plays golf...only Tiger plays golf and he's half asian. Yeah I know rascist post...blah blah blah....Christie is a fat whop fuck....feel better.

QFT
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 08:46:51 AM
Oh...so 240 has a point now?...because its  negative towards the president?

Lol...shut up dumbass



No - its because Obama went to bed that night and off to a fundraiser w Jay Z as our people died.  Like a typical Obama cultist you have no problem w that. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2013, 09:02:30 AM

Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



I always find the claim by some here that people in other countries can't comment on anything that happens outside their country to be ridiculous and of course they never seem to apply this restriction to themselves

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 09:14:35 AM
Comment all you want but we're gonna repeatedly as you why you care. Worry about Canada, great country..taxes are way to high..plenty of natural resources, beautiful scenary...Montreal is awsome...great Hockey....bad gun laws but getting better, maybe.

Wow.  Glad we got your input, Overlord.

I say to our Canadian friends, have at it.  As to why they care: You should be grateful that they do care. I notice you have no problems whatsoever commenting on other countries.

For the record, I am an American, so your "you" is out of place.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 09:35:57 AM

Yawn yourself.  Canadians are not allowed to comment for some reason (existing in your mind but nowhere else)?

And you are a moderator?



Canadians are allowed to comment, and several of them do.  

Yes.  A well paid moderator I might add.  Although I'm thinking of asking Ron for a raise.  Maybe we should form a union?   
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AndreaRyc on November 15, 2013, 10:33:10 AM
LMFAO 
All I have for you is this:  Quiet down.  Learn something from all this to stop being a trivial partial human being.  Which is what you are.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2013, 10:34:57 AM
All I have for you is this:  Quiet down.  Learn something from all this to stop being a trivial partial human being.  Which is what you are.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2013, 11:36:57 AM


That's exactly how it works.   :-\
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 15, 2013, 12:42:10 PM
Impeachment is a mistake.....unless its so clear cut that not to impeach would be criminal. Obama has accelerated lame duck status with the Obamacare disaster and that won't fully play out until thew hole law is out there. He's not getting immigration and I suspect we'll have a few more foreign policy messes befoe this is all done. Let the house of cards fail...get out of the way and let grab some popcorn.

Dude,

Obama is still playing nice, since he has to help the dems limp thru the 2014 elections.

have you NO IDEA what will happen in 2015?  Dude, he will be a lame duck.  Dems will be distancing themselves.  He will still have all his executive power, which grows by the year.

I predict he will unleash a tirade of liberal policies in the form of executive orders -
- Gun control
- Amnesty
- Climate change
- Obamacare (doing whatever he can to keep it in place)
and who knows what else.  

I believe benghazi was criminal.  And if not, well, here's a big list of impeachable offenses:
http://www.redflagnews.com/opinion/obamas-impeachable-offenses-updated-by-michael-connelly-jd-carrollton-tx#sthash.9nYNltQJ.dpbs

Now, if the repubs dont act, hey, they deserve the onslaught of lib policies.  Every bit of it.  They asked for it.  Either they impeach, or they sit back in 2015 with the Vaseline and enjoy the pounding.  Every month, another executive act... and it'll be all this "how can he do this, we never saw it coming..."

Obama was the most liberal senator going in.  He loves the lib policies - they're AWESOME for keeping the majority of people voting dem out of handout need.  Move another 5% of the population into poverty and dems will never lose the White house again, ya know?  

so anyway, that's my guess... obama will go uber-lib in 2015 and hey, repubs own it too.  Sit back, get some popcorn, and enjoy the lib show! 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on November 15, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
SHIP OBAMA BACK TO AFRICA
HAND HIM AND FAMILY LOINCLOTH AND A SPEAR AND DIRECT THEM TO THE NEAREST BUSH
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 04:36:37 PM
SHIP OBAMA BACK TO AFRICA
HAND HIM AND FAMILY LOINCLOTH AND A SPEAR AND DIRECT THEM TO THE NEAREST BUSH

Great idea.  Let's do that after we put you in the nut house.  Enjoy the padded cell and call us in the morning.

No worries.  An ipod will be available so that you can still post your rants.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2013, 04:39:48 PM


and the way it worked before was just the insurance company pointing the gun at you and with bigger bags of money and of course dropping you without cause or not even letting you have insurance if you had a pre-existing condition
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 15, 2013, 07:43:18 PM
If Holder was white he would be executed

And if you were ever in the Navy, you'd be shit out of luck.
But you weren't in the Navy.  You lied about it.  And now YOU complain about Obama.

Jump into the toilet where you belong.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on November 15, 2013, 08:00:14 PM


Haha that's pretty good  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 16, 2013, 04:30:10 AM
And if you were ever in the Navy, you'd be shit out of luck.
But you weren't in the Navy.  You lied about it.  And now YOU complain about Obama.

Jump into the toilet where you belong.


Lol.   Already cleared that up moron.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on November 16, 2013, 07:33:20 AM
Yeah...last thing we need is...'you just don't like black people' as they cart this asshat away. First off..he's half white folks....half white. Clinton was blacker then this guy and way cooler. Barry couldn't act black if he had lessons. He can't shoot a basketball..there's video of that, he drinks beer like a fag..which he might be.....and he plays golf...only Tiger plays golf and he's half asian. Yeah I know rascist post...blah blah blah....Christie is a fat whop fuck....feel better.

It looked like he threw pretty good passes for an older guy and tries to get others involved by assists mostly but you're right his jumper was kinda wack.

Now, Bill Bradley, that was a U.S. Senator who could play some damn basketball.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 16, 2013, 10:13:21 AM

Lol.   Already cleared that up moron.


"Cleared that up" by admitting you are a blatant liar.  Just like the white bread sickos who claim to be vets but aren't.

That disqualifies you from anything but squatting in the gutter, shitheel.

Probably means you are as gutless as you are dishonest.

And stupid, with a big, big mouth spouting nonsense.

And so your opinion, fake veteran, is worthless.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 16, 2013, 10:36:15 AM
Lol.   The poster ignpred the 10 other posts i had explaiming my time as USMMA where i wa completely upfront.



"Cleared that up" by admitting you are a blatant liar.  Just like the white bread sickos who claim to be vets but aren't.

That disqualifies you from anything but squatting in the gutter, shitheel.

Probably means you are as gutless as you are dishonest.

And stupid, with a big, big mouth spouting nonsense.

And so your opinion, fake veteran, is worthless.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gonuclear on November 16, 2013, 08:05:02 PM
Lol.   The poster ignpred the 10 other posts i had explaiming my time as USMMA where i wa completely upfront.



I read those posts.  They were about as upfront as Clinton's line: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

No getting around it: You are a bonafide liar with zero credibility. 

And that makes any of your opinions meaningless.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 17, 2013, 06:21:42 AM
I read those posts.  They were about as upfront as Clinton's line: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

No getting around it: You are a bonafide liar with zero credibility. 

And that makes any of your opinions meaningless.


Lol gimmick.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2014, 11:31:33 AM
They sound awfully paranoid. 

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility
12/28/2013
 
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/28/dnc-sends-email-defending-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/#ixzz2pvo0qyHg
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2014, 11:49:26 AM
WashPost's Milbank Compares Talk of Impeaching Obama to 'Revenge Killing'
By Brad Wilmouth | January 8, 2014

On Tuesday's PoliticsNation on MSNBC, during a discussion of Republican congressional members who have spoken of the possibility of impeaching President Obama, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank labeled such talk "tribal politics" and compared it to a "revenge killing" against the President because he won the election.

After host Al Sharpton played clips of several Republican members of Congress from a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Milbank dismissed the likelihood of impeachment and then added:

But I think what this represents is not a serious effort to remove the President. But it's a certain frustration, and they said as much in that hearing having lost these elections: What do you do to counter this President? I think that's in a way what politics has become now.

It's not just about defeating your opponent, it's about taking him out. And I think that's sort of this revenge killing almost that's become part of our tribal politics right now. And I think that's what we're feeling.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, January 7, PoliticsNation on MSNBC:

AL SHARPTON: Maybe not even though. Maybe because he beat them twice. But the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last month, Dana, about how the President has failed his constitutional duties. They offered up a laundry list of issues they had. Listen to this.

REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD (R-TX): Then you can insert whatever you want, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS targeting of advocacy groups, NSA overreach. If you like your health care, you can keep it.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): The President ordered Anwar al Awlaki killed by a drone strike.

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): The President effectively enacted the Dream Act himself.

REP. TRENT FRANKS (R-AZ): The deep-water drilling ban, Mr. Holder's attempt to reform criminal justice by selectively enforcing our laws. Mr. Obama's unilaterally ignoring immigration laws in many cases.

SHARPTON: I mean, Dana, you wrote about this hearing. It's like a complete grab bag, wasn't it?

MILBANK: Right. And I think the Republican leadership recognized they look a little crazy, to be having an impeachment hearing. Because Joe is right. If both chambers were controlled by Republicans, they may well attempt to do it. But there is another thing out there called the public, and the public would say that's a bunch of nonsense there is nothing approaching high crimes or even misdemeanors here.

But I think what this represents is not a serious effort to remove the President. But it's a certain frustration, and they said as much in that hearing having lost these elections: What do you do to counter this President? I think that's in a way what politics has become now. It's not just about defeating your opponent, it's about taking him out.

SHARPTON: Yes.

MILBANK: And I think that's sort of this revenge killing almost that's become part of our tribal politics right now. And I think that's what we're feeling.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2014/01/08/washposts-milbank-compares-talk-impeaching-obama-revenge-killing#ixzz2pvseeAl9
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: temple_of_dis on January 09, 2014, 03:46:11 PM
impeach obama to dayy! over IRS scandal!!!

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 01, 2014, 11:32:08 AM
Missouri House panel concludes hearing on impeaching Gov. Jay Nixon
April 30, 2014
The Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A Republican-led Missouri House panel has wrapped up a hearing on measures seeking to impeach Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon without voting on the proposals.

One of two resolutions considered Wednesday criticizes the governor for the amount of time he took to call elections to fill legislative vacancies. The other would impeach Nixon for refusing to fire officials involved with the Revenue Department’s decision last year to scan driver’s license applicants’ personal documents into a computer system.

Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Stanley Cox says he isn’t sure if the panel will vote on the measures before lawmakers adjourn May 16.

The committee considered an additional impeachment resolution last week citing Nixon’s decision to let legally married same-sex couples file joint tax returns in Missouri.

Nixon called the hearings “some sort of show.”

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/30/4993191/missouri-house-panel-concludes.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 01, 2014, 11:49:42 AM
Obama should be imprisoned not just impeached
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2014, 09:25:36 AM
Graham warns of Republican impeachment push over Gitmo
By Alexander Bolton - 06/04/14

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Wednesday that Republican lawmakers would call for President Obama’s impeachment if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without congressional approval.

Republicans worry Obama may try to shut down the prison camp unilaterally after congressional opposition has repeatedly stymied efforts to pass legislation to close it.

“It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” Graham said. “There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”

Graham served as a House prosecutor during former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial.

Congress tried to build in a safeguard against Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.

Obama did not follow that law when he swapped five senior Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services panel, said Obama had a plausible legal argument for ignoring the law.

“The White House did not comply with the requirement of the 30-day provision. However, the White House said it had power under Article II of the Constitution to do what it did,” Levin said. “I’m not a court that’s going to decide whether or not under Article II the commander in chief has the power to move this quickly even though Congress said you’ve got to give 30 days notice.”

Levin said Congress was notified that Obama might not follow the NDAA’s requirement in a signing statement attached to the law.

“The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” Obama asserted in his Dec. 26 statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday applauded Obama’s decision to release five Taliban leaders because it would hasten the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

“My own personal opinion, Guantanamo has been there far too long, and I think that we should get them out of there as quickly as we can,” he said.

Reid noted that Democrats have tried to pass legislation to close the prison camp and transfer the detainees to the United States to face criminal trials but have been “held up from doing so by Republicans.”

“So I'm glad to get of these five people, send them back to Qatar, and I think the arrangements made there are, as far as I understand, what's been explained to me, adequate,” he said the Taliban militants released over the weekend.

The former detainees must spend at least a year in Qatar, which helped mediate the exchange, under the terms of the deal.

Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee who face a contested primary next week, said he has added language to the pending defense authorization bill that would require an up-or-down vote in Congress to approve the closure of Guantanamo.

The bill also includes a provision barring the administration from transferring detainees to Yemen, he noted.

White House and Pentagon officials held a classified briefing for senators on Wednesday night, but it did not satisfy skeptics.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208264-gop-senator-obama-faces-impeachment-push-if-more-prisoners-leave-gitmo#ixzz33maLWDxW
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 17, 2014, 11:08:50 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/lou-barletta-impeach_n_5503121.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013



YES!!!!  House GOP has enough votes to impeach ghettobama
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on June 17, 2014, 01:26:24 PM
they have the votes, but I doubt they have the balls :(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on June 17, 2014, 04:10:14 PM
Great..pass the Articles of Impeachment...good luck getting the Democrat controlled Senate to convict him or even start the trial in the first place
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on June 17, 2014, 04:38:17 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/lou-barletta-impeach_n_5503121.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013



YES!!!!  House GOP has enough votes to impeach ghettobama

Fucking Moron

Yes, get excited.  It's going to be just like LANDSLIDE

You should take the time to actually read the articles you post (yes, I know that suggestion is pointless because the purpose of any of your posts is just to silence that OCD monkey on your back if only for a few minutes)

Quote
Barletta's spokesman told the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader that the congressman was not calling for Obama's impeachment, and that his "full answer" was "Could that pass the House? Probably. Would the Senate ever convict? Certainly not. There’s not the will nationally to remove the president, so would it be wise to pursue that? Or would it be harmful to the country? Surely the latter.’ He is not advocating or proposing it.”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on June 17, 2014, 07:35:43 PM
Great..pass the Articles of Impeachment...good luck getting the Democrat controlled Senate to convict him or even start the trial in the first place

Senate Dems turned on Clinton, a popular president in a good economy, for fibbing about hanky panky. 

Obama is a shitty unpopular president, in a shitty economy, with a laundry list of actual crimes that caused loss of life.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on June 17, 2014, 07:40:02 PM
No they did not!!!   The House passed the articles and the Senate had a show trial where he was acquitted...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on June 17, 2014, 09:52:39 PM
Impeachment is not enough. (If you know what I mean)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on June 17, 2014, 10:24:52 PM
Senate Dems turned on Clinton, a popular president in a good economy, for fibbing about hanky panky. 

Obama is a shitty unpopular president, in a shitty economy, with a laundry list of actual crimes that caused loss of life.



Agreed. They will turn on him after November. They have him as Prez and Yellen as Fed Chair for a reason...historic scapegoats for some nasty stuff coming.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 30, 2014, 10:24:53 AM
S.D. Republican Party calls for Obama impeachment
David Montgomery, dmontgome@argusleader.com
June 21, 2014

The South Dakota Republican Party state convention passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama Saturday.

The resolution says Obama has "violated his oath of office in numerous ways." It specifically cites the release of five Taliban combatants in a trade for captive U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, Obama's statement that people could keep insurance companies, and recent EPA regulations on power plants.

"Therefore, be it resolved that the South Dakota Republican Party calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States," the resolution reads.

Allen Unruh of Sioux Falls sponsored the resolution.

"I've got a thick book on impeachable offenses of the president," Unruh said, calling on South Dakota to "send a symbolic message that liberty shall be the law of the land."

Delegate David Wheeler of Beadle County disagreed.

"I believe we should not use the power of impeachment for political purposes," Wheeler said. "By doing this, we would look petty, like we can't achieve our political goals through the political process."

Larry Eliason of Potter County agreed, noting that he opposed the impeachment resolution even though "the only thing (Obama's) done the last six years that I approve of is when he adopted a pet."

But Larry Klipp of Butte County, a retired Marine, said matters go beyond mere political disagreements with Obama.

"If anyone in this room cannot see the horrendous, traitorous scandals run by the Obama administration, I will pray for you," Klipp said.

Delegates voted 191-176 in favor of the resolution. The Pennington County delegation voted 47-9 in favor of the impeachment resolution, and Minnehaha County voted 28-15 in favor.

Rep. Kristi Noem, South Dakota's lone delegate in the House of Representatives — which has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings — was cool to the resolution.

Noem, who addressed the Republican convention Saturday morning, hours before the resolutions was voted on, doesn't believe impeachment is the "best way" to deal with Obama.

"The congresswoman currently believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations into the administration's actions like the ongoing VA scandal, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi, and the recent Taliban prisoner exchange," said Brittany Comins, Noem's spokesperson.

If the House voted to impeach Obama, the Senate would then rule on the validity of the charges. It takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove a president from office.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/06/21/sdgop-obama-impeachment/11212075/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on June 30, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
i can't understand why they wait so long to impeach.  I mean, he was doing impeachable shit back in 2009 with fast and furious, right?  Yet they give him 6 to 7 years to destroy economy and implement obamacare - THEN they want to "talk" about some lawsuits and possible impeachment... I mean, it's like waiting til a murderer is 89 years old to put him on trial for a crime he did 50 years earlier!   

does anyone here really think the repubs in congress will ever impeach?  i doubt they will.  They'll swear they did everything they could to stop him, but unless they tried to impeach, then that isn't the case.   Just go for it already, see what happens - senate dems turned on Clinton in a minute... they'll do the same to obama.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2014, 06:32:25 PM
Palin calls for Obama's impeachment
David Jackson, USA TODAY
July 8, 2014

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

"Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president," Palin wrote on the Brietbart website. "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'"

The former Alaska governor, picked by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to be his running mate in 2008, also protested the federal debt, health care, executive orders and "unsustainably generous welfare-state programs" in a litany of complaints against Obama.

"President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along," Palin writes.

She adds: "It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment."

While the Republican-run House, in theory, has the numbers to vote for impeachment, it is impossible to imagine that the Democratic-run Senate would take up such a matter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/08/obama-sarah-palin-impeachment-john-mccain/12360017/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 08, 2014, 07:07:37 PM
Palin calls for Obama's impeachment
David Jackson, USA TODAY
July 8, 2014

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

"Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president," Palin wrote on the Brietbart website. "His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas.'"

The former Alaska governor, picked by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to be his running mate in 2008, also protested the federal debt, health care, executive orders and "unsustainably generous welfare-state programs" in a litany of complaints against Obama.

"President Obama's rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It's not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along," Palin writes.

She adds: "It's time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment."

While the Republican-run House, in theory, has the numbers to vote for impeachment, it is impossible to imagine that the Democratic-run Senate would take up such a matter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/08/obama-sarah-palin-impeachment-john-mccain/12360017/

"His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas." 

Holy mixed metaphors, BB, you DO have a sense of humor.  Good post.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2014, 07:08:43 PM
"His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, 'no mas." 

Holy mixed metaphors, BB, you DO have a sense of humor.  Good post.

I laugh all the time.  Just not at pretty much anything you post, because it isn't the least bit funny for the most part. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 08, 2014, 07:27:15 PM
I laugh all the time.  Just not at pretty much anything you post, because it isn't the least bit funny for the most part. 

Ah ha!! You are making shit up!!!  Oh, wait....Drat, ya weaseled out by saying "for the most part".

Because I'm pretty sure you thought this was funny when I posted it on ganja thread:

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 08, 2014, 07:34:46 PM
Ah ha!! You are making shit up!!!  Oh, wait....Drat, ya weaseled out by saying "for the most part".

Because I'm pretty sure you thought this was funny when I posted it on ganja thread:



Yes that was funny.   :) 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 08, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the spike in illegal border crossings is another reason to impeach President Obama.

Ugh.  She's swinging this way now.  Good to see she's held every possible position on this issue.

“There is no way that in the U.S. we would round up every illegal immigrant — there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants — not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration,” Palin said.

When asked if she supported “a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Palin responded that she did.
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here,” Palin said. “It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”

And don't forget that as alaska gov, she supported spending state $ on more vocational training for illegals.  Oh and she allowed anchorage to be a 'sanctuary city' where illegals were welcome to stay without fear of legal trouble.  And she refused to use state dollars to enforce ANY federal immigration policy.


So yes, she was very much a lover of illegals back in the day.  Glad to see she's adopted this position now that it's popular with the base.  :(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 07:04:31 AM
At this point, Sarah Palin is a professional "demagogue", I think.

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance
of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives.
Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness.
Demagogues are nothing new; They have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens.
They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that
power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 07:28:08 AM
I'm okay if Palin's role is simply to agitate the base and stir shit.  I love that.  Totally cool.


I dislike that she keeps CHANGING POSITIONS.  As governor, she was about as pro-illegal-alien as one can get.  She wouldn't let her state enforce immigration laws.  She allowed an entire huge sanctuary city where illegals could flaunt it, and cops were powerless to boot em.  She said all 12 mil illegals will never be pushed out. 

NOW NOW NOW, she's yelling about 30 pieces of silver to Rubio, for saying the same shit she was saying 5 years ago!  LOLZERS!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on July 09, 2014, 07:35:22 AM
I sure PJB's piece on not to impeach is here somewhere. I agree with him....his point being that even if we hold congress, we won't have the media and an outraged public so it won't work as far as building a base for 2016.  The case would need to be clear cut enough to make to the retards that voted for Obama twice in order for it to work.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 07:35:49 AM
Forget impeachment - Obama needs to be sent to prison 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Forget impeachment - Obama needs to be sent to prison 

When asked if he wanted to hit a joint, our Choomer-In-Chief here responds with a guilty laugh:
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 09:27:10 AM
When asked if he wanted to hit a joint, our Choomer-In-Chief here responds with a guilty laugh:


Obama was like - "guy - I just did 5 lines" 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 09:34:59 AM
Obama was like - "guy - I just did 5 lines" 

LOL.

I bet you could come up with at least 5 quips that are at least that funny with no problem. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 09:39:26 AM
LOL.

I bet you could come up with at least 5 quips that are at least that funny with no problem. 

I used another word that started w an n - but "guy" will do
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 09:48:21 AM
I used another word that started w an n - but "guy" will do

I was actually being serious -- I thought your line was funny.

About the "guy" substitution thing, you can avoid that by just using the word "ninja". 

(A couple of years ago over on mma.tv saying "Ninja, please!" was all the rage.)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 12:40:26 PM
Ugh.  She's swinging this way now.  Good to see she's held every possible position on this issue.

“There is no way that in the U.S. we would round up every illegal immigrant — there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants — not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration,” Palin said.

When asked if she supported “a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Palin responded that she did.
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here,” Palin said. “It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”

And don't forget that as alaska gov, she supported spending state $ on more vocational training for illegals.  Oh and she allowed anchorage to be a 'sanctuary city' where illegals were welcome to stay without fear of legal trouble.  And she refused to use state dollars to enforce ANY federal immigration policy.


So yes, she was very much a lover of illegals back in the day.  Glad to see she's adopted this position now that it's popular with the base.  :(

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 12:58:18 PM
::)

it's true though - Palin changes positions on amnesty, to the extreme.  She let them be left alone when she had the power to stop them.  Now that she's nothing but a part-time tv chat voice, she can't stop shouting the opposition position.

roll eyes all ya want.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
it's true though - Palin changes positions on amnesty, to the extreme.  She let them be left alone when she had the power to stop them.  Now that she's nothing but a part-time tv chat voice, she can't stop shouting the opposition position.

roll eyes all ya want.

Yawn.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 01:16:22 PM
Yawn.

i dont get it.   defend her and show me why these completely contradictory statements/positions are totally cool.

Or, call her out for the hypocrisy of her "calling out" rubio and other repubs for holding positions that are actually tame compared to the illegal insanity she let go on as governor.

I see why the "right" keep losing elections.  those who scream loudest about being conservative refuse to admit when their conservative leaders aren't acting very conservative.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2014, 01:24:50 PM
fagbama is a communist terrorist and worst pos ever to hold office.  Hope nothing but awful shit for him
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 01:33:21 PM
fagbama is a communist terrorist and worst pos ever to hold office.

I was discussing this with my grandmother.  She said Ford was a bigger punk shroomhead illegal alien america destroyer.  I told her nana, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 01:43:56 PM
i dont get it.   defend her and show me why these completely contradictory statements/positions are totally cool.

Or, call her out for the hypocrisy of her "calling out" rubio and other repubs for holding positions that are actually tame compared to the illegal insanity she let go on as governor.

I see why the "right" keep losing elections.  those who scream loudest about being conservative refuse to admit when their conservative leaders aren't acting very conservative.

First of all, I didn't even read the quotes.  I've clicked on links you have posted enough to know that whatever you post needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 

Second, you can keep trying to pretend like you're a Republican and/or a conservative, but your voting record and most of what you say on the board show you are a liberal.  Just own it already.  Nothing to be ashamed of. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 09, 2014, 05:31:20 PM
First of all, I didn't even read the quotes.  I've clicked on links you have posted enough to know that whatever you post needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 

Second, you can keep trying to pretend like you're a Republican and/or a conservative, but your voting record and most of what you say on the board show you are a liberal.  Just own it already.  Nothing to be ashamed of. 

BB, this seems to conflict some with what you said earlier, "...maybe you should try taking words at face value, rather than implying, twisting, and contorting."

Seems to me that you're not doing this with what 240 says (writes). 

Unless he kicked your puppy or something, I really don't get it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 05:38:20 PM
Unless he kicked your puppy or something, I really don't get it.

Palin DID support the illegals shitting all over the law.  This isn't debateable.  She DID let them live in sanctuary city in her state.  She DID refuse to use ANY state resources to enforce federal immigration law.  She DID say we cannot deport 12 million of them.  She did say she supports a path to citizenship for those her illegally.  standard dipshit lib/rino position.

NOW she's shitting all over rubio and others for having the same positions she did.   Since SHE is wiser now, it's okay to disregard her entire gov record, and go with what she says TODAY when base polling tells her it is time to hop to this side of the fence.

Look obama is a bag of shit on immigration.   Jeb and most repubs are bags of shit on it too.  We NEED repubs to stand out as being AGAINST amnesty.  We do NOT need palin muddying the waters, pretending to be against it when until very very recently, they spent 46 years being FOR it.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 05:47:58 PM
BB, this seems to conflict some with what you said earlier, "...maybe you should try taking words at face value, rather than implying, twisting, and contorting."

Seems to me that you're not doing this with what 240 says (writes). 

Unless he kicked your puppy or something, I really don't get it.

I completely understand why you don't get it. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2014, 05:48:26 PM
7 pages on Obama getting impeached. A ridiculous notion. The retard is strong here.

Not true.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 09, 2014, 07:41:17 PM
Palin was pro immigration?  When?   

I don't much care for her...but I don't recall her being anything other than an immigration "hawk"
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 09, 2014, 09:34:29 PM
Palin was pro immigration?  When?   

I don't much care for her...but I don't recall her being anything other than an immigration "hawk"

Yes, she's been very vocal about it LATELY since the repub base is against it.   
In the 2008 election, she surprised a lot of repubs during the Couric week by saying this- her actual original position, spoken from the heart before she was trained on what to say:

“There is no way that in the U.S. we would round up every illegal immigrant — there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants — not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration,” Palin said.

When asked if she supported “a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,” Palin responded that she did.
“I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here,” Palin said. “It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.”


Then, the positions of the virtually unknown governor were noticed -
As alaska gov, she supported spending state $ on more vocational training for illegals.  I think she said Rubio deserves 30 pieces of silver for about the same thing with DREAM.  ???  Oh and she allowed anchorage to be a 'sanctuary city' where illegals were welcome to stay without fear of legal trouble. Anchorage loves them.  And she refused to use state dollars to enforce ANY federal immigration policy.   

So yes, she was very much a lover of illegals back in the day.  Glad to see she's adopted this position now that it's popular
Above all.... in her own words... knowing an "undocumented immigrant" = illegal alien... she said:

RAMOS: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

PALIN: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America.





She is welcome to her opinion... but for her to shit all over republicans/obama/whoever for holding a position she actually applied as governor?   Ugh.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 10, 2014, 08:05:06 AM
You have to look at the immigration question in two parts....securing the border and dealing with the illegals.  From what I have seen, Palin has always been a hawk on securing the border.   She has been consistent in supporting a path to citizenship...although she opposed the DREAM act because it didn't provide enough of a framework to ensure an orderly path to citizenship.  The "allowing" Anchorage ot become a sanctuary city bit is kind of a nebulous point...it was an effort that began in the legislature and had very little effect on life in Alaska, so why bother fighting the will of the legislature when you have other bigger fights to deal with?

Most people who are hawks on border enforcement...myself included...recognize that there is no chance of ever convincing the nation as a whole that we should round up everyone who came here illegally and ship them home.  It isn't going to happen.  You can make the requirements to stay difficult enough and the economic price high enough that you create an incentive to self deport, but you are not ever ever ever ever going to get the mandate to go gestapo on them and round them up.  So...you should probably focus your energy on border enforcement and enforcement of stricter rules and a bumpier path to citizenship because the notion you have that they should all be trucked home is a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 10, 2014, 08:09:06 AM
Who cares about palin?  The issue is O-FAG allowing an invasion to occur to advance his domestic agenda
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 10, 2014, 12:09:36 PM
You have to look at the immigration question in two parts....securing the border and dealing with the illegals.  From what I have seen, Palin has always been a hawk on securing the border.   She has been consistent in supporting a path to citizenship...although she opposed the DREAM act because it didn't provide enough of a framework to ensure an orderly path to citizenship.  The "allowing" Anchorage ot become a sanctuary city bit is kind of a nebulous point...it was an effort that began in the legislature and had very little effect on life in Alaska, so why bother fighting the will of the legislature when you have other bigger fights to deal with?

Most people who are hawks on border enforcement...myself included...recognize that there is no chance of ever convincing the nation as a whole that we should round up everyone who came here illegally and ship them home.  It isn't going to happen.  You can make the requirements to stay difficult enough and the economic price high enough that you create an incentive to self deport, but you are not ever ever ever ever going to get the mandate to go gestapo on them and round them up.  So...you should probably focus your energy on border enforcement and enforcement of stricter rules and a bumpier path to citizenship because the notion you have that they should all be trucked home is a pipe dream.

Though I think you're giving Palin too much credit for her thought process on how she came to her position re: illegal aliens in Alaska , I think I agree with her position:  For isn't Alaska the kind of place that should be happy to get anyone, illegal or otherwise, wanting to live there?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 16, 2014, 11:11:47 AM
This was sent to me by a friend.  Good speech.  Even disgraced leaders can offer words of wisdom.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on July 16, 2014, 11:21:30 AM
LOL @ you demos and repub sheeple... when will you wake up and realize both parties are the same and meant to control you?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 23, 2014, 05:36:57 PM
Fox News Poll: Voters say Obama exceeded authority, but oppose impeachment
By Dana Blanton
Published July 23, 2014
FoxNews.com

July 21, 2014: President Barack Obama speaks about the My Brothers Keeper Initiative, at the Walker Jones Education Campus in Washington. (AP)
Despite believing Barack Obama has overstepped his authority as president, most voters reject calls to impeach him for that -- or for any other reason.

By a 58-37 percent margin, the latest Fox News poll finds that voters think President Obama exceeded his authority under the Constitution when he unilaterally changed the health care law by executive order.

Click here for the poll results.

And, more generally, a similar majority disapproves of Obama bypassing Congress, acting unilaterally and refusing to enforce laws he disagrees with: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove.

Obama’s use of executive power plays well with the party faithful, as a 64-percent majority of Democrats approves of his actions, while a majority of every other demographic group disapproves (including fully 91 percent of Republicans).

Some prominent Republicans, including 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, have called for the president’s impeachment. Yet more than six voters in 10 oppose impeaching Obama for changing some laws and failing to enforce others or “for any other reason” (61 percent). Some 36 percent favor impeachment.

Nearly four in 10 Democrats think Obama is guilty of executive overreach on changing the Obamacare law (39 percent), and one in five Democrats favors impeaching their party’s leader (20 percent).

Among Republicans, 83 percent consider Obama’s actions on the health care law a violation of the Constitution. Yet far fewer Republicans -- although still a 56-percent majority -- favor impeachment.

Fifty-five percent of independents believe Obama violated the Constitution, and 37 percent favor impeachment (61 percent are opposed).

The highest level of support for impeaching Obama -- 68 percent -- is among those who are part of the Tea Party movement.

Overall, 81 percent of those favoring impeachment believe President Obama went beyond his authority when he changed the health care law unilaterally.

Charges that Obama has violated the Constitution have helped raise the political temperature in Washington this summer. In early July, House Speaker John Boehner took steps to file a lawsuit against Obama for his “failure to follow the Constitution” on the health care law by altering the individual mandate via executive order. On Tuesday two federal appeals courts took opposing views on whether Obama illegally ignored the language of the Obamacare law to give federal subsidies to people who are not entitled to them. Despite one court ruling that says he did, the White House announced subsidies will continue.

Forty-one percent of voters approve of how Obama is handling health care, while 54 percent disapprove. That’s a bit of an improvement from last month’s 41-56 percent rating. It also makes health care his best issue, topping the job performance ratings he receives on the economy (40-57 percent), foreign policy (36-56 percent) and immigration (34-58 percent).

Pollpourri

Obama has the most powerful job in the world -- and all the perks that go with that. Yet he’s been criticized by some for seeming disengaged and frustrated with his job. What does the public think? The poll finds a large 41-percent minority thinks Obama doesn’t even want to be president anymore. Still, just over half of voters think he does (52 percent).

Forty-seven percent of independents, 44 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats think Obama is tired of being president.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,057 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from July 20-22, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/23/fox-news-poll-voters-say-obama-exceeded-authority-but-oppose-impeachment/?intcmp=trending
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: RRKore on July 24, 2014, 01:34:46 AM
...
Obama has the most powerful job in the world -- and all the perks that go with that. Yet he’s been criticized by some for seeming disengaged and frustrated with his job. What does the public think? The poll finds a large 41-percent minority thinks Obama doesn’t even want to be president anymore.
...

WWSPD? 

(What Would Sarah Palin Do?)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2014, 01:01:59 PM
ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
By Ernest Istook
Friday, July 25, 2014

President Obama insists on flirting with impeachment even as House Republican leaders insist there’s no such possibility.

Obama uses a passive-aggressive strategy that can be judged as a political maneuver, a personality disorder, or both.

Secure in the knowledge that impeachment is not the same as removal from office, Mr. Obama brings up the topic on his own and with bold defiance. Martyrdom goes well with a Messiah complex and Mr. Obama’s speeches are a non-stop litany of depicting himself as a victim of Republicans.

Already operating beyond the constitutional bounds of presidential power, Mr. Obama’s strategy is to push the bounds further rather than pulling back. He dares political foes to make his day.

Impeachment would be his crowning badge of victimhood, the ultimate symbol to rally his base, asking that they protect him by guaranteeing a Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate. A simple Republican majority would lack the necessary two-thirds required to remove an impeached president from office, but that nicety of arithmetic would get lost in the political rhetoric.

Barack Obama Bill Clinton illustration
Enlarge Photo

Barack Obama Bill Clinton illustration more >
As the president told his always-handpicked audience in Austin, Texas, “You hear some of them: ‘Sue him! Impeach him!’ ” He paused to mime incredulity. “Really? For what, doing my job?”

His every speech aims to mock Republicans while he projects serenity in the face of adversity, such a calm that he need not engage personally with any crisis, not even the human flood he created on our southern border. He pretends to watch neither polls nor television even as he claims he learns about scandals only from TV. He golfs. His upcoming 16 days in Martha’s Vineyard will bring his vacation days to 141 during his time in office. That rate is almost a full month’s vacation each year.

His behavior matches the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of passive-aggressive behavior, “a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others.” Often, such persons see themselves as blameless victims, projecting fault onto others. Commonly, they follow erratic paths and cause constant conflicts.

But if not a personality disorder, such behavior can also be deliberately used to assert power, as described in one Psychology Today article, “By denying feelings of anger, withdrawing from direct communication, casting themselves in the role of victim, and sabotaging others’ success, passive aggressive persons create feelings in others of being on an emotional roller coaster. Through intentional inefficiency, procrastination, allowing problems to escalate, … makes the passive aggressive person feel powerful. He/she becomes the puppeteer—the master of someone else’s universe and the controller of their behavior.”

Compare this with Mr. Obama’s words this week to an audience of political donors:

“[A]ll we hear about is gridlock, and all we hear about is posturing, and all we hear about are phony scandals. … because the Republican Party has been taken over by people who just don’t believe in government; people who think that the existing arrangements where just a few folks who are doing well, and companies that pollute should be able to pollute, and companies that want to cheat you on your credit card should be able to do that, and that anything goes — that’s their philosophy  … they obfuscate, and they bamboozle, and they sometimes don’t tell exactly what’s true. And people grow cynical, and people grow discouraged.”

By setting himself up as a victim, Mr. Obama attempts to rally his base to rescue him by voting for Democrats. White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told reporters the White House takes the prospect of impeachment seriously, linking it to the House lawsuit against Mr. Obama. But White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, when asked, was unable to identify any major GOP leaders other than Sarah Palin who publicly support impeachment. Republican leaders recognize the downside all too well, but are resisting pressure from their own base.

CNN’s pollsters find that 57 percent of Republicans support impeachment, compared with 33 percent of Americans overall. The border crisis undoubtedly will cause those strong GOP numbers to increase further.

Mr. Obama’s actions and inactions definitely merit impeachment, but that does not make it prudent to pursue impeachment. The backlash would embolden Mr. Obama all the more and produce other negative consequences but certainly he would not be removed from office. There is no scenario for a two-thirds removal vote in the Senate.

The tarnish of the process certainly is weighed by Mr. Obama against the gains of keeping the Senate in Harry Reid’s hands. And is impeachment truly a disgrace in progressive circles? Certainly Bill Clinton has sought to convert his impeachment into a badge of honor. The rising generation knows only the glowing press coverage given to Mr. Clinton now and not the story of his scandals. Mr. Obama would claim the charges against him were based solely on his efforts to help people, not personal failings as with Mr. Clinton.

. . .

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/25/istook-obama-wants-be-impeached/#ixzz38nMq6l1x
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2014, 01:06:25 PM
Impeachment is the only way for failbama to take the spot light off of his failed presidency
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2014, 01:49:01 PM
Impeachment is the only way for failbama to take the spot light off of his failed presidency

LOL!

"Arrest for bank robbery is the only way people will forget about that bank robbery I committed"

Impeachment is 100% the biggest way to put the spotlight ON his failures.  I'm not sure what you're saying here man lol.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 28, 2014, 01:51:34 PM
LOL!

"Arrest for bank robbery is the only way people will forget about that bank robbery I committed"

Impeachment is 100% the biggest way to put the spotlight ON his failures.  I'm not sure what you're saying here man lol.

Impeachment will be turned into nothing more than the Rasis GOP lynching a brotha. 

Instead - its better to leave him dangling in failure right now until the mid terms
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 28, 2014, 03:43:25 PM
Impeachment will be turned into nothing more than the Rasis GOP lynching a brotha. 

By a media that nobody watches, right?  I mean, nobody watches cnn or msnbc... but somehow they have the power to make every brave member of the repub party just put away the "I" word, right?

And "it's better to let him dangle in failure" - I hope you gag on those words when he issues the next 3, or 4, or 20 executive orders.   cause you'll put "obama dangling" ahead of "actually stopping him from issuing exec orders".

It's like saying you're okay with a gunman continuing his shooting spree at the mall because, well, you really want everyone to know what a dick he was.   yes, he'll go from super-dick to uber-dick with another few mags, but he'll also leave another 2 dozen bodies while doing so.  But hey, he's "dangling", let's allow him to continue his rampage.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 29, 2014, 09:50:52 AM
 Im getting my oe, biscuits, gravy, pork grinds, fried chicken, grape juice abd popcorn ready. 

Watcjing the hearings on tv gonna be a hootin old time
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 29, 2014, 01:02:42 PM
Impeachment Chatter: Why a top Republican ducked but the Democrats keep invoking the I-word
By Howard Kurtz
Published July 29, 2014
FoxNews.com

Chris Wallace kept asking the question, and the No. 3 Republican in the House kept evading it.

It was a classic example of a politician who doesn’t want to answer a question and keeps dancing around it.

There weren’t 50 shades of gray in this “Fox News Sunday” question: “Will you consider impeaching the president?”

Rep. Steve Scalise tried to turn the tables: “You know, this might be the first White House in history that's trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president. Ultimately, what we want to do is see the president follow his own laws.”

Wallace tried again: “But impeachment is off the table?”

Scalise deflected again: “Well, the White House wants to talk about impeachment, and, ironically, they're going out and trying to fundraise off that, too.”

And again: “I'm asking you, sir.”

Scalise stuck to his talking point: “Look, the White House will do anything they can to change the topic away from the president's failed agenda…”

In other words, a senior member of the House leadership repeatedly refused to rule out launching impeachment proceedings against President Obama—but didn’t want a headline saying he was considering it or dismissing it.

This is risky political business. I’d agree with most political analysts that this is a dangerous path for the Republicans that makes them look more extreme and consumed by anti-Obama fervor.

Of course, this riles up the part of the Republican base that is most fervently opposed to the president, which is exactly why the Louisiana congressman, who has strong Tea Party backing, refused to rule it out.

At the same time, Scalise was right that the White House is loving this impeachment talk. First Obama mockingly said that the Republicans want to sue him (a sort of Impeachment Lite) or impeach him for doing his job. (And the media love the story line as well.)

Then White House counselor Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that impeaching his boss was “a very serious thing”: “I would not discount that possibility. I think that Speaker Boehner, by going down this path of this lawsuit, has opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future."

Sure, the Democrats would like nothing more than to run against the GOP as the Party of Impeachment, the party that wielded that weapon against the last Democratic president. This puts the focus on the Republicans rather than on having to defend ObamaCare, the Obama economy and the Obama foreign policy.

Much of the GOP establishment, of course, wants no part of this. The I-talk surfaced in a big way when Sarah Palin (who has just launched her own subscriber-based Internet channel) urged the impeachment of the president, without offering a bill of particulars. John Boehner couldn’t have dismissed the idea any more quickly.

In fact, after Pfeiffer’s comments, a Boehner spokesman shot back that “it is telling, and sad, that a senior White House official is focused on political games, rather than helping these kids and securing the border.”

Now the narrative has been complicated because Scalise is part of Boehner’s leadership team, elected in the shakeup that followed Eric Cantor’s primary defeat. But we’ve learned in recent years that Boehner doesn’t always control his fractured caucus.

The bottom line: Republicans aren’t going to jeopardize their edge heading into the midterms by throwing down an impeachment wild card. But the media are happy to keep covering it when either side raises the prospect.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/29/impeachment-chatter-why-top-republican-ducked-but-democrats-keep-invoking-word/?intcmp=latestnews
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 29, 2014, 01:06:06 PM
Democrats Have Million-dollar Day on Impeachment
Tuesday, 29 Jul 2014

Chatter about impeaching President Barack Obama helped House Democrats' campaign committee raise $1 million online in one day.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chief Rep. Steve Israel said Tuesday the specter of impeachment helped his political arm raise $1 million from donors on Monday, a day when the committee's fundraising featured the issue. The New York congressman says House Republicans' lawsuit against Obama and rumors the president might face impeachment are galvanizing Democratic donors. House Speaker John Boehner  says his party has no plans to open impeachment proceedings.

The Democrats' House campaign committee has been a fundraising powerhouse this election cycle, out-raising its GOP rival in 16 of the last 18 months. Although House Democrats face an uphill climb to take the majority, their fundraising operation has raised almost $125 million since January 2013.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/democrats-impeachment/2014/07/29/id/585536#ixzz38tEXqHdd
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2014, 02:18:49 PM
Newt: Obama Might Grant Amnesty To Provoke Impeachment Calls
07/29/2014

WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that if President Obama moves forward with a rumored executive order to legalize five million illegal immigrants, he will be trying to provoke Republicans to impeach him because that would help Democrats in the midterm elections.

“There is a rumor that the president, around Labor Day, may use executive action to legalize five million people who are here outside the law,” Gingrich said during a speech Tuesday, sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation. “And I think if they do it, it will be trying to provoke the Republicans to institute impeachment.”

Asked if Republicans should impeach Obama, Gingrich replied: “No.”

“It won’t succeed in impeaching Obama,” Gingrich said. “It’s the Democrats who want to talk about it because they raise money off of it.”

Gingrich, speaking at the 36th Annual National Conservative Student Conference at George Washington University, explained that Democrats are able to increase fundraising numbers by making their base think impeachment is a real possibility. But Speaker of the House John Boehner ruled out the possibility of that happening on Tuesday.

Obama is considering legalizing five million illegal immigrants who are parents of American-born children, according to reports. “The country would go crazy if the president were to do something so stupid,” Gingrich said.

The plan could backfire politically on Democrats, he said. The right move for Republicans if Obama issues such an executive action, Gingrich said, would be to move a bill in the House saying it’s illegal. As that bill would move to the Senate, it would put Senate Democrats in an awkward position, he theorized.

“And the Democrats running for re-election even in seats that look like they’re not in trouble would be in trouble overnight,” he said.

Democrats have been frantically pushing the idea that Obama could be impeached over the last week.

Senior Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer has warned reporters not to “discount” the possibility of impeachment. In recent days, Democrats have been begging donors to give money to their campaign committees, citing the chance of impeachment.

“These people are pretty desperate,” Gingrich said. “Nothing is working. And so they are looking for some fight that allows them to re-polarize the country in terms that help them in the election.

Continuing, Gingrich said: “I think we ought to laugh at them and say ‘if the best you can do after six years of the presidency is to yell impeachment and hope that you can raise money, it is a pretty pathetic presidency.’ And by the way, it is a pretty pathetic presidency.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/29/newt-obama-might-grant-amnesty-to-provoke-impeachment-calls/#ixzz38zNJb3At
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2014, 02:21:49 PM
Krauthammer’s Take: Amnesty via Executive Order an Impeachable Offense, but Impeachment Would Still Be Political Suicide
By NRO Staff
July 29, 2014

Talk of impeachment is a “concoction of Democrats,” but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a grander strategy by the White House and its congressional allies, Charles Krauthammer warned.

On Tuesday’s Special Report, he speculated that the Obama administration may be trying to exhaust the idea of impeachment and “softening people up for” when the president uses executive action to grant legal status and work authorization to millions of immigrants in the country illegally. Such an action would be “clearly lawless and it would be biggest domestic overreach of a president in memory” and “an impeachable offense,” he said.

But if Obama did go ahead with his amnesty-by-fiat plan, Krauthammer still thinks impeachment wouldn’t work. “I would be 100 percent against impeachment because it’s political suicide,” he said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384089/krauthammers-take-amnesty-executive-order-impeachable-offense-impeachment-would-still
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 30, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
Newt: Obama Might Grant Amnesty To Provoke Impeachment Calls

This is Newt telling the Repubs it's okay to stand by idly and do nothing while amnesty arrives.

Of course, the Rush listeners will now fall right in line and agree with amnesty because, well, the radio told them to.

Krauthammer agrees.  They're all falling in line.   Amnesty is okay, Impeachment is a word we don't use.

Now, you repub sheep, go ahead and repeat it lol. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on July 30, 2014, 02:52:22 PM
A Rush aint hoping for amnesty. If they can fuck around til after Nov then Obama has a problem. This is a legitimate presidential overreach.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 30, 2014, 03:11:50 PM
GOP is a confused mess right now.

If Rush, Kraut, and Newt have to go on TV on the same day and proclaim, "Please don't impeach obama after we've been talking about his crimes for 6 years", there's a huge problem lol.

If you can't narrow down the GOP position on amnesty to one sentence, there's a huge problem.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: headhuntersix on July 30, 2014, 03:19:49 PM
Yeah Krauts position is that he/they don't want to jeopardize controlling Congress. To which I say fuck it...that's your job. If you have Barry cold on facts and the law...go after his ass and make the dems accountable to the voters.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 30, 2014, 03:20:47 PM
240...I don't think you understand how impeachment works...if you did you'd STFU about it.....
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2014, 03:57:18 PM
240...I don't think you understand how impeachment works...if you did you'd STFU about it.....

Truth.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on July 30, 2014, 05:10:17 PM
240...I don't think you understand how impeachment works...if you did you'd STFU about it.....

I don't think the brain dead right wingers know how impeachment works.  Or else THEY would STFU about it.

But as stupid as they are, they probably think Biden would be an improvement.   ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 30, 2014, 05:22:05 PM
Yeah Krauts position is that he/they don't want to jeopardize controlling Congress. To which I say fuck it...that's your job. If you have Barry cold on facts and the law...go after his ass and make the dems accountable to the voters.

100% correct. 

But Rush yells repubs what to support and they obey.  They've been demanding accountability for 5 years and finally have a chance.  They blinked. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 31, 2014, 02:11:26 PM
I find this very funny and very sad at the same time.  The people we put in DC.  Sheesh. 

Democratic Rep Who Co-Sponsored Bush Impeachment Bill: We Didn’t Try To Impeach Bush
By Mike Miller 

Texas Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who often has an arm’s length relationship with the truth, told a “whopper” Wednesday, as she excoriated House Republicans for voting to sue Barack Obama for executive overreach.

As reported by Buzzfeed’s Katherine Miller, Lee not only claimed that the effort was little more than a precursor to impeaching Obama, but that she and her Democrat colleagues never considered impeaching George W. Bush:

” I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job.
 
A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists.
 
We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”
Whoops. Not only did House Democrats indeed introduce a resolution to impeach President Bush in 2008 – Sheila Jackson Lee co-sponsored it.
Hey, maybe she just “forgot,” right?

UPDATE:
According to Yahoo!, Rep. Sheila Jackson’s office says she ‘misspoke’:
“She misspoke,” Jackson Lee’s spokesman Mike McQuerry told Yahoo News on Thursday morning. He declined to elaborate on what she meant to say.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/163157-dem-rep-co-sponsored-bush-impeachment-bill-didnt-try-impeach-bush/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 31, 2014, 03:34:11 PM
A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists.

I disagree with what you posted here.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: GigantorX on July 31, 2014, 08:12:19 PM
I think impeachment should be done more often.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: flipper5470 on July 31, 2014, 08:17:55 PM
I don't think the brain dead right wingers know how impeachment works.  Or else THEY would STFU about it.

But as stupid as they are, they probably think Biden would be an improvement.   ::)

I'm fairly certain you have actual...honest to goodness...shit for brains
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on July 31, 2014, 08:30:59 PM
I think impeachment should be done more often.

honestly, if you impeach one president, the next one will be walking on eggshells.

Even if it doesn't reach that point, or if the votes aren't there... it'll sure keep the next prez on their toes. 

As it is, obama knows... he can let terror attacks happen, he can hand over guns, he can spy on anyone he wants... and nobody will do anything about it.

And the "off the table" thing - pelosi did it, and now boehnner is doing it - tells the 2016 president "do whatever you want".
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2014, 11:40:24 AM
Rachel Maddow Calls Out Conservative Right For Plotting Obama Impeachment
The Huffington Post    | By Ryan Grenoble
Posted: 11/04/2014

Rachel Maddow thinks conservative America might be counting impeachment chickens before they hatch.

During her show Monday, the MSNBC host took a look at two-term U.S. Presidents who served their last two years in office dealing with unified opposition in congress, as Obama could if Republicans take the Senate and hold onto the House in Tuesday's mid-term elections. If the historical trends hold, and the GOP does take over the legislative branch, says Maddow, we should expect another round of conservative activists calling for impeachment.

How does Maddow know this? Because the election isn't over yet, and the calls -- however off-base and out of touch -- have already begun.

(http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/n_maddow_afix_141103.nbcnews-video-reststate-640.jpg)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/rachel-maddow-obama-impeachment_n_6101350.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 04, 2014, 11:58:59 AM
Perkins is RIGHT!

Impeachment could happen now.  The base certainly wants it.  But the RINOs won't allow it.

It reflects perfectly on getbig too - the "repubs" that love the RINO candidates are against impeachment.  But the "conservatives" that love the Rand/Cruz kind of candidates - they want impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2014, 12:00:04 PM
If Obama would agree to resign and exile to Africa - I would agree to waive trial for impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Vince G, CSN MFT on November 04, 2014, 09:07:56 PM
Perkins is RIGHT!

Impeachment could happen now.  The base certainly wants it.  But the RINOs won't allow it.

It reflects perfectly on getbig too - the "repubs" that love the RINO candidates are against impeachment.  But the "conservatives" that love the Rand/Cruz kind of candidates - they want impeachment.


Obama has not broken any laws which is what impeachment is for.  Even with a GOP Senate Majority, there's still not enough votes to impeach him....not even enough to remove Obamacare.  However, an attempt at it will really drive more people away.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 06, 2014, 08:55:08 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/222248-reid-warns-of-impeachment-threat



 :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 06, 2014, 08:59:43 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/222248-reid-warns-of-impeachment-threat



 :D

yeah budday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reid KNOWS that Cruz is SALIVATING at the idea of impeachment!

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1195621/ronnie-coleman-dance-o.gif)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 06, 2014, 09:02:16 AM
At this point would anyone really care?   No one likes Obama - even the democrats are starting to loathe this fool for the damage he is doing and has done. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 06, 2014, 09:09:00 AM
At this point would anyone really care?   No one likes Obama - even the democrats are starting to loathe this fool for the damage he is doing and has done. 

the only people who would care are die-hard libs that are voting dem in 2016 anyway.

I'm more shocked than ever that some moderate Repubs/chickenhawk dems are still against the idea of impeachement.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 10:00:47 AM
obama should be impeached for standing by and putting on a tux for a fundraiser while they fought at benghazi for 7+ hours... with help only 1 hour away, begging for permission...

he didn't want the world to know what was going on there, he didn't want a big massacre of bad guys just 2 months before the election.

Any republican who doesn't call for impeachment, based upon this - well, you truly endorse obama and you deserve every single executive order he writes.  Period.  I'll give 3333Soulcrusher & coach credit, as they call for impeachment.  I dont know of any other "repubs" here that support it.  They roll eyes at such a thought. 

This is nov 2013 - a YEAR AGO.   
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:11:35 AM
 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:12:36 AM
Krauthammer: Obama immigration action 'impeachable'
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Fri November 14, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer called President Barack Obama's planned executive action on immigration "impeachable."
"I believe it is an impeachable offense," Krauthammer said Wednesday night on Fox News, when asked about Obama's reported proposals to use executive orders to make changes to the immigration system.

Krauthammer added that Obama's plans to shield certain undocumented immigrants from deportation via executive order would be a "flagrant assault on the Constitution."

Krauthammer's remarks could revive talk of impeachment in conservative circles, months after former Gov. Sarah Palin sparked a firestorm this summer when she called for Obama's impeachment after he first announced his plans to use his executive order power to act on immigration reform.
"It's time to impeach," Palin wrote in a Breitbart op-ed in July. "The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he's not impeachable, then no one is."

Democrats jumped on those comments this summer to force GOP leaders to address the possibility of impeachment and, ultimately, reject that possibility. The House of Representatives instead voted this summer to approve plans for a lawsuit against Obama for overreaching on changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Even Krauthammer conceded this summer that impeachment would be "political suicide" for Republicans.

For many tea party conservatives, Obama's executive action plans on immigration reform were the last straw in a long line of grievances of what they claim to be executive overreach since Obama has been in office.

Others who have called for Obama's impeachment or said it should be strongly considered include conservative firebrand Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and tea party favorite Rep. Steve King of Iowa among others.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/charles-krauthammer-obama-immigration-action-impeachable/index.html?hpt=po_c2
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 10:28:27 AM
Krauthammer: Obama immigration action 'impeachable'
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

LOL!  I know what you're doing.  You're doing that passive-aggressive thing.  Your leaders, the people who form your opinion, the GOP pundits like Krauthammer, are starting to get on board. 

So will you.  I like it!  :)  You don't have to say anything, but I think deep down, you're getting on board.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:33:12 AM
LOL!  I know what you're doing.  You're doing that passive-aggressive thing.  Your leaders, the people who form your opinion, the GOP pundits like Krauthammer, are starting to get on board. 

So will you.  I like it!  :)  You don't have to say anything, but I think deep down, you're getting on board.

Shut up troll.   ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 10:38:05 AM
Shut up troll.   ::)

Oh, you're getting on board,I can feel it!  Love it.  Welcome aboard.

(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Walter-Whites-Smooth-Wink-On-Breaking-Bad.gif)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 10:42:40 AM
Oh, you're getting on board,I can feel it!  Love it.  Welcome aboard.

(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Walter-Whites-Smooth-Wink-On-Breaking-Bad.gif)

Quote
My whole family - all Republicans - are voting Obama.  i'm driving them to the station later - buying everyone dinner - making it a real family event.


(http://homepage.nusens.net/pictures/troll/hey-you-you-look-like-a-troll.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 11:13:49 AM
Obama needs to be tried for treason at thispoint. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 11:42:56 AM
Obama needs to be tried for treason at thispoint. 

But you know very well - He can only be tried for any crime AFTER impeachment.  That's why RINOs and LIBs are standing in his way. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 11:49:00 AM
Other than a few far left types like Option Fat, Straw, Andreisadouche,  etc - would anyone really give a damn at this point?   

Failure in Chief has pissed off so many people and done so much damage I can only imagine it would be a snooze fest if they got rid of him and his Kenyan ways
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on November 14, 2014, 11:53:21 AM
Other than a few far left types like Option Fat, Straw, Andreisadouche,  etc - would anyone really give a damn at this point?   

There are actually some RINOs that would prefer obama stay in office.  They don't care about the destruction he'll deliver to USA in the next 728 days.   Shaking my head.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 12:47:24 PM
Skip to comments.
Obama is angling to get impeached
Flopping Aces ^  | 11-14-14 | DrJohn

Posted on ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2014‎ ‎2‎:‎50‎:‎20‎ ‎PM by Starman417

br-er barack

What to do with a President who toils against the will of the American people?

Approval ratings of Barack Obama's handling of immigration reached a low not long ago, reaching a 65% disapproval. Americans overwhelmingly oppose Obama's current threats of unilateral action on immigration and overwhelmingly prefer that Obama work with Congress.

The GOP is now poised to control both the House and the Senate come January, so why not wait a few months to try to work with the new Congress?

I think it's because he has no interest in cooperation. I think he wants to be impeached and there are two primary reasons. One, he doesn't give a rip what anyone other than Valerie Jarrett thinks and two, any impeachment effort will be immediately characterized as a lynching- a lynching of the first black President.

For his entire career Obama has been described as a "loner" and "aloof." despite his numerous policy failures he really does think he is the smartest man in the world. The only person to whom he listens is Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian slumlord.



The problem is, the truth is always the opposite of what he says. About the only honest thing Obama has ever said was his desire to fundamentally transform this country. As far as I am concerned he cemented it later by trying to walk it back. It is no different with immigration. He once said that he couldn't bypass Congress:



“And so what we need to do going forward is to address some of the broader problems in our immigration system. And that means changing minds and changing votes, one at a time. I know there are some folks who wish I could just bypass Congress. I can’t. But what I can do is sign a law. What you can do is champion a law. What we can do together is make comprehensive immigration reform the law of the land.”

Let's put that through Official Barack Obama Bull***t Decoder Ring and see what we get:

Defiant Obama: I will use my power



President Barack Obama on Friday defended his plans to use executive power to bypass Congress...

Americans don't want Obama to act alone. They don't want a rogue President.

Following the mid term election pounding, Obama said "I hear you." The useful idiots at WaPo put it this way:

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2014, 12:50:14 PM


Defiant Obama: I will use my power


President Barack Obama on Friday defended his plans to use executive power to bypass Congress…

Americans don’t want Obama to act alone. They don’t want a rogue President.

Following the mid term election pounding, Obama said “I hear you.” The useful idiots at WaPo put it this way:

After midterm rout, Obama says he got nation’s message

Uh, no he didn’t. Immediately after he said that:

Obama veers left after red wave

Charles Krauthammer has said that Obama acting alone would be an “impeachable offense.” He’s right, of course, but I suspect that that’s exactly what Obama wants as he seeks a legacy. To Obama, everything is about Obama. The fist black President impeached? Now that would be quite a legacy. Impeachment of the first black President would be memorable and the effects lasting and could rescue the democrat party from its own stupidity. The good news is that left to his own devices, Obama could unilaterally lead to the extinction of the democrat party. The bad news is that, since the law and Constitution are being so greatly diminished, there might not be much of a functional country left when he’s done. The proper course is to sit back, let Obama continue to harm the Republic and then financially starve his initiatives.

Impeachment? No.

Over at The Daily Beast, Doug McIntyre asks

“Didn’t Obama Hear Oregon’s Warning Shot on Immigration?”

That assumes Obama gives a damn what anyone else thinks. He does not care what you think, he does not care what I think and he does not care what America thinks.

Call his bluff
 
 


 




 
 

About DrJohn
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
 View all posts by DrJohn →   
   
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Immigration, Impeachment Proceedings, Liberal Idiots, Politics, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged immigration reform, Obama, Obama lies, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 5:42 am
| 282 views
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 17, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
He must have been reading the board.   :)

GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy Dismisses Impeaching Obama: ‘Have You Met Joe Biden?’
by Andrew Kirell November 16th, 2014

 GOP Congressman Trey Gowdy is certain that impeaching President Barack Obama over a potential immigration executive order would be ill-advised. Why? Because that would make Vice President Joe Biden the new president.

Asked Friday evening by Bill O’Reilly whether impeachment felt like a viable option for Republicans outraged by the president’s executive lawmaking, Gowdy was dismissive, delivering a pithy one-liner in response: “Have you met Joe Biden?”

The lawmaker continued: “Nobody’s discussing impeachment. First of all, impeachment is a punishment, not a remedy. Second of all, the only people who want to talk about impeachment are the president’s allies.”

O’Reilly suggested the impeachment talks are just “bait” Republicans like Gowdy intend not to take.

“I’m not going to take it because I’ve met Joe Biden,” reiterated the congressman.

The eponymous O’Reilly Factor host apparently didn’t get the joke the first two times, asking Gowdy to “explain the Biden reference.” He chuckled when he learned what the lawmaker meant by his joke.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-trey-gowdy-dismisses-impeaching-obama-have-you-met-joe-biden/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2016, 04:01:03 PM
Someone mentioned to me today that they are not overly concerned about Trump, because if he does anything crazy he can be impeached and Pence would take over.  That gives me a little comfort, but my fear is if he commits an impeachable offense, the damage will be done already by the time we get him out of office. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: 240 is Back on August 01, 2016, 04:09:30 PM
Someone mentioned to me today that they are not overly concerned about Trump, because if he does anything crazy he can be impeached and Pence would take over.  That gives me a little comfort, but my fear is if he commits an impeachable offense, the damage will be done already by the time we get him out of office. 

eh, impeachment is probably off the table for all future presidents, unless they do something insane.

it just damages the nation too much, gives our enemies an advantage.   presidents will get away with whatever they do.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2016, 03:11:57 PM
How crazy is it that we are talking about impeaching someone who hasn't even been elected? 

Gregg Jarrett: An "avalanche of evidence" may now bury Hillary
By  Gregg Jarrett 
Published November 03, 2016
FoxNews.com

Americans who lived through the nightmares of both the Watergate and Lewinsky scandals recall vividly how every day seemed to produce new evidence of wrongdoing. The drip, drip of deceptions and lies finally overflowed into a cascading pool of criminality and disgust.     

The first scandal culminated in Articles of Impeachment.  The other an impeachment trial.  Is America now hurtling toward the same political abyss? It looks like it. So, fasten your seat belts and brace for impact.

Sources tell Fox News’s Bret Baier that the FBI has uncovered an “avalanche of evidence” in the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” calling it a “very high priority.”

Armed with newly discovered email evidence and additional documents revealed by WikiLeaks, these sources say that agents will likely try to get Huma Abedin and others to cooperate in an effort to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

It is a stunning development. But that’s how avalanches happen. Suddenly, you’re buried before you know it.

If this is true, and if Clinton is elected president in a few days but thereafter indicted, several scenarios could unfold.

She could resign before or after inauguration, leaving President Tim Kaine sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office.

President Obama could pardon her before he departs that same office.

Clinton, as president, could try to invoke broad constitutional immunity from prosecution, delaying her criminal trial until after she leaves office.  Or she could pardon herself. 

However, all of that may not matter much if a Republican House of Representatives moves to impeach her. Neither immunity nor pardons apply to the ultimate constitutional remedy of impeachment.

Thus, Americans will again be forced to suffer through another impeachment horror show. But Hillary may not be able to beat the rap the way her husband did back in 1999 when he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.       

What began as an investigation into the mishandling of classified documents… has now morphed into suspicions of rampant corruption involving Clinton’s charity. Specifically, that she used her position as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors who lavished money on her foundation and personally enriched the Clintons.  And the case against her is accelerating.   

It was inevitable, I suppose, that her emails would intersect somehow with the incredible wealth amassed by the Clintons since they left the White House. There’s always a paper trail. Or pesky emails.   

Or, in the case of Richard Nixon, those damnable tapes.

Two Investigations Merge

Hillary Clinton used her unauthorized, private email server not only to conduct State Department business involving thousands of classified documents, but it appears she also used the server for some of her foundation’s communications. The FBI has devoted more than a year to investigating whether the Clintons illegally leveraged their foundation for personal gain -- that is into tens of millions of dollars in potential self-dealing and so-called “pay-to-play”.

As I pointed out in a previous column, all of this, if proved, could constitute bribery, fraud, and illegal use of a non-profit charity which smacks of racketeering.

What’s that? Operating a criminal enterprise.  It is often associated with organized crime.  (See “mafia”)  There is also the related matter of perjury.  And obstruction of justice.  The same charges that were leveled against Bill Clinton back in the day. 

Importantly, the newly discovered Weiner/Abedin electronic devices appear to contain email evidence relevant to both the classified documents case and the Clinton Foundation case. In addition, sources confirm that laptops belonging to Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, are now in the possession of the FBI and are being “exploited for more evidence.” The floodgates are open.

While the foundation probe is now center stage, a reinvigorated look at whether Clinton mishandled classified documents has obviously been resurrected. It is possible that FBI Director Comey could reconsider his opinion of Clinton’s legal “intent” under the Espionage Act and reverse himself in his recommendation on prosecuting Clinton.  Sources say there is a 99 percent chance that up to 5 foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed Clinton’s emails and stolen them, putting a lie to President Obama’s claim that Clinton did not jeopardize national security. 

The Clinton Foundation

As "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace pointed out in the final debate, “emails show that donors got special access”  to Clinton while Secretary of State. While that is surely unseemly or improper, it is illegal only if Clinton used her position to confer a benefit in exchange for money. That is, if donors rewarded Clinton with cash.   

So, here is an example of what might be illegal.  It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS. Bill then got paid $ 1.5 million dollars and their foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank.  If the money was a reward for Clinton’s work on behalf of UBS, then that could be considered bribery under federal law. And racketeering. 

Another example: it has been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Clinton Foundation.  Again, if it can be proven there was a quid-pro-quo, it would be illegal.

This is where the WikiLeaks hacked emails come into play.  Messages show that charity official Doug Band, while raising money for the foundation, also steered millions of dollars to Bill Clinton. The cash came from foundation donors who had business before Hillary’s state department.  Band’s emails, in which he brags about his prowess in funneling up to $66 million to Bill, make explicit how the Clintons appear to have used their foundation for personal profit.

Organized crime and Illegal syndicates tend to use legitimate-looking businesses as a “front” to try to fool law enforcement.  Often, they devise a “dual purpose” company -- one which operates lawfully from the front door, but unlawfully out the backdoor. There is little doubt that the Clinton Foundation operated as a charity. But if there was a secondary, hidden purpose devoted to self-dealing and personal enrichment, and if the foundation was merely a conduit, then prosecution could be pursued under federal anti-corruption statutes.

Did DOJ Obstruct The FBI?

It’s beginning to look that way. Even after Comey announced in July that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton, the investigation into her foundation was still being actively pursued by some agents within the FBI. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department became angry over this and agents were told to “stand down.”  Whether that happened is disputed.

However, it appears that FBI agents wanted to examine emails on non-government laptops that were part of the Clinton classified documents case. They felt there might be evidence that the foundation was being used illegally by the Clintons, as noted above. But Justice Department prosecutors allegedly stopped them from doing it.   

Why? Was Justice protecting Clinton? Can we be assured that the renewed investigation of Clinton won’t be obstructed by an attorney general with allegiances to both Hillary and Bill Clinton?   

Time For an Independent Counsel   

Given these reports of DOJ’s interference, there are serious and legitimate doubts about the integrity of the government’s ability to investigation Clinton.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch was compromised from the beginning. She was first elevated to the position of U.S. Attorney by Bill Clinton. She met privately with him just days before a decision was made as to whether his wife would be prosecuted.

As if that were not enough, Lynch’s boss, President Obama, defended Clinton publicly last April on "Fox News Sunday" by declaring, in essence, she did not break the law. He made the same argument during an earlier “60 Minutes” interview.  He prejudged the outcome of the case.

This sent a pretty clear message to those in charge of just how the president wanted the question of prosecution to turn out.  Now, it appears that Lynch’s Department is heeding that message by actively obstructing the FBI’s investigation.

The attorney general has failed or refused to appoint a Special Prosecutor to ensure that these investigations are fair and impartial. President Obama could demand one, as well. He likely will not. His conflict of interest is as glaring as Lynch’s.

After all, the president has been campaigning vigorously for Clinton to succeed him. Why would he now jeopardize the chance of preserving or even burnishing his legacy? Donald Trump is vowing, if elected, to unwind much of what Mr. Obama has accomplished. 

Therefore, it is up to Congress to reauthorize the Independent Counsel Act to accomplish the same. It would direct the attorney general to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to appoint one. No choice.

Sadly, this may be the only way the public’s trust can be restored.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/03/gregg-jarrett-avalanche-evidence-may-now-bury-hillary.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 03, 2016, 07:41:48 PM
Much of the paid for press is trying to smear the last honest FBI people behind this as vindictive against Hilllary. Like there's no proof mounting...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
How long after Trump takes office does someone in Congress introduce articles of impeachment?  I say inside of a year. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on December 27, 2016, 01:18:42 PM
How long after Trump takes office does someone in Congress introduce articles of impeachment?  I say inside of a year. 

First 100 days
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 01:27:16 PM
First 100 days

Definitely possible. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 03:23:23 PM
With so many of his former detractors cozying up to him and with Republican's in control of Congress, impeachment proposals may not come as quickly as some think. He'd have to do or have done something pretty drastic to institute the impeachment process.

Nah.  They're gong to come from Democrats, not Republicans. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 03:51:18 PM
You're probably right about this. How Democrats can get with a Republican dominated congress is dubious. If you're speaking of a public outcry, which is more likely, I'm not so sure that will get anywhere either.

Has a President ever resigned? Congress may impose so many limitations on Trump's proposals, damaging his credibility with his supporters because nothing he promised them actually come to fruition, he'll have no other option than to resign or be assassinated.

I'm not sure he knows yet just what his ego got him into. He was probably better off if he'd stuck with his business dealings. 

Oh I'm sure Democrats will be crying and complaining for at least the next two years.  But public outcry?  He has to actually do something that's an impeachable offense first.  Even if he does something unconstitutional, like President Obama did more than once, he will get checked by the courts.  Not going to stop some dummy from introducing articles of impeachment. 

You talking about assassination?  Really? 

Actually, now that I think about, a lot of liberals are creating a climate of hate . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2016, 06:44:57 PM
You mean like Trump did at his rallies on the campaign trail and by keeping it going while doing his "victory lap."

As for him actually being assassinated, one would hope there is optimum security preventing this.




Don't confuse the liberal plants who incited violence at Trump rallies with Trump.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 02, 2017, 10:10:25 AM
How long after Trump takes office does someone in Congress introduce articles of impeachment?  I say inside of a year. 

First 100 days

Democrat Rep. Joaquin Castro: Impeach Trump over Refugee Order
Mike Segar / ReutersMike Segar / Reuters
by JEROME HUDSON
1 Feb 2017

Texas Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro says Congress should draw up “articles of impeachment” against President Donald Trump over his executive order, which temporarily prohibits the arrival of Syrian refugees into the United States and halts entry of citizens from Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

Castro’s concerns, he says, stem from a fear that Trump will order the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) to ignore a federal judge’s emergency stay, issued during the weekend, blocking the implementation of certain parts of the temporary refugee travel ban.

“There should be a resolution of censure,” Castro told BuzzFeed. “And if he does it again, there should be articles of impeachment.”

On Saturday, a federal judged issued an emergency stay on deportations of detainees under the executive order.

The Texas lawmaker has joined Senate Democrats calling on Congress to “investigate whether President Trump intentionally exceeded his constitutional authority.”

If Trump flat-out ignores the court-ordered stay, Castro warns, the President would turn the country into a “military junta.”

But CBP spokesperson Gillian Christensen has rebuked the claims that her agency is ignoring the emergency stay.

“CBP officers are not detaining anyone. Green card holders who arrive in the U.S. have to go through secondary screening but that process is working smoothly and relatively quickly,” Christensen told BuzzFeed.

Nevertheless, Castro, who is considering running for the Senate against Senator Ted Cruz in 2018, will not let up.

“There’s no longer any checks and balances,” Castro said.

Despite the intense pushback, from Hollywood to Capitol Hill, a majority of Americans agree with President Trump’s temporary halt on refugees from terror-prone countries.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/01/dem-rep-castro-impeach-trump-refugee-order/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 07, 2017, 09:52:14 AM
Maxine Waters: ‘Eventually,’ We’ll Have To Impeach Trump [VIDEO]
CHRISTIAN DATOC
Reporter
02/06/2017

Rep. Maxine Waters reiterated calls for President Trump’s impeachment during House Democrats’ Monday morning press conference.
 
When pressed by a reporter, the California Democrat stated she isn’t calling for POTUS’ impeachment, but “he is doing it himself.”

“I have not called for his impeachment,” she claimed. “The statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I’m getting from many citizens across this country. What are we going to do?” (VIDEO: Waters Struggles To Explain Why Trump Should Be Impeached)

Waters then embarked on a lengthy rant about Trump, devoid of any semblance of traditional grammatical structure.

“How can a president, who is acting in the manner that he is acting, whether he is talking about the travel ban, the way he is talking Muslims, or whether he’s talking about his relationship to Putin and the Kremlin — knowing that they have hacked our DCCC and DNC and knowing that he is responsible for supplying the bombs that killed innocent children and families in Aleppo — the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea?”

“I think that he is leading himself into that ind of position where folks begin to ask, ‘what are we we going to do?’ and the answer is going to be, eventually, we’ve got to do something about him,” she continued.

“We cannot continue to have a president who is acting in this manner. It is dangerous to the United States of America.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/maxine-waters-eventually-well-have-to-impeach-trump-video/#ixzz4Y1UMski7
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on February 07, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
Maxine Waters: ‘Eventually,’ We’ll Have To Impeach Trump [VIDEO]
CHRISTIAN DATOC
Reporter
02/06/2017

Rep. Maxine Waters reiterated calls for President Trump’s impeachment during House Democrats’ Monday morning press conference.
 
When pressed by a reporter, the California Democrat stated she isn’t calling for POTUS’ impeachment, but “he is doing it himself.”

“I have not called for his impeachment,” she claimed. “The statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I’m getting from many citizens across this country. What are we going to do?” (VIDEO: Waters Struggles To Explain Why Trump Should Be Impeached)

Waters then embarked on a lengthy rant about Trump, devoid of any semblance of traditional grammatical structure.

“How can a president, who is acting in the manner that he is acting, whether he is talking about the travel ban, the way he is talking Muslims, or whether he’s talking about his relationship to Putin and the Kremlin — knowing that they have hacked our DCCC and DNC and knowing that he is responsible for supplying the bombs that killed innocent children and families in Aleppo — the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea?”

“I think that he is leading himself into that ind of position where folks begin to ask, ‘what are we we going to do?’ and the answer is going to be, eventually, we’ve got to do something about him,” she continued.

“We cannot continue to have a president who is acting in this manner. It is dangerous to the United States of America.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/maxine-waters-eventually-well-have-to-impeach-trump-video/#ixzz4Y1UMski7

sigh...  :-\

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: GigantorX on February 07, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
What a dumb bitch. She's black, though, so the Left sends her out to talk nonsense. It isn't working anymore. By the way....How does she feel about Libya and our support of the Saudi Arabia and their war in Yemen? I'm not sure she even knows what those places are. What an expert on the Syrian conflict, though. Which reminds me....How does anyone know anything about what went on inside Aleppo? There isn't a single NGO on the ground and no, the White Hats don't count.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on February 07, 2017, 04:52:48 PM
What a dumb bitch. She's black, though, so the Left sends her out to talk nonsense. It isn't working anymore. By the way....How does she feel about Libya and our support of the Saudi Arabia and their war in Yemen? I'm not sure she even knows what those places are. What an expert on the Syrian conflict, though. Which reminds me....How does anyone know anything about what went on inside Aleppo? There isn't a single NGO on the ground and no, the White Hats don't count.

Amen brother.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 02:17:36 PM
Democrats seek to quell Trump impeachment talk
Party leaders caution against rushing into a political trap.
By Gabriel Debenedetti
Updated 02/19/17
 
They call it the ‘I’ word.

Just a month into Donald Trump’s presidency, Democratic Party leaders are trying to rein in the talk of impeachment that’s animating the grass roots, the product of a restive base demanding deeper and more aggressive investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.

Democratic officials in Republican-dominated Washington view the entire subject as a trap, a premature discussion that could backfire in spectacular fashion by making the party appear too overzealous in its opposition to Trump. Worse, they fear, it could harden Republican support for the president by handing his party significant fundraising and political ammunition when the chances of success for an early impeachment push are remote, at best.

“We need to assemble all of the facts, and right now there are a lot of questions about the president’s personal, financial and political ties with the Russian government before the election, but also whether there were any assurances made,” said California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “Before you can use the ‘I’ word, you really need to collect all the facts."

“The ‘I’ word we should be focused on,” added Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, “is 'investigations.'"

The problem for party lawmakers is that the hard-to-placate Democratic base has assumed a stop-Trump-at-all-costs posture. At a recent town hall in Albany, Oregon, Sen. Ron Wyden faced three questions about the issue. Rep. Jim McGovern, who was also confronted with the impeachment question at an event in Northampton, Mass., told his constituents it's not the right strategy for the moment, according to local reports. In California, a real estate broker has launched a challenge to Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher using a new “Impeach Trump Leadership PAC.”
 
But it’s not just furious rank-and-file Democrats who are raising the idea. A handful of Democratic House progressives — among them California Rep. Maxine Waters, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin and Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro — have already publicly raised the specter of impeachment.

Waters has said she thinks Trump is marching himself down the path to impeachment, while Raskin — whose office was presented last week with a petition carrying more than 850,000 signatures calling for impeachment — has repeatedly brought up the prospect of voting for impeachment "at some point" in rallies and interviews. Castro has said Trump should be impeached if the president repeatedly instructs Customs and Border Protection officials to ignore federal judges' orders.

Some have read New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s “resolution of inquiry” that could force the Department of Justice to share information about Trump’s Russian ties and conflicts of interest as a way to further lay the groundwork for impeachment.

“You see immense energy from people who want to resist the president. And that’s affecting the Congress,” said California Rep. Ted Lieu, who has said that a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would impeach Trump. "A recent poll came out saying that 46 percent of Americans want the president impeached, and certainly members of Congress take notice."

Still, most congressional Democrats insist on drawing a line that stops far short of using the loaded term. Responding to Waters' impeachment chatter this month, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up. But that's not the subject of today."

They believe that even if they did have enough evidence to start impeachment proceedings — which they don’t, since a number of investigations are still in their early stages, and Democrats can’t just impeach a president because they don’t like him — they wouldn’t have anywhere near enough votes as long as Trump-sympathetic Republicans control the majority.

Neither party leadership nor the campaign committees have circulated talking points or suggested ways to respond to impeachment questions that are starting to appear. But they are already aware of the potential electoral blowback to the party.

The mere mention of impeachment on the left has already kicked off a fundraising frenzy on the Republican side, with both the GOP House and Senate campaign wings raising cash off it — much like Democrats did under President Barack Obama when Republicans speculated about the prospect.

“No president has EVER endured the level of disrespect shown to President Trump. (It’s sickening) Unprecedented obstruction from the left on his cabinet nominees. Mockery and scorn from the liberal media. And now the liberal elite are calling for his impeachment … IN HIS FIRST MONTH,” reads a National Republican Senatorial Committee email from last week.

Since 12 House Democrats sit in seats won by Trump while 23 House Republicans serve districts won by Hillary Clinton, party operatives eyeing gains in the chamber fear that crossover voters could turn against Democrats if their party is perceived as reckless in its pursuit of Trump.

Nonetheless, the pressure to stand in Trump’s way has amped up on the ground in the days since the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn, say party officials, and Democratic voters appear poised to pounce on any further revelations.

“The energy right now is really on Congress and trying to get some Republicans to find some backbone. As we see the Flynn stuff and the question of who asked him to make the call, that could change as it develops,” said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper, who’s been touring his state in a series of town hall meetings. “But for the moment people are focused on the most productive avenues for their frustrations, like ‘Call Pat Tiberi’ or 'Tell Rob Portman to vote against Scott Pruitt.’"

Rather than pursuing impeachment, most Hill Democrats are focusing their energies on persuading colleagues across the aisle to publicly support or join their investigations, viewing that as the most productive path forward. The brewing voter anger can only help them reach that goal, they believe.

“Both Democrats and Republicans are going home for the next 10 days for our district work period, and I suspect Republicans are going to hear a lot from home, from their constituents,” said Swalwell. “Before Flynn resigned, as this was boiling up over the weekend, Republicans I would run into in town would start to say, ‘What is going on?’ Even those who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Senate Democratic leadership is for now content with the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee taking the lead, while others have called for an independent, 9/11-style commission looking into Trump’s Russian ties. Urging the creation of such a group, the Democratic National Committee proclaimed that the scandal was already “bigger than Watergate."

Those ever-more-popular comparisons to Richard Nixon, accordingly, are as close to impeachment talk as most Democrats will get.

“There are eerie parallels,” said Boyle, "between the 1972 campaign going into ’73 and the beginning of the Watergate hearings, and the experience of 2016 going into 2017."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-democrats-235184
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on February 20, 2017, 04:33:21 PM
I'm lost...


If the POTUS makes decisions that you don't agree with because you didn't vote for him = impeachment?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
Absolutely not! However, if Trump violates the very laws he swore to uphold as President of the U.S. he should be impeached. Ever heard of the three branches of government? Despite his ironic name, the President doesn't have absolute power over the other two. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

Actually if Trump violates the Constitution, he gets checked by the courts, which happened to Obama several times.  Trump has been checked twice now (even though I disagree with the decisions).  The system of checks and balances works. 

TheGrinch is absolutely right:  people are trying to criminalize political disagreements.   
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on February 20, 2017, 05:47:39 PM
I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.

It was asking for trouble and I'm very surprised she did that.  These people normally have an autocheck running in their mind about stuff like that and they steer clear of it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 05:49:37 PM
I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.

I agree with this.  Well said.   

Only minor bone I'd pick is your last sentence.  I think political apathy is better than passing bad laws. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 20, 2017, 05:54:45 PM
I can't disagree with this. Not only that the news is all over Trump and his people for shit that doesn't make a hill of beans. For example, Kellyanne Conway's hyped promotion of Ivanka's clothing line seemed innocent enough to me. Condemning her for it seems unnecessary. Moreover, when the press focuses on little stuff like this, it just makes them seem more like the "fake news" and biased lefties the right like to accuse them of being.

Left, right, up or down, we are all just people. Most of us just want to survive another day without any major crap happening. So far the first 30 days of the Trump administration has had it's pluses and minuses. The best thing I can say about the current political scene is that a lot of folks seem more invested than in the past. This is good. Political apathy is never good.

I assume you mean that some people are grasping at straws by presenting this as some sort of a huge scandal of national security importance, however, if she broke any laws she should face the consequences. The laws should apply equally to everyone and no one should be above the law or have special protections and immunity-even if they are "extremely careless".
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 06:07:54 PM
I assume you mean that some people are grasping at straws by presenting this as some sort of a huge scandal of national security importance, however, if she broke any laws she should face the consequences. The laws should apply equally to everyone and no one should be above the law or have special protections and immunity-even if they are "extremely careless".

And the punishment needs to fit the crime.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 20, 2017, 06:11:44 PM
And the punishment needs to fit the crime.

Yes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on February 20, 2017, 06:15:19 PM
Actually if Trump violates the Constitution, he gets checked by the courts, which happened to Obama several times.  Trump has been checked twice now (even though I disagree with the decisions).  The system of checks and balances works. 

TheGrinch is absolutely right:  people are trying to criminalize political disagreements.   

I agree with all of this.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 20, 2017, 06:16:00 PM
I can mostly agree, but who determines what is a bad law or a good one?

The public.  Common sense.  The courts.  It's sort of like porn:  you know it when you see it.   :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on February 20, 2017, 06:51:03 PM
Apparently this isn't the case with the current administration....specia lly when it comes to monitoring Trump's off the wall comments....Trump asked people to ‘look at what’s happening … in Sweden.’

When called on his comments, he essentially blamed FOX News by saying he got his information there. My question is when is the news fake and when is it real, in Trump's mind?



IDK but everything is filtered through too few who make up our media, and these are the problems we're asking for, by allowing it.  This is the result.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 24, 2017, 12:24:13 PM
Richmond City Council unanimously approves Trump impeachment resolution
By Lilian Kim
Thursday, February 23, 2017
RICHMOND, Calif. --

The first 100 days of the Trump administration aren't even over yet, and the president is already facing calls for impeachment, but it's not from Congress. Instead, a Bay Area city made a bold move.

Richmond City Council says it has become the first city in the country to go on record in support of impeachment hearings for President Donald Trump.

The council acknowledged how unusual it was to call for the president's impeachment. He's been in office for only a month, but the vote was unanimous.

"Unfortunately with this president it's oddly appropriate," said Richmond City Councilmember Jael Myrick.

Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin spearheaded the resolution, which calls Congress to investigate the president's business holdings, something his critics believe are grounds for impeachment.

"This is our voice," she said. "This is our country. We have a right to speak up."

Even in this progressive city, there was one vocal Trump supporter who was eventually thrown out for swearing at the council.

"Actually you don't have a voice because the GOP controls Congress, and you people are stupid enough to think Congress will impeach Trump," said Richmond resident Mark Wassberg.

Supporters of the resolution, however; remain undeterred.

"A lot of politicians aren't willing to go on the record to do this because it can go against them," said Richmond resident Ellen Faden. "But as grass roots, as Bernie said, we have to start from the grass roots."

By passing this resolution, the Richmond City Council is now hoping it'll inspire other cities to do the same.

http://abc7.com/politics/richmond-unanimously-approves-trump-impeachment-resolution/1769214/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on February 24, 2017, 01:41:51 PM
^ Unfortunately for them, I don't think anyone takes Richmond CA very seriously.  It's a violent mess, with their citizens getting mowed down by drug dealers at breakneck speed.  Maybe they should fix that little issue that before they devote a single thought to Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 01, 2017, 05:25:45 PM
Democrats talk up impeachment on eve of Trump address
By Susan Ferrechio (@susanferrechio) • 2/27/17

The top Democratic leaders in Congress condemned the presidency of Donald Trump on Tuesday at a National Press Club Forum, where they hinted they might eventually seek to impeach him and they predicted his address to the House and Senate on Tuesday would be full of empty promises.
 
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Trump has misled the public to a degree that "there are plenty of grounds right now for the current president" to be impeached. But the public is not fully on board yet, Pelosi said, because "many of the president's supporters are not ready to accept the fact that their judgement may not have been so great in voting for him."
 
Pelosi said by the time the case is made for impeachment, "perhaps they will be ready to accept that."
 
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

She added, "It's very hard, impeachment."
 
Pelosi appeared alongside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., where the two eviscerated Trump's first month in office, and compared it unfavorably to President Obama's quick passage of a $1 trillion stimulus bill shortly after he became president in 2009. They also downplayed Trump's planned joint address on Tuesday night as, essentially, a big lie.
 
"It will be the usual bluster and blame," predicted Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "Populist platitudes will be a dime a dozen, but the focus should be on the president's actions rather than his empty words."
 
Schumer and Pelosi accused Trump of formulating an agenda to benefit the rich at the expense of the working class.

Earlier Monday, the White House signaled it would propose a budget that increases defense spending by $54 billion and makes cuts in domestic spending to make up the difference.
 
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested Republicans would simply make a 10 percent cut across the entire budget, which isn't likely. Such a move, Pelosi calculated, would result in cuts to job training, the National Institutes of Health and early childhood education, among other vital programs.
 
She took another jab at Trump's competency in running the country.
 
"I don't even know if the President understands the ramifications of the cuts that he is proposing," Pelosi said.
 
Democrats and Republicans have in the past agreed to equal spending on both the domestic and defense budgets, Pelosi said.

"We have to see more about this budget but hopefully it will honor the 50-50 we had before," Pelosi said. "Any cuts had to be shared equally."
 
A reporter asked Pelosi why she has not called for impeachment proceedings against Trump when some scholars have suggested there is enough evidence to begin the Congressional process of ousting a president. Democrats want an independent commission to be appointed to investigate Trump's so-called connections with the Russian government, though the FBI has found no direct link.
 
Pelosi said she "never recovered with the left on this subject for not impeaching President Bush," over the war in Iraq.
 
She even though she is not currently demanding impeachment of Trump, "that doesn't mean nobody is listening to the cases being made, in a very scientific and methodical way, as to whether there are grounds for impeachment."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-talk-up-impeachment-on-eve-of-trump-address-to-congress/article/2615914
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 01, 2017, 06:04:25 PM
We should impeach cuntlosi and wasaman shitz along w the entire CBC
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 21, 2017, 01:07:37 PM
Rep. Maxine Waters to Trump: 'Get Ready for Impeachment'
By Joe Crowe   |    Tuesday, 21 Mar 2017

A Democratic congresswoman issued a warning about impeachment to President Donald Trump in a tweet on Tuesday.

Maxine Waters
✔  ‎@MaxineWaters 
Get ready for impeachment.
2:56 AM - 21 Mar 2017

Rep. Maxine Waters has called on Congress to impeach the president if evidence appears that proves collusion with the Russian government during his presidential campaign, according to The Hill.

No evidence has appeared that ties members of Trump's campaign to officials in the Kremlin.

The California Democrat has not minced words when discussing issues about Trump and members of his campaign. Pinned to the top of her Twitter account is an image depicting what she calls Trump's "Kremlin Klan."

Maxine Waters‏Verified account
@MaxineWaters 
Meet @realDonaldTrump's #KremLINKlan:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7DHIetWsAE5MpN.jpg)

And in February, she said his advisers who have Russia ties are "a bunch of scumbags … who are all organized around making money."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/maxine-waters-trump-ready-impeachment/2017/03/21/id/779969/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on March 21, 2017, 02:13:26 PM
You know what I never understood about people? Talking up shit before they have an actual case.

If you really think that Trump has done some colluding with a foreign power, why would you go around announcing it before you have a solid case?

Are people really that moronic?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 21, 2017, 02:20:59 PM
You know what I never understood about people? Talking up shit before they have an actual case.

If you really think that Trump has done some colluding with a foreign power, why would you go around announcing it before you have a solid case?

Are people really that moronic?

Yes, unfortunately.  And Trump has put himself in the same boat with loonies like Waters and Pelosi. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on March 21, 2017, 02:22:30 PM
Yes, unfortunately.  And Trump has put himself in the same boat with loonies like Waters and Pelosi. 

Sad... Truly sad.

Clowns the lot of them.

We get the government we deserve.  :'(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mass243 on March 21, 2017, 02:26:38 PM
Rep. Maxine Waters to Trump: 'Get Ready for Impeachment'
By Joe Crowe   |    Tuesday, 21 Mar 2017

A Democratic congresswoman issued a warning about impeachment to President Donald Trump in a tweet on Tuesday.

Maxine Waters



Isn't that the demented fucktard who said "Putin is advancing in Korea" ?
And swore "USA would stand by Limpopo" when Russian pranksters called her presenting themselves Ukrainian officials worried about Putin hacking elections in Limpopo  ;D

Amazing if someone puts any weight on what she is saying.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Nick Danger on March 21, 2017, 02:29:04 PM
Rep. Maxine Waters to Trump: 'Get Ready for Impeachment'
By Joe Crowe   |    Tuesday, 21 Mar 2017

A Democratic congresswoman issued a warning about impeachment to President Donald Trump in a tweet on Tuesday.

Maxine Waters
✔  ‎@MaxineWaters 
Get ready for impeachment.
2:56 AM - 21 Mar 2017

Rep. Maxine Waters has called on Congress to impeach the president if evidence appears that proves collusion with the Russian government during his presidential campaign, according to The Hill.

No evidence has appeared that ties members of Trump's campaign to officials in the Kremlin.

The California Democrat has not minced words when discussing issues about Trump and members of his campaign. Pinned to the top of her Twitter account is an image depicting what she calls Trump's "Kremlin Klan."

Maxine Waters‏Verified account
@MaxineWaters 
Meet @realDonaldTrump's #KremLINKlan:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7DHIetWsAE5MpN.jpg)

And in February, she said his advisers who have Russia ties are "a bunch of scumbags … who are all organized around making money."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/maxine-waters-trump-ready-impeachment/2017/03/21/id/779969/

Her comments make her sound like a loon. As TuHolmes said, if you're going to make accusations, show something to backs up your claims.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on March 21, 2017, 02:29:23 PM

Isn't that the demented fucktard who said "Putin is advancing in Korea" ?
And swore "USA would stand by Limpopo" when Russian pranksters called her presenting themselves Ukrainian officials worried about Putin hacking elections in Limpopo  ;D

Amazing if someone puts any weight on what she is saying.


I do recall the pranks, I think it's the same person.

She's definitely not the brightest bulb in the box and I think I recall her being charged with some kind of house ethics violation some years back?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 21, 2017, 02:29:28 PM
Sad... Truly sad.

Clowns the lot of them.

We get the government we deserve.  :'(

Yep.  Voter apathy.  Our turnout stinks.  And we keep electing and reelecting duds.    
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 04, 2017, 05:36:22 PM
(http://i3.cpcache.com/product/273941623/looney_tunes_screw_ball_rectangle_magnet.jpg?height=460&width=460&qv=90)

Maxine Waters: Let’s talk about Trump’s impeachment (again)
April 3, 2017 by John Sexton
 
You have to give her credit for consistency. Rep. Maxine Waters has been talking about impeaching President Trump since before he was President. Over the weekend Waters appeared on CNN and once again said she is eager to talk about impeachment.

“Most people believe that he’s about diversion, that he’s about keeping people from really dealing with the issue,” Waters said. “We want to know whether or not there was collusion. We want to know about the hacking into the DNC and the interference with our elections,” she continued.

“And I really want to know because I know if we can prove collusion that he is impeachable,” she said. “Lot of people don’t want to talk about that but I do,” Waters continued. “I want to talk about him. I want to talk about this Kremlin clan that’s around him.”

Waters claimed earlier this month that the “sex actions” in a dossier about Trump which was published by Buzzfeed were “supposed to be true.” In fact, no one has shown any proof those accusations are true.

I’ve suggested before that it seems as if Rep. Waters is one-half of a good cop/bad cop routine with the Democratic leadership. She has been all over television making this claim for nearly three months. In February she even had Nancy Pelosi correct her in person and clarify that nothing Trump had done thus far was impeachable. Rep. Waters didn’t take the hint and was back on MSNBC the next day talking about impeachment again.

In the short run, this sort of talk certainly keeps the base energized and gives The Resistance hope that something will be found to undo the results of the last election. But in the longer run, this strategy seems pretty ill-advised. Having been promised impeachment from the very start, it may be hard for progressive partisans to settle for anything less than Trump’s removal from office.

And yet, they keep talking about it. Today, Fox News’ Juan Williams joins the impeachment bandwagon with a piece that concludes, “it is no liberal fantasy to say the odds of a Trump resignation or impeachment before 2020 are looking better by the day.”




http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/03/maxine-waters-lets-talk-about-trumps-impeachment/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on April 05, 2017, 06:41:14 PM
My previous 8 (ex) wives are still asking what  they did to deserve being married to me ???

Wow.

You don't like women, you like PAIN.

8x? Really?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 16, 2017, 07:54:55 PM
Tin foil hats for everyone.

Congressional Dems making early calls for Trump's impeachment

By Brooke Singman
Published May 16, 2017
Fox News

That didn't take long.

A small group of President Trump's most outspoken critics has seized on the James Comey controversy to make a — very — early push for impeachment.

The latest call came from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who released a statement suggesting Comey’s ouster from atop the FBI was an obstruction of the investigation “of the president’s campaign ties to Russian influence in his 2016 presidential election.” He said Trump has committed acts that “amount to intimidation and obstruction.”

“Our mantra should be I.T.N—Impeach Trump Now,” Green wrote in an email, which included a line in red pushing those who received the email to “forward this email to others who may be interested.”

 Scott Wong ✔ @scottwongDC
.@RepAlGreen (D-Texas) calls for impeachment of President Trump
6:36 AM - 15 May 2017
  499 499 Retweets   819 819 likes
The White House has defended the decision to fire Comey. The president's team last week cited a DOJ memo castigating his handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, though Trump himself has since said he would have fired Comey regardless of any recommendation.

Most Democrats are fighting back by calling for a special prosecutor to probe Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, worried Comey's firing was meant to blunt that investigation.

But a handful of Democrats want to go the distance, and are openly using the "I" word.

Green joined other Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who has been discussing impeachment for months. Waters took to Twitter in April saying that she would “fight every day until he’s impeached.”

She later denied calling for impeachment, but on Thursday renewed her push during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

“I’ve said all along that he will lead us to impeachment, and he’s doing just that,” Waters said on MSNBC. “We’re fiddling while Rome is burning. This president needs to be impeached.”

Waters has received her fair share of impeachment backlash from Trump supporters. Most recently, Waters was greeted by pro-Trump protesters before a town hall on Saturday, with some holding signs calling for her impeachment.

Others Democratic lawmakers who have brought up the topic of impeachment include Reps. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., who told a local news station last week that Democrats were “actually pretty close to considering impeachment,” and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., who said on local radio that if there was an “impeachment clock,” Comey’s ouster would have moved it an “hour closer.” 

Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., also joined the discussion, tweeting last week that “Impeachment will happen if a handful of Republicans in Congress join Dems to put country above party. Or in 2019 after Dems win the House.”

 Follow
 Rep. Jared Huffman @JaredHuffman
Impeachment will happen if handful of Republicans in Congress join Dems to put country above party. Or in 2019 after Dems win the House. https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/862882938219888640 …
7:51 PM - 11 May 2017
  227 227 Retweets   409 409 likes
But one former Democratic lawmaker told Fox News that even suggesting impeachment is "dangerous" for the American people.

 Follow
 Hakeem Jeffries ✔ @RepJeffries
Evidence of Trump's effort to obstruct justice continues to emerge. Lock HIM up? https://nyti.ms/2pDnN9G
5:04 PM - 11 May 2017
President Trump and James B. Comey during a reception at the White House for law enforcement officials days after the inauguration.
In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.
James B. Comey’s associates say he now believes his unwillingness to pledge personal loyalty led President Trump to fire him as the F.B.I. director.
nytimes.com
  337 337 Retweets   636 636 likes
Dennis Kucinich, former Ohio congressman and a Fox News contributor, told Fox News on Tuesday that there was a “danger in engaging in compulsive opposition.”

Kucinich, who called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over the decision to go to war in Iraq, told Fox News that this is only an option “after exhausting a number of other options.”

“It is destructive to America to proceed with an impeachment at this stage of the presidency,” Kucinich said. “This is not the first thing you reach for, because when the first big move a party makes is towards impeachment, it’s very difficult for the American people to conclude that it is anything but a partisan issue.”

In order to impeach the president of the United States, the House of Representatives must have the support of the majority of members. At this point, no Republicans have voiced support, or even made the suggestion to begin the impeachment process.

While Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has said she is doing her “homework” on the issue, she also took a shot at the vice president suggesting he wouldn’t be much better.

“I will just say I understand the calls for impeachment, but what I am being cautious about and what I give you food for thought about is that if President Trump is impeached, the problems don’t go away, because then you have a Vice President Pence who becomes President Pence,” Gabbard said at a town hall last month.

Kucinich told Fox News that while he is aware of the extreme opposition to President Trump’s policies, Democrats should focus on their ability to impact policy, which could be “attractive” to Americans in 2018.

“It’s far better to offer alternatives to the policies of this president," Kucinich said. "Otherwise, this is a grim partisan effort which inevitably will go nowhere.”

In the wake of a New York Times report on Tuesday evening suggesting that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the probe into former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn, former Republican Rep. David Jolly, R-Fla., jumped on the bandwaggon suggesting the Trump family may not be in Washington for long.

Jolly tweeted: "Hope that private school tuition in Maryland this Fall for the POTUS family is refundable."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/congressional-dems-making-early-calls-for-trumps-impeachment.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on May 16, 2017, 08:04:25 PM
If everything were identical except with Hillary as POTUS I have zero doubt that the Republicans would have impeached her by now

We're starting to see some fissures with Republicans and I think if this train wreck continues on the same course it's only a matter of time until these people start to realize it's time to put their country before their party loyalty


Quote
The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.
Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970), Congressional Record, vol. 116, p. 11913.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 17, 2017, 03:21:44 AM
If everything were identical except with Hillary as POTUS I have zero doubt that the Republicans would have impeached her by now

We're starting to see some fissures with Republicans and I think if this train wreck continues on the same course it's only a matter of time until these people start to realize it's time to put their country before their party loyalty

Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970), Congressional Record, vol. 116, p. 11913.

Liberals should love this - nothing is gettimg done on his agenda .   It's chaos 24/7 - and you could have a Pence in there getting his whole agenda rammed through congress.   
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2017, 03:03:02 PM
Worried about fallout, Dems poised to poll-test impeachment
BY ALEX ROARTY
aroarty@mcclatchydc.com
May 16, 2017

Democratic strategists are racing to figure out whether it’s politically wise to call for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as one bombshell revelation after another about his ties to Russia is forcing candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives to consider the question far sooner than anyone had expected.

In a significant development, party operatives say they expect Democrats to poll-test the public’s views on impeachment, trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed. Other strategists say that candidates and party organizations will begin conducting focus groups on the question.

These operatives acknowledge they’ve been caught off guard by the speed with which impeachment has become a relevant issue – and are wary of the political damage it could cause if not handled correctly.

Even 10 days ago, before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, few party officials had even considered such a dramatic move, which has happened only twice in American history.

“I mean, Jesus, it’s not even Memorial Day!” said one Democratic operative.

Only after testing the question with voters will the party have a firmer sense of how it should act.

“I have no clue, to be honest,” another Democratic operative said when asked what party strategists made of the politics of impeachment after The New York Times reported on a Comey memo that alleges Trump asked the then-FBI director to drop his probe of the president’s first national security adviser. “Still processing what we’re reading in The Times.”

So far, only a handful of Democratic lawmakers have outright called for impeachment. Most have preferred a more cautious approach, calling for a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into Trump officials’ possible ties to Russia.

Democratic strategists emphasized that they expect that questions of independent investigations – and not calls for impeachment – will be the overwhelming focus for the party in the coming days.

But on Tuesday night, CNN reported that even Republican lawmakers are now debating whether to support an independent prosecutor or independent commission after the latest round of revelations.

And some Democrats are starting to at least entertain the possibility of impeachment.

“If it is, in fact, true, then yes, that is an impeachable offense,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, on CNN.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin suggested the country needed an “impeachment clock” to track how close the president was to being removed from office.

Pressure might also mount from the party’s liberal base, which has grown in size and relevance since Trump’s election, to call for impeachment.

One progressive leader called impeachment a “no-brainer.”

“Impeachment is the only way to stop Donald Trump, whose corruption and incompetence is placing our country in greater danger with each passing day,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Still, some Democrats expressed skepticism that impeachment is the right move for the party. Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stuck to his message that a special, independent investigation is needed.

“This is why we need a special prosecutor,” he said. “The evidence is mounting by the day. But as long as Republicans continue putting party over country, justice will never be served. Make no mistake: Their complacency is complicity, and history will remember them as cowards.”

The problem, these more wary Democrats argue, is that so much of the playing field during next year’s midterm elections is in states or districts favorable to Trump.

Senate Democrats must defend 10 states that Trump won during last year’s election.

“Voting for a check on Trump is one thing,” said one national Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about party strategy. “But if a vote for a check on the president . . . becomes a de facto vote for an impeachment trial, the task in front of us will only get more difficult.”

Another operative said he expects that the House GOP’s health care bill – the American Health Care Act – still would play a bigger role in next year’s midterm elections.

“Health care remains the most personal issue facing voters,” he said. “Until that’s taken off the table completely, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t motivate the backlash.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article150938202.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on May 17, 2017, 03:19:07 PM
Worried about fallout, Dems poised to poll-test impeachment
BY ALEX ROARTY
aroarty@mcclatchydc.com
May 16, 2017

Democratic strategists are racing to figure out whether it’s politically wise to call for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as one bombshell revelation after another about his ties to Russia is forcing candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives to consider the question far sooner than anyone had expected.

In a significant development, party operatives say they expect Democrats to poll-test the public’s views on impeachment, trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed. Other strategists say that candidates and party organizations will begin conducting focus groups on the question.

These operatives acknowledge they’ve been caught off guard by the speed with which impeachment has become a relevant issue – and are wary of the political damage it could cause if not handled correctly.

Even 10 days ago, before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, few party officials had even considered such a dramatic move, which has happened only twice in American history.

“I mean, Jesus, it’s not even Memorial Day!” said one Democratic operative.

Only after testing the question with voters will the party have a firmer sense of how it should act.

“I have no clue, to be honest,” another Democratic operative said when asked what party strategists made of the politics of impeachment after The New York Times reported on a Comey memo that alleges Trump asked the then-FBI director to drop his probe of the president’s first national security adviser. “Still processing what we’re reading in The Times.”

So far, only a handful of Democratic lawmakers have outright called for impeachment. Most have preferred a more cautious approach, calling for a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into Trump officials’ possible ties to Russia.

Democratic strategists emphasized that they expect that questions of independent investigations – and not calls for impeachment – will be the overwhelming focus for the party in the coming days.

But on Tuesday night, CNN reported that even Republican lawmakers are now debating whether to support an independent prosecutor or independent commission after the latest round of revelations.

And some Democrats are starting to at least entertain the possibility of impeachment.

“If it is, in fact, true, then yes, that is an impeachable offense,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, on CNN.

Last week, Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin suggested the country needed an “impeachment clock” to track how close the president was to being removed from office.

Pressure might also mount from the party’s liberal base, which has grown in size and relevance since Trump’s election, to call for impeachment.

One progressive leader called impeachment a “no-brainer.”

“Impeachment is the only way to stop Donald Trump, whose corruption and incompetence is placing our country in greater danger with each passing day,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Still, some Democrats expressed skepticism that impeachment is the right move for the party. Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stuck to his message that a special, independent investigation is needed.

“This is why we need a special prosecutor,” he said. “The evidence is mounting by the day. But as long as Republicans continue putting party over country, justice will never be served. Make no mistake: Their complacency is complicity, and history will remember them as cowards.”

The problem, these more wary Democrats argue, is that so much of the playing field during next year’s midterm elections is in states or districts favorable to Trump.

Senate Democrats must defend 10 states that Trump won during last year’s election.

“Voting for a check on Trump is one thing,” said one national Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about party strategy. “But if a vote for a check on the president . . . becomes a de facto vote for an impeachment trial, the task in front of us will only get more difficult.”

Another operative said he expects that the House GOP’s health care bill – the American Health Care Act – still would play a bigger role in next year’s midterm elections.

“Health care remains the most personal issue facing voters,” he said. “Until that’s taken off the table completely, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t motivate the backlash.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article150938202.html#storylink=cpy

Personally I don't think it matters. Even they do impeach Trump (for absolutely nothing) it will politically backfire on them BIG TIME. We just saw it with the last election. The people will speak even louder in 2018.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TuHolmes on May 17, 2017, 10:07:26 PM
Personally I don't think it matters. Even they do impeach Trump (for absolutely nothing) it will politically backfire on them BIG TIME. We just saw it with the last election. The people will speak even louder in 2018.

Didn't hurt the Republicans when they impeached Clinton. Got GWB two terms after that.

Besides. So what? It just brings in Pence, who is much better equipped to do the job.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2017, 04:19:00 PM
Embarrassing. 

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 29, 2017, 01:46:44 PM
Maxine Waters: American Public ‘Getting Weary’ That Trump Not Impeached Yet
by PAM KEY
28 May 2017

Sunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the public was “getting weary” that Democrats have not done enough to begin the process of impeaching President Donald Trump.

Partial transcript as follows:

REID: Congresswoman, on the subject of being more aggressive, you have openly talked about the fact that this president has put himself in a position where impeachment is on the table but your party, the Democratic party is very reluctant, The New York Times has an article out last week about how hesitant Democratic leadership, in particular, are to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment. In closing, why do you suppose that is?

WATERS: I don’t know what the reticent is but I know this, that the American public is getting weary of all of these actions without enough being done by the elected officials who they elected to represent them. I believe that this man has done enough for us to determine that we can connect the dots, that we can get the facts that will lead to impeachment. I believe there was collusion. I think we have enough information about the meetings, the about the lying about those meetings to help us to understand that something was going on. There was an interaction there. And certainly I believe it was collusion, but if they just do their work and do their job, they will find out it was collusion. And I believe this president should be impeached. I don’t care what others say about ‘it’s too soon, we don’t know, we think.’ I think that they’re letting the American public down by not delving deeper into what is going on with Jared Kushner and this back channeling, about the lies and his failure to disclose he had had these meetings, the same thing with sessions, failure to disclose about the meetings. What more do we need?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/28/maxine-waters-american-public-getting-weary-that-trump-not-impeached-yet/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 30, 2017, 03:51:52 AM
Senile old bag



Maxine Waters: American Public ‘Getting Weary’ That Trump Not Impeached Yet
by PAM KEY
28 May 2017

Sunday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the public was “getting weary” that Democrats have not done enough to begin the process of impeaching President Donald Trump.

Partial transcript as follows:

REID: Congresswoman, on the subject of being more aggressive, you have openly talked about the fact that this president has put himself in a position where impeachment is on the table but your party, the Democratic party is very reluctant, The New York Times has an article out last week about how hesitant Democratic leadership, in particular, are to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment. In closing, why do you suppose that is?

WATERS: I don’t know what the reticent is but I know this, that the American public is getting weary of all of these actions without enough being done by the elected officials who they elected to represent them. I believe that this man has done enough for us to determine that we can connect the dots, that we can get the facts that will lead to impeachment. I believe there was collusion. I think we have enough information about the meetings, the about the lying about those meetings to help us to understand that something was going on. There was an interaction there. And certainly I believe it was collusion, but if they just do their work and do their job, they will find out it was collusion. And I believe this president should be impeached. I don’t care what others say about ‘it’s too soon, we don’t know, we think.’ I think that they’re letting the American public down by not delving deeper into what is going on with Jared Kushner and this back channeling, about the lies and his failure to disclose he had had these meetings, the same thing with sessions, failure to disclose about the meetings. What more do we need?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/28/maxine-waters-american-public-getting-weary-that-trump-not-impeached-yet/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2017, 04:25:33 PM
Politicians should have term limits at every level and quite possible age limits. At 78 years of age how could she possibly relate to the wants and needs of the 20 something crowd?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2017, 04:31:47 PM
Initially some folks may have thought Pence would be a worse as President because he is very right wing conservative. It's now looking like nobody could be a worse President than Trump has been. If Trump is impeached, it won't be for nothing. You can bet on this.
LMFAO!!! HAHahahaha!!!! How brainwashed are you? Go ahead and list the things Trump should be impeached for....I'll wait. :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2017, 04:48:29 PM
Silly me, I somehow connected your "nobody could be worse than Trump" with your comment about him being impeached.
What has he done that was so bad ??? Do you honestly believe Killary would have been a better choice?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 30, 2017, 06:03:35 PM
Wow.

You don't like women, you like PAIN.

8x? Really?

LOL, fuk no !
It's a joke
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 30, 2017, 06:05:54 PM
Liberals should love this - nothing is gettimg done on his agenda .   It's chaos 24/7 - and you could have a Pence in there getting his whole agenda rammed through congress.   

I agree 100% and this is why I wish Pence was the current potus.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 05:29:32 AM
I agree 100% and this is why I wish Pence was the current potus.

At this point, I don't think the media would stop salivating even if Pence were POTUS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 08:27:21 AM
(https://i.redd.it/vwqwzakfnu0z.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 31, 2017, 08:52:07 AM
At this point, I don't think the media would stop salivating even if Pence were POTUS.

BOTH sides are ignoring the bigger issue here:

NOTHING gets done when a POTUS is in the midst of some major scandal.
To be fair, Hillary would have been mired in some scandal had she won .
Her experience with how gov works would have helped, but, she'd have been politically crippled ( like Trump now).

That's why I think character and ability/experience to work within government matters...a lot.
Reliable, experiences, decent pols like Pence, may lack the charisma of Trump.
BUT, they can get the job done once in office.

Men like Reagan are rare.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 10:06:38 AM


NOTHING gets done when a POTUS is in the midst of some major scandal.


Feel free to go to the "Trump=Winning" thread.

There is quite a bit going on...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on May 31, 2017, 01:15:12 PM
Feel free to go to the "Trump=Winning" thread.

There is quite a bit going on...

I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 31, 2017, 01:21:45 PM
I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.

Like I've said to you before: We aren't in need of any new legislation; quite the opposite.

Repeal and deregulate. Repeat.  ;)

Let healthcare implode. Focus on tax cuts. That's the only piece of legislation that needs to be attempted.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: doison on May 31, 2017, 02:29:02 PM
I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.

A government that doesn't continually pass new laws/legislation = winning in my book
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on May 31, 2017, 03:03:00 PM
Like I've said to you before: We aren't in need of any new legislation; quite the opposite.

Repeal and deregulate. Repeat.  ;)

Let healthcare implode. Focus on tax cuts. That's the only piece of legislation that needs to be attempted.
Exactly!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 31, 2017, 03:35:30 PM
I've yet to see him sign even ONE single pc of legislation , passed by congress.
So we gauge a presidents success by how many new laws he can pass? How about gauging a president on how well he can enforce the current laws before making more unnecessary bullshit laws?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 01, 2017, 12:46:10 PM
30 Chicago Alderman Sign Letter to Impeach Trump – While City Records 236th Homicide
GP ^ | June 1,2017 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 6/1/2017, 3:27:54 PM by Hojczyk

30 Chicago Alderman Sign Letter to Impeach Trump – While City Records 236th Homicide and Suffers Near Junk Bond Rating

Jim Hoft Jun 1st, 2017 1:38 pm 30 Comments

You just can’t make this stuff up. On Wednesday, 30 Chicago alderman signed a resolution to have Trump impeached.

This is both amusing and concerning.

These aldermen were elected in order to work on issues that are impacting the city.

They need to worry about about what is going on in our back yard instead of the Fake News media conspiracy theories..

Here are the most recent Chicago stats:

1. 236 homicides year to date 2. City employees retirement funds short $20 billion 3. Credit rating near junk bond status 4. Public School pensions skyrocketing – concern with keeping schools open 5. Worst financial shape than any other major city 6. Sanctuary City 7. Person is shot ever 2 hours and 38 minutes in Chicago

And they want to impeach Trump?

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2017, 01:38:02 PM
OK, fair enough.

But he campaigned on doing all kinds of things right after he got into office.
Here's what he's failed to delivery despite promising:

1. Repeal/replace Obama-care   Nope, not yet. Claimed we'd have "something great" for health care.
2. Tax cuts - Nope, not yet
3. Obliterate ISIS - Nope, not yet
4. Have the treasury sec label China a "currency manipulator" and apply tariffs .  Nope and may have reversed himself
5. Get 25% profit deal for Keystone pipeline.  Nope, and required Canada to resubmit permits.
6. Executive order for cop killers to get death penalty . Signed some exec order on this but the death penalty was not in it
7. Claimed he'd never settle the Trump U law suit . Nope, paid a 25 mil settlement
8. Promised to cut ties from his company. Nope , he still retains ownership and gets financial reports .
9. Said several times he would fully fund and save Medicaid . Nope, latest house bill cuts it.
10 Claimed as POTUS he'd apologize when wrong. LOL ::)

Ok, no question that Trump talks a good game , but had no idea HOW he would do it.
THAT was my main problem with Trump , not his stated views or policies.
He had no experience with getting things done within government.

In fairness to the President, he may still make some things happen.
To do so, he needs to learn from his previous mistakes and take a new direction.

I honestly think he CAN do that.
The bigger question is, WILL he do it?
Time will tell...tick tock

This is absolutely absurd.  He has been president for five months.  He hasn't failed at anything yet.  You evaluate success and failure at the end of his term. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on June 01, 2017, 02:16:03 PM
OK, fair enough.

But he campaigned on doing all kinds of things right after he got into office.
Here's what he's failed to delivery despite promising:

1. Repeal/replace Obama-care   Nope, not yet. Claimed we'd have "something great" for health care.
2. Tax cuts - Nope, not yet
3. Obliterate ISIS - Nope, not yet
4. Have the treasury sec label China a "currency manipulator" and apply tariffs .  Nope and may have reversed himself
5. Get 25% profit deal for Keystone pipeline.  Nope, and required Canada to resubmit permits.
6. Executive order for cop killers to get death penalty . Signed some exec order on this but the death penalty was not in it
7. Claimed he'd never settle the Trump U law suit . Nope, paid a 25 mil settlement
8. Promised to cut ties from his company. Nope , he still retains ownership and gets financial reports .
9. Said several times he would fully fund and save Medicaid . Nope, latest house bill cuts it.
10 Claimed as POTUS he'd apologize when wrong. LOL ::)

Ok, no question that Trump talks a good game , but had no idea HOW he would do it.
THAT was my main problem with Trump , not his stated views or policies.
He had no experience with getting things done within government.

In fairness to the President, he may still make some things happen.
To do so, he needs to learn from his previous mistakes and take a new direction.

I honestly think he CAN do that.
The bigger question is, WILL he do it?
Time will tell...tick tock

You took quite a bit of time to type all that out.

240-esque
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on June 01, 2017, 02:34:39 PM
This is absolutely absurd.  He has been president for five months.  He hasn't failed at anything yet.  You evaluate success and failure at the end of his term. 

There are 1000's of videos and articles of what he PROMISED for the first 100 days during the campaign.
I guess he finally understand running the US Government is tougher than her thought 'eh.
In my opinion, he was clueless about it actually takes to get things done as POTUS.

In fairness, you're  correct and he COULD get plenty of things done .
The bigger question is, will he change enough to actually do it?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2017, 04:59:46 PM
You took quite a bit of time to type all that out.

240-esque

Yep.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2017, 05:00:23 PM
There are 1000's of videos and articles of what he PROMISED for the first 100 days during the campaign.
I guess he finally understand running the US Government is tougher than her thought 'eh.
In my opinion, he was clueless about it actually takes to get things done as POTUS.

In fairness, you're  correct and he COULD get plenty of things done .
The bigger question is, will he change enough to actually do it?

And embellishing just like 240.  It's like he never left.   ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: HockeyFightFan on June 01, 2017, 08:51:42 PM
There are 1000's of videos and articles of what he PROMISED for the first 100 days during the campaign.
I guess he finally understand running the US Government is tougher than her thought 'eh.
In my opinion, he was clueless about it actually takes to get things done as POTUS.

In fairness, you're  correct and he COULD get plenty of things done .
The bigger question is, will he change enough to actually do it?

The Macedonians kept Hillary out of the White House.

I shit you not, that is what that dumb kunt claimed and idiots like this Howard clown still dream she was the better candidate
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 03, 2017, 06:22:12 PM
Which might be sooner rather than later.
Another 7 1/2 years..... :-*
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: HockeyFightFan on June 03, 2017, 07:43:54 PM
Which might be sooner rather than later.

Zero chance of impeachment, Trump will be an easy two-term President
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on June 04, 2017, 04:17:30 AM
Congress is not helping Trump with these issues. His budget which includes big tax breaks for the wealthy is all but dead in Congress.
Danger, danger!!.......Talking point, talking point!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: HockeyFightFan on June 04, 2017, 12:20:32 PM
Danger, danger!!.......Talking point, talking point!

His entire thought process is whatever Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews tell him it is.

His posts have about as much thought behind them as Howard or Straw Manboylover 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 07, 2017, 11:57:53 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336741-dem-leaders-reject-impeachment-push
 :o

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on June 07, 2017, 12:43:51 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336741-dem-leaders-reject-impeachment-push
 :o



(http://assets.thepoliticalinsider.com.s3.amazonaws.com/content/uploads/2017/05/801-maxine-waters-1200-730x480-1496193456.png)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on June 07, 2017, 01:02:09 PM
His entire thought process is whatever Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews tell him it is.

His posts have about as much thought behind them as Howard or Straw Manboylover 

pretty obvious what you spend time thinking about

definitely keep projecting your feelings on other people

that's the best way to repress what you obviously desire
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2017, 12:08:59 PM
House Dem drafting articles of impeachment for Trump
BY MIKE LILLIS - 06/06/17

A House Democrat will soon launch an official attempt to impeach President Trump.

Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is readying the articles of impeachment that mark the first official step in any congressional bid to remove a sitting president.

The articles have little chance of seeing the light of day in a House chamber controlled by Republicans, who have rallied behind Trump amid multiple investigations into ties between Russia and members of the president’s inner circle. But Green’s gambit highlights the growing apprehension many Democrats have toward the president, and it’s sure to energize a liberal base that’s sounded the impeachment alarm with increasing volume as the Russian investigation saga has evolved.

Green’s criticisms focus on Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the administration’s probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Trump had reportedly pressured Comey earlier in the year to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who was fired after lying about the nature of his conversations with a Russian ambassador.

Comey’s firing brought accusations, primarily from Democrats, that Trump may have obstructed an ongoing Justice Department investigation — an impeachable offense, in the eyes of Green.

“The facts are simple and indisputable. The President fired the FBI Director because the Director was investigating the President’s campaign connections to Russian interference in the Presidential Election,” Green said Tuesday evening in a statement. “This is obstruction of justice.”

The episode will be front-and-center on Capitol Hill later this week. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was critical of Comey and had a hand in his firing, is set to appear Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey himself is set to appear before the same panel the following day.

It’s unclear when Green will officially introduce the articles he’s currently drafting. It’s also unclear if he’ll have any co-sponsors, though Green has not been alone in his calls for impeaching Trump. California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, another CBC member, has also beaten that drum.

A spokesman said Green will provide more details Wednesday afternoon, when he’s scheduled a press briefing in the Capitol.

Green’s effort comes even as Democratic leaders are treading much more lightly in their approach to the Russia-Trump saga. With Trump’s approval rating underwater — and new details in the Russia probe emerging almost daily — party leaders sense an opportunity to make huge gains at the polls in 2018 and don’t want to overplay their hand. They’ve tamped down any talk of impeachment, calling instead for the creation of an independent, 9/11-style commission to investigate the Russia inquiry.

“What I've said to members [is] the only thing that matters are the facts — the facts and the law,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday on CNN’s “New Day” program, when asked about impeachment. “That's what [an] investigation will reveal to us.”

Green has rejected that argument, contending that Trump’s actions have already risen to a level demanding congressional intervention.

“This will remain obstruction of justice regardless of the findings of any investigation,” he said.

“Obstruction of justice by the President is the problem,” he added. “Impeachment by Congress is the solution.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336677-house-dem-drafting-articles-of-impeachment-for-trump
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on June 08, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
House Dem drafting articles of impeachment for Trump
BY MIKE LILLIS - 06/06/17

A House Democrat will soon launch an official attempt to impeach President Trump.

Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is readying the articles of impeachment that mark the first official step in any congressional bid to remove a sitting president.

The articles have little chance of seeing the light of day in a House chamber controlled by Republicans, who have rallied behind Trump amid multiple investigations into ties between Russia and members of the president’s inner circle. But Green’s gambit highlights the growing apprehension many Democrats have toward the president, and it’s sure to energize a liberal base that’s sounded the impeachment alarm with increasing volume as the Russian investigation saga has evolved.

Green’s criticisms focus on Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the administration’s probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. Trump had reportedly pressured Comey earlier in the year to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who was fired after lying about the nature of his conversations with a Russian ambassador.

Comey’s firing brought accusations, primarily from Democrats, that Trump may have obstructed an ongoing Justice Department investigation — an impeachable offense, in the eyes of Green.

“The facts are simple and indisputable. The President fired the FBI Director because the Director was investigating the President’s campaign connections to Russian interference in the Presidential Election,” Green said Tuesday evening in a statement. “This is obstruction of justice.”

The episode will be front-and-center on Capitol Hill later this week. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was critical of Comey and had a hand in his firing, is set to appear Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey himself is set to appear before the same panel the following day.

It’s unclear when Green will officially introduce the articles he’s currently drafting. It’s also unclear if he’ll have any co-sponsors, though Green has not been alone in his calls for impeaching Trump. California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, another CBC member, has also beaten that drum.

A spokesman said Green will provide more details Wednesday afternoon, when he’s scheduled a press briefing in the Capitol.

Green’s effort comes even as Democratic leaders are treading much more lightly in their approach to the Russia-Trump saga. With Trump’s approval rating underwater — and new details in the Russia probe emerging almost daily — party leaders sense an opportunity to make huge gains at the polls in 2018 and don’t want to overplay their hand. They’ve tamped down any talk of impeachment, calling instead for the creation of an independent, 9/11-style commission to investigate the Russia inquiry.

“What I've said to members [is] the only thing that matters are the facts — the facts and the law,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday on CNN’s “New Day” program, when asked about impeachment. “That's what [an] investigation will reveal to us.”

Green has rejected that argument, contending that Trump’s actions have already risen to a level demanding congressional intervention.

“This will remain obstruction of justice regardless of the findings of any investigation,” he said.

“Obstruction of justice by the President is the problem,” he added. “Impeachment by Congress is the solution.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336677-house-dem-drafting-articles-of-impeachment-for-trump

lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2017, 04:16:34 PM
lol

These people are like cartoon characters. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 04, 2017, 02:26:37 PM
What is the 25th Amendment?
Published July 04, 2017

A bill calling for a presidential oversight commission which could be used to evaluate President Donald Trump -- and possibly deem him unfit for office -- has gained the support of multiple Democrats.

In April, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., introduced a bill in April for the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act.  As part of the bill, an 11-member commission would include doctors and determine if the president "is mentally or physically unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office."

The bill says that the commission would "carry out section 4 of the 25th Amendment." Fox News breaks down what the constitutional amendment entails.

 Rep. Jamie Raskin ✔ @RepRaskin
.@POTUS' incapacity must be seriously addressed. Check out my bill, the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act, HR 1987. #OCPCAct
9:06 AM - 12 May 2017
  2,516 2,516 Retweets   3,690 3,690 likes

What is the 25th Amendment?

The amendment is made up of four sections, and lays out how the president would be succeeded in office. 

KUCINICH RIPS DEMS FOR PROPOSAL TO EXAMINE TRUMP'S MENTAL FITNESS

Why do we have the 25th Amendment?

Constitutional rules about presidential succession had been unclear before the amendment was ratified in 1967, the U.S. Senate's website says. The amendment, it says, was debated following President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination and during the time President Lyndon B. Johnson spent without a vice president.  The amendment was ratified in 1967.

What does the first section of the amendment say?
It says that if the president is removed from office, resigns, or dies, the vice president becomes president.

What about the 25th Amendment's second section?

The president will nominate someone "who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress" if there isn't a vice president.

DEMS DRAFT BILL THAT COULD ACTIVATE 25TH AMENDMENT POWERS TO REMOVE TRUMP

What does the amendment's third section say?

30 Jun
 Rep. Jamie Raskin  ✔ @RepRaskin
Americans are talking about the #25thAmendment. Why do we have it and what did its Framers intend? https://www.yahoo.com/news/25th-amendment-used-remove-trump-215814401.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw …

 Rep. Jamie Raskin ✔ @RepRaskin
Section 4 of the #25thAmendment empowers Congress to create a body that can confront presidential incapacity. pic.twitter.com/RMBNa2BnsJ
5:18 AM - 30 Jun 2017
View image on Twitter
  816 816 Retweets   1,277 1,277 likes

The vice president will serve as acting president, if the president tells the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that he cannot "discharge the powers and duties of his office." The vice president would continue in the role unless the president says that he can serve.

What about the fourth section?

The vice president would serve as acting president if he "and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" tell the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that the president is unable to do his job. The amendment says that Congress would convene if there was a dispute over the president's ability to serve.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/04/what-is-25th-amendment.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 12, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Congressman Takes First Formal Step To Impeach Trump
Democratic California Rep. Brad Sherman believes the president obstructed justice.
By Ryan Grenoble
07/12/2017

On Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced an article of impeachment in the House, seeking to remove President Donald Trump from office for obstruction of justice. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) co-sponsored the article.

Sherman first raised the specter of impeachment in early June, basing his case on Trump’s apparent interference in an FBI investigation into his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn.

As Sherman sees it, Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey ― who says he was fired in retaliation for continuing to investigate Flynn ― constitutes obstruction of justice.

“Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia,” Sherman explained in a media release. “It now seems likely that the President had something to hide when he tried to curtail the investigation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the wider Russian probe. I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director James Comey constitute Obstruction of Justice.”


While Sherman said Trump has also engaged in all manner of decidedly unpresidential conduct, he acknowledged that doesn’t constitute an impeachable offense.

“The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a President for impulsive, ignorant incompetence,” he wrote. “It does provide for the removal of a President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Sherman is under no illusion that House Republicans will move forward on impeachment, but he hopes formally raising the option might nonetheless spur them to action in one of two ways:

First, I have slight hope it will inspire an “intervention” in the White House.  If Impeachment is real, if they actually see Articles, perhaps we will see incompetency replaced by care.  Perhaps uncontrollable impulses will be controlled. And perhaps the danger our nation faces will be ameliorated.

Second, and more likely, filing Articles of Impeachment is the first step on a very long road.  But if the impulsive incompetency continues, then eventually—many, many months from now—Republicans will join the impeachment effort.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from HuffPost for comment, but in a statement to Time correspondent Zeke Miller, called Sherman’s effort “utterly ridiculous” and “a political game at its worst.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sherman-impeach-trump-article-obstruction_us_59666d71e4b0a0c6f1e5517f?4b&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 17, 2017, 02:44:12 PM
Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/17/17

Impeaching President Trump is more popular now than impeaching President Richard Nixon was at the start of the Watergate scandal, according to a Monmouth University poll.

The poll, released Monday, found 41 percent of Americans support impeachment for Trump. In comparison, 26 percent supported Nixon’s impeachment six months into his second term, as the Watergate scandal was breaking.

Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said the higher percentage of Americans wanting impeachment is caused by “the current epidemic of hyper-partisanship that was simply not prevalent forty years ago.”

The poll also found that Trump has a 39 percent job approval rating. And 59 percent said the meeting between top Trump campaign officials — including Donald Trump Jr. — and a Russian lawyer last year was inappropriate.

Fifty percent said they believed the purposes of the meeting was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton, and 39 percent said Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner should be made to resign after attending the meeting.

The survey also found that nearly two-thirds think the Russian government definitely or probably tried to interfere in the election, and 54 percent believe Trump is too friendly toward Russia.

The Monmouth University poll surveyed 800 American adults from July 13 to 16 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342359-poll-more-americans-support-impeaching-trump-than-nixon-at-the-start
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on July 17, 2017, 03:26:05 PM
Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 07/17/17

Impeaching President Trump is more popular now than impeaching President Richard Nixon was at the start of the Watergate scandal, according to a Monmouth University poll.

The poll, released Monday, found 41 percent of Americans support impeachment for Trump. In comparison, 26 percent supported Nixon’s impeachment six months into his second term, as the Watergate scandal was breaking.

Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said the higher percentage of Americans wanting impeachment is caused by “the current epidemic of hyper-partisanship that was simply not prevalent forty years ago.”

The poll also found that Trump has a 39 percent job approval rating. And 59 percent said the meeting between top Trump campaign officials — including Donald Trump Jr. — and a Russian lawyer last year was inappropriate.

Fifty percent said they believed the purposes of the meeting was to get negative information about Hillary Clinton, and 39 percent said Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner should be made to resign after attending the meeting.

The survey also found that nearly two-thirds think the Russian government definitely or probably tried to interfere in the election, and 54 percent believe Trump is too friendly toward Russia.

The Monmouth University poll surveyed 800 American adults from July 13 to 16 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342359-poll-more-americans-support-impeaching-trump-than-nixon-at-the-start

(https://i.redd.it/n70fbo8uh6az.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on July 17, 2017, 05:24:50 PM
(https://i.redd.it/n70fbo8uh6az.jpg)

(https://media.tenor.com/images/3fb980831f0eeac97b5abf25248f03f3/tenor.gif) (http://replygif.net/i/735.gif)(https://media3.giphy.com/media/nZ0tWDgS8ZgyI/200.webp#0-grid1)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 26, 2017, 01:12:56 PM
Dem lawmaker threatens to force Trump impeachment vote next week
BY CRISTINA MARCOS - 09/26/17
   
Dem lawmaker threatens to force Trump impeachment vote next week

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday that he will move to force a House floor vote to impeach President Trump next week as he denounced Trump's attacks on NFL players protesting police brutality.

Green, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, stood on the GOP side of the House chamber to announce his plans to file a resolution that will automatically trigger a floor vote.

“I rise today as a proud American. A person who believes in his country, who salutes the flag and says the Pledge of Allegiance and sings the national anthem,” Green said, wearing an American flag-themed tie.

“I will stand here in the well of the Congress, and I will call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America,” he said.

Trump renewed the controversy over former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protests at a rally in Alabama on Friday.

“Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He is fired,’ ” Trump said.

Green denounced Trump’s comments, saying they amount to “a level of indecency that is unbecoming the presidency.”

“I rise to say to the world that this is not what America is all about,” Green said, hitting the podium for emphasis.

Under House rules, any member can file what is known as a “privileged” resolution that argues something goes against the dignity and integrity of the House.

Even if Republicans reject it, as expected, Green can still force a procedural vote on his resolution.

Green has called for Trump’s impeachment before. He signed on to an article of impeachment filed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) in July that argues Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey as FBI director amid the agency’s investigation of whether his campaign colluded with the Russian government.

Green previously threatened to file a privileged resolution to impeach Trump in June if he ousted Robert Mueller, the special counsel now overseeing the FBI’s investigation.

“I think that would be a part of the last straw, if not the last straw, if he did that,” Green told The Hill at the time.

It's unclear if the latest privileged resolution on which Green is threatening to force a vote will also cite the Comey firing as justification for impeaching Trump. A spokesman didn't immediately return a request for comment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/352456-dem-lawmaker-threatens-to-force-trump-impeachment-vote-next-week
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on September 26, 2017, 07:32:35 PM
So you can now impeach a president because you don't like his views ??   ???
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2017, 10:46:03 AM
President Trump must be breathing a sigh of relief.

Dem Rep Green: Trump Impeachment ‘Postponed’ in the Wake of Vegas Shooting

by PAM KEY
2 Oct 2017

Monday following the Las Vegas, NV shooting, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) announced on the House floor that his effort to impeach President Donald Trump was postponed.

Green said, “Mr. Speaker, our nation is in mourning. Many hearts are bleeding. Mr. Speaker, there is much suffering. Lives have been lost in a senseless, needless manner in Las Vegas. Mr. Speaker, there is a right time for all things. This is a time for our nation to mourn and for hearts to heal.”

He added, “Mr. Speaker, I announce that impeachment is postponed.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/10/02/dem-rep-green-trump-impeachment-postponed-wake-vegas-shooting/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2017, 03:56:23 PM
How the heck did this man get elected to Congress??

Dem Rep. Al Green introduces articles of impeachment against Trump
Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas, Fox News

Liberal Democratic Rep. Al Green on Wednesday followed through on threats to file articles of impeachment against President Trump, introducing the resolution in the House while delivering an anti-Trump tirade on the floor.

The Texas congressman's maneuver was short-lived. While Green could have forced a vote as early as Wednesday, he opted not to take further action and the articles effectively expired.

However, Green could reintroduce the measure at any time, and a spokesman for the lawmaker told Fox News he may do so.

“Today, I rise to use the constitutionally prescribed political process of impeachment to speak truth to the most powerful man on earth, the president of the United States of America,” Green said in a speech on the House floor.

Accusing Trump of betraying “his trust as president” by embracing racism, Green referenced Adolf Hitler and made the point that Trump can still be removed from office even if he didn’t commit a crime.

“The public has been led to believe that a president must commit a crime to be impeached, which is not true,” Green said. “If any president persisted with the lie that ‘Hitler was right,’ he would be, and should be, impeached not for a crime, but for betraying his trust as president.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks during the daily press briefing, Monday, July 31, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort "pathetic" in a tweet Wednesday.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Green’s resolution covered four articles of impeachment.

One accused the president of “inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting and disparaging women and certain minorities.” Another alleged Trump brought “shame and dishonor to the office of the presidency by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism and neo-Nazism.”

Another still condemned Trump for saying “three to five million people voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election.”

The fourth article accused the president of “encouraging law enforcement officials to violate the Constitutional rights of the suspects in their case.”

 Follow
Sarah Sanders ✔ @PressSec
Dems response to historic stock market rally, 1m+ new jobs & middle class tax cut agenda under @POTUS. #OutofTouch #Pathetic https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/918152862173138945 …
8:15 AM - Oct 11, 2017
 1,044 1,044 Replies   1,592 1,592 Retweets   4,002 4,002 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort "pathetic" in a tweet Wednesday.

Green initially said he planned to file the resolution last week, but he postponed it after the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

“Impeachment is postponed,” Green said last week. “Let us mourn. Let us heal.”

REP. GREEN SEEKS TRUMP IMPEACHMENT VOTE, PUTTING DEMS IN TIGHT SPOT

Green's push is not supported by many senior Democrats, even as they rail against the president.

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Hill in response to Green’s threat: “We’re not there yet,” despite Trump having done “really terrible things.”

If Green brings back the measure, it’s likely that lawmakers in the GOP-controlled House would vote to set aside his resolution. This could still put some Democrats in a bad spot, as they would likely face pressure from outside liberal groups to vote against tabling the articles.

The House Judiciary Committee did not consider Green’s articles for floor debate, as it did when then-President Bill Clinton was impeached in in 1998.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/dem-rep-al-green-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-trump.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2017, 04:37:53 PM
Congressman introduces articles to impeach Trump: What to know about the process
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Fox News

Raw video: Democratic representative from Texas takes to House floor to file articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, forcing vote

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday – but the move soon died as no action was taken.

Green offered four scathing articles of impeachment on the House floor. No action was taken, and Green forewent an opportunity to force action on them – letting the articles expire.

Read on for a look at how the impeachment process works – and just what that means for the president.

What does impeachment mean?
Congress has the ability to remove a sitting president from office before his term is finished – an authority granted by the Constitution.

Along with the president and vice president, all civil officers in the U.S. can be removed from office if they are impeached and convicted of bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors, according to the Constitution.

How does impeachment work?
Article One of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment; the Senate has the sole authority to try all impeachments. If the president is being tried, the Chief Justice should preside over the trial.

The House must vote, requiring a simple majority vote to adopt the articles of impeachment. Before a vote, the House Judiciary Committee – or another special committee – may investigate the articles.

The House is able to vote to impeach even if the committee does not recommend doing so.

Should that vote be reached, then the House will appoint members – called managers – to act as “prosecutors” as the proceedings will then go to trial in the Senate. The president is able to have defense attorneys.

The Senate would need a two-thirds majority in order to find the president guilty. Should that happen, the president would be removed from and the vice president takes office.

Have other presidents been impeached?
Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached – and neither were removed from office.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998.

While an impeachment proceeding began against former President Richard Nixon, he was not actually impeached. Nixon was the only president to resign from office.

What is the White House’s response?
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the move was “pathetic” in a tweet Wednesday afternoon.

 Follow
Sarah Sanders ✔ @PressSec
Dems response to historic stock market rally, 1m+ new jobs & middle class tax cut agenda under @POTUS. #OutofTouch #Pathetic https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/918152862173138945 …
8:15 AM - Oct 11, 2017
 1,098 1,098 Replies   1,718 1,718 Retweets   4,369 4,369 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
What do Green’s articles say?
Green’s impeachment articles covered a wide range of issues. One accused Trump of “inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting and disparaging women and certain minorities.”

Another criticized the president for alleging that several million people illegally voted in the 2016 election.

One article said Trump has brought “shame and dishonor to the office of the presidency” because he has associated it with “causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism and neo-Nazism.”

And another article said Trump has “enourag[ed] law enforcement officials to violate the Constitutional rights of the suspect in their case.”

Since no action was immediately taken, the articles expired.

Green does have the ability to reintroduce his articles at a later date. A spokesperson for the congressman told Fox News that Green wanted to give his colleagues time to review what he’s put forth.

The Associated Press reported that Green’s articles did not accuse Trump of a crime, but the congressman said that was not needed to impeach.

Would impeachment work?
With a Republican-led House – and other Democratic congressmen who don’t support impeaching Trump – the lawmaker’s bid to remove Trump from office is considered to be a longshot.

Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from the efforts to impeach Trump, including Green’s, believing it serves only to energize the president's supporters.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/congressman-introduces-articles-to-impeach-trump-what-to-know-about-process.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 13, 2017, 03:46:34 PM
Porn King Larry Flynt Offers $10 Million for Information Leading to Trump Impeachment
October 13, 2017 by Jim Hoft

Porn King Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine is offering $10 million for information leading to the impeachment of Donald J. Trump as president.

Flynt will advertise the offer this weekend in the Washington Post.

In October 2016 Larry Flynt offered $1 million for recordings of Donald Trump breaking the law or acting in sexually demeaning manner.

This week he upped his offer to $10 million for information that will impeach Trump.

Liz Claman ✔ @LizClaman
3:30p FBN EXCLSV: @washingtonpost will run a Sun.Hustler Mag's @ImLarryFlynt offers $10m 4 info on @realDonaldTrump
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMCi3oYW4AMg6cp.jpg)
8:56 AM - Oct 13, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Class act.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/porn-king-larry-flynt-offers-10-million-information-leading-trump-impeachment/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on October 13, 2017, 03:52:24 PM
I wonder how he makes his money these days.  Looks like he must've transitioned from paper to electronic pretty well.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 13, 2017, 05:22:48 PM
I wonder how he makes his money these days.  Looks like he must've transitioned from paper to electronic pretty well.

No idea.  He's reportedly worth $500 mil.  Seems low given his line of work and age.  But he is on his 5th wife . . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on October 13, 2017, 09:55:14 PM
Love how some of the sissy asses try to stay relavent.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on October 14, 2017, 08:17:49 AM
No idea.  He's reportedly worth $500 mil.  Seems low given his line of work and age.  But he is on his 5th wife . . . . .

Just read a little bio on him and (if true) he's been a real slickster since the very beginning.  As for his initial break, though:

Quote
In July 1974, the first issue of Hustler was published. Although the first few issues went largely unnoticed, within a year the magazine became highly lucrative and Flynt was able to pay his tax debts.  Flynt's friend Al Goldstein said that Hustler took its inspiration from his own tabloid SCREW, but credited him with accomplishing what he had not: creating a national publication.  In November 1974, Hustler showed the first "pink-shots," or photos of open vulvas.  Flynt had to fight to publish each issue, as many people, including some at his distribution company, found the magazine too explicit and threatened to remove it from the market. Shortly thereafter, Flynt was approached by a paparazzo who had taken nude pictures of former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis while she was sunbathing on vacation in 1971. He purchased them for $18,000 and published them in the August 1975 issue. That issue attracted widespread attention, and one million copies were sold within a few days.  Now a millionaire, Flynt bought a $375,000 mansion.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on October 14, 2017, 08:28:06 AM
Larry Flint has led a very colorful life. He's admitted that he is bi-polar. Over the years, Flint has taken an active role in politics. Physically he's not in great shape. As a result of being shot, he's been wheelchair bound for decades. He also suffered a stroke, which resulted in impaired speech. Nothing seems to hold him down though.

Hard to believe he's only a couple of years older than you, Prime.  He's busted apart, completely.  You have a lot to be thankful for.

Btw, turns out the guy who shot him was never brought to trial for that, but was executed just a few years ago in Missouri for something else.  He was a serial killer who got away with untold murder, and he also shot Vernon Jordan at one point and escaped conviction for that.  Quite a character.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on October 14, 2017, 03:47:42 PM
Well, my life is incredibly tame and boring as compared to Larry Flynt.   
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 23, 2017, 04:59:12 PM
California billionaire launches ads urging Trump impeachment
By Kathleen Ronayne | AP October 20, 2017

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California billionaire Tom Steyer announced Friday that he will dump at least $10 million into a national television advertising campaign calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment.

In the ad, Steyer argues Trump should be ousted from office because he has edged the country toward nuclear war, obstructed justice at the FBI and threatened to shut down news organizations he does not like. He urges viewers to call their members of Congress and tell them to bring articles of impeachment.

“People in Congress and his own administration know this president is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons,” Steyer says in the ad. “And they do nothing.”

Steyer plans to spend eight figures to air the television ads nationally, but he would not give an exact amount. His investment comes as he considers running against U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat, and as Democrats in Washington argue over whether efforts to impeach Trump are smart or worthwhile.

“If Democrats want to appease the far left and their liberal mega-donors by supporting a baseless, radical effort that the vast majority of Americans disagree with, then have at it,” said Michael Ahrens, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Republicans will focus on “issues voters actually care about,” such as the economy and cutting taxes, he said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Steyer also said he will spend seven figures on an accompanying digital ad campaign.

An impeachment resolution brought last week by Democratic U.S. Rep. Al Green of Texas died before coming up for a vote. Green has vowed to try again.

But Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California think impeachment attempts are not worthwhile because they will fail in the Republican-led Congress and could energize GOP voters heading into the next election.

Steyer has poured his wealth into a variety of political efforts, mostly focused on stopping climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/california-billionaire-launches-ads-urging-trump-impeachment/2017/10/20/9b5d769a-b5b6-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html?utm_term=.dbfac7edcdec
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 31, 2017, 04:57:28 PM
What a monumental waste of money.

Trump responds to Calif. billionaire urging impeachment
By KEN THOMAS
Oct. 27, 2017
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is responding to a California billionaire who has vowed to spend at least $10 million in advertising calling for the president’s impeachment.

Trump is using Twitter to call Tom Steyer “wacky & totally unhinged.” He says Steyer “has been fighting me and my Make America Great Again agenda from the beginning,” adding the billionaire environmentalist “never wins elections!”

Steyer recently launched the advertising, which has been running on Fox News and other national outlets, arguing that Trump should be ousted from office. Steyer contends Trump is pushing the U.S. toward a nuclear war, is obstructing justice at the FBI and threatening to shut down news organizations he doesn’t like.

Steyer wants viewers to call their members of Congress and tell them to bring articles of impeachment.

https://www.apnews.com/577792f7374048e5ad35e79af61a5cac
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 01, 2017, 04:04:48 PM
Gutiérrez Pushes Impeachment Day After NYC Terror Attack
PETER HASSON
Associate Editor
11/01/2017

Democratic Rep. Luis Gutiérrez is pushing full steam ahead with impeachment measures the day after an Islamist terrorist attack in New York City that left eight people dead.

House Democrats will file impeachment measures before Thanksgiving, Gutiérrez told The Hill on Wednesday. “It is clear to us that he is unfit to be president of the United States of America,” the Illinois congressman said.

Gutiérrez declined to say on what basis Democrats will make their impeachment case but told The Hill, “I assure you we will not leave you lacking for reason.”

Gutiérrez’s comments came the day after New York police officers arrested 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, originally from Uzbekistan, for mowing down New Yorkers in a rental truck. The terrorist attack, which Saipov dedicated to ISIS, left eight people dead.

Left-wing Democrats have been pushing for impeachment since before President Trump ever took office. (RELATED: Maxine Waters Pushes Trump Impeachment During Eulogy)

Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer recently launched a $10 million ad campaign in support of impeachment, while left-wing activists have been using the impeachment issue to energize the base and call for protests.

The impeachment push comes despite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s repeated pleas for Democrats to hold their fire on the issue. (RELATED: Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated)

Gutiérrez has had a heated relationship with the White House. The congressman previously sparked controversy after attacking Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff, as a “disgrace to the uniform.”

Gutiérrez, who never served in the military, refused to apologize for his attack on Kelly.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/gutierrez-pushes-impeachment-day-after-nyc-terror-attack/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Top Poodle on November 01, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
Washington is eating itself, socialists dems are pathetic
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2017, 02:56:13 PM
House Dem's new demand: Impeach Trump by Christmas
Fox News

Texas Democrat Al Green said Wednesday he’s giving his colleagues in the House a Christmas deadline to vote on impeaching President Trump.

“I now announce that before Christmas, there will be a vote on the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism and ethnocentrism,” he said on the House floor, adding that he prayed the United States will “continue to reject what the inciter in chief, Donald J. Trump has been causing this country to have to endure.”

This is hardly the first time Green has called for impeaching the president, though he hasn't put a timeframe on it until now.

Last month, Green unveiled formal articles of impeachment, though it never made it to the House floor for a vote. At the time, Green said he wanted to give lawmakers extra time to read through the proposal.

Green’s resolution covered four articles of impeachment.

One accused the president of “inciting white supremacy, sexism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, race-baiting, and racism by demeaning, defaming, disrespecting and disparaging women and certain minorities.” Another alleged Trump brought “shame and dishonor to the office of the presidency by associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism and neo-Nazism.”

GREEN INTRODUCES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST TRUMP

While acknowledging conservatives aren’t likely to jump on board and kick Trump out of the Oval Office, Green said, “Whatever others will do is their choice. My conscience dictates that I will vote to impeach.”

There’s not much enthusiasm among most congressional Democrats to impeach.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly downplayed talk of impeachment and on Sunday told CNN it wasn’t one of her legislative priorities.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/08/house-dems-new-demand-impeach-trump-by-christmas.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 09, 2017, 08:22:53 AM
Bunch of deranged mentally ill crack pots. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2017, 03:35:45 PM
Using the recent terrorist attack in New York, to imply Trump should not be impeached is nonsense. No matter if the judicial system agreed with Trump's ban on immigrants, it will not decrease the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. Even if we could round up all immigrants from countries with terrorist ties, there will still be plenty of homegrown terrorists left to practice their insanity in the U.S.

Any and all talk about impeachment is nonsense. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2017, 04:03:19 PM
And yet, more and more folks are talking about it, Republicans as well as Democrats.

O Rly?  Which Republicans are talking about impeaching Trump? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on November 09, 2017, 05:59:54 PM
Are you expecting me to name them? There are approximately 880 million Republicans in the U.S. If you are asking only about Republicans in Congress, a few brave Republican souls have spoken out against Trump. They likely won't come forward until the grounds for his impeachment are established. To do otherwise at this point would be political suicide. Several Republican Congressmen announced they would not seek reelection, a few of these said they do not support Trump or are at odds with him and/or his policies.

The Senate probably needs only six votes from Republicans to impeach Trump. Ms Kamarck, who is director of the Centre for Effective Public Management, said 12 Republican Senators had "no fear of the President" and had indicated they could vote against him.

Look, I'm not saying Trump will be impeached. What I am saying is that it's a possibility. Just like it is possible he won't physically survive his term(s) in office. He's an overweight, hyper-A-type person, who is well past his prime. The odds are not in his favor.




Where did you find 880 million Republicans? Are you counting the dead ones too?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 09, 2017, 06:22:35 PM
Are you expecting me to name them? There are approximately 880 million Republicans in the U.S. If you are asking only about Republicans in Congress, a few brave Republican souls have spoken out against Trump. They likely won't come forward until the grounds for his impeachment are established. To do otherwise at this point would be political suicide. Several Republican Congressmen announced they would not seek reelection, a few of these said they do not support Trump or are at odds with him and/or his policies.

The Senate probably needs only six votes from Republicans to impeach Trump. Ms Kamarck, who is director of the Centre for Effective Public Management, said 12 Republican Senators had "no fear of the President" and had indicated they could vote against him.

Look, I'm not saying Trump will be impeached. What I am saying is that it's a possibility. Just like it is possible he won't physically survive his term(s) in office. He's an overweight, hyper-A-type person, who is well past his prime. The odds are not in his favor.




Name one Republican in Washington that has called for Trump's impeachment. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 09, 2017, 07:30:24 PM
Where did you find 880 million Republicans? Are you counting the dead ones too?
LMAO
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2017, 10:11:41 AM
Tom Steyer‏Verified account
@TomSteyer
Follow Follow @TomSteyer
More
Replying to @davidaxelrod
Unhelpful to whom, David? Millions of Americans strongly disagree. 78% of Democratic primary voters support impeachment.
11:49 AM - 11 Nov
https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/929435991336554496
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2017, 08:36:24 AM
House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
MSN.com ^ | Nov. 15, 2017 | John Bowden
Posted on 11/15/2017, 11:06:09

Several House Democrats introduced articles of impeachment targeting President Trump on Wednesday, asserting that Trump has violated the Constitution.

Democratic Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio) and John Yarmuth (Ky.) said the five articles of impeachment come out of concern for the country's national security.

"We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution, and we've introduced five articles of impeachment," Cohen said at a press conference.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Kazan on November 15, 2017, 08:57:38 AM
House Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Trump
MSN.com ^ | Nov. 15, 2017 | John Bowden
Posted on 11/15/2017, 11:06:09

Several House Democrats introduced articles of impeachment targeting President Trump on Wednesday, asserting that Trump has violated the Constitution.

Democratic Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio) and John Yarmuth (Ky.) said the five articles of impeachment come out of concern for the country's national security.

"We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution, and we've introduced five articles of impeachment," Cohen said at a press conference.

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...

This should be interesting, should they succeed, every POTUS after Trump is going to be fair game
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on November 15, 2017, 09:54:42 AM
Any and all talk about impeachment is nonsense. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/six-democrats-introduce-trump-impeachment-articles/ar-BBF0e7K?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Could be a political stunt, but these dems seem serious?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Howard on November 15, 2017, 09:55:34 AM
This should be interesting, should they succeed, every POTUS after Trump is going to be fair game

Exactly my concern.

They better do something very serious before we move to kick them out.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2017, 10:29:39 AM
House Democrat will force vote to impeach Trump on Wednesday
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 12/5/17 | Laura Barrón-López
Posted on 12/5/2017, 1:23:23 PM by ColdOne

The House is about to vote on impeachment articles against President Trump.

Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas said he will force a vote on impeaching Trump as early as Wednesday. Republicans will easily table the symbolic vote, but it will put lawmakers on the record.

“Three prominent Democrats have asked to meet with me to discuss impeachment,” Green said on the floor Tuesday. Green appeared to be referring to members within his party’s leadership who have urged him to stop his campaign to force an impeachment vote.

“I will tell them I refuse to sit on the sidelines while the world is considering one of the great issues of our time,” Green said. “I will tell them that tomorrow we will bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the Congress of United States of America for a vote.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2017, 02:58:19 PM
House Democrat will force vote to impeach Trump on Wednesday
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 12/5/17 | Laura Barrón-López
Posted on 12/5/2017, 1:23:23 PM by ColdOne

The House is about to vote on impeachment articles against President Trump.

Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas said he will force a vote on impeaching Trump as early as Wednesday. Republicans will easily table the symbolic vote, but it will put lawmakers on the record.

“Three prominent Democrats have asked to meet with me to discuss impeachment,” Green said on the floor Tuesday. Green appeared to be referring to members within his party’s leadership who have urged him to stop his campaign to force an impeachment vote.

“I will tell them I refuse to sit on the sidelines while the world is considering one of the great issues of our time,” Green said. “I will tell them that tomorrow we will bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the Congress of United States of America for a vote.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

But will his crackhead girlfriend be there? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on December 05, 2017, 07:58:53 PM
But will his crackhead girlfriend be there? 
Is he retarded?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2017, 08:58:04 PM
Is he retarded?

I don't know, but he's certainly not the brightest bulb in Congress. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 06, 2017, 11:50:39 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/06/us-rep-al-green-plans-trump-impeachment-resolution.html


Comical these libtwinks
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 06, 2017, 02:09:16 PM
Who are the 58 dummies who voted to move this forward??

House rejects Trump impeachment resolution after Dem Rep. Al Green forces vote

By Alex Pappas   | Fox News

Republican Councilman Joe Borelli and Fox News contributor Jehmu Greene debate the merits on 'Fox & Friends First.'

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to impeach President Trump after a liberal Texas congressman forced a vote on his effort.

Democratic Rep. Al Green, who has repeatedly called for the president's removal, introduced two articles of impeachment against Trump on Wednesday.

But lawmakers immediately voted to effectively kill his resolution, with 364 voting to table it and 58 Democrats voting to move ahead.

In a dramatic speech on the floor ahead of the vote, Green called Trump “unfit” for office and accused him of "high misdemeanors."

The symbolic vote had been expected to fail in the Republican-controlled House. It put some lawmakers in competitive districts in a tough spot by forcing them on the record about impeachment.

Lawmakers did not actually vote on the actual articles of impeachment, but on a procedural measure that would have led to a vote on them.

“As I have said before, this is not about Democrats, it is about democracy,” Green wrote in a memo to his colleagues. “It is not about Republicans, it is about the fate of our Republic. May everyone vote their conscience knowing that history will judge us all.”

Green has discussed his intention to impeach Trump since last spring. In October, Green filed impeachment articles that nearly forced a vote -- until House Democratic leaders persuaded him to abandon the effort.

At the time, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders called the effort "pathetic.”

AL GREEN INTRODUCES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST TRUMP

In his memo to lawmakers, Green didn’t allege “obstruction of justice” or reference the ongoing investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign’s connection with Russia.

Instead, Green highlighted Trump’s supposed association with “White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hate,” as well as “Inciting Hatred and Hostility,” as offenses worthy of impeachment.

“Friends, whether we like it or not, we now have a bigot in the White House who incites hatred and hostility,” Green wrote in a letter.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has insisted that any impeachment effort should be put on hold until there is evidence of an impeachable offense.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/06/house-rejects-trump-impeachment-resolution-after-dem-rep-al-green-forces-vote.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 06, 2017, 04:29:30 PM
Can't stand Pelosi but she had some sense to realize that there is no impeachable offense.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2017, 07:59:44 AM
NBC/WSJ Poll: 41 Percent Support Impeachment Hearings
By Jeffrey Rodack    |   Wednesday, 20 Dec 2017

Forty-one percent of Americans want Congress to hold impeachment hearings to remove President Donald Trump from office, while 54 percent oppose the idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Here is how the poll, released Wednesday, breaks down:

38 percent believe the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russia; 35 percent said it did not and 26 percent did not know enough to say.
36 percent said the indictments or guilty pleas by members of the Trump campaign suggest wrongdoing by the president; 28 percent said the alleged wrongdoing is limited to just those particular individuals and 34 percent did not know enough to say.
28 percent have a positive feeling about special counsel Robert Mueller; 21 percent are negative; 15 percent are neutral and 36 percent were uncertain.
26 percent said Trump will be a successful president; 44 percent say he will be unsuccessful and 29 percent are not ready to pass judgment.

The poll, conducted Dec. 13-15, surveyed 900 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/poll-support-impeachment-hearings/2017/12/20/id/832807/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: gh15 on December 20, 2017, 08:09:21 AM
president trump will never be impeached.. he put money in peoples pockets.. everyone get richer with president Donald trump.. will never be impeached.. probably the best president in history of the west,, defenitly top 3 when all said and done,,

gh15 approved
lion of Judah
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2017, 08:12:05 AM
His goose is cooked when they find the smoking gun proving he conspired with Putin to get elected president so he could become Putin's puppet. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 08, 2018, 09:43:57 AM
Dummies.  Of course they will.  They cannot run on ideas.  They have been intellectually bankrupt for years. 

Will Democrats run on impeachment in 2018 midterms? Don't count it out
By Fred Lucas | Fox News

If Democrats take back the House in 2018, they will likely face pressure from base to impeach President Trump; reaction and analysis from RNC spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany and DNC Vice Chairman Michael Blake.

After months of shying away from the toxic topic, Democrats increasingly are embracing political rhetoric that flirts with the impeachment of President Trump – signaling a strategy that could work its way into the mainstream in the 2018 midterms.

From the base, the party sees encouragement. A petition with 4 million signatures demanding Trump’s impeachment and a survey showing 70 percent of Democrats backing at least hearings on the matter could nudge Democrats further into the impeachment camp in the new year.

The publication of the “Fire and Fury” tell-all, meanwhile, has only emboldened Trump’s critics, by seeming to raise questions about his stability – which the president openly confronted in a weekend tweet-storm declaring he is a “very stable genius.”

Democrats must win 24 House seats and two Senate seats to regain control of Congress in 2018, but have a historically tough time motivating their voters in non-presidential years.

'Smart Democrats know it’s a dumb idea.'

- legal commentator Andrew McCarthy, on impeachment push
Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America, a liberal activist group that endorses and raises money for Democratic candidates, claimed the impeachment push has public support.

“Democrats should run on an inclusive, populist agenda of free college and paid family leave, but shouldn’t shy away from supporting impeachment,” Sroka told Fox News.

HOUSE REJECTS TRUMP IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION

“Millions of people around the country support impeaching the president. Democratic candidates in deep blue districts can and should be for impeachment,” Sroka continued. “It would be politically stupid for any Democrat to come out against impeachment.”

Last month, 58 House Democrats voted to bring an impeachment resolution up for debate. While party leadership has publicly shunned the idea, Democrats recently tapped Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York to be ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, replacing disgraced ex-Rep. John Conyers. Washington Post columnist Paul Kane described the choice as a move “to ready themselves for a battle with President Trump that could end with impeachment proceedings,” given Nadler’s expertise in constitutional law.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX), accompanied by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), speaks with the media about his plans to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 7, 2017.  REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTX39IQG
Reps. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas, were the first to introduce an impeachment resolution in July.  (Reuters)

Some impeachment advocates say it doesn’t matter that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia isn’t complete.

In November, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and four other Democrats introduced five articles of impeachment against Trump. Reps. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas, were the first to introduce an impeachment resolution in July, alleging obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., ended one speech last year with an "impeach 45" chant.

Even Sherman, though, expressed caution against making impeachment a campaign issue.

“This is a matter of constitutional principal, not politics,” Sherman told Fox News. “Members should look at the actions of the president and determine whether they believe he obstructed justice or committed other acts warranting impeachment. … Talk of impeachment has already had an effect. Imagine how President Trump would behave if he thought there was absolutely no risk of impeachment. We need not wait until all the various investigations give us a complete catalog of all of Trump’s wrongdoings.”

The publication last week of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” fueled the impeachment fever.

Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, who has spent $20 million to promote impeachment, sent a copy of the Wolff book to all 535 members of Congress. Steyer’s NeedToImpeach.com petition collected 4.1 million signatures. He told a California radio station KQED Friday: “It is an open-and-shut case, that he has met the criteria for impeachment. We're supportive of the Mueller investigation, he is investigating two out of the nine criteria that this president has met.”

Steyer has said in TV ads that past presidents have been impeached for lesser crimes.

But where Trump critics see an “open-and-shut” case, others see a major pitfall for the party.

“Steyer’s assumption is that Trump committed espionage with Putin. If proven, he would be quite right, but it hasn’t been proven,” conservative legal commentator and author Andrew McCarthy told Fox News. “The country will not broadly find it attractive if there is a lack of evidence. Fair-minded people will not want to impeach. Smart Democrats know it’s a dumb idea.”

McCarthy nevertheless believes Democrats will feel pressure from a rabid base to run on impeachment, and some members could fear a primary if they aren’t on board.

“The base can make Democrats do politically stupid things,” said McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York. “If the Democrats’ front and center issue is impeachment, they will not win in the midterms. It would be a bad strategy to run on.”

A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll last month found 41 percent of Americans want Congress to hold impeachment hearings. Of that, 70 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of independents and 7 percent of Republicans back a House inquiry.

Only Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached in the House, where it takes just a majority, and both were acquitted in the Senate, where it takes a two-thirds supermajority to remove. Clinton’s 1998 impeachment was for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was about violating the Tenure of Office Act after he fired War Secretary Edwin Stanton. President Richard Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment over Watergate, to avoid impeachment and removal. Article II of the Constitution says impeachment can be based on "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

“Many Democrats will want to impeach Trump even if they don’t have anywhere near the numbers in the Senate,” McCarthy said. “That’s in part because they hate Trump and in part because they’re still sore about the Clinton impeachment 20 years ago.”

But Sroka is taking a just-you-wait approach on the Senate numbers.

“We’ll see what two-thirds looks like,” Sroka said. “Given the range of impeachment-worthy offenses by Donald Trump, it’s difficult to compare with what Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton over, or what Andrew Johnson was impeached for.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/08/will-democrats-run-on-impeachment-in-2018-midterms-dont-count-it-out.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 19, 2018, 08:45:08 PM
House rejects Democratic effort to impeach Trump as shutdown looms
BY CRISTINA MARCOS - 01/19/18

The House on Friday once again rejected an effort by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) to impeach President Trump, in a sign of inflamed partisan tensions ahead of a midnight deadline to avoid a government shutdown.

Green, who has agitated for Trump’s impeachment for months, forced a procedural vote on articles of impeachment following Trump’s Oval Office comments last week describing some nations as “shithole countries” while expressing a preference for immigrants from places like Norway.

It failed by a 355-66 vote, with three Democrats voting "present."

Trump made the comments during a meeting with members of Congress about a potential deal to shield young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally from deportation while enhancing border security. Those talks have been in limbo since that meeting, which in turn has led to an impasse over keeping the government open.

Green previously forced a vote on articles of impeachment last month, which failed due to most Democrats joining with Republicans to table it. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) both oppose calling for impeachment at this point, citing the ongoing investigations of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

Eight more Democrats voted in favor of impeaching Trump than a month ago, demonstrating the growing support on the left for pushing Trump out of office.

A total of 58 Democrats voted in favor of impeachment in December, primarily the most liberal lawmakers and fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

Green’s latest articles of impeachment are similar to those he offered last month but updated with Trump’s “shithole” comment from last week.

Trump, Green alleges in the articles of impeachment, has “brought the high office of president of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace and disrepute” and “has sown discord among the people of the United States.”

Aside from the latest controversy from Trump’s immigration meeting, the articles of impeachment cite Trump’s travel ban, push to prevent transgender people from serving in the military, attempts to cast equal blame on white supremacists and counter-protesters for violence in Charlottesville, Va., and attacks on NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality.

Most Democrats aren’t ready to support impeachment out of concerns that it would be premature.

Instead, Democratic leaders are endorsing an effort from members of the CBC and House Judiciary Committee to censure Trump for describing Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as “shithole countries.”

The censure resolution, unveiled Thursday, calls on Trump to apologize for remarks it describes as “hateful, discriminatory and racist, and cannot and should not be the basis of any American policy.”

CBC Chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.) said that Democrats may try to force a vote on the censure resolution if GOP leaders don’t bring it up for consideration on the floor.

Some Republicans have joined with Democrats in criticizing Trump for the comments. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) used milder language than Democrats, saying that Trump’s remarks were “very unfortunate” and “unhelpful.”

Despite breaking with Trump over the comments, GOP leaders are highly unlikely to support efforts to censure him.

Democrats also introduced a resolution to censure Trump over his handling of the Charlottesville violence, but Republicans similarly dismissed it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/369730-house-rejects-democratic-effort-to-impeach-trump-as-shutdown-looms
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 09, 2018, 02:22:14 PM
Media Pretending Democrats Don’t Want To Impeach Trump
JOE SIMONSON
Media Reporter
04/09/2018

Republicans around the country are warning voters that if Democrats win the House in 2018, it’s all but guaranteed they’ll impeach President Donald Trump — many in the media are treating it like a cynical political ploy.

Enter Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce, who called impeachment “the Republicans’ latest boogeyman for the 2018 elections.”

“So, when you hear Republican strategists talking about how the Democratic candidates are slavering at the chance to impeach this president*, know that these low moans are strategic in their purpose, disingenuous in their history, and almost utterly dishonest about the state of play in the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans create phantoms like this all the time to frighten their base voters,” Pierce wrote.

Pierce can’t find “a single Democratic candidate who is running specifically” on the issue of impeachment, he noted.

It’s unclear what exactly he’s talking about, considering Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz challenger Beto O’Rourke’s comments Monday suggested he’d like to see the president impeached.

Michigan Democratic primary candidate Rashida Tlaib made “impeachment” her “calling card,” according to an April 4 article in The Hill.

But let’s assume Pierce is technically right. After all, the Democratic Party has been hesitant in encouraging its candidates to run campaigns dedicated solely to opposing Trump. Even Obama presidential campaign chief strategist David Axelrod cautioned Democrats against running on an impeachment platform.

But don’t let that rhetorical sleight of hand fool you.

Beyond all the headlines acting like the GOP is manipulating its voters, like The New York Times’ decision to say Republicans “seize” on impeachment fears, is the Democrats’ real desire to bring charges against the president.

California Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in July 2017.

“Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” Sherman wrote.

And he wasn’t the first. Six other Democratic House members introduced their own bill in November 2017 to impeach Trump, claiming he had “violated federal law, the public trust and should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Robert Donachie.

This isn’t the work of some rogue congressmen either: by January 2017, over a third of House Democrats — 66 — voted for impeachment proceedings.

Progressive activist groups and donors are going all in on impeachment as well. Anyone living in the New York City or Washington, D.C., areas has probably seen billionaire Tom Steyer’s pleads for Trump’s removals.

A majority of Americans don’t want to see Trump impeached, while Democrats do. Seven-in-10 Democrats want to see Congress bring up the vote, according to a December 2017 poll.

Some boogeyman.

Despite all the political nastiness that accompanied former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, it’s hard not to think such a period was incredibly civil compared to now.

Considering many Democratic and liberal pundits have a hard time even acknowledging Trump won the election fairly, the idea the GOP is simply contriving the impeachment threat is laughable. Remember, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.

The Democratic party’s entire message since Trump was inaugurated has been “#Resist.” After they vote to repeal 2017’s tax cuts, what would be a grander act of resistance than kicking Trump out of office?

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/09/esquire-trump-impeachment/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 25, 2018, 06:33:30 PM
Maxine Waters to Trump: ‘Please Resign’ so I Don’t Have to Impeach You
by KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ
25 Apr 2018

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), in an interview at the Time 100 Gala on Tuesday, said her advice to President Trump is to “please resign.”
The interviewer asked Waters if she had any advice for the president, and the California Democrat did not mince words.

“Please resign,” said Waters, one of Trump’s most vocal critics, after being honored at the Time 100 Gala in New York. “So that I won’t have to keep up this fight of your having impeached because I don’t think you deserve to be there. Just get out.”

Waters made the 2018 list of Time 100’s “most influential people” along with the anti-gun Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student activists, the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, and Trump himself.

Actress Yara Shahidi wrote the tribute to Waters, praising her for leading the movement to “impeach” Trump.

“She is adored and admired by people who care about social justice and is oh so eloquent in letting the world, particularly the white men of Congress who dare test her acumen, know that she is not here for any nonsense,” Shahidi wrote.

Waters has made it a point as a congresswoman to criticize Trump or call for his resignation or impeachment.

In an interview with Bloomberg in November 2017, she said she “inspires” people by calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Waters has even resorted to personal attacks, calling the president a “racist” when she appeared on BET in February to give her response to Trump’s State of the Union address.

She also declined to attend this year’s State of the Union to protest Trump’s “character flaw.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/25/waters-trump-please-resign-dont-impeach/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2018, 11:19:57 AM
Sane, lucid comments from Pelosi??   :o

Dem blasts Pelosi for ‘trivializing’ impeachment
BY MIKE LILLIS - 05/14/18

The Democratic lawmaker leading the impeachment charge against President Trump went after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday for “trivializing” the effort.

Pelosi and Democratic leaders have sought to tamp down the small impeachment push within their ranks, arguing the president hasn’t done anything to merit such a weighty response. Pelosi, a frequent critic of the president, said last week that “being a jerk” doesn’t rise to the level of seeking his ouster.

But Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who introduced articles of impeachment last year accusing the president of inciting racial divisions, suggested it’s his patriotic duty to stand up to the president, despite leadership’s wishes.

“It is regrettable that Leader Pelosi would trivialize President Trump’s hateful discrimination against Jews, Latinos, Blacks, Women, and the LGBTQ community by reducing the president’s harmful bigotry to his ‘being a jerk,’ ” Green said Monday in a brief statement.

“Love for my country will not permit me to allow the president’s bigotry to be trivialized and minimized.”

The impeachment issue has divided Democrats since Trump took office, pitting a handful of liberals against party leaders who fear the issue could spark a political backlash at the polls in November when they’re hoping to win back the House. Pelosi has discouraged such talk, calling it “a gift” to Republicans in the midterms.

She’s putting a damper on the impeachment effort while awaiting the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign helped Russia swing the election against Democrat Hillary Clinton. Pushing to oust Trump beforehand, she’s said, risks politicizing the probe and undermining its conclusions.

“Impeachment is a distraction,” Pelosi said last week. “I’m not walking away from impeachment for political reasons, and I’m not walking toward it for political reasons. I just think it’s divisive.”

Meeting with The Dallas Morning News's editorial board on Friday, Pelosi amplified her position, arguing for Democrats to focus instead on the party’s economic message heading into the elections.

"We have elections. Go vote if it's a policy thing and a behavior thing,” she said. “I don't know if you can get impeached for being a jerk, but if we did, this guy would be long gone. But that's not unifying."

Pelosi went on to praise Green as “a wonderful person,” but warned against the political fallout if Democrats train their sights on Trump in lieu of bread-and-butter economic issues.

“It’s a total gift to the Republicans,” she said. “What people want to know is, what are you doing to help me in my life? How I’m going to educate my kids or pay the rent or mortgage, medical bills and the rest of that? They think it’s an excuse not to have solutions by talking about the rest of these other things.”

Her position has done little to dissuade Green, whose impeachment articles say Trump has “brought disrepute, contempt, ridicule and disgrace on the presidency” and “sown discord among the people of the United States.”

Among a litany of examples, he cites Trump’s criticism of the NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and his equivocal response to last summer’s violent white supremacist marches in Charlottesville, Va.

Green has already forced two floor votes on the issue. The first, in December, was supported by 58 Democrats. The number rose to 66 in the second vote in January — a bump attributed to Trump’s reported derogatory comments about African nations, Haiti and El Salvador made just a week before.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/387587-dem-blasts-pelosi-for-trivializing-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on May 15, 2018, 11:26:34 AM
Bunch of mental patients
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 16, 2018, 04:28:07 AM
Anyone interested in running for public office these days is mentally unbalanced, IMO. Incumbents are even more deluded when they seek reelection.

 :o  :o  :o

I agree with Prime?!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 22, 2018, 05:39:07 PM
AL GREEN: DEMOCRATS WILL IMPEACH TRUMP IF WE RETAKE THE HOUSE
‘Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment’
May 22, 2018 

If Americans give the House of Representatives back to the Democratic Party this November, one of first things that will happen is the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday.

"There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment” brought against Trump, Rep. Green said. “Here is a point that I think is salient, and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It’s something every member has the right and privilege of doing.”

Rep. Green, who has been one of the most vocal proponents of impeaching Trump, made the comments during an appearance on CSPAN.

Here's a transcript:

ECHEVARRIA: “If Democrats take back the House in November, what is the likelihood that Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring up an impeachment charge?”

GREEN: “I’ll let Speaker Pelosi address her actions. But here is a point that I think is salient and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something that the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It is something that every member has the right and privilege of doing. I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it. And I think there is a good likelihood there will be Articles of Impeachment.”

ECHEVARRIA: “Have you heard directly from the Minority Leader about these efforts of yours, specifically asking you to stop or hold back? Anything along that line?”

GREEN: “Well, I don’t think you have to ask me what I’ve heard. If you have read publications, it is intuitively obvious to perhaps even the most casual observer that she and I are in different places on this. I respect her position.”

https://news.grabien.com/story-al-green-democrats-will-impeach-trump-if-we-retake-house
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on May 22, 2018, 05:41:35 PM
AL GREEN: DEMOCRATS WILL IMPEACH TRUMP IF WE RETAKE THE HOUSE
‘Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment’
May 22, 2018 

If Americans give the House of Representatives back to the Democratic Party this November, one of first things that will happen is the impeachment of President Trump, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) said Tuesday.

"There’s a good likelihood there will be articles of impeachment” brought against Trump, Rep. Green said. “Here is a point that I think is salient, and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It’s something every member has the right and privilege of doing.”

Rep. Green, who has been one of the most vocal proponents of impeaching Trump, made the comments during an appearance on CSPAN.

Here's a transcript:

ECHEVARRIA: “If Democrats take back the House in November, what is the likelihood that Speaker Nancy Pelosi bring up an impeachment charge?”

GREEN: “I’ll let Speaker Pelosi address her actions. But here is a point that I think is salient and one that ought to be referenced. Every member of the House is accorded the opportunity to bring up impeachment. This is not something that the Constitution has bestowed upon leadership. It is something that every member has the right and privilege of doing. I am not sure that there will be members who are going to wait for someone else if that someone else, doesn’t matter who it is, is declining to do it. We can all do it. And I think there is a good likelihood there will be Articles of Impeachment.”

ECHEVARRIA: “Have you heard directly from the Minority Leader about these efforts of yours, specifically asking you to stop or hold back? Anything along that line?”

GREEN: “Well, I don’t think you have to ask me what I’ve heard. If you have read publications, it is intuitively obvious to perhaps even the most casual observer that she and I are in different places on this. I respect her position.”

https://news.grabien.com/story-al-green-democrats-will-impeach-trump-if-we-retake-house

>Assuming that Pence would not carry out the rest of the agenda.

>Assuming that this would not result in a MASSIVE 2020 showing for the republican candidate.

Great Idea!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 22, 2018, 05:52:28 PM
>Assuming that Pence would not carry out the rest of the agenda.

>Assuming that this would not result in a MASSIVE 2020 showing for the republican candidate.

Great Idea!

I doubt they care that Pence would do exactly what Trump is doing.  They just want to tarnish Trump.  Pretty dumb political tactic.  They would be much better served coming up with some good, concrete policy positions to run on in 2018. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 01:51:51 PM
Al Green's comments and proposed impeachment seems premature. As much as I don't like Trump, I believe the conditions of his impeachment have not been met yet. It's more likely that Trump will be a one term president or he'll get fed up and resign.

Definitely premature.  

I don't think he quits and if he continues to perform the way he has, he is going to be reelected, particularly when you look at who the Democrats are lining up for 2020:  Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, etc.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 02:05:33 PM
We will have a better idea of the future of the presidency on the second Tuesday in November or the day after that. Personally, I think his performance is lacking....mostly because I disagree with his policies and because he panders to his friends and families' interests.

Remember that saying "it's the economy stupid"?  The economic indicators are hardly lacking.  The economy has improved by leaps and bounds.  That's what will primarily propel him to a second term.  Taking back all the ground we lost from ISIS under Obama helps.  And if he is able to broker some kind of treaty between North and South Korea, it's over.  

And given his accomplishments, why wouldn't we want him to serve a second term? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on May 23, 2018, 03:07:09 PM
The economic recovery began in 2010.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669)

ISIS, who deserves credit for their defeat?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis
 (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria)

North Korea Summit is on hold at the moment,
http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html (http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html)

Please tell me you just skimmed that second link (first one I clicked on) and didn't actually use that as some sort of defense of your position. Just decided to throw it up. That is an embarrassing article. Filled with major stretches/misquotes/contradictions, etc.

Type of article that is turning the tide hopefully for the midterms due to its overt bias/lack of logic used.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 04:54:47 PM
The economic recovery began in 2010.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669 (https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669)

ISIS, who deserves credit for their defeat?
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis
 (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16945312/state-of-the-union-2018-isis) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-defies-his-generalson-isis-and-syria)

North Korea Summit is on hold at the moment,
http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html (http://www.newser.com/story/259613/trump-hedges-on-date-for-north-korea-summit.html)

The recovery may have began in 2010 (I'm not sure if that's true), but the economic indicators have dramatically improved since Trump has been in office.  No reasonable person voting in 2020 is going to credit Obama for economic success between 2016 and 2020.

Who deserves the credit for the rise of ISIS after we pulled our troops from Iraq?  Obama, without question.  Who took back all of the ground we lost in Iraq in one year?  Trump, without question. 

I don't know what will happen with North Korea, but like I said, if Trump negotiates a treaty I don't see how he isn't reelected. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 04:56:22 PM
Unlike some "never Trumpers" I try to deal with reality instead of wishful thinking.
Pres. Trump still has a solid 40% base of support that's stayed with him, regardless .
The tax cut was popular with his base and many on the right applauded his moving of the Israli embassy to Jeruselum .
It would be difficult to convict him, even if he was impeached . They need 67 senators to vote against him,
so that's a real long shot.

I've always thought he'd resign IF the dems take back the house.
With the Mueller / FBI investigations added to dems in charge of congress, he'll say fuk it.

Regardless of the evidence, he'll head out in disgust ,claiming he was sabotaged and ruined his plans to MAGA.

I know you and other Trump supporters think I'm crazy on this, but I honestly think it could happen.
Oh well, we'll know better in a few months.



You're not dealing with reality.  If you were, you wouldn't be talking about that asinine Russia conspiracy theory.  And there is zero evidence Trump committed a crime. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 05:30:02 PM
What you really have down pat is the fact that most people have short memories. Obama will likely take his place in history as the first African American U.S. President. History can be a good reference, but what happens in the here and now is more important. Trump will be reelected unless he falls from the grace of his support....that's a real possibility when someone is as unpredictable as he is. 

People definitely have short memories. 

Love him or hate him, one thing Trump does is win.  I was a Never Trumper.  I was wrong about him. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 23, 2018, 11:52:58 PM
You continually amaze me. Keep me guessing, I love it. Now I really have to go.

 :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 22, 2018, 01:10:01 PM
There's nearly a Nixon '74 level of public support for impeaching Trump
CNN ^ | June 22, 2018 | Byron Wolfe
Posted on 6/22/2018, 3:36:40 PM by Rennes Templar

(CNN)There is a truly remarkable number in the most recent CNN poll, conducted by SSRS and out this morning.

In it, 42% of Americans say President Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office. What makes it remarkable is that he's on par with President Richard Nixon, who 43% of Americans said should be impeached and removed from office in a March 1974 Harris poll. That was after the scale of Watergate came to light, but months before the House started to move against Nixon, who would go on to resign in August 1974 rather than be impeached.

Impeachment requires "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," according to the Constitution, which also lists it as the the only thing for which a President can't issue a pardon. Trump has bragged that he certainly has the power to pardon himself but won't need to use it. Nixon got a pardon from Gerald Ford, the man to whom he gave the keys to the White House.

The 43% supporting Nixon's impeachment in that Harris poll, by the way, is much higher than the 29% who supported impeachment for President Bill Clinton in 1998. Or, for that matter, the similar number who wanted Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush impeached. As CNN's Grace Sparks writes, there's basically "a baseline of pro-impeachment sentiment for a modern president" and Trump far eclipses it. So why aren't top Democrats clamoring to impeach Trump? To be sure, there are efforts on the outskirts of the party and in Congress, but they do not have the backing of party big wigs.

Most Democrats in Congress, for the record, have opposed efforts by Rep. Al Green, a Texas Democrat, to bring the issue to the floor of the House.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on June 22, 2018, 01:26:55 PM
Thanks for asking. The honest answer is, not great, just so-so. Following the political news is mainly for distraction much like watching The Voice and other competition shows and spending time on Getbig are. This being said, I am thankful for my friends and family, my good health and relatively secure economic position.

Then what are you missing, Prime?  And what are you distracting yourself from, would you say?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 22, 2018, 03:18:09 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.

Sorry for your losses.  Death and dying suck. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 22, 2018, 05:00:43 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.

Sorry man.  We bust balls but we are also Getbiggrrs first.  Stay strong man
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Las Vegas on June 22, 2018, 09:48:24 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.

That's really sad, Prime.  But I'm sure you'd rather feel the sorrow, than some alternative to it -- meaning a positive truth about yourself can be found even in that gloom, and in the least selfish way.  

(Sometimes it helps to realize that when all else fails.)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 23, 2018, 03:00:47 PM
My late wife and the loss of my very best friend in the world. Nothing will ever fill this void.
Bashing Trump seems to pass your days now.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 17, 2018, 06:46:29 PM
Bookmaker increases chances of Trump being impeached after Putin summit
BY JUSTIN WISE - 07/17/18
   
Bookmaker increases chances of Trump being impeached after Putin summit
The chances that President Trump will be impeached are rising, according to one Irish bookmaker, one day after Trump refused to denounce Russian meddling in the 2016 election following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Paddy Power increased the likelihood of Trump being impeached on Tuesday from 8-1 to 2-1, according to Yahoo News. The news outlet first reported that the betting company also increased the likelihood of Trump being impeached this year, from 12-1 to 8-1.

"After the carnage of the last few days, we’ve seen plenty of punters Putin money on Trump’s impeachment again — although I’m sure they’ll soon get a message, in Russian, urging them to stop," a Paddy Power spokesman told Yahoo News.

The odds of Trump's impeachment increasing comes after his high-stakes summit with Putin in Finland, where he drew widespread condemnation for the comments he made during a joint press conference.

Among other things, Trump slammed special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election as a "disaster" and said he had no reason to think Moscow interfered — a comment that runs counter to the U.S. intelligence community's assessments.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told The Hill on Monday that it was "premature" to discuss Trump's impeachment.

"We should do all we can to make sure that he’s held accountable, that we conduct the investigations the Republicans have been unwilling to do.” Swalwell said. “If impeachment is the case, it’s because we found impenetrable evidence that we take to the American people and will be accepted by both Republicans and Democrats."

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/397431-bookmaker-increases-odds-of-trump-being-impeached-after-trump-putin-summit
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 19, 2018, 04:32:29 PM
Trump impeachment push emerges as next Dem litmus test
Gregg Re By Gregg Re   | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/19/trump-impeachment-push-emerges-as-next-dem-litmus-test.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 10:27:40 AM
L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, 2020 Presidential Contender: Impeach Trump!
24 Aug 2018

Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, who is considering a run for president on the Democratic Party ticket in 2020, says that it is now time to talk about impeaching President Donald Trump.

Celebrity news TMZ caught up with Garcetti on the streets of the city this week and asked him if it was time to consider impeaching Trump, following the guilty plea of his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for campaign finance violations.

“I think it’s time to start talking about that, absolutely. We have a president who said, ‘I knew nothing,’ while he was on Air Force One, and who just yesterday said, ‘Of course I knew about it, and it’s not an offense.’ Gotta get your story straight.”
 
Garcetti continued: “Often times, it’s not even the offense, it’s the cover-up. And, you know, I think this is something that should inform people in November at the ballot. We don’t want a liar. We want somebody who can shoot straight [and] tell the truth.”

Asked whether Democrats should avoid the issue of impeachment during the 2018 campaign, Garcetti disagreed.

“It think it’s finally something big enough that we should talk about it.”

Garcetti added that if he were elected president, he would not pardon Trump.

Garcetti has been visiting key primary states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Critics say, however, that he has failed to deal with the homeless crisis in L.A.
 
On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reports, an synagogue that was damaged in last year’s Skirball fire sued the City of Los Angeles, alleging that it failed to clear out a homeless encampment nearby, where the fire started.

https://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/08/24/l-a-mayor-eric-garcetti-2020-presidential-contender-impeach-trump/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 03:37:35 PM
If there ever is a serious plan to impeach Trump, they better have all their ducks in a row because I've heard you only get one shot at it.

In times past when the crowd didn't like a performer they'd through rotten fruit at them. Do you suppose this is where the term impeach came from?  :D

Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 03:52:54 PM
Keep in mind it is a two-step process:  majority of the House must vote to impeach and, following a trial, two thirds of the Senate must vote to remove.  Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense.  

LOL - If Trump were a Democrat he would have been impeached 8 months ago

Trump has already committed obstruction of justice and witness intimidation multiple times and in public

We can ignore all that and just look at Trump pathetic performance in Helsinki which at the very least is dereliction of duty

Here is Lindsey Graham explaining the grounds for impeachment in 1999

Quote
"You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. If this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 03:55:03 PM
Are you speculating or do you really know there is no impeachable offense now or in the future?  Anyway, why are you telling me this. Didn't I as much as say impeachment is unlikely?

I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 03:58:59 PM
Okay. Gotta go now, it's time for my nap.  :)

lol   :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 04:14:02 PM
I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  

an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is

As we know Republican have two drastically different standards for what that is depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat

If a Democrat had done all the stuff Trump has done he/she would have been long gone by now and we'd have a whole bunch of recent videos of Republicans making passionate speeches about having to cleanse the office and return dignity to the office, etc..



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on August 24, 2018, 06:05:48 PM
I didn't say anything about the future.  What said was "Never going to happen based on everything we know to do date, with the biggest problem being the lack of an impeachable offense."

We are saying impeachment is unlikely for different reasons.  I'm saying it's unlikely for two reasons:  (1) he hasn't committed an impeachable offense and (2) the makeup of Congress makes it all but impossible, because even if Democrats retake the House and Senate, they will not have enough in the Senate to remove him.  
But he says mean things!!! :'( :'(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on August 24, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is

As we know Republican have two drastically different standards for what that is depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat

If a Democrat had done all the stuff Trump has done he/she would have been long gone by now and we'd have a whole bunch of recent videos of Republicans making passionate speeches about having to cleanse the office and return dignity to the office, etc..





You people should come up with a coherent message.

Even the Democrat Party at large is getting sniped daily from a growing movement on the further left.

A complete cluster fuck the Democratic Party has become.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 06:19:54 PM
But he says mean things!!! :'( :'(

Right? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 06:20:18 PM
You people should come up with a coherent message.

Even the Democrat Party at large is getting sniped daily from a growing movement on the further left.

A complete cluster fuck the Democratic Party has become.

Good luck with that.  lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2018, 10:06:35 AM
Former election commissioner: Cohen and Trump didn't violate campaign finance law
By Hans A. von Spakovsky | Fox News

President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen receives 36 months in prison for tax evasion, making false statements and campaign finance violations; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.

Trump-haters hoping the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, will provide the evidence needed to impeach the president and perhaps even “lock him up” are likely headed for a bitter disappointment. The Cohen guilty pleas are likely irrelevant to the fate of President Trump.

That’s because in my judgment – as someone who served for two years as a member of the Federal Election Commission – the campaign finance law violations Cohen pleaded guilty to committing, allegedly at Donald Trump’s direction, aren’t really violations.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

Confused? That’s understandable, because the media lump all the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to together when explaining this complex case. But in reality, Cohen was sentenced Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York City on several separate and unrelated charges.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison by a federal judge and was also ordered to pay almost $2 million in fines, restitution and forfeitures after earlier pleading guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud. Those crimes have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but rather involve Cohen’s own business dealings.

In addition, Cohen was sentenced on his guilty pleas to violating campaign finance law on Trump’s behalf – an action that, as I will explain, I believe was not really a crime at all.

And finally, Cohen’s sentence included punishment for his guilty plea to making false statements to Congress regarding failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

The applicable federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to call for a prison sentence ranging from just over four years to just over five years.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

But federal prosecutors in New York City said Cohen should receive some credit for his limited cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether the Trump presidential campaign illegally conspired with Russia to help elect Donald Trump president.

The president has frequently stated that there was “no collusion” between his campaign or him and Russia. He has denied any misconduct on his part, calling the Mueller probe a “witch hunt” by “angry Democrats.”

It’s critically important to understand that the crimes Cohen was sentenced for Wednesday have not revealed any evidence relevant to the allegations of possible Trump campaign-Russia collusion that Mueller was appointed to investigate.

Cohen’s guilty plea to lying to Congress concerned his account of negotiations on behalf of the Trump organization to build a marquee property in Moscow – a deal Trump has been working on for 30 years, albeit unsuccessfully.

Cohen originally said those negotiations ended in January 2016 and did not involve members of the Trump Organization – including Donald Trump. But he now says the negotiations ended in June 2016 and that members of the Trump Organization – including then-presidential candidate Trump – were briefed on the talks.

Because Cohen lied to Congress, he is now paying the price for doing so, as he should. The real estate negotiations for a Trump Tower in Russia were perfectly legal, although the timing could have proven embarrassing to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Cohen would not have been pleading guilty in federal court on this real estate negotiation if he had simply told the truth. There are reports that Cohen had contact with high-level political officials in Moscow, including a representative of President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, and the Trump Organization may have planned to offer Putin a $50 million penthouse in the Moscow property.

Was the 2016 election discussed in any of those meetings and did Russian officials obtain some kind of leverage against Trump through this real estate deal that was discussed but never came to fruition?

We don’t know, but there hasn’t been any information released publicly in the Cohen case (or any other case) that provides any insight into what happened at those meetings other than discussions of the real estate deal.

But now to the most important charge as far as President Trump is concerned: the campaign finance violation that Cohen pleaded guilty to.

Many campaign finance law experts and fellow former commissioners of the Federal Election Commission agree with me that Cohen’s did not commit an actual violation of federal law.

Cohen has stated he arranged hush-money payments to two women – adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal – to not make public their unproven allegations of extramarital affairs with Donald Trump years ago. Trump has denied the allegations.

It’s my belief as a former Federal Election Commission member that such payments were not “campaign-related” – and therefore the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

In fact, the only time the Justice Department has ever tried to make such a claim before – against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina – the Justice Department lost.

Furthermore, the Federal Election Commission – an independent federal agency responsible for civil enforcement of campaign finance law – didn’t consider the hush-money donations to the Edwards campaign to be campaign-related expenditures when it audited the Edwards campaign.

The bottom line: Cohen was “persuaded” to plead guilty to an action that was not an actual violation of the law.

Convicting Donald Trump of a criminal campaign finance violation will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Just as Edwards was found not guilty, the same is likely to happen to President Trump if he is charged while he is president or after he leaves the White House.

As for the claim the hush-money payments would be an impeachable offense, members of Congress would have to explain why prior cases in which campaigns like that of Barack Obama paid civil penalties to the Federal Election Commission for violations of federal campaign finance law were not grounds for impeachment.

It certainly is possible that Cohen and others have provided some kind of evidence to Mueller that will prove that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with Russian officials. But if so, this evidence has not yet been publicly revealed.

In sentencing Cohen, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley agreed with the prosecution’s claims that Cohen was motivated by “personal greed and ambition.”

But nothing in the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to provides any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, or that Trump violated campaign finance law. And even Trump’s bitterest opponents don’t claim he had any role in Cohen’s taxi business.

So while the headlines blare and Trump opponents line up on TV to say the Cohen plea could mean future criminal charges against President Trump and serve as grounds for impeachment, don’t be so sure.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/former-election-commissioner-cohen-and-trump-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2018, 01:00:45 PM
Why Democrats Would Be Insane To Impeach Donald Trump
After his impeachment for lying about an affair, Bill Clinton's approval rating hit 73 percent. This should be a warning to Democrats.
By David Marcus
DECEMBER 11, 2018

When the dust settled from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, his approval rating sat at an astounding 73 percent. That’s a note of caution to Democrats who believe that, having taken the House of Representatives, they should impeach Donald Trump.

The situation and times are not completely analogous, of course. Trump would probably be lucky to hit 73 percent approval in his own White House. But there are enough comparisons for this historical note to give Democrats serious pause.

The current calls for impeachment stem from U.S. prosecutors’ allegation that Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay hush money to mistresses in what they say was a violation of campaign finance law. Assuming for a moment (although legal scholars disagree on this) that Trump did commit a campaign finance violation, or even a crime. Democrats, including likely incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, say it would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

But in the same breath, on a Sunday news show Nadler also said even if there is an impeachable offense, it doesn’t mean impeachment is a good idea. This brings us back to the Clinton comparison. Like Trump, Clinton’s troubles began with having a difficult time keeping his pants on. Also like Trump, lying about and trying to obfuscate an illicit tryst was eventually the high crime or misdemeanor that Republicans in the House in 1998 latched onto.

It is now, and was then, abundantly clear that Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinski. Notwithstanding his “What does ‘is’ mean” argument, he almost certainly committed perjury. So what happened? How did his impeachment and eventual Senate acquittal balloon his approval to one of the highest levels ever measured?

The simplest answer is that while the American people did not believe Clinton, they also did not believe he had acted badly enough for Congress to overturn the results of a free and fair presidential election.

Impeachment Is Overreach
That potential for voters to see impeachment of Trump as an overreach must weigh very heavily on the minds of congressional Democrats even while many in their base demand the action. Assuming this alleged campaign finance violation is the basis of the impeachment, Democrats would be saying to voters, “He had affairs and paid hush money without reporting it because he was worried it would hurt his election chances.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. The thrice-married Trump, who has been known to boast about adultery like a suburban dad who won the best lawn in the neighborhood award, apparently had sex with a porn star and a Playboy playmate. That seems about par for his course. But wait! He lied about it! Well, yeah, also pretty much behavior we knew about and expected. But there’s more! He might have violated campaign finance law! Okay, but so do a lot of campaigns. Usually they pay a fine and we all move along.

House Democrats, who know their chances of a Senate conviction on such charges fall somewhere between zero and zero, would presumably bring up articles of impeachment to hurt the president politically. But what if, as happened with Clinton, that which does not kill Trump makes him stronger?

The 2020 Trump Narrative
If Democrats spend some big chunk of time trying to impeach Trump between now and the 2020 election, they will be giving his campaign exactly the narrative it wants to run on. Counterpunching Trump would like nothing more than to tell crowd after crowd at rally after rally that the angry Democrats on the elitist coasts and their friends in the deep state are attempting a coup. That even though the good, hardworking people in forgotten America elected him, they are trying to take it away. And he won’t let it happen. He will fight back.

This fight plays to Trump’s brand arguably even better than it did to Clinton’s, who managed to turn his infidelity into a vast, right-wing conspiracy. The key for Clinton was that those who hated him hated him and those who loved him loved him, but those in the middle rolled their eyes and said, “Really? For this you want to overturn an election?” Now, far fewer people have no strong feelings about Trump than did people with no strong feelings about Clinton, but they do exist, and they matter immensely.

Any attempt by Democrats to reverse the results of a presidential election on such a flimsy basis might very well push opinion into the arms of Trump just as it did for Clinton 20 years ago. By all means, conduct investigations, file subpoenas, shake your heads with dour faces and ask How can this man be president? Don’t we need and deserve better? But they should not, if they know what’s good for them, plunge the nation into its third impeachment battle.

Mission and Ctrategy
A core principle the U.S. Army teaches commanders is that strategy must be a slave to the mission. When comparing specific strategies the question is not which will most likely be successful, but which will best serve the overall mission. Clearly, the Democrats have one mission right now: to ensure that in January of 2021, someone other than Trump is inaugurated president.

In the short term, a strategy of impeachment looks attractive. It will tie the White House up in knots, it will create a few superstar House Democrats who would use their moment in the committee sun the way senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker did during the Kavanaugh hearings. It would set the White House on its back foot and likely turn the next two years into a lame-duck presidency. But then what?

Trump’s eventual and almost certain acquittal in the Senate would be just as much a victory for him as it was for Bill Clinton. The Democrats, including presidential hopefuls, who supported it would be roundly embarrassed by having wasted the nation’s time, money, and attention tilting at an impossible windmill.

This is not a close call. If at some point Robert Mueller, CNN, or the Washington Post discover some crime that even Senate Republicans admit is disqualifying for Trump’s presidency, then by all means, impeach him. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that such a contingency is particularly likely. For the sake of the country’s sanity, and their own political chances, the Democrats should holster their impeachment pistol and worry about explaining to Americans why one of them, not Trump, should be president of the United States.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/why-democrats-would-be-insane-to-impeach-donald-trump/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 13, 2018, 02:53:11 PM
Why Democrats Would Be Insane To Impeach Donald Trump
After his impeachment for lying about an affair, Bill Clinton's approval rating hit 73 percent. This should be a warning to Democrats.
By David Marcus
DECEMBER 11, 2018

When the dust settled from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, his approval rating sat at an astounding 73 percent. That’s a note of caution to Democrats who believe that, having taken the House of Representatives, they should impeach Donald Trump.

The situation and times are not completely analogous, of course. Trump would probably be lucky to hit 73 percent approval in his own White House. But there are enough comparisons for this historical note to give Democrats serious pause.

The current calls for impeachment stem from U.S. prosecutors’ allegation that Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay hush money to mistresses in what they say was a violation of campaign finance law. Assuming for a moment (although legal scholars disagree on this) that Trump did commit a campaign finance violation, or even a crime. Democrats, including likely incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, say it would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.

But in the same breath, on a Sunday news show Nadler also said even if there is an impeachable offense, it doesn’t mean impeachment is a good idea. This brings us back to the Clinton comparison. Like Trump, Clinton’s troubles began with having a difficult time keeping his pants on. Also like Trump, lying about and trying to obfuscate an illicit tryst was eventually the high crime or misdemeanor that Republicans in the House in 1998 latched onto.

It is now, and was then, abundantly clear that Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinski. Notwithstanding his “What does ‘is’ mean” argument, he almost certainly committed perjury. So what happened? How did his impeachment and eventual Senate acquittal balloon his approval to one of the highest levels ever measured?

The simplest answer is that while the American people did not believe Clinton, they also did not believe he had acted badly enough for Congress to overturn the results of a free and fair presidential election.

Impeachment Is Overreach
That potential for voters to see impeachment of Trump as an overreach must weigh very heavily on the minds of congressional Democrats even while many in their base demand the action. Assuming this alleged campaign finance violation is the basis of the impeachment, Democrats would be saying to voters, “He had affairs and paid hush money without reporting it because he was worried it would hurt his election chances.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. The thrice-married Trump, who has been known to boast about adultery like a suburban dad who won the best lawn in the neighborhood award, apparently had sex with a porn star and a Playboy playmate. That seems about par for his course. But wait! He lied about it! Well, yeah, also pretty much behavior we knew about and expected. But there’s more! He might have violated campaign finance law! Okay, but so do a lot of campaigns. Usually they pay a fine and we all move along.

House Democrats, who know their chances of a Senate conviction on such charges fall somewhere between zero and zero, would presumably bring up articles of impeachment to hurt the president politically. But what if, as happened with Clinton, that which does not kill Trump makes him stronger?

The 2020 Trump Narrative
If Democrats spend some big chunk of time trying to impeach Trump between now and the 2020 election, they will be giving his campaign exactly the narrative it wants to run on. Counterpunching Trump would like nothing more than to tell crowd after crowd at rally after rally that the angry Democrats on the elitist coasts and their friends in the deep state are attempting a coup. That even though the good, hardworking people in forgotten America elected him, they are trying to take it away. And he won’t let it happen. He will fight back.

This fight plays to Trump’s brand arguably even better than it did to Clinton’s, who managed to turn his infidelity into a vast, right-wing conspiracy. The key for Clinton was that those who hated him hated him and those who loved him loved him, but those in the middle rolled their eyes and said, “Really? For this you want to overturn an election?” Now, far fewer people have no strong feelings about Trump than did people with no strong feelings about Clinton, but they do exist, and they matter immensely.

Any attempt by Democrats to reverse the results of a presidential election on such a flimsy basis might very well push opinion into the arms of Trump just as it did for Clinton 20 years ago. By all means, conduct investigations, file subpoenas, shake your heads with dour faces and ask How can this man be president? Don’t we need and deserve better? But they should not, if they know what’s good for them, plunge the nation into its third impeachment battle.

Mission and Ctrategy
A core principle the U.S. Army teaches commanders is that strategy must be a slave to the mission. When comparing specific strategies the question is not which will most likely be successful, but which will best serve the overall mission. Clearly, the Democrats have one mission right now: to ensure that in January of 2021, someone other than Trump is inaugurated president.

In the short term, a strategy of impeachment looks attractive. It will tie the White House up in knots, it will create a few superstar House Democrats who would use their moment in the committee sun the way senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker did during the Kavanaugh hearings. It would set the White House on its back foot and likely turn the next two years into a lame-duck presidency. But then what?

Trump’s eventual and almost certain acquittal in the Senate would be just as much a victory for him as it was for Bill Clinton. The Democrats, including presidential hopefuls, who supported it would be roundly embarrassed by having wasted the nation’s time, money, and attention tilting at an impossible windmill.

This is not a close call. If at some point Robert Mueller, CNN, or the Washington Post discover some crime that even Senate Republicans admit is disqualifying for Trump’s presidency, then by all means, impeach him. Nothing we have seen so far suggests that such a contingency is particularly likely. For the sake of the country’s sanity, and their own political chances, the Democrats should holster their impeachment pistol and worry about explaining to Americans why one of them, not Trump, should be president of the United States.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/11/why-democrats-would-be-insane-to-impeach-donald-trump/

This is all true.

However, the real reason they should not do it is because of the damage it will do the country.  If they think it's divided now, it will become moreso, as his base will become rabid, which will lead to even greater partisainship for the next President.

Democrats would be better off finding a younger, more moderate, smart candidate who independents can identify with that can win the election on a platform other that "not Trump".

They need to just ride out Trump's next two years and hope they can do this.  To continue on the course of Full TDS will cause them to lose again (provided the economy is still strong).
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2018, 02:58:13 PM
This is all true.

However, the real reason they should not do it is because of the damage it will do the country.  If they think it's divided now, it will become moreso, as his base will become rabid, which will lead to even greater partisainship for the next President.

Democrats would be better off finding a younger, more moderate, smart candidate who independents can identify with that can win the election on a platform other that "not Trump".

They need to just ride out Trump's next two years and hope they can do this.  To continue on the course of Full TDS will cause them to lose again (provided the economy is still strong).

This is sound and reasonable.  I just think we've already gone over the cliff in terms of division in the country.  Just look at what we did to Kavanaugh.  We accused a man who led an exemplary life of gang rape for political purposes.  And the attacks on Trump are the worst I have ever seen.  There is violence, intimidation, and vote shaming by people on the left.  The only way it gets worse is if people start getting killed, which is possible. 

And look at the younger people Democrats are uplifting:  Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker.  They are all socialists who will not appeal to independents. 

Overall, I think we are screwed from a social and togetherness standpoint.  The culture war is on and I don't know how or when it stops.   :-\ 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on December 13, 2018, 03:23:01 PM
This is sound and reasonable.  I just think we've already gone over the cliff in terms of division in the country.  Just look at what we did to Kavanaugh.  We accused a man who led an exemplary life of gang rape for political purposes.  And the attacks on Trump are the worst I have ever seen.  There is violence, intimidation, and vote shaming by people on the left.  The only way it gets worse is if people start getting killed, which is possible. 

And look at the younger people Democrats are uplifting:  Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker.  They are all socialists who will not appeal to independents. 

Overall, I think we are screwed from a social and togetherness standpoint.  The culture war is on and I don't know how or when it stops.   :-\ 

I agree.  It's unfortunate and even a war or economic disaster might not get us unpolarized again.  Impeaching Trump for campaign violations will only divide us more.  Impeaching for treason, or whatever with Russia if it were ever proven true, may not. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2018, 05:01:02 PM
I agree.  It's unfortunate and even a war or economic disaster might not get us unpolarized again.  Impeaching Trump for campaign violations will only divide us more.  Impeaching for treason, or whatever with Russia if it were ever proven true, may not. 

And we have to keep in mind that it's a two-step process:  impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate.  They need about 20 or so Republicans to remove him after a trial in the Senate.  Never going to happen. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: lilhawk1 on December 13, 2018, 06:22:23 PM
Former election commissioner: Cohen and Trump didn't violate campaign finance law
By Hans A. von Spakovsky | Fox News

President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen receives 36 months in prison for tax evasion, making false statements and campaign finance violations; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports.

Trump-haters hoping the president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, will provide the evidence needed to impeach the president and perhaps even “lock him up” are likely headed for a bitter disappointment. The Cohen guilty pleas are likely irrelevant to the fate of President Trump.

That’s because in my judgment – as someone who served for two years as a member of the Federal Election Commission – the campaign finance law violations Cohen pleaded guilty to committing, allegedly at Donald Trump’s direction, aren’t really violations.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

Confused? That’s understandable, because the media lump all the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to together when explaining this complex case. But in reality, Cohen was sentenced Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York City on several separate and unrelated charges.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison by a federal judge and was also ordered to pay almost $2 million in fines, restitution and forfeitures after earlier pleading guilty to multiple counts of business and tax fraud. Those crimes have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, but rather involve Cohen’s own business dealings.

In addition, Cohen was sentenced on his guilty pleas to violating campaign finance law on Trump’s behalf – an action that, as I will explain, I believe was not really a crime at all.

And finally, Cohen’s sentence included punishment for his guilty plea to making false statements to Congress regarding failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

The applicable federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to call for a prison sentence ranging from just over four years to just over five years.

If I’m right – that is, if Cohen didn’t really violate campaign finance law, despite his ill-advised guilty plea – then it would be impossible for Trump to have violated campaign finance law by directing Cohen to take a perfectly legal action.

But federal prosecutors in New York City said Cohen should receive some credit for his limited cooperation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether the Trump presidential campaign illegally conspired with Russia to help elect Donald Trump president.

The president has frequently stated that there was “no collusion” between his campaign or him and Russia. He has denied any misconduct on his part, calling the Mueller probe a “witch hunt” by “angry Democrats.”

It’s critically important to understand that the crimes Cohen was sentenced for Wednesday have not revealed any evidence relevant to the allegations of possible Trump campaign-Russia collusion that Mueller was appointed to investigate.

Cohen’s guilty plea to lying to Congress concerned his account of negotiations on behalf of the Trump organization to build a marquee property in Moscow – a deal Trump has been working on for 30 years, albeit unsuccessfully.

Cohen originally said those negotiations ended in January 2016 and did not involve members of the Trump Organization – including Donald Trump. But he now says the negotiations ended in June 2016 and that members of the Trump Organization – including then-presidential candidate Trump – were briefed on the talks.

Because Cohen lied to Congress, he is now paying the price for doing so, as he should. The real estate negotiations for a Trump Tower in Russia were perfectly legal, although the timing could have proven embarrassing to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Cohen would not have been pleading guilty in federal court on this real estate negotiation if he had simply told the truth. There are reports that Cohen had contact with high-level political officials in Moscow, including a representative of President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, and the Trump Organization may have planned to offer Putin a $50 million penthouse in the Moscow property.

Was the 2016 election discussed in any of those meetings and did Russian officials obtain some kind of leverage against Trump through this real estate deal that was discussed but never came to fruition?

We don’t know, but there hasn’t been any information released publicly in the Cohen case (or any other case) that provides any insight into what happened at those meetings other than discussions of the real estate deal.

But now to the most important charge as far as President Trump is concerned: the campaign finance violation that Cohen pleaded guilty to.

Many campaign finance law experts and fellow former commissioners of the Federal Election Commission agree with me that Cohen’s did not commit an actual violation of federal law.

Cohen has stated he arranged hush-money payments to two women – adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal – to not make public their unproven allegations of extramarital affairs with Donald Trump years ago. Trump has denied the allegations.

It’s my belief as a former Federal Election Commission member that such payments were not “campaign-related” – and therefore the rules and regulations governing campaign contributions don’t apply.

In fact, the only time the Justice Department has ever tried to make such a claim before – against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina – the Justice Department lost.

Furthermore, the Federal Election Commission – an independent federal agency responsible for civil enforcement of campaign finance law – didn’t consider the hush-money donations to the Edwards campaign to be campaign-related expenditures when it audited the Edwards campaign.

The bottom line: Cohen was “persuaded” to plead guilty to an action that was not an actual violation of the law.

Convicting Donald Trump of a criminal campaign finance violation will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Just as Edwards was found not guilty, the same is likely to happen to President Trump if he is charged while he is president or after he leaves the White House.

As for the claim the hush-money payments would be an impeachable offense, members of Congress would have to explain why prior cases in which campaigns like that of Barack Obama paid civil penalties to the Federal Election Commission for violations of federal campaign finance law were not grounds for impeachment.

It certainly is possible that Cohen and others have provided some kind of evidence to Mueller that will prove that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with Russian officials. But if so, this evidence has not yet been publicly revealed.

In sentencing Cohen, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley agreed with the prosecution’s claims that Cohen was motivated by “personal greed and ambition.”

But nothing in the charges Cohen pleaded guilty to provides any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 election, or that Trump violated campaign finance law. And even Trump’s bitterest opponents don’t claim he had any role in Cohen’s taxi business.

So while the headlines blare and Trump opponents line up on TV to say the Cohen plea could mean future criminal charges against President Trump and serve as grounds for impeachment, don’t be so sure.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/former-election-commissioner-cohen-and-trump-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law

Fox News.  Says it all. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: lilhawk1 on December 13, 2018, 06:23:24 PM
This is sound and reasonable.  I just think we've already gone over the cliff in terms of division in the country.  Just look at what we did to Kavanaugh.  We accused a man who led an exemplary life of gang rape for political purposes.  And the attacks on Trump are the worst I have ever seen.  There is violence, intimidation, and vote shaming by people on the left.  The only way it gets worse is if people start getting killed, which is possible. 

And look at the younger people Democrats are uplifting:  Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker.  They are all socialists who will not appeal to independents. 

Overall, I think we are screwed from a social and togetherness standpoint.  The culture war is on and I don't know how or when it stops.   :-\ 

This is how you view, and interpret things?  You need help.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2018, 06:35:01 PM
Fox News.  Says it all. 

It's not a Fox News article.  lol 

Do you know who the author is?  Google him and find out.   :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2018, 06:35:22 PM
This is how you view, and interpret things?  You need help.

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on December 13, 2018, 06:54:33 PM
Fox News.  Says it all. 
^

Complete airhead
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 28, 2018, 09:52:19 AM
These people are crazy.

The Inevitability of Impeachment
ELIZABETH DREW
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/the-inevitability-of-impeachment/ar-BBRwwiF
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on December 28, 2018, 10:17:12 AM
I think Congress should ignore all Trump potential crimes for now and let Mueller finish his investigation (and certainly Congress can continue to document Trumps public crimes like attempting to tamper or  influence the testimony of witnesses, obstruction of justice, etc..)

Instead they should impeach him for dereliction of duty.   A big part of his job it to staff OUR GOVERNMENT.
After almost 2 years in office most of Trumps goverment is still understaffed.  

WTF is the problem here.  Trump claims everyone wants to work with him (another observably false statement) so how about filling these jobs.

And if he wants a wall built all he has to do it get Mexico to pay for it.   Just like he said hundreds of times when running for office.

At the very least Trumptards should be able to understand this simple concept given that many of them were chanting this at his idiotic rallies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/?utm_term=.071646a75ab8

Note our "tough of crime" POTUS has staffed less then 50% of the key positions at the Justice Department and the State Department.  I guess it's a good thing we don't have any pressing issues with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc....that would require a fully staffed State Department.   Given all the times Trumps idiotic Executive Orders are challenged in court you'd think he would at least want to staff up the Department of Justice.

It's almost like he doesn't give a shit about the country and think he's a king who just makes decrees and everyone  should just follow along. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 28, 2018, 11:52:43 AM
I think Congress should ignore all Trump potential crimes for now and let Mueller finish his investigation (and certainly Congress can continue to document Trumps public crimes like attempting to tamper or  influence the testimony of witnesses, obstruction of justice, etc..)

Instead they should impeach him for dereliction of duty.   A big part of his job it to staff OUR GOVERNMENT.
After almost 2 years in office most of Trumps goverment is still understaffed.  

WTF is the problem here.  Trump claims everyone wants to work with him (another observably false statement) so how about filling these jobs.

And if he wants a wall built all he has to do it get Mexico to pay for it.   Just like he said hundreds of times when running for office.

At the very least Trumptards should be able to understand this simple concept given that many of them were chanting this at his idiotic rallies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/?utm_term=.071646a75ab8

Note our "tough of crime" POTUS has staffed less then 50% of the key positions at the Justice Department and the State Department.  I guess it's a good thing we don't have any pressing issues with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc....that would require a fully staffed State Department.   Given all the times Trumps idiotic Executive Orders are challenged in court you'd think he would at least want to staff up the Department of Justice.

It's almost like he doesn't give a shit about the country and think he's a king who just makes decrees and everyone  should just follow along. 

Why don't you apply for a job yourself if you are so concerned with staffing in the Federal Govt?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 28, 2018, 05:18:28 PM
Why don't you apply for a job yourself if you are so concerned with staffing in the Federal Govt?
He's not, in typical liberal fashion, he just wants to complain about Trump. You didn't see him crying when his hero Obama had metal fences thrown up around federal monuments when he shut down the government did you? It's almost like Obama thought metal fences would keep people out of these federal monuments. ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 16, 2019, 02:11:00 PM
Sheldon Whitehouse: We Are ‘Moving Toward Indictment and Charges of the President’
16 Jan 2019

Appearing Tuesday evening on CNN’s Cuomo Primetime, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told host Christopher Cuomo that prosecutors are “moving toward indictment and charges” against President Donald Trump.

Cuomo Prime Time

@CuomoPrimeTime
 Democrat Sen. @SenWhitehouse: "If there are crimes that [Trump] has committed, he should be indicted." https://cnn.it/2RP1UX5
693
4:30 PM - Jan 15, 2019
353 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

A partial transcript is as follows:

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: I think that if there are crimes that he [President Trump] has committed, he should be indicted. I do not at all subscribe to the OLC theory that a president can’t be indicted. I think that the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice bends over backward to take the most executive branch-friendly position that it possibly can. I think a court taking a look at this would say “no, no, no, no, no,” and if you look at the Nixon precedents and others, they don’t align with a president not being answerable to the public in this way. And it would create a terrible situation. You have a president, who the public knows is the subject of a criminal investigation, may very well be involved in criminal activity, and you don’t get a resolution of that question? You don’t get pressure on him to answer questions and get out? That doesn’t seem like an appropriate way to deal with it.

CHRISTOPHER CUOMO: Based on what you know right now, do you think you could bring a case against the president?

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I would want to know a lot more. I’m at the stage, based on what I know, that I would be sitting down with the agents and say “okay, we need to run down this, we need to run down that, we need to pin down some things before we go.” We are certainly in a mode, I believe, of moving toward an indictment and charges of the president, but I do not believe, based on what I know — Mueller may know more — that we’re at the stage of actually being able to make the charge.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/16/sheldon-whitehouse-we-are-moving-toward-indictment-and-charges-of-the-president/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on January 16, 2019, 03:51:05 PM
Sheldon Whitehouse: We Are ‘Moving Toward Indictment and Charges of the President’
16 Jan 2019

Appearing Tuesday evening on CNN’s Cuomo Primetime, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told host Christopher Cuomo that prosecutors are “moving toward indictment and charges” against President Donald Trump.

Cuomo Prime Time

@CuomoPrimeTime
 Democrat Sen. @SenWhitehouse: "If there are crimes that [Trump] has committed, he should be indicted." https://cnn.it/2RP1UX5
693
4:30 PM - Jan 15, 2019
353 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

A partial transcript is as follows:

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: I think that if there are crimes that he [President Trump] has committed, he should be indicted. I do not at all subscribe to the OLC theory that a president can’t be indicted. I think that the Office of Legal Counsel and Department of Justice bends over backward to take the most executive branch-friendly position that it possibly can. I think a court taking a look at this would say “no, no, no, no, no,” and if you look at the Nixon precedents and others, they don’t align with a president not being answerable to the public in this way. And it would create a terrible situation. You have a president, who the public knows is the subject of a criminal investigation, may very well be involved in criminal activity, and you don’t get a resolution of that question? You don’t get pressure on him to answer questions and get out? That doesn’t seem like an appropriate way to deal with it.

CHRISTOPHER CUOMO: Based on what you know right now, do you think you could bring a case against the president?

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I would want to know a lot more. I’m at the stage, based on what I know, that I would be sitting down with the agents and say “okay, we need to run down this, we need to run down that, we need to pin down some things before we go.” We are certainly in a mode, I believe, of moving toward an indictment and charges of the president, but I do not believe, based on what I know — Mueller may know more — that we’re at the stage of actually being able to make the charge.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/16/sheldon-whitehouse-we-are-moving-toward-indictment-and-charges-of-the-president/

Sen Whitehouse believes in golden tickets.

(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/52/9e/7a/529e7a60594778a71387825cfb6c7341--funny-caricatures-celebrity-caricatures.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Board_SHERIF on January 16, 2019, 06:27:55 PM


(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/01/16/19/8616226-6599865-image-m-50_1547668330648.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 11, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
Doyle McManus: Congress already is laying the groundwork for impeachment
By Doyle McManus Los Angeles Times (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Last week, no fewer than six committees of the House of Representatives were investigating potential grounds for impeaching President Donald Trump.

They don’t use the word “impeachment.” Their instructions from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are to describe their work in narrower, less inflammatory terms.

But the question is never far away: Does Trump’s record of norm-busting, rule-bending and apparent law-breaking, from conflicts of interest to murky connections with foreign governments, justify removing him from office?

Your Morning Kickstart is delivered to your inbox 7 a.m. daily. Make sure you don’t miss out on the latest in news, entertainment, weather, and sports.
SUBSCRIBE HERE

“We have to see what the facts are,” Pelosi said recently. “We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason. So we’ll just have to see how it comes.”

Call this phase “pre-impeachment.” Pelosi and her committee chairs, all Democrats, are doing what they need to do to make impeaching Trump possible.

The speaker and her allies describe a two-step process before any impeachment can succeed.

Step one is gathering conclusive evidence of misconduct — high crimes and misdemeanors, the Constitution says — serious enough to warrant articles of impeachment. That may be the easy part.

Step two would be persuading the public that impeachment is warranted and building bipartisan support in Congress, especially in the Republican-controlled Senate. That’s tougher.

If only one party is involved, Democrats risk the kind of disaster Republicans faced when they impeached President Bill Clinton in 1998, saw him acquitted in the Senate, and watched their own popularity plummet.

The House Democrats have held their majority for little more than a month, so step one is only beginning — in Congress, at least. But they lost no time in getting underway.

It will be hard to keep the probes separate. A Pelosi aide convenes a weekly meeting just to keep track of the overlapping lines of inquiry.

The House Intelligence Committee, under Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., will investigate whether Trump or his family have been compromised by Russia, Saudi Arabia or other foreign actors.

Financial Affairs, under Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., will help Schiff look into potential money laundering by the president’s family-run company.

Judiciary, under Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., is probing possible violations of campaign laws. Oversight, under Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., is investigating foreign payments to Trump’s businesses.

Foreign Affairs, under Rep. Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y., is probing White House attempts to relax sanctions on Russian oligarchs. Ways and Means, under Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., may seek Trump’s tax returns, which the president has refused to release.

The investigative flurry got the president’s attention.

“PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” he roared on Twitter last week. “The Dems and their committees are going ‘nuts.’ The Republicans never did this to President Obama.” (Actually, they tried.)

Trump chiefly targeted Schiff, whom he castigated for “looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there is no reason to be doing so. Never happened before!”

Trump has long argued that his financial dealings and his family-run business empire should be off-limits. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, appears to have avoided that red line; Schiff says Congress isn’t bound by it.

“We need to know that the president is acting in our national interest and not in some family financial interest … (and) not because Russia or someone else has leverage over him,” Schiff told me.

He described his probe as “a counterintelligence investigation” to determine whether foreign regimes have undue influence over the president.

“There are a lot of disturbing allegations out there,” he said. But, like Pelosi, he argued that it’s too early to propose a resolution of impeachment.

“I think we should review the whole record before making that decision,” he said. “There’s a lot of work we need to do to flesh out the facts.”

Like Pelosi, he insisted that any move to impeach the president must have bipartisan support or it will fail.

Some Democrats are more impatient. California billionaire Tom Steyer has vowed to spend money in next year’s Democratic primaries to punish members of Congress, including committee chairs, who don’t move as quickly as he’d like.

But that’s short-sighted. An impeachment resolution now would surely backfire. It would create a zero-sum fight between the two tribes of American politics. It would make winning Republican support almost impossible — and could help re-elect Trump.

And, as Pelosi knows, it would divert attention from every other priority, from health care to climate change — the raw material for the campaign Democrats hope to wage in 2020.

For anyone rooting for impeachment, the House is already doing what it needs to do: investigating. It is putting Trump in more danger than before — something he seems to understand, judging from his frantic tweets.

Any impeachment is traumatic, but a failed impeachment can be worse. Steyer and others who want history to move faster should be careful what they wish for.

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/ap/nation/doyle-mcmanus-congress-already-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-impeachment/article_0ead30da-3507-59c9-b900-ccc141b6d15a.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Yamcha on February 14, 2019, 03:34:44 PM
 >:(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on March 06, 2019, 01:46:36 PM
Rep. Tlaib announces plans to file impeachment resolution against Trump
rollcall ^ | March 6, 2019
Posted on 3/6/2019, 4:24:12 PM

The Michigan Democrat aims to introduce the resolution in the coming weeks.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced plans during a news conference Wednesday to file an impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump. The Michigan Democrat aims to introduce the resolution in the coming weeks, a staffer told Roll Call. The move will be one of the first official congressional actions concerning impeachment of the president.

“For me, as a member of Congress, it’s so important that I make sure that I check this president ... it’s really important that the president of the United States is investigated,” Tlaib told CNN.

The representative took to Twitter on Wednesday to confirm her announcement, saying “Our democracy must be protected.”

(Excerpt) Read more at rollcall.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on March 06, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
Rep. Tlaib announces plans to file impeachment resolution against Trump
rollcall ^ | March 6, 2019
Posted on 3/6/2019, 4:24:12 PM

The Michigan Democrat aims to introduce the resolution in the coming weeks.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced plans during a news conference Wednesday to file an impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump. The Michigan Democrat aims to introduce the resolution in the coming weeks, a staffer told Roll Call. The move will be one of the first official congressional actions concerning impeachment of the president.

“For me, as a member of Congress, it’s so important that I make sure that I check this president ... it’s really important that the president of the United States is investigated,” Tlaib told CNN.

The representative took to Twitter on Wednesday to confirm her announcement, saying “Our democracy must be protected.”

(Excerpt) Read more at rollcall.com ...
Fucking muzzies
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 11, 2019, 06:10:13 PM
‘I’m not for impeachment,’ Pelosi says, potentially roiling fellow Democrats
Mike DeBonis, Rachael Bade

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that she opposes moving to impeach President Trump even though she believes he is “unfit” for office — her first definitive statement on the subject and one that stands to alienate members of her own Democratic Party who are intent on ousting the president.

“I’m not for impeachment,” she said in a March 6 interview conducted for a future issue of The Washington Post Magazine.

“This is news,” she added. “I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

Yet, Pelosi also said that she does not believe Trump is up for the job of running the country. Asked if he was fit to be president, she countered, “Are we talking ethically? Intellectually? Politically? What are we talking here?” When a reporter said all, she said he was not.

“All of the above. No. No. I don’t think he is,” she said. “I mean, ethically unfit. Intellectually unfit. Curiosity-wise unfit. No, I don’t think he’s fit to be president of the United States.”

The apparent contradiction shows that Pelosi is well aware of the political risks of impeachment and how pursuit of the president could energize Republicans voters ahead of the 2020 election. Still, her comments will almost certainly infuriate the far-left wing of the party, which has been clamoring to begin impeachment proceedings over controversies ensnaring the Trump administration.

Most House Democrats agree that they should give the chairmen of investigative committees the space to conduct their probes before engaging in serious impeachment discussions. But Pelosi’s suggestion that she doesn’t support those moves at all because “he’s just not worth it” won’t sit well with some in her caucus.

Pelosi’s comments come one week after the House Judiciary Committee, the panel with jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, issued document requests to more than 80 people affiliated with Trump’s administration, campaign and businesses. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the committee, called the requests the first step in a larger probe into obstruction of justice and abuses of power by the president. Meanwhile, other committees in the House are beginning probes of campaign-time contributions that Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen made to silence women alleging affairs with the president as well as Trump’s plans to build a tower in Moscow and how he managed his private company.

Related video: Nancy Pelosi keeps throwing shade at Donald Trump (Provided by The Washington Post)

For months, Pelosi has treated the possibility of Trump’s impeachment delicately, publicly noting the need for bipartisan support and significant evidence of wrongdoing before pursuing the president’s removal.

“If and when the time comes for impeachment, it will have to be something that has such a crescendo in a bipartisan way,” she said, for instance, in a CBS News interview in early January.

She echoed that bipartisan requirement in the Post interview. However, given congressional Republicans’ unwillingness to push back on their leader in the Oval Office over the past two years, some Democrats disagree with Pelosi’s assessment that any impeachment proceedings must have support from the GOP. House Democrats, they argue, have a job to do in holding the president accountable — regardless of the GOP’s stance on impeachment.

Pelosi has, at times, referenced the failed 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton by congressional Republicans as a formative experience in her thinking — an argument she renewed in the interview.

“There was no question that was that was horrible for the country. It was unnecessary and the rest,” she said. “But in terms of where we are, as Thomas Paine said, the times have found us. And the times have found us now. We have a very serious challenge to the Constitution of the United States in the president’s unconstitutional assault on the Constitution, on the first branch of government, the legislative branch . . . This is very serious for our country.”

Meanwhile, members of Pelosi’s caucus have been outspoken about their desire to impeach Trump. Earlier this month, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) marched on Capitol Hill with impeachment supporters, and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has discussed impeaching Trump in numerous interviews.

Two House Democrats, Reps. Al Green (Tex.) and Brad Sherman (Calif.), have already drafted articles of impeachment. Green moved in December 2017 to force the House to consider impeachment articles; the effort was killed on a 364-58 vote.

And outside the Capitol, liberal billionaire Tom Steyer has pledged to spend tens of millions of dollars on an effort to impeach Trump, forming a group called Need to Impeach that has taken out television ads and constructed a grass-roots network to push the issue. Steyer has also vowed to target the chairmen of House panels investigating the president to ensure they do their job, as his organization has said.

“He’s brought us to the brink of nuclear war,” Steyer said in one nationally televised ad. “He’s obstructed justice at the FBI. And in direct violation of the Constitution, he’s taken money from foreign governments and threatened to shut down news organizations that report the truth. If this is not a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become?”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/im-not-for-impeachment-pelosi-says-potentially-roiling-fellow-democrats/ar-BBUDZTQ
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on March 11, 2019, 06:21:34 PM
Translated: Mueller ain't got shit, we can't find shit, we've wasted millions of taxpayers dollars and I need to quit doing that far enough out from the 2020 election for the public to not remember that us demoncrats are useless fucks that waste their money!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 11, 2019, 06:36:25 PM
Translated: Mueller ain't got shit, we can't find shit, we've wasted millions of taxpayers dollars and I need to quit doing that far enough out from the 2020 election for the public to not remember that us demoncrats are useless fucks that waste their money!

Pretty much.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on March 11, 2019, 08:56:48 PM
I agree with her. Unless it is clear cut, don't even bother.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on April 22, 2019, 06:57:14 PM
Dem leaders reject immediate impeachment proceedings in urgent conference call
By Gregg Re | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-holds-urgent-conference-call-as-dems-scramble-to-fix-brewing-fracture-on-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 27, 2019, 11:36:14 PM
Senate GOP vows to quickly quash any impeachment charges
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 05/27/19
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/445512-senate-gop-pledges-to-quickly-quash-any-trump-impeachment-charges
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on May 30, 2019, 04:48:33 AM
So you hope.
Hope? What other information did he provide or is going to considering he is not going to speak on it anymore according to him.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 30, 2019, 11:22:32 AM
One problem with impeachment is that it will make him in a sympathetic martyr, which will induce more people to cast their pity vote for him in 2020 or 2024.

And the main problem with impeachment is President Trump hasn't committed an impeachable offense.  In addition to the fact the Senate will never remove him based on the current partisan witch hunt. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 30, 2019, 05:31:11 PM
So you hope.
???
Mueller quit, walked away, closed the doors to the building, shut it down, vamoosed, split, assed out, retired, had enough, couldn't do it anymore. He's finished. Do you think he's holding onto the "aha!" evidence for a later date ???
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2019, 08:30:14 AM
What do you consider an impeachable offense?

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I can tell you what it's not:  a president who cooperates with and does nothing to impede a sham investigation into a stupid invented conspiracy theory, where that investigation is not deprived of any resources whatsoever to complete its investigation, and when that investigation ultimately clears the president. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on May 31, 2019, 09:43:43 AM
Mueller's assignment was done. No doubt he's ready to move on. Maybe the evidence you speak of is in his heavily redacted report. When trump is done, Barr will be gone too.
Now it's heavily redacted? Lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2019, 09:50:41 AM
Mueller's assignment was done. No doubt he's ready to move on. Maybe the evidence you speak of is in his heavily redacted report. When trump is done, Barr will be gone too.

Now it's heavily redacted? Lol

False.  About 7 percent of the report is redacted.  And the entire report is available for members of Congress to review. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18485535/mueller-report-redactions-data-chart
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on May 31, 2019, 09:53:51 AM
Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000

Headnotes:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

US Department of Justice - A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2019, 10:25:58 AM
Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000

Headnotes:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

US Department of Justice - A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Important note:  these opinions do not prevent the investigation of a POTUS or recommending criminal charges, which is what Mueller could have done, but didn't have the stones (or the evidence) to do.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on May 31, 2019, 10:27:48 AM
False.  About 7 percent of the report is redacted.  And the entire report is available for members of Congress to review. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/19/18485535/mueller-report-redactions-data-chart

Mueller literally said in his press conference that it wasn't heavily redacted so where he is getting that from is based on listening to sources that are simply continuing to push a lie for those who are easily duped.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2019, 10:48:28 AM
Mueller literally said in his press conference that it wasn't heavily redacted so where he is getting that from is based on listening to sources that are simply continuing to push a lie for those who are easily duped.

Prime suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.  He has lots of company. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Board_SHERIF on May 31, 2019, 04:18:19 PM
???
Mueller quit, walked away, closed the doors to the building, shut it down, vamoosed, split, assed out, retired, had enough, couldn't do it anymore. He's finished. Do you think he's holding onto the "aha!" evidence for a later date ???

that would be a criminal offense  :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on May 31, 2019, 08:54:12 PM
Except that the final report doesn't clear Trump.

No it doesn't but Mueller left it to Congress to do "the right thing" and we both know that aint happening
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on May 31, 2019, 09:55:08 PM
Except that the final report doesn't clear Trump.


Once again, that is not what the report was for. People so willing to give up due process to feel like their team is winning. A pillar of western society just willingly thrown away for feelings. wtf
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 01, 2019, 07:51:16 AM
No it doesn't but Mueller left it to Congress to do "the right thing" and we both know that aint happening
What is "the right thing"?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Board_SHERIF on June 01, 2019, 07:54:45 AM
No it doesn't but Mueller left it to Congress to do "the right thing" and we both know that aint happening

for a former security guard you know very little about the law  ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2019, 01:11:18 PM
Except that the final report doesn't clear Trump.

Yes it does.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2019, 01:12:18 PM
No it doesn't but Mueller left it to Congress to do "the right thing" and we both know that aint happening

No he didn't.  He left it to the AG, not Congress, and both the AG and Deputy AG did "the right thing" by saying there is nothing there. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on June 03, 2019, 01:30:58 PM
No he didn't.  He left it to the AG, not Congress, and both the AG and Deputy AG did "the right thing" by saying there is nothing there. 

Innocent until proven guilty seems to be lost on these dipshits.

I keep seeing democrats say "he wasn't proven innocent either".

That's not how it works here, fuckwits.

If not proven guility, innocent.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2019, 01:37:45 PM
Innocent until proven guilty seems to be lost on these dipshits.

I keep seeing democrats say "he wasn't proven innocent either".

That's not how it works here, fuckwits.

If not proven guility, innocent.

Thank you.  Prosecutors aren't in the business of exonerating people.  The wording they used is what happens when you have not only Clinton campaign donors on the investigative team, but a guy (Weisman) who attended Hillary's victory party/cry fest.  You cannot tell me Mueller couldn't find people who didn't donate to either Trump or Clinton.   

Not only that, but people don't talk about how Mueller asked Trump for a job (FBI Director), Trump said no, then Mueller gets appointed as Trump's investigator.  Crazy. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2019, 01:52:48 PM
Ya think?   

Adam Schiff: We Can’t Impeach Trump, It Will Fail in The Senate
By Jennie Taer -June 2, 2019

Adam Schiff, said that impeachment of President Trump would likely fail, due to a lack of support from Republicans in the House and Senate. Schiff made the comments in an interview with ABC News’ “This Week”.

“I think we’re going to do what is right for the country, and at this point, the speaker has not reached the conclusion, and I haven’t either that it’s the best for the country to put us through an impeachment proceeding that we know will, is, destined for failure in the Senate,” Schiff said.

“There may be little additional cost to going through that process, even if unsuccessful in the Senate,” Schiff said. “But we’re not there yet and I think if it is a close call, close calls go against putting the country through that.”

https://saraacarter.com/adam-schiff-we-cant-impeach-trump-it-will-fail-in-the-senate/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2019, 02:28:38 PM
Rep. Clyburn: We Already Begun The Work To Impeach Trump
By Jennie Taer -June 3, 2019

“I think we’ve already begun [impeachment process],” said Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) on CNN’s “State of the Union,” suggesting that Democrats have already prepared the groundwork in Congress to impeach President Trump.

“We’ve got all of these committees doing their work, we’re having hearings,” continued Clyburn.

“We do believe that if we sufficiently, effectively educate the public, then we will have done our jobs, and we can move on an impeachment vote and it will stand, and maybe it will be what needs to be done to incent the Senate to act” said Clyburn.

https://saraacarter.com/rep-clyburn-we-already-begun-the-work-to-impeach-trump/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on June 03, 2019, 03:14:33 PM
If you have twitter, you should follow @zubymusic......uk rapper.

Quote
I bet you that 0% of people protesting Trump can bench press 100kg or deadlift 180kg. Weak, frail, low T losers. If you want to be strong and lean then you can get my fitness ebook here. Develop the mindset and body of a winner. 💪🏾😁


Quote
There are tons of politicians around the world whom I don't particularly like... Imagine wasting a whole day 'protesting' them though. When they won't even see you, don't know you exist and couldn't care less. Loser antics.

Quote
The idea that everybody in the UK hates Trump is nonsense. We just have a lot of crybabies who like to scream, whine, protest and virtue signal (like the US does). They've been doing the same thing with Brexit and climate change. Always the same losers. Go be productive.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 03, 2019, 07:47:25 PM
If you have twitter, you should follow @zubymusic......uk rapper.



 :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 06, 2019, 11:00:14 AM
New York Times drafts 'articles of impeachment' against Trump
By Liam Quinn | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-times-draft-trump-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 06, 2019, 05:58:29 PM
Pelosi said today that she wants him locked up and not impeached. Is she counting on his not being reelected?

She's a fascist.  You know what happens in socialist/communist countries?  They lock up political dissenters. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 06, 2019, 06:41:58 PM
Pelosi said today that she wants him locked up and not impeached. Is she counting on his not being reelected?
She knows impeachment is a lost cause and she is just pandering in order to maintain her status in the demoncratic party.

Quote
Pelosi delivered a brief civics lesson on impeachment – offering her observation that most people wrongly think impeachment means "you’re out of office."
"Did you ever get that feeling or are you just in the bubble here?" Pelosi, D-Calif., asked. "They think that you get impeached, you’re gone and that is completely not true."
Pelosi then explained that impeachment is only "an indictment," a nod to the constitution that the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.
"So, when you’re impeaching somebody, you want to make sure you have the strongest possible indictment because it’s not the means to the end that people think," she said, adding it’s not "bye bye birdie."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on June 06, 2019, 07:33:07 PM
She knows impeachment is a lost cause and she is just pandering in order to maintain her status in the demoncratic party.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on June 06, 2019, 08:13:39 PM
I hope they try so it’ll guarantee Trump wins 2020
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on June 09, 2019, 06:54:43 AM
Just a feeling, but if Trump is not reelected in 2020, all hell is going to break loose.

Very well might if the policies that are being promoted now by the democrats aimed at destroying American values, etc. are going to be implemented.

Also, we have a good example of how to properly act now that they have shown us how to do it for the last 2 1/2 years.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 09, 2019, 07:31:19 AM
I mostly agree. Pelosi knows that impeachment proceedings will probably backfire. Trump will be seen by some as a martyr, or at least in a more sympathetic light. This would increase his 2020 vote count. Just a feeling, but if Trump is not reelected in 2020, all hell is going to break loose.

Besides the fact they have no proof of wrongdoing. All hell will break loose in 2020 unless Trump royally fucks up between now and then.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: ponal on June 09, 2019, 11:41:49 AM
Besides the fact they have no proof of wrongdoing. All hell will break loose in 2020 unless Trump royally fucks up between now and then.
I hope Trump gets in again but how can you be sure? are you an Insider? ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 09, 2019, 11:11:06 PM
Yes it does.

No..if you read it you would know
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 09, 2019, 11:12:20 PM
for a former security guard you know very little about the law  ::)

Are you pretending to think I am a former security guard, or are you really that stupid. Help us out here.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on June 10, 2019, 08:01:08 AM
Impeach for what again?

Is this the obstruction that the Mueller report said they could not prove was criminal?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 10, 2019, 10:47:27 AM
No..if you read it you would know

Yes.  If you read the Constitution you would know. 

On second thought.  Never mind . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 10, 2019, 06:24:40 PM
Impeach for what again?

Is this the obstruction that the Mueller report said they could not prove was criminal?
Apparently the demoncrats think Mueller is a retarded bitch ass pussy with no backbone and they can investigate better than him.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 10, 2019, 07:25:01 PM

Mueller decided not to indict the president. The reason, he said, is a Justice Department opinion issued during the Watergate scandal. It says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This is internal agency policy from 1973, not a law or court ruling.

"U.S. law rests on the fundamental principle that no person in this country is so high that he is above the law. The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." Robert Mueller

He's talking, of course, about the impeachment process.


False.  Mueller told Barr three times that the reason he didn't recommend indictment for obstruction of the Mueller investigation was NOT due to the OLC memo.  Mueller simply didn't have the evidence.  If he did, he would have recommended that Trump be prosecuted. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 10, 2019, 07:42:45 PM
Or so you say. Where you there?

No, but Barr was along with numerous witnesses.  Why are you so uninformed? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 10, 2019, 07:49:18 PM
No, but Barr was along with numerous witnesses.  Why are you so uninformed? 
Willful ignorance.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 10, 2019, 07:55:03 PM
Willful ignorance.

Likely.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on June 18, 2019, 08:37:50 AM
 :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 17, 2019, 09:40:45 PM
In lopsided vote, House kills effort to impeach Trump
The measure was being pushed by Texas Rep. Al Green, who says the president is unfit for office.
JULY 17, 2019
By Alex Moe and Jane C. Timm

The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.

The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment, an issue that has created a widening schism within the party. Progressive newcomers and several 2020 candidates have pushed for impeachment proceedings, but the House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has been resistant.

All Republicans joined with 137 Democrats and the lone independent, Justin Amash, to table the resolution. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., voted against killing the resolution, which his spokesperson said was because Nadler believed the House should have first sent it to his committee for consideration.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said Wednesday morning that she does not support the resolution.

"We have six committees working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in," she said at a news conference. "That is the serious path we’re on — not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor."

Trump lashed out at the resolution on Twitter, calling it "the most ridiculous and time consuming project I have ever had to work on."

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 The United States House of Representatives has just overwhelmingly voted to kill the Resolution on Impeachment, 332-95-1. This is perhaps the most ridiculous and time consuming project I have ever had to work on. Impeachment of your President, who has led the....
Jul 17, 2019

After the impeachment resolution, the House overwhelmingly voted to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt of Congress for withholding information about the administration's failed bid to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

The House scheduled the vote after Barr and Ross withheld documents that had been subpoenaed by the Oversight and Reform Committee as part of its probe into the origins of the now-scuttled citizenship question.

On impeachment, Green forced the vote by reading his proposed articles of impeachment on Tuesday night.

He cited Trump's recent remarks about four Democratic congresswoman of color, which the House voted to condemn as racist on Tuesday, as cause for seeking the president's removal from office.

Trump's comments "have legitimatized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color," Green said Tuesday night on the House floor. "Donald John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United States, is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office."

Green had told reporters on Wednesday that he hoped the House would vote for impeachment, not to table or refer it to committee. He said "bigotry" qualified as a "high crime and misdemeanor."

Green rejected questions about whether he should hold on impeachment proceedings until after the testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller next week.

"The Mueller testimony has nothing to do with his bigotry. Nothing. Zero. Nada," Green said. "We cannot wait. As we wait, we risk having the blood of somebody on our hands — and it could be a member of Congress."

Green has been gunning to impeach Trump for years — his latest effort is his third attempt. He most recently offered articles of impeachment when Republicans controlled the House in January 2018, after the president derided immigrants from Haiti and some African countries. The House voted to table that resolution, with 121 Democrats joined 234 Republicans to effectively kill the measure.

More than 80 members of the House have called for opening an impeachment inquiry, but some Democratic leaders have resisted, fearing that it would distract from the party's policy agenda, could rally Trump's base, isn't popular with the public and is doomed to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that enthusiasm for impeachment may be waning: The July survey found 21 percent of registered voters say that there is enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment hearings now. In June, 27 percent in the poll the same thing, a 6-point drop in one month — though that survey was of Americans, not registered voters.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-impeachment-resolution-against-trump-n1030791
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: ~flower~ on July 17, 2019, 09:47:41 PM
He can fuck right off.   
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on July 17, 2019, 09:51:17 PM
They continue to make him an outsider, attacking with nothing...ensuring a 2020 win. I've never seen such wacky emotional energy and a true vigor for losing as this dem party has.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on July 18, 2019, 08:53:21 AM
They continue to make him an outsider, attacking with nothing...ensuring a 2020 win. I've never seen such wacky emotional energy and a true vigor for losing as this dem party has.

(https://i.redd.it/fyzkllvla0d01.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on July 25, 2019, 11:15:33 AM
Donald who? Pelosi, Democrats vow to 'own August' on issues

Congressional Democrats on Thursday pivoted away from questions of impeachment by saying they are going to "own" the upcoming August recess on issues like health care and prescription drug costs.

Not emphasized was the testimony a day earlier by former special counsel Robert Mueller, which dulled some Democratic hopes of moving closer to formal impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. In private, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advised members of her caucus to talk about impeachment if they must to advance their prospects of winning re-election next year — but not in a way that challenged other members' views. A majority of Democrats, like most Americans, do not support launching a House indictment against Trump despite Mueller's statement that he could not "exculpate" Trump on potential obstruction of justice.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-pelosi-democrats-vow-own-143513914.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 22, 2019, 11:33:43 AM
Al Green Ready for Fourth Impeachment Attempt: Trump Has ‘Unleashed Bigotry’–‘Causing Death and Destruction’
TONY LEE
22 Aug 2019

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) will reportedly try for the fourth time to impeach President Donald Trump when the House returns from recess in September, according to a Wednesday NPR report.

Green has said Trump should be impeached for his “bigotry” and on Wednesday Green tweeted that Trump should be impeached after the El Paso shooting because he has “unleashed bigotry” that is “causing death and destruction within our society.”
 
“The President has unleashed bigotry. It is our duty to not only restrain and contain but also eliminate it. The genesis of doing this must be the impeachment of the person who unleashed the bigotry that is causing death and destruction within our society,” Green said.

Congressman Al Green

@RepAlGreen
 The President has unleashed bigotry. It is our duty to not only restrain and contain but also eliminate it. The genesis of doing this must be the impeachment of the person who unleashed the bigotry that is causing death and destruction within our society. #ImpeachNow

7,121
10:59 AM - Aug 21, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
3,684 people are talking about this
Green has recently been on an impeachment tour across America, visiting states like Michigan and Mississippi, and he told NPR that “sometimes things start with one person and then things multiply.”

“Things start with a spark, and sometimes the spark is ignored,” Green reportedly said. “Other times the spark can cause others to become consumed with the righteousness of a cause and participate in the cause itself.”
 
In July, Green’s third attempt at impeachment failed when a motion to table his impeachment resolution passed 332 to 95.

Since then, more than 30 Democrats have supported an impeachment inquiry. This week, Assistant House Speaker Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) backed an impeachment inquiry, becoming the highest ranking House Democrat to do so. At least 131 Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry and pressure will likely mount on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to impeach Trump in September.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/22/al-green-ready-for-fourth-impeachment-attempt-trump-has-unleashed-bigotry-causing-death-and-destruction/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2019, 10:19:03 AM
House Dems move on Trump impeachment, as Republicans mock ‘giant Instagram filter’ hiding disarray
By Adam Shaw | Fox News

The Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee passes rules for a formal impeachment investigation into President Trump.

House Judiciary Democrats on Thursday took a big step in their Trump impeachment push as they set the ground rules for a formal committee inquiry -- but Republicans laughed it off as a “giant Instagram filter” to hide how divided Democrats truly are on the question.

The committee voted 24-17 to define the rules for future committee impeachment hearings. The committee is not writing articles of impeachment, and nothing is going to the floor of the House right now, but the session still holds political consequences for both sides of the aisle.

"The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power,” committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said in his opening statement.

The vote allows members to show the impeachment-eager base they are moving forward. But the push has also rattled some Democrats from more moderate districts.

“It’s sucking the air out of all of the good stuff we’re doing,” Rep. Donna Shalala, D-Fla., who flipped her seat from Republican control last year, said Wednesday.

But Nadler has sought to clear the air on what his committee is actually doing, amid widespread confusion. Nadler said Thursday the panel is “engaged in an investigation as to whether to launch an impeachment investigation into President Trump."

Nadler had previously said House Democrats are pursuing an impeachment inquiry, a remark subsequently contradicted by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Hoyer later released a statement saying he had misunderstood the question and that he supports Nadler.

In his opening statement Thursday, Nadler said: "Some call this process an impeachment inquiry, some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature."

Nadler says the resolution at issue allows him to determine if various hearings are part of any impeachment probe, allows counsel to question witnesses at those hearings, gives the committee access to documents in executive sessions, and gives the president due process. He said that formalizing the inquest “enables us to move more effectively and quickly.”

Broadly speaking, it represents another step by Democrats toward impeachment proceedings in the wake of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. While Mueller’s team drew a blank on evidence that Trump’s campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia in 2016 -- the initial basis for the probe -- Democrats then turned to other issues including Trump's finances and alleged obstruction of justice.

But Republicans brushed off the meeting Thursday, arguing that Democrats are all bark but no bite on the subject of impeachment, making a fuss about “a simple procedure issue.” Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., compared the Democrats’ move Thursday to a “giant Instagram filter to make you appear that something’s happening that’s not.”

“The difference between formal impeachment proceedings and what we’re doing today is a world apart no matter what the chairman just said,” he said.

Later on, he got his social media brands mixed up, and when corrected, yelled: “Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter it doesn’t matter, we’re not in an impeachment inquiry!”

Collins claimed that the rules could have been handled “five minutes” before an actual hearing, and said it showed how out of step House Democrats are with their colleagues, and the public.

House impeachment procedure vote could impact government funding, debate over gun controlVideo
“All along they thought people were coming along with them and that the public was happy with this and other members of their own party were happy with this but somewhere down the yellow brick road they looked around and said ‘there’s not all of us here, people aren’t following anymore,’” he said.

Collins was referring to an increasingly vocal group of Democrats unhappy at the impeachment focus -- fearing it is a politically futile move and is distracting from kitchen-table issues of greater concern to voters.

But in other parts of the country, Democratic activists and left-wing lawmakers are fired up at the idea of ousting the president. Skeptical lawmakers in places like New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were peppered with questions during the August recess by angry Democrats demanding they back impeachment.

“You are going to give Donald Trump another four years by doing that. You are helping him. You are helping him get another four years,” Rep. Steven Lynch, D-Mass., told a furious crowd last month, according to Politico.

But Democrats are moving toward that position, even if they are not united -- at least 135 House members now support an inquiry, including 17 members of the Judiciary Committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has long expressed her skepticism about impeachment, urging Democrats to zero in on issues such as climate change, health care and the economy instead. Last month she was heckled by unhappy protesters at a dinner in San Francisco.

But asked by Fox News on Monday if she supported Nadler, Pelosi said: “Yes, I do.”

“I think you should characterize it for what it is, it’s a continuation of what we have been doing,” she said. “You know we all work together on these things.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-judiciary-democrats-trump-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 23, 2019, 07:27:11 PM
Tom Steyer Demands Pelosi Begin Impeachment Proceedings: ‘Enough Is Enough’
TONY LEE  23 Sep 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/09/23/tom-steyer-demands-pelosi-begin-impeachment-proceedings-enough-is-enough/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on September 23, 2019, 07:37:12 PM
Tom Steyer Demands Pelosi Begin Impeachment Proceedings: ‘Enough Is Enough’
TONY LEE  23 Sep 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/09/23/tom-steyer-demands-pelosi-begin-impeachment-proceedings-enough-is-enough/

Who?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 23, 2019, 07:51:24 PM
Who?

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on September 23, 2019, 10:03:29 PM
Translation.... "I've spent tons of money and now I'm not even going to be Biden's running mate"
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on September 24, 2019, 12:39:43 PM
Russian collusion—failed

Obstruction—failed

Tax returns—failed

Emoluments—failed

Recession hysteria—failed

"Trump is a racist"—failed

Ukraine—likely another failure

Democrats' new 2020 motto:

"When all else fails, impeach"
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: R.A.M. on September 24, 2019, 01:45:15 PM
The Democrats are trying hard to give it to Trump in 2020. :o... time for popcorn again!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on September 24, 2019, 01:54:01 PM
Russian collusion—failed

Obstruction—failed

Tax returns—failed

Emoluments—failed

Recession hysteria—failed

"Trump is a racist"—failed

Ukraine—likely another failure

Democrats' new 2020 motto:

"When all else fails, impeach"

I have to agree.  It looks like another desperate attempt.  If Trump is willing to release the transcripts at this early stage, then do they really think there is something in there that will get him impeached?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on September 24, 2019, 04:18:40 PM
I have to agree.  It looks like another desperate attempt.  If Trump is willing to release the transcripts at this early stage, then do they really think there is something in there that will get him impeached?

you seem to be forgetting that  Trump is a fucking moron

he's not only openly committed obstruction, witness tampering etc.., he has now admitted to trying to pressure a foreign leader into investigating his political opponent and withholding congress mandated funds in an attempt to extort him to do so

also, most of the shit that Grape Ape listed is still being investigated and that doesn't even count the investigations happening in NY state

reality is just so UNFAIR to the fat, whiny Traitor in Chief
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 24, 2019, 05:13:31 PM
Russian collusion—failed

Obstruction—failed

Tax returns—failed

Emoluments—failed

Recession hysteria—failed

"Trump is a racist"—failed

Ukraine—likely another failure

Democrats' new 2020 motto:

"When all else fails, impeach"

Correct.

But you know what this is really about?  They know the IG report will be bad.  The guy Barr appointed to conduct an investigation may wind up prosecuting someone.  This is an attempt to divert attention away from that and Biden's son.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 24, 2019, 05:14:47 PM
Hans von Spakovsky: Trump impeachment effort will be historic political battle – Here’s how process works
By Hans A. von Spakovsky | Fox News

Impeachment: What to know
A look at who can be impeached and how the proceedings move forward

The announcement Tuesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the House “is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry” against President Trump because she believes his actions “have seriously violated the Constitution” kicks off a complex and enormously consequential process.

But what exactly is impeachment? And how hard would it be to impeach the president and actually remove him from office?

The average American understandably isn’t an expert on impeachment. Only two presidents have been impeached by the House – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. But neither man lost his job.

PELOSI ANNOUNCES FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGAINST TRUMP

Impeachment is complicated and takes time. Parliamentary democracies can quickly remove a prime minister when a majority of lawmakers cast a vote of no-confidence in the leader. But in the U.S., the impeachment process is a much tougher task to accomplish.

Here’s a Q&A on how impeachment would work.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment has nothing to do with the criminal prosecutions carried out by the U.S. Justice Department for violations of federal law, although such criminal violations may form a basis for impeachment.

Instead, as outlined in The Heritage Foundation’s “Guide to the Constitution,” impeachment is the process set out in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution for Congress to remove from office the president, vice president and “all civil Officers of the United States” for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There is also a second process that applies only to the president. The 25th Amendment provides for the temporary transfer of the powers of the presidency to the vice president if a president is unable to discharge the duties of his office, such as due to a physical or other disability.

Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole Power of Impeachment.”

In other words, only the House can pass a resolution of impeachment alleging that a president has committed “high Crimes and misdemeanors.” Such a resolution, which requires only a simple majority vote, is similar to a criminal indictment by a grand jury – it is an unproven list of charges that a president has engaged in actions that warrant his impeachment.

If the House passes such an impeachment resolution, then the process moves to the Senate. Under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, the Senate has the “sole Power to try all impeachments.”

The Senate, in essence, becomes a trial court with all of the senators sitting as the judge and jury. Based on historic practice, members of the House can act as prosecutors.

It is important to note, however, that it is entirely up to the Senate to decide whether to hold a trial. There is no obligation under the Constitution to do so.

This means that even if the Democratic majority in the House votes to impeach President Trump, the Republican majority in the Senate could decide to not even consider removing him from office. House Democrats opposed to impeaching Trump say there is no point in passing an impeachment resolution because it would most likely be dead on arrival in the Senate.

How does an impeachment trial work?

If the Senate decides to hold an impeachment trial, the Constitution says the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the proceeding. It takes a vote of “two-thirds of the Members present” in the Senate to convict any federal officer subject to an impeachment charge, including the president.

The two-thirds vote to convict means that 67 votes are needed in the 100-member Senate to remove the president and other federal officers from office. That is a very high hurdle that’s probably impossible to leap over in the case of President Trump.

Democrats and independents allied with them hold only 47 seats in the Senate – meaning that even if they all voted to convict Trump they would also need the votes of 20 Republican senators. Not a single GOP senator has called for Trump to be impeached so far, and the chances of 20 jumping on board the impeachment bandwagon are slim.

If a federal officer is convicted by the Senate, it is not a criminal conviction. The Constitution states that impeachment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

In other words, a federal official can be removed from office. He or she can also be banned from holding any other federal office in the future.

What happens when a president or other official is removed?

On the other hand, conviction does not bar the removed official from being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

So a federal official who is impeached, convicted, and removed from office – such as a federal judge or the president of the United States – can then be criminally prosecuted if he has violated a federal law, such as accepting bribes or engaging in treason.

How is impeachment different from a trial in court?

The most important point to understand about impeachment is that it is not a legal proceeding like a federal criminal prosecution. And none of the formal procedural or evidentiary rules that apply to both criminal and civil trials in the federal courts are applicable in an impeachment trial.

Other than the constitutional division of labor between the House and Senate, the directive that the chief justice presides when it is the president being impeached, and the requirement of a two-thirds vote to convict, it is entirely up to the House and Senate to set the rules for how to proceed with impeachment.

It is also entirely up to Congress to determine what it considers “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that constitute grounds for impeachment.

The Supreme Court – in a 1993 case called Nixon v. United States (a case involving a federal judge named Nixon, not former President Richard Nixon) – held that the impeachment process is a political question. It is not an issue that is reviewable by, or within the jurisdiction of, the federal courts.

How has impeachment been used in the past?

During the course of our history, the House of Representatives has impeached 19 federal officials: 15 judges (including Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase), one Cabinet member, one U.S. senator, and Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, according to a 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service.

Many people mistakenly believe that President Nixon was impeached. In fact, Nixon resigned in 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment, but before a resolution of impeachment could be voted on by the House.

Both President Andrew Johnson and President Clinton were acquitted in their impeachment trials held in the Senate.

Of the 14 other impeachment trials held, only eight resulted in convictions (all of federal judges). The last such trial (which I attended in a Senate hearing room) was of former federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.

Porteous was convicted in 2010 by the Senate on four articles of impeachment, including receiving cash and favors from lawyers who were practicing before him and lying to the FBI and the Senate during his nomination process.

What is an impeachable offense?

Impeachment is probably not limited to criminal acts.

Treason and bribery are clearly criminal violations, but the Constitution does not define “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 65 that impeachable offenses would include “the misconduct of public men” or the “abuse or violation of some public trust.”

According to the 2015 Congressional Research Service report, both houses of Congress have in the past “given the phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ a broad reading, ‘finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.’”

Is impeachment really about the law or about politics?

Impeachment is primarily a political process.

If a majority of Americans do not believe that the impeachment of a president is warranted because no actual wrongdoing has occurred (or the public believes that the alleged wrongdoing is not sufficiently serious to warrant removal from office), there seems little doubt that members of Congress pushing impeachment will be unsuccessful and may suffer damaging political consequences at the ballot box.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

After Republicans tried and failed to remove President Clinton through the impeachment process, they lost seats in Congress in the next election. Democratic opponents of impeaching President Trump fear this could happen to them if they impeach him.

The impeachment process was not placed in the Constitution so it could be used for crass, partisan gamesmanship, but was instead created to remedy serious misbehavior by federal officials.

If members of the House and Senate start voting to impeach a president because they simply oppose his policies, we could see a lot more attempts to impeach presidents in the future.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Members of Congress should be wary of abusing the impeachment authority in such a manner, because it could imperil the stability of our constitutional structure by removing a duly elected president.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, and whether you support or oppose President Trump, you should oppose making impeachment a frequently used move against presidents of the United States. Someday, a president you think is doing a great job could be targeted.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hans-von-spakovsky-trump-impeachment-effort-will-be-historic-political-battle-heres-how-process-works
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on September 24, 2019, 06:17:12 PM
Correct.

But you know what this is really about?  They know the IG report will be bad.  The guy Barr appointed to conduct an investigation may wind up prosecuting someone.  This is an attempt to divert attention away from that and Biden's son.

you Trumptards are delusional

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 24, 2019, 06:49:57 PM
you Trumptards are delusional



Seek therapy.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 24, 2019, 07:17:11 PM
Stormy Daniels is quite the “whistleblower” !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 24, 2019, 10:09:46 PM
Something tells me this is going down in flames and that Biden is the one who will eventually be hurt by this. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Irongrip400 on September 25, 2019, 04:04:00 AM
Stormy Daniels is quite the “whistleblower” !

Zing!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 25, 2019, 07:00:53 AM
Trump and Giuliani have played this masterfully.

Pelosi is going to look like a senile old fool.

Trump will end the Democrat Party by 2024.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on September 25, 2019, 07:16:01 AM
you seem to be forgetting that  Trump is a fucking moron

he's not only openly committed obstruction, witness tampering etc.., he has now admitted to trying to pressure a foreign leader into investigating his political opponent and withholding congress mandated funds in an attempt to extort him to do so

also, most of the shit that Grape Ape listed is still being investigated and that doesn't even count the investigations happening in NY state

reality is just so UNFAIR to the fat, whiny Traitor in Chief

So do you think he will actually get impeached?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on September 25, 2019, 07:53:49 AM
Stormy Daniels is quite the “whistleblower” !

LOL   ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on September 25, 2019, 07:57:34 AM
So do you think he will actually get impeached?



He could easily in the House.

They've kind of set the stage where they have to go forward.  The democrats who won republican districts will get wiped in 2020 when they fall in line.

But, regardless of your political affiliation, people must realize any impeachment without CONCRETE evidence of serious wrongdoing is going to further divide the country.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2019, 08:13:39 AM
He could easily in the House.

They've kind of set the stage where they have to go forward.  The democrats who won republican districts will get wiped in 2020 when they fall in line.

But, regardless of your political affiliation, people must realize any impeachment without CONCRETE evidence of serious wrongdoing is going to further divide the country.

I just read the transcript. 

democrats have got to be fng kidding me with this shit.  Biden was on video bragging of shutting down the prosecutor 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on September 25, 2019, 08:21:26 AM
He could easily in the House.

They've kind of set the stage where they have to go forward.  The democrats who won republican districts will get wiped in 2020 when they fall in line.

But, regardless of your political affiliation, people must realize any impeachment without CONCRETE evidence of serious wrongdoing is going to further divide the country.


If anything will strengthen Trump. Clinton benefitted from the constant attacks as well. Voters see through this stuff, and the flailing and crazy-eyed looks these people will be doing to prove a point will hurt them at the polls. They know they can't win with radical ideas or this batch of candidates....whether they just figured it out in the last couple weeks is up for debate.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on September 25, 2019, 08:33:19 AM
I just read the transcript.  

democrats have got to be fng kidding me with this shit.  Biden was on video bragging of shutting down the prosecutor  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: OzmO on September 25, 2019, 08:55:48 AM
I don't get this.  What's the big deal here?

So what he push Ukraine to investigate Biden.  This is an impeachable offense??????
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2019, 09:08:52 AM
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: chaos on September 25, 2019, 03:35:03 PM
Demonazis have spent the last 3 years trying to undo a sitting president, they've made no attempt to move forward and show the people of America that they can do better, they've only obstructed, lied, pushed their agenda and shown the people that the demonazi party cannot lead this country.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 25, 2019, 03:45:48 PM
I just read the transcript. 

democrats have got to be fng kidding me with this shit.  Biden was on video bragging of shutting down the prosecutor 

I agree.  Ridiculous.  Biden is the one who should be investigated.
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2019, 05:07:31 PM
If Biden Sr. weren't Trump's primary competition in the 2020 election, it would be a difference story. It appears to some that Trump is trying to manipulate the 2020 election with the help of a foreign power. This is a very big deal. We will find out if it is an impeachable one.

False.   Biden is a clown and non entity.   It’s going to be warren or Bernie.   Biden is a fraud and tied to the failed Obama damn
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 25, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Cross your fingers and hope to die.


Fuck off, you ignorant senile cokksukker
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 25, 2019, 05:09:32 PM
False.   Biden is a clown and non entity.   It’s going to be warren or Bernie.   Biden is a fraud and tied to the failed Obama damn

Nancy Pelosi just guaranteed four more years of President Donald Trump
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 25, 2019, 05:16:05 PM
Give it your best shot Jane. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.

I feel sorry for your ex-wife.

Lied to her entire marriage. So you could enjoy cokk up the ass
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 25, 2019, 05:33:19 PM
She's not my ex-wife idiot, she's my late wife. We were together for over 52 years. We had no secrets from one another. You are so incredibly ignorant that it must hurt.

Poor woman was either incredibly stupid or died of shame.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 25, 2019, 06:14:02 PM
Poor woman was either incredibly stupid or died of shame.

Come one now.  That's a little harsh don't you think?  I don't agree with Prime on much, but we should leave his late wife out of this. 
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: SOMEPARTS on September 25, 2019, 06:46:03 PM



Keep posting it. Eventually straw and prime will clicky. Calling Howard...  ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 25, 2019, 07:01:44 PM
Thank you. She was a great lady....one of a kind. Idiots such as J. P. Jane who think they know what we had together, don't know squat. Our great relationship and love for one another was something most people only wish they could find. People like J-P-Jane are bitter and hateful. They are not worth anyone's time, certainly not mine.

If she was so great and you loved her so much, why did you cheat on her and have gay sex with strange men?

What makes you think that your despicable behavior makes me a bitter person?

You have to live with the truth that you treated your wife like shit while she was alive.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on September 25, 2019, 09:11:17 PM
86 (now 89) THINGS DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR

President Trump was only in office two weeks before a Democratic congressman called for his impeachment.

On Feb. 1, 2017, mere days after the Trump’s inauguration, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the House
should consider impeaching the president in the event he doesn’t abide by court orders related to his travel ban.

President Trump did end up abiding by these court orders, but that didn’t stop Democrats’ calls for impeachment.
Over the ensuing months, and years, Democrats have regularly come up with reasons why they should impeach
the president.

At current count, Democrats have proffered 86 different reasons for impeaching Trump.

Below you’ll see a news list we’ve cross-posted from our sister site, NewsLists.co — the original is here — which
is displayed chronologically.

By far the Democrats coming up with the most reasons for impeachment are Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas). At current count, Waters has produced 14 different reasons she thinks Trump’s impeachable;
Green’s come up with 18.

A few of the more interesting: Rep. Green suggested impeaching Trump after his supporters chanted “send her back”
in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Rep. Waters has said he should be impeached simply for being “despicable.”

Those, of course, are just a sampling. See below for the comprehensive list. And if we’re missing any, you can add
more by visiting NewsLists.co.

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached?fbclid=IwAR0TeP6EjoAgjevJySRV1Tku5RV2XbtUOXYOx_acFFyGIf3CuXZMbmFbfTE
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 25, 2019, 09:49:19 PM
86 (now 89) THINGS DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID TRUMP COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR

President Trump was only in office two weeks before a Democratic congressman called for his impeachment.

On Feb. 1, 2017, mere days after the Trump’s inauguration, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the House
should consider impeaching the president in the event he doesn’t abide by court orders related to his travel ban.

President Trump did end up abiding by these court orders, but that didn’t stop Democrats’ calls for impeachment.
Over the ensuing months, and years, Democrats have regularly come up with reasons why they should impeach
the president.

At current count, Democrats have proffered 86 different reasons for impeaching Trump.

Below you’ll see a news list we’ve cross-posted from our sister site, NewsLists.co — the original is here — which
is displayed chronologically.

By far the Democrats coming up with the most reasons for impeachment are Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas). At current count, Waters has produced 14 different reasons she thinks Trump’s impeachable;
Green’s come up with 18.

A few of the more interesting: Rep. Green suggested impeaching Trump after his supporters chanted “send her back”
in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Rep. Waters has said he should be impeached simply for being “despicable.”

Those, of course, are just a sampling. See below for the comprehensive list. And if we’re missing any, you can add
more by visiting NewsLists.co.

https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-said-trump-could-be-impeached?fbclid=IwAR0TeP6EjoAgjevJySRV1Tku5RV2XbtUOXYOx_acFFyGIf3CuXZMbmFbfTE

Holy smokes.  Bunch of zealots. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on September 27, 2019, 04:10:55 AM
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,”  - Jerry Nadler, decrying the 1998 impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton

(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/021102wtchearing9alt.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&strip=all)
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on September 27, 2019, 01:52:14 PM
Thanks to you, I will not 'clicky'.

Again putting your head in the sand.  You only need to watch about 90 seconds to hear Biden threaten to withhold foreign aid if the prosecutor investigating his son is not fired.  But that's only if you want to be an informed voter. 
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Skeletor on September 27, 2019, 01:58:29 PM
Again putting your head in the sand.  You only need to watch about 90 seconds to hear Biden threaten to withhold foreign aid if the prosecutor investigating his son is not fired.  But that's only if you want to be an informed voter.  

Maybe a direct quote from the official Council on Foreign Relations website would be sufficient but then again...

HAASS: Before I call—I just want to put one other issue on the floor before I get another question or two, which is Ukraine. This administration, unlike the administration you worked in, decided to provide limited defense articles to Ukraine. Do you think that was a wise decision? And more broadly, do you see any scope for any sort of a deal on eastern Ukraine?

BIDEN: The answer is yes, I think it was a wise decision. But then again, I was pushing that for two years before we left, so. And the reason is I think the more you up the ante, the cost to Russia for their aggression—I mean, as you all know, and you know this better than anybody, you know, the one big lie going on about Ukraine back in—and the rest of Russia is that no Russian soldiers are engaged. They’re not dying. No body bags are coming home, et cetera. Because there’s overwhelming opposition on the part of the body politic in Russia for engagement in Ukraine in a military sense.

Do I think they’re—I think the Donbas has potential to be able to be solved, but it takes two things. One of those things is missing now. And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.


https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: SOMEPARTS on September 27, 2019, 05:48:16 PM
So, if this is true. Are you saying it justifies Trump's phone call? Didn't your mom ever tell you that "two wrongs do not make a right."




It's the cause of part of the call dems are upset about and trying to spin away from themselves, willful ignorance.
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: chaos on September 27, 2019, 07:01:45 PM
....anyone younger with some life left in them would be an improvement over who we currently have in office...
Why?
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on September 27, 2019, 08:50:38 PM
So, if this is true. Are you saying it justifies Trump's phone call? Didn't your mom ever tell you that "two wrongs do not make a right."

Let me remind you, I've made it pretty clear that Biden is not my choice for President. Among other things, he's just too old. I'm pulling for someone younger....anyone younger with some life left in them would be an improvement over who we currently have in office or some of those in the offering. Namely, Biden and Sanders. Warren is getting up there too. Pete Buttigieg is presently in 5th place. I'd vote for him. I'm beginning to think Beto O'Rourke's bid for president doesn't look promising.

What do you mean "if" it's true?  Watch the clip. 
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Agnostic007 on September 29, 2019, 08:35:41 PM
Again putting your head in the sand.  You only need to watch about 90 seconds to hear Biden threaten to withhold foreign aid if the prosecutor investigating his son is not fired.  But that's only if you want to be an informed voter. 

Im sure at this point you realize how ignorant your statement is. I will give you some slack since at the time you posted it you didn't know Biden was part of an envoy and it was agreed upon by many parties that the prosecutor was corrupt, the "investigation into his son" was not a thing and therefore not an issue..and he was acting on a consensus. 
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: TheGrinch on September 29, 2019, 09:02:22 PM
Im sure at this point you realize how ignorant your statement is. I will give you some slack since at the time you posted it you didn't know Biden was part of an envoy and it was agreed upon by many parties that the prosecutor was corrupt, the "investigation into his son" was not a thing and therefore not an issue..and he was acting on a consensus. 

who are the "many parties" and please provide a linked reference so I can be as informed as you
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on September 30, 2019, 03:02:03 PM
I mean if it is true (as presented). When it comes to these things, the truth of a matter is not always what it appears to be. If it were, Trump would have been impeached by now.

We're not talking about "if" regarding Biden.  Watch the clip.
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on September 30, 2019, 03:02:26 PM
Im sure at this point you realize how ignorant your statement is. I will give you some slack since at the time you posted it you didn't know Biden was part of an envoy and it was agreed upon by many parties that the prosecutor was corrupt, the "investigation into his son" was not a thing and therefore not an issue..and he was acting on a consensus. 

 ::)
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on September 30, 2019, 03:03:00 PM
who are the "many parties" and please provide a linked reference so I can be as informed as you

Asking for facts?  Good luck with that. 
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on September 30, 2019, 03:58:42 PM
It is not as if anything you or I post on an Internet board, changes anything.

I'm going to say this again and then leave it alone:  watch the clip of Biden's own words. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on September 30, 2019, 08:07:59 PM
The Democrat candidates only have nine (9) more national TV debates where they have to pretend to ignore President Donald Trump’s historic success.

Only nine.

 
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: Dos Equis on October 01, 2019, 09:02:40 AM
You missed my point, or so it seems. What has the clip you posted changed? Is Biden being charged with something....anything? Do you have evidence that he will be charged or even investigated? Is he still campaigning for the 2020 election? Have his poling numbers dropped significantly or even at all?

You will continue to argue your point and I will argue mine, that is human nature. No matter how many videos and news clips we find that support our positions, what is going to happen, will happen, no matter how much either of us pounds our chests. Maybe the endgame is to be able to post up an "I told you so." If so, how lame is that?

Who said anything about Biden being charged with or convicted of anything?  He's never going to be charged with a crime.  Just like Hillary Clinton wasn't, despite the fact she unquestionably broke the law. 

The point is you refuse to watch the clip and listen to Biden's own words.  Willful ignorance. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 01, 2019, 12:10:53 PM
I heard commentary by Tucker Carlson that puts this impeachment talk in context.  He said the reason Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump literally since he took office is because they cannot just run and win on the issues.  Their agenda is too radical.  The public will not support it.  They need some kind of scandal, cloud, etc. to win. 

I agree. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 01, 2019, 01:30:05 PM
I heard commentary by Tucker Carlson that puts this impeachment talk in context.  He said the reason Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump literally since he took office is because they cannot just run and win on the issues.  Their agenda is too radical.  The public will not support it.  They need some kind of scandal, cloud, etc. to win. 

I agree. 

I've said this before, they can't win on the issues and know they have a crap lineup running and the two moderates they had in the way of Gabbart and Hickenlooper because i guess the DNC feels they aren't radical enough :-\
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on October 01, 2019, 02:40:05 PM
I heard commentary by Tucker Carlson that puts this impeachment talk in context.  He said the reason Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump literally since he took office is because they cannot just run and win on the issues.  Their agenda is too radical.  The public will not support it.  They need some kind of scandal, cloud, etc. to win. 

I agree. 
Of course this is true.  I know some independents who now see the light because of the witch hunt.
Title: Re: Will Trump Be Impeached - Premature?
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 01, 2019, 06:50:45 PM
Who said anything about Biden being charged with or convicted of anything?  He's never going to be charged with a crime.  Just like Hillary Clinton wasn't, despite the fact she unquestionably broke the law. 

The point is you refuse to watch the clip and listen to Biden's own words.  Willful ignorance. 

http://www.g-a-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GAI-Hunter-Biden-Report.pdf

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 01, 2019, 09:13:53 PM
I've said this before, they can't win on the issues and know they have a crap lineup running and the two moderates they had in the way of Gabbart and Hickenlooper because i guess the DNC feels they aren't radical enough :-\

True story. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 01, 2019, 09:15:32 PM
Of course this is true.  I know some independents who now see the light because of the witch hunt.

It's pretty disturbing how misinformed some people are.  But I don't entirely blame them, because the media put its thumb on the scale is openly advocating for Democrats, against Trump, and are trying to manipulate public opinion. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on October 02, 2019, 04:42:00 AM
Maxine Waters‏
Verified account
@RepMaxineWaters

I'm calling on the GOP to stop Trump's filthy talk of whistleblowers being spies & using mob language implying they should be killed. Impeachment is not good enough for Trump. He needs to be imprisoned & placed in solitary confinement. But for now, impeachment is the imperative. 10:19 AM - 1 Oct 2019

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF0V1gAU0AAdg7R.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Necrosis on October 02, 2019, 04:53:03 AM
Maxine Waters‏
Verified account
@RepMaxineWaters

I'm calling on the GOP to stop Trump's filthy talk of whistleblowers being spies & using mob language implying they should be killed. Impeachment is not good enough for Trump. He needs to be imprisoned & placed in solitary confinement. But for now, impeachment is the imperative. 10:19 AM - 1 Oct 2019

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF0V1gAU0AAdg7R.jpg)

You must be able to tell that Trump is a complete narcissist, everything he does is great, perfect, the very best ever!

America is looking like a parody of itself.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2019, 05:07:22 AM
And whatever Tucker says must be right.  ::)

In this instance, he is. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on October 02, 2019, 01:43:00 PM
The consistency here is.... well... you know
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2019, 02:48:13 PM
In the least surprising news of the day:

Trump says Schiff 'helped write' whistleblower complaint, after House panel admits advance knowledge
By Gregg Re, Catherine Herridge | Fox News

President Trump responds to report that Adam Schiff received early account of whistleblower complaint
Trump holds joint news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto as House Democrats ramp up impeachment push.

A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff's panel before filing a complaint -- prompting President Trump, in an extraordinary afternoon news conference at the White House, to accuse Schiff directly of helping write the document.

Schiff had previously claimed in a televised interview that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." A Schiff spokesperson seemingly narrowed that claim late Wednesday, telling Fox News that Schiff himself "does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel" for any reason.

. . . .

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-adam-schiff-write-whistleblower-complaint-advance-knowledge
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2019, 06:18:01 PM
The "whistleblower" met for about ten hours with Schiff's staff before the complaint was made?  If true, the plot sickins . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 02, 2019, 07:19:43 PM
The "whistleblower" met for about ten hours with Schiff's staff before the complaint was made?  If true, the plot sickins . . . .



Schiff falling on his sword over TDS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 02, 2019, 08:07:55 PM


Schiff falling on his sword over TDS.

The same snake who met with Cohen before his testimony. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on October 03, 2019, 06:09:14 AM
Trump asked the Pres. of Ukraine to investigate the Biden's.

Apostrophes are for the possessive, not plural, teacher.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2019, 07:54:55 AM
I think you're getting "lost in weeds" on this simple direct issue.
Trump asked the Pres. of Ukraine to investigate the Biden's.
Joe Biden is a top political rival for Trump.
Plus, after the UK President brought up buying US javlin missles , Trump said ;

" I'd like you to me a favor, though."

This act alone ,is a clear violation of US law and the constitution.


Stop lying. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 03, 2019, 10:08:22 AM
Huh? the transcript shows he actually said that.

No it’s not.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: James on October 03, 2019, 11:28:53 AM
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2019, 09:45:58 PM
Huh? the transcript shows he actually said that.

No it doesn't.  Quote it.  In context. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 03, 2019, 09:53:03 PM
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1179962400554008576?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


BREAKING: The Democrat whistleblower who complained about Trump digging up dirt in Ukraine was himself helping dig up dirt in Ukraine against Trump (and Manafort) while working in the Obama White House during 2016 campaign.





ANY QUESTIONS???
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2019, 01:39:28 PM
Is a Paul Sperry Twitter post considered a relaible news source?  ??? ??? ???

Paul E. Sperry is an American conservative author and political commentator. He was a media fellow at the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank.

Where do you think you're going to hear about something like this?  CNN?? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on October 04, 2019, 05:53:51 PM
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2019, 06:17:52 PM
Anywhere other than from a Twitter crackpot, might do.

What exactly do you know about Paul Sperry? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2019, 06:26:27 PM
Pundit, author, investigative journalist. Notable works. Muslim Mafia; Infiltration; Crude Politics. Paul E. Sperry is an American conservative author and political commentator. He was a media fellow at the Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank.

I know he is someone whose political point of view differs from mine. 

So all you know is a few lines you pulled off the internet and that he might think differently than you.  And because of that he's a "Twitter crackpot."  Intolerant much?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2019, 06:46:58 PM
Yes, this is all I know and it's enough for me. If this makes me intolerant, so be it.

He is a Twitter crackpot, in my opinion....This is based on having read several of his Twitter posts. Why don't you share what you think of this fellow. Surely, you regard him highly as he speaks your 'language'.

I don't know enough about him to have opinion.  I like to get facts first, then form an opinion.  I can also tolerate people who think differently than me.  You should try it. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 04, 2019, 07:01:15 PM
There's quite a difference between tolerating people and agreeing with them. I happen to not agree with the opinions he posts and comments he makes. I never said he doesn't have the right to an opinion....that would be intolerant.

Yeah all two of his Twitter posts that you read.  After which you called him a crackpot because he has a different political viewpoint than you.  That is intolerant. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 04, 2019, 07:56:18 PM
None of the stuff he scooped on twitter yesterday has been disputed by anyone today. Wonder why?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 01:17:29 PM
Does someone want to take a stab at identifying:

1.  What is the precise impeachable offense President Trump has committed?

2.  What is the evidence supporting that impeachable offense?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 01:30:42 PM
No. Because you wouldn't agree with this anyway.

What Trump has going for him, is that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's a shame that Trump protests like someone who is guilty would. -Much too loudly.

In other words, you have no idea.  But thanks for playing.   :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 02:00:09 PM
True. But then, neither do you.  ;)

I'm not the one saying there is an impeachable offense, so what you said is nonsensical. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 02:14:31 PM
Neither am I saying Trumps phone conversation with Zelensky was an impeachable offense, because this remains to be seen. The possibility that it was exists or it wouldn't have triggered an investigation.

You're not saying anything.  Nothing remains to be seen about the phone call.  We have the transcript.  What I'm trying to get from you or anyone else who is willing to weigh in is:

1.  What is the impeachable offense?

2.  What is the evidence in support of that impeachable offense? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 08, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
So a Democrat whistleblower is going to use hearsay information to explain what happened on a phone call where the official transcript has already been released to the public?

Democrats = the Party of stupidity and hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 04:06:10 PM
So a Democrat whistleblower is going to use hearsay information to explain what happened on a phone call where the official transcript has already been released to the public?

Democrats = the Party of stupidity and hypocrisy.

I am listening to this stuff and saying:  Y'all gon' make me lose my mind . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 08, 2019, 04:10:09 PM
White House announces it will not comply with 'illegitimate and unconstitutional' impeachment inquiry
By Gregg Re, John Roberts | Fox News

The State Department blocks Amb. Gordon Sondland from testifying in the House impeachment inquiry; reaction and analysis from David Catanese, senior politics writer for US News & World Report, and Fox News contributor Judy Miller, adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

The White House outlined in a defiant eight-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats on Tuesday why it will not participate in their “illegitimate and unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry, charging that the proceedings have run roughshod over congressional norms and the president's due-process rights.

Trump administration officials called the letter, which was written by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and obtained by Fox News, perhaps the most historic letter the White House has sent. The document tees up a head-on collision with Democrats in Congress, who have fired off a slew of subpoenas in recent days concerning the president's alleged effort to get Ukraine to investigate political foe Joe Biden during a July phone call with Ukraine's leader.

"President Trump and his administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process," the letter stated. "Your unprecedented actions have left the president with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances."

READ THE WHITE HOUSE LETTER

The document concluded: "The president has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people."

Substantively, the White House first noted in the letter that there has not been a formal vote in the House to open an impeachment inquiry -- and that the news conference held by Pelosi last month was insufficient to commence the proceedings.

Why hasn't Nancy Pelosi held a full vote on impeachment?Video
"In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step," the letter stated.

It continued: "Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an 'impeachment inquiry' based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call."

SCHIFF SAYS 'WE' DIDN'T TALK TO WHISTLEBLOWER -- THEN BACKTRACKS

Despite Pelosi's claim that there was no “House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry,” several previous impeachment inquiries have been launched only by a full vote of the House -- including the impeachment proceedings concerning former Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

White House officials told Fox News the vote opening the proceedings was a small ask, considering the implications of potentially overturning a national election.

The letter went on to note that "information has recently come to light that the whistleblower" who first flagged Trump's call with Ukraine's president "had contact with [House Intelligence Committee] Chairman [Adam] Schiff's office before filing the complaint."

And Schiff's "initial denial of such contact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false," the letter observed.

Multiple reports surfaced this week that the whistleblower had a prior "professional relationship" with one of the 2020 Democratic candidates for president. On Friday, lawyers for the whistleblower did not respond to questions from Fox News about the whistleblower's possible previous relationship with any currently prominent Democrat.

Ken Dilanian

@KenDilanianNBC
 An aide says Schiff meant the full committee here.  To me it seems like a deceptive answer. https://twitter.com/rncresearch/status/1179476466469396480 …

RNC Research

@RNCResearch
FLASHBACK: Adam Schiff lies, insists: “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower”https://youtu.be/qOSF3qMieBA

 Embedded video
223
12:52 PM - Oct 2, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
387 people are talking about this
The letter added: "In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral 'investigator.'"

The White House was dinging Schiff for reciting a fictional version of Trump's call with Ukraine's leader during a congressional hearing. Schiff later called his statements a "parody."

TUCKER CARLSON AND NEIL PATEL: THE TRUTH ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

"Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing," the letter stated. "The chairman's action only further undermines the public's confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his committee."

Ukraine's president has said he felt Trump did nothing improper in their July call, and DOJ lawyers who reviewed the call said they found no laws had been broken. The White House released a transcript of the conversation last month, as well as the whistleblower's complaint, which seemingly relied entirely on second-hand information.

Separately, the letter asserted multiple alleged violations of the president's due-process rights. It noted that under current impeachment inquiry proceedings, Democrats were not allowing presidential or State Department counsel to be present.

Democrats' procedures did not provide for the "disclosure of all evidence favorable to the president and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry," the letter noted, nor did the procedures afford the president "the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony."

Democrats also have not permitted Republicans in the minority to issue subpoenas, contradicting the "standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

"President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances."

— Pat Cipollone, counsel to President Trump
The letter claimed that House committees have "resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses," by raising the specter of obstruction of justice when administration employees seek to assert "long-established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition."

"Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, and the Office of Legal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions," the letter stated.

EXCLUSIVE: WHISTLEBLOWER WRITES WH OFFICIAL DESCRIBED TRUMP CALL AS 'FRIGHTENING'

Additionally, the letter noted that Democrats reportedly were planning to interview the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry at an undisclosed location -- contrary, the White House said, to the constitutional notion of being able to confront one's accuser.

According to a White House official, the bottom line was: "We are not participating in your illegitimate exercise. ... If you are legitimately conducting oversight, let us know. But all indications are this is about impeachment."

The document came as the White House aggressively has parried Democrats' inquiry efforts. One of the administration's first moves: the State Department on Tuesday barred Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, from appearing before a House panel conducting the probe into Trump.

GOP INTRODUCES RESOLUTION TO KICK PELOSI OUT OF THE HOUSE

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 · 9h
 I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public....


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
....to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” That says it ALL!

48.6K
3:23 AM - Oct 8, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
23.5K people are talking about this
"I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican's rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public to see," Trump tweeted.

THE LATEST REPORTING FROM FOX NEWS IN THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND UKRAINE CONTROVERSY

The strategy risked further provoking Democrats in the impeachment probe, setting up court challenges and the potential for lawmakers to draw up an article of impeachment accusing Trump of obstructing their investigations. Schiff said Sondland's no-show would be grounds for obstruction of justice and could give a preview of what some of the articles of impeachment against Trump would entail.

But, as lawmakers sought to amass ammunition to be used in an impeachment trial, the White House increasingly has signaled that all-out warfare was its best course of action.

"What they did to this country is unthinkable. It's lucky that I'm the president. A lot of people said very few people could handle it. I sort of thrive on it," Trump said Monday at the White House. "You can't impeach a president for doing a great job. This is a scam."

House Democrats, for their part, issued a new round of subpoenas on Monday, this time to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and acting White House budget director Russell Vought. Pelosi's office also released an open letter signed by 90 former national security officials who served in administrations from both parties, voicing support for the whistleblower who raised concerns about Trump's efforts to get Ukraine to look into Biden's business dealings in Ukraine.

Speaker Pelosi signals support for Jerry Nadler's resolution on impeachment proceedingsVideo
"A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed, thus advancing the cause of national security to which we have devoted our careers," they wrote. "Whatever one's view of the matters discussed in the whistleblower's complaint, all Americans should be united in demanding that all branches of our government and all outlets of our media protect this whistleblower and his or her identity. Simply put, he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our protection."

The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees were investigating Trump's actions alleging he pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son, potentially interfering in the 2020 election. The former vice president, for his part, has accused Trump of "frantically pushing flat-out lies, debunked conspiracy theories and smears against me." And, Biden's campaign has sought to have Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who has accused Biden of possible corruption, removed from the airwaves.

PROOF OF LINKS: PHOTO OBTAINED BY FOX NEWS SHOWS BIDEN GOLFING WITH UKRAINE EXEC

Biden has acknowledged on camera that in spring 2016, when he was vice president and spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings — where Hunter had a lucrative role on the board despite limited relevant expertise. Critics have suggested Hunter Biden's salary bought access to Biden.

The vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in critical U.S. aid if Shokin, who was widely accused of corruption, was not fired.

"Well, son of a b---h, he got fired," Biden joked at a panel two years after leaving office.

Fox News' Catherine Herridge and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-inquiry-white-house-not-comply-pelosi
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 09, 2019, 04:05:19 PM
Joe Biden Calls For President Trump To Be Impeached
“Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation and committed impeachable acts,” the 2020 Democrat said in New Hampshire Wednesday.
By Ryan Grenoble
POLITICS 10/09/2019

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday echoed the calls of rivals in the Democratic presidential primary and called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

“We all laughed when he said he could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and get away with it,” Biden told an audience in Rochester, New Hampshire. “No joke! He’s shooting holes in the Constitution and we cannot let him get away with it.”

“Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation and committed impeachable acts. ... He should be impeached,” the 2020 Democratic contender added.

ABC News Politics

@ABCPolitics
 Joe Biden: "Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation, and committed impeachable acts."

"To preserve our Constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, he should be impeached" http://abcn.ws/2OIkMFB

 Embedded video
97
7:48 AM - Oct 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
48 people are talking about this

“The United States cannot have a president who will abuse whatever power he has available to him in order to get reelected,” Biden continued, adding later, “His lying is matched only by his manifest incompetence as president.”

In April, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was the first Democratic candidate to call for Trump’s impeachment, based on conclusions made by former special counsel Robert Mueller in his report on Russian influence in the 2016 election and whether Trump obstructed justice.

Trump is under fire for having pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into Biden, whose son Hunter has had business dealings in the country. Trump had, at the time, suspended military aid to Ukraine.

“There’s no truth in his charges against me and my son,” Biden said Wednesday. “Zero.”

Two separate whistleblowers allege Trump first made the request in a July 25 phone call. The call summary shows the U.S. president asked Zelensky to “do us a favor though” immediately after discussing military aid for his country.

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, even as he openly called on China to investigate Biden as well.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-donald-trump-impeach_n_5d9e1d3ce4b087efdba723a1
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 09, 2019, 04:16:07 PM
Seat getting hot "Uncle Joe"?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 10, 2019, 11:42:13 AM
Seat getting hot "Uncle Joe"?

Yes, that's what I'm gathering from the latest news. Joe Bidens own allies and lap dogs are coming out criticizing his surprise decision to abandon the Kurds against almost all of his advisers and most Republican congressional members advice and with the latest FOX poll showing the majority of the country want to proceed with the impeachment hearings I think Biden is losing his mind.  :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 10, 2019, 01:44:15 PM
Everybody knows the outcome in the senate. Not sure why it still goes on.

You have people selling their office for millions of dollars, admitting said fraud and collusion on video, fixing elections, govt agencies hiring spies from other countries to sabotage political opponents...and mass media covers a phone call 24/7.

If they would actually find a way to remove this president, I'm prepared for when the entirety of the US economy goes on a 50% off sale. The amount of money that would be pulled from the market in one day alone would be breathtaking. Maybe even bank runs would occur....hint, there is no paper cash to cover that in existence.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 10, 2019, 02:45:28 PM
Documented proof now of a $900,000 payment to Joe Biden through a shell company while he was VP under Obama
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 10, 2019, 05:43:54 PM
Yes, that's what I'm gathering from the latest news. Joe Bidens own allies and lap dogs are coming out criticizing his surprise decision to abandon the Kurds against almost all of his advisers and most Republican congressional members advice and with the latest FOX poll showing the majority of the country want to proceed with the impeachment hearings I think Biden is losing his mind.  :)

The latest poll that oversampled Democrats. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2019, 12:51:54 AM
The latest poll that oversampled Democrats.  

of course. Good point. Obviously a FOX poll would oversample Democrats. I won't even bother fact checking. Good catch Dos
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2019, 12:53:02 AM
On a side note, I'm finding playing Republican Trump supporter takes a lot less brain work and life is much easier.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on October 11, 2019, 05:41:38 AM
If they would actually find a way to remove this president, I'm prepared for when the entirety of the US economy goes on a 50% off sale. The amount of money that would be pulled from the market in one day alone would be breathtaking. Maybe even bank runs would occur....hint, there is no paper cash to cover that in existence.

This is my thinking as well.

And I think Pelosi was aware of this in her reluctance to proceed earlier this year.

Now they don't seem to care.

I've have seen Democrats say a recession would be worth it to get him removed.

Horrible shit.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 11, 2019, 07:10:12 AM
This is my thinking as well.

And I think Pelosi was aware of this in her reluctance to proceed earlier this year.

Now they don't seem to care.

I've have seen Democrats say a recession would be worth it to get him removed.

Horrible shit.



They are staring the prospect of 5 more years out of presidential power. Many won't be in public office in 5 years. They are getting their asses handed to them on policy and are desperate.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 11, 2019, 08:45:36 AM
(http://forums.13x.com/index.php?attachments/ego5qiexoaan6su-jpeg.160824/)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on October 11, 2019, 09:24:01 AM
booooooy and we thought Obama wearing a tan suit was a scandal.

lol.... consistency is out of the window here...

party over country i see..


you guys disgust me.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2019, 09:31:10 AM
of course. Good point. Obviously a FOX poll would oversample Democrats. I won't even bother fact checking. Good catch Dos

Not surprised because you never fact check anyway. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on October 11, 2019, 09:40:34 AM
Not surprised because you never fact check anyway. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

your head just exploded...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2019, 10:01:46 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

your head just exploded...

Yeah how did those same polls work out for you in 2016 ? 

Idiot. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2019, 10:31:27 AM
This is what some call living in the moment. Occasionally, it's a good idea to consider the future. Of course, like you suggest, this would require a smidge more brain work.  :)

Except BIDEN ADMITTED ON TAPE TO DOING WHAT LIBS ACCUSE TRUMP OF. 

Hope that helps. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on October 11, 2019, 10:40:35 AM
booooooy and we thought Obama wearing a tan suit was a scandal.

lol.... consistency is out of the window here...

party over country i see..


you guys disgust me.

I don't think it's party over country - many here, like myself, are registered independents, who dislike both parties.

But I have no problem saying my political stance at the moment is anti-democrat, because I do not like what they're pushing, and I don't think they've put forth a viable candidate capable of winning.

They've had almost three years of a large anti-Trump environment to cultivate a sensible candidate with realistic propositions, but all their frontrunners now are super far left, and likely, not electable.

They've learned nothing from 2016.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2019, 10:43:17 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

your head just exploded...

Why? 

"While 48.1% of its random sample of 1,003 voters considered themselves Democrats, only 40% were Republicans. Independents comprised only 12 percent, a fact Trump War Room’s Twitter account was quick to take issue with."
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/10/trump-campaign-fox-news-poll-impeachment/

Aside from that, what is the impeachable offense and what is the evidence in support of that offense? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 11, 2019, 11:09:48 AM
Trump admitted it in a news briefing. Later, he retracted his admission. And during another news briefing, he asked China to investigate the Biden's.

September 13, 2019

Days later, reports emerge that Trump asked Zelenskiy during the 25 July phone call to investigate Joe Biden and the candidate’s son, Hunter. Trump admits that he did, but denies wrongdoing. He denies that withholding aid had amounted to a quid pro quo.

Holy fuck you are stupid.

Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate much discussed Biden corruption....period, no quid pro quo offered. As is his right to do as the POTUS.

Biden bragged on video about having committed coercion and extortion....if the Ukraine didnt fire a Special Prosecutor within 6 hours, they didn’t get their $1 billion dollars in aid money.

Jesus Christ you fucking aids infested bag of moron, either learn to read and comprehend, or kill yourself.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 11, 2019, 06:12:48 PM
In the excerpted portion of the clip, Biden was discussing his efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine into to prosecuting corruption and firing Viktor Shokin, an ineffective prosecutor. That effort by Biden has been used by Trump supporters to argue, inaccurately, that Biden single-handedly had Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian group of energy exploration and production companies of which Biden’s son Hunter was a board member.

However, Shokin was not fired for investigating Burisma, but for his failure to pursue corruption investigations — including investigations connected to Burisma. And Biden wasn’t alone in the effort to push Shokin out, but rather was spearheading the Obama administration’s policy, which represented a consensus among diplomats, officials from various European countries, and the International Monetary Fund that Shokin was an impediment to rooting out corruption in his country, according to Bloomberg:

Prime give it up. You are still acting like facts matter. They don't. Not a single mind has been changed arguing with Trumpsters. If they are still at this point looking at Trumps call to the Ukranian President as "a perfect call" knowing what we know about the timeline, then they are either brainwashed, ignorant or hopelessly in denial and there is not a thing you can say to change their minds. Just rest easy knowing they are in the minority
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 12, 2019, 08:48:21 AM
Prime give it up. You are still acting like facts matter. They don't. Not a single mind has been changed arguing with Trumpsters. If they are still at this point looking at Trumps call to the Ukranian President as "a perfect call" knowing what we know about the timeline, then they are either brainwashed, ignorant or hopelessly in denial and there is not a thing you can say to change their minds. Just rest easy knowing they are in the minority

Just like how we heard for 3 years how the Mueller Report would put President Donald Trump in prison.

In reality, Democrat stupidity will put President Donald Trump in the White House for 4 more years.

Deal with it snowflakes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on October 12, 2019, 10:43:42 PM
Just like how we heard for 3 years how the Mueller Report would put President Donald Trump in prison.

In reality, Democrat stupidity will put President Donald Trump in the White House for 4 more years.

Deal with it snowflakes.

 The Mueller report SHOULD have gotten him impeached, not necessarily imprisoned. His saving grace was Americans will read Rachelle Steele and Tom Clancy novels till the cows come home but they wont read a 300 page document about the President. Thats on us as US citizens.  I challenge anyone with a brain cell to read vol 2 of the report and NOT call for his impeachment. Butt hat wont happen. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 13, 2019, 09:16:40 AM
So much for “polls”


https://nypost.com/2019/10/12/fox-news-pollster-braun-research-misrepresented-impeachment-poll-analysis/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 13, 2019, 01:31:15 PM
The Mueller report SHOULD have gotten him impeached, not necessarily imprisoned. His saving grace was Americans will read Rachelle Steele and Tom Clancy novels till the cows come home but they wont read a 300 page document about the President. Thats on us as US citizens.  I challenge anyone with a brain cell to read vol 2 of the report and NOT call for his impeachment. Butt hat wont happen. 

Here is a hint, if you want to make your challenge to “anyone with a brain cell”, then you probably shouldn’t have a brain dead person present the results of the report to Congress.

Bob Mueller’s testimony was an airtight indicator that the Russian Collusion investigation was 100% a hoax.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on October 14, 2019, 01:28:50 PM
The Mueller report SHOULD have gotten him impeached, not necessarily imprisoned. His saving grace was Americans will read Rachelle Steele and Tom Clancy novels till the cows come home but they wont read a 300 page document about the President. Thats on us as US citizens.  I challenge anyone with a brain cell to read vol 2 of the report and NOT call for his impeachment. Butt hat wont happen. 
Your prejudice shows through in every post you make, you're blind to reality and facts. Probably why you aren't in LE anymore. ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 14, 2019, 01:35:00 PM
Still waiting for someone to take a stab at identifying the impeachable offense and the evidence in support of that impeachable offense. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Option D on October 14, 2019, 03:25:50 PM
Yeah how did those same polls work out for you in 2016 ? 

Idiot. 

FOX THO???.... BOOM... HEAD EXPLODED
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 14, 2019, 04:32:55 PM
Unravelling by the day.  Somebody take the mic away from this dishonest dummy.

Adam Schiff: ‘There Doesn’t Need to Be a Quid Pro Quo’ for Impeachment
EDWIN MORA  14 Oct 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/14/adam-schiff-there-doesnt-need-to-be-a-quid-pro-quo-for-impeachment/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 14, 2019, 05:30:51 PM
If Trump is impeached for obstruction of justice, it would be a different charge.

What evidence is there that Trump obstructed justice in his telephone call with the president of Ukraine? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 14, 2019, 05:31:32 PM
If Trump is impeached for obstruction of justice, it would be a different charge.


You don't find the crime to fit the desired end result, nor is one process a placeholder so you can change the charge. Three years of this now....

Some would give up every legal and constitutional right just to get this guy out of office like it's nothing. It's crazy.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 22, 2019, 11:46:31 PM
Reports: Democrats Forced to Extend Impeachment Proceedings into Christmas Season
EDWIN MORA  22 Oct 2019

House Democrats’ effort to impeach U.S. President Donald Trump is taking longer than they expected, some news outlets reported this week.

Democrats are reportedly expected to delay a vote on articles of impeachment until after Thanksgiving, possibly into the Christmas season. Many of them hoped to impeach Trump by Thanksgiving, but they are unlikely to abide by that timeline.

On Monday, CNN acknowledged:

House Democrats are facing a time crunch to quickly wrap up their investigation into allegations President Donald Trump abused his office in pushing Ukraine to probe his political rivals, prompting growing expectations that votes on impeaching Trump could slip closer to the end of the year.

Some Democrats had hoped that a narrow probe — focused on whether Trump put on ice efforts to bolster relations with Ukraine and provide US military aid to the country until it carried through with a political favor — could conclude swiftly, with a potential vote to impeach Trump by Thanksgiving.

But that has proven to be more complicated than it initially seemed, according to multiple Democratic lawmakers and sources.

CNN listed several reasons for the delay, including having to chase down new leads and the rescheduling of several witnesses, adding:

Plus, there are several more time-consuming steps as part of the probe, potentially trying to bring in big names like former national security adviser John Bolton, then holding public hearings before a report they’re expected to write with recommendations — all before any votes in the House.

The New York Times also reported that Democrats are slowing down their impeachment timeline, noting:

House Democrats have resigned themselves to the likelihood that impeachment proceedings against President Trump will extend into the Christmas season, as they plan a series of public hearings intended to make the simplest and most devastating possible public case in favor of removing Mr. Trump.


After a complicated web of damaging revelations about the president has emerged from private depositions unfolding behind closed doors, Democratic leaders have now begun plotting a full-scale — and probably more time-consuming — effort to lay out their case in a set of high-profile public hearings on Capitol Hill.

Their goal is to convince the public — and if they can, more Republicans — that the president committed an impeachable offense when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political rivals.

So far, House Democrats pursuing the impeachment probe have failed to hold any public hearings. They also refuse to release the transcripts of the witnesses’ testimony. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the leader of the impeachment probe, said he would hold public hearings and release the transcripts but would not say when.

Echoing the House impeachment lawyer, Schiff indicated that the impeachment probe might extend beyond Ukraine, a move that would render the proceedings more time-consuming.
 
On Tuesday, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) maintained that Democrats still hope to have the probe completed before Thanksgiving.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/22/reports-democrats-forced-to-extend-impeachment-proceedings-into-christmas-season/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on October 23, 2019, 04:38:47 AM
He's going down. He's going down, down, down.

Sure he will, this time.  This time it's different.  This time he really is going down.   ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 23, 2019, 04:58:48 AM
He's going down. He's going down, down, down.

Settle down w your gay fantasies about Trump .   ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 23, 2019, 09:45:08 AM
Well....this is going to change things quite a bit for the crooked Democrats.

https://www.libertybell.com/breaking-huge-ukrainian-money-laundering-scheme-uncovered-guess-who-was-involved/

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 23, 2019, 10:06:15 AM
He's going down. He's going down, down, down.

Yes, this time they really got him. For what you don't know.  Again. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 23, 2019, 10:10:01 AM
Yes, this time they really got him. For what you don't know.  Again. 

The whistleblower hoax is less credible than any story Michael Avenatti ever made up.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 23, 2019, 10:24:39 AM
The whistleblower hoax is less credible than any story Michael Avenatti ever made up.

Yep.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 23, 2019, 11:07:54 AM
GOP House Members finally grow a pair.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/23/republicans-storm-secure-room-demanding-more-acces/


https://twitter.com/RepChipRoy/status/1154418118594355207
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 23, 2019, 12:13:54 PM
Rep. Val Demmings, Florida Democrat, told reporters Wednesday the Republican claims were unfounded.

“This investigation is being conducted by the Intelligence Committee and members of the Republican side were there if they chose to be during the depositions and they certainly were permitted to ask whatever questions they wanted to. They have access to transcripts and information that were available.”





Uh huh...

Anything but total transparency after the Russia hoax is a joke. If the shoe was on the other foot it would NOT be okay. Difference is the press runs cover for the left.

Maybe get somebody other than a well documented liar to run it as well.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on October 23, 2019, 03:52:24 PM
Rep. Val Demmings, Florida Democrat, told reporters Wednesday the Republican claims were unfounded.

“This investigation is being conducted by the Intelligence Committee and members of the Republican side were there if they chose to be during the depositions and they certainly were permitted to ask whatever questions they wanted to. They have access to transcripts and information that were available.”


And which Republicans were there and asking questions?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on October 23, 2019, 06:36:16 PM
I don't know. They are your people.
Lmao!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 25, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
Newt Gingrich: Pathetic Trump impeachment inquiry is falling apart – What are Pelosi and Dems afraid of?
By Newt Gingrich | Fox News

Newt Gingrich: Why do Pelosi and Schiff feel they have to make an impeachment case in secret?
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich weighs in on why Democrats have chosen to have closed-door impeachment hearings.

Watching the unconstitutional House Democratic impeachment process – which Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., has described as a “partisan clown show” – you have to ask yourself: What are the Democrats afraid of?

If they had a good case, the Democrats would be proudly putting it out in the open so all Americans could learn the facts that would convince them to support impeaching the duly elected president of the United States.

In fact, the Democrats seem to have a pathetic case that keeps falling apart.

After the Mueller investigation failed to find President Trump guilty, the Democrats could have turned to legislating and fighting over real issues, like health care.

After all, in 1998 we were faced with Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report, which charged that President Bill Clinton was guilty on 11 counts including perjury, which is a felony.

If Mueller’s report had used the word “guilty” 11 times the Republicans would have been forced to join in a serious investigation of the president.

However, when Mueller did not use the word “guilty” even once, the need for an investigation ended.

Then, as the Democrats squirmed under the attacks of their activists who were determined that President Trump should be impeached just for being President Trump, they found a new excuse to investigate.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. – who was consistently dishonest and wrong for two years of Russian collusion stories – suddenly had a whistleblower who was anti-Trump.

The Democrats were ecstatic. They now had an excuse to make their hardcore, left-wing, anti-Trump partisans happy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was so eager to appease the left that she announced the investigation before Democrats even had the whistleblower’s report and before they had seen the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with the new, reform-focused Ukrainian president.

The whistleblower was going to be the centerpiece of the case against Trump. Except it turned out he had met with Schiff’s people before submitting his letter. Then it turned out he had no firsthand knowledge of the items he was complaining about.

Then it turned out there were a number of factual falsehoods in the letter. Then it turned out the whistleblower was a Democrat who disliked Trump. Then it turned out he had worked with then-Vice President Joe Biden in the White House.

Now there are reports that after five different disclosures undermining the whistleblower’s credibility, the House Democrats may not even call him to testify.


This means that the person who was the excuse for the whole investigation is now so discredited that House Democrats know he would be an embarrassment and would make even more of a mockery of their phony impeachment effort.

In some ways, the collapse of the whistleblower is reminiscent of the collapse of the attacks on now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Big opening smear, wildly hostile headlines, excited anti-Trump talking heads, and then the balloon loses air, the case collapses and it is on to the next dishonest smear.

The secret nature of the Schiff kangaroo court really means we know nothing for certain about any of the witnesses or their testimony.

Consider the case of Bill Taylor, a very reputable senior diplomat who is now the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

As Marc Thiessen reported: “Cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF. Yet somehow what appear to be cellphone photos of his prepared statement were leaked to the news media.

Thiessen added: “But the full transcript of Taylor’s deposition – including his answers to questions from Republicans challenging his accusations – remains under lock and key in that SCIF. The president’s counsel is not allowed to see it, much less be present at the deposition to cross-examine the witness. So, Democrats are leaking derogatory information about the president, while restricting public access to potentially exculpatory information, all while denying him the right to see or challenge testimony against him.”

The Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry is an un-American, unconstitutional process that violates the due process clause of the Bill of Rights

Yet despite the selective leaks by the Democrats, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said that "in 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe [R-Texas] destroy Taylor's whole argument.”

Yet McCarthy was gagged by the Democrats’ secrecy rules. "We can't really talk about it," he said.

Ratcliffe flatly told Fox News there were new details brought to light but said there was nothing that was "worthy of impeachment."

Ratcliffe went on to say: "The one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower ...  everything is second-, third-, and fourth-hand information.”

The Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry is an un-American, unconstitutional process that violates the due process clause of the Bill of Rights. As we see in Iowa, accused murderers who are illegal immigrants are being granted more protection of their right to due process than the president of the United States.

Every House Democrat must be made to bear the burden of supporting this kangaroo court “partisan clown show.”

Every House Democrat should be asked: “What are you afraid of that you can’t let the American people see the facts and decide for themselves?”

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-pathetic-trump-impeachment-inquiry-is-falling-apart-heres-surprising-reason-why
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 29, 2019, 02:12:34 PM
Dems introduce resolution formalizing impeachment inquiry procedures
By Gregg Re | Fox News

Former deputy national press secretary for the DNC Jose Aristimuno defends House Democrats' impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a resolution to formalize their impeachment inquiry and adopt rules to govern the proceedings, following sustained complaints by congressional Republicans and the White House that the inquiry hasn't followed past precedent and violates the president's due process rights.

But, illustrating the balancing act involved as the 2020 election cycle gets started, Democrats have adamantly denied that the document is an "impeachment resolution," perhaps out of concern for how that label would play in more moderate swing districts.

The resolution directs the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees to "continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump."

Republicans, however, have countered that there is no "existing" impeachment inquiry because the House has not voted to open one as it did during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments -- and Tuesday's resolution does not explicitly open the probe, either.

READ DEMS' FULL RESOLUTION FORMALIZING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The document instead formally specifies that ranking Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees (Reps. Doug Collins and Devin Nunes, respectively) will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony -- a major demand that the White House and top Republicans had made in recent weeks.

If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.

Nunes: Every day is a new conspiracy theoryVideo
The resolution also authorizes the Intelligence Committee to conduct an "open hearing or hearings" in which minority Republicans have equal time to question witnesses.

And, after that hearing is concluded, "to allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given."

GOP SUGGESTS RESOLUTION WON'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The resolution also directs the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the other committees, to prepare a report on its findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually write any articles of impeachment. In response to GOP complaints about Democrats' selective leaks of opening statements and depositions, the document also authorizes the public release of testimony transcripts, with only sensitive or classified information being redacted.

There is no timeline given for the impeachment inquiry to conclude. The House Rules Committee, which is the gateway for most measures in the House, will meet Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET to prepare the resolution for the House floor. The full House will debate and vote on the measure Thursday morning, with a vote expected by midday.

Just before the resolution was filed, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News flatly on Tuesday that “this is not an impeachment resolution.”

He did not answer when asked if he was concerned about the public perception of that term.

Former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville says the Trump administration is not prepared for what lies ahead; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also insisted Monday night, “It’s not an impeachment resolution."

Four Democratic committee chairs -- Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Eliot L. Engel, and Carolyn Maloney -- said in a statement Tuesday that the "resolution provides rules for the format of open hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, including staff-led questioning of witnesses, and it authorizes the public release of deposition transcripts ... [it] establishes procedures for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and it sets forth due process rights for the president and his counsel in the Judiciary Committee proceedings."

They added: “The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a president who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the president’s misconduct.”

“It’s not an impeachment resolution."

— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Earlier in the day, the top Republicans on the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into the president blasted the investigation as “illegitimate” and a “sham," signaling that the new procedures wouldn't change their minds.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Nunes, R-Calif., Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul, R-Texas, penned a letter to Rep. James McGovern, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, who announced his panel would take up an impeachment procedure resolution on Wednesday to “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward.”

Nunes, Jordan and McCaul accused McGovern, D-Mass., of not giving enough time for Republican members to review the resolution ahead of the vote, and they continued to blast the inquiry as a whole.

“Under House rules you championed at the beginning of this Congress, major legislation is required to be posted 72 hours in advance of a vote,” they wrote. “Yet, here, on the gravest and most solemn work the House can do, you are forcing the House to consider a resolution with text that is still not available two days before the vote.”

Republican Rep. Doug Collins calls the upcoming House vote to formalize the Trump impeachment process a 'sham' to cover Democrats' mishandling of the investigation.

“Without text, we know nothing about the Democrats’ intended impeachment process. Your website describes the resolution as ‘directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigation,’” they continued. “Chairman Schiff does not need a resolution to continue leaking selective facts from his basement bunker.”

They added, “We can only assume, therefore, that this resolution is necessary to allow Democrats to subvert the ordinary legislative process.”

Still, the Democrats' resolution appeared to address the White House's complaints from earlier this month, when it vowed not to participate in the inquiry.

SCHIFF SAYS 'WE' DIDN'T TALK TO WHISTLEBLOWER -- THEN BACKTRACKS

Democrats, the White House complained, had not permitted Republicans in the minority to issue subpoenas, contradicting the "standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

The White House had argued: "In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-introduce-resolution-formalizing-impeachment-inquiry
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on October 29, 2019, 03:17:52 PM
Dems introduce resolution formalizing impeachment inquiry procedures
By Gregg Re | Fox News

Former deputy national press secretary for the DNC Jose Aristimuno defends House Democrats' impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a resolution to formalize their impeachment inquiry and adopt rules to govern the proceedings, following sustained complaints by congressional Republicans and the White House that the inquiry hasn't followed past precedent and violates the president's due process rights.

But, illustrating the balancing act involved as the 2020 election cycle gets started, Democrats have adamantly denied that the document is an "impeachment resolution," perhaps out of concern for how that label would play in more moderate swing districts.

The resolution directs the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees to "continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump."

Republicans, however, have countered that there is no "existing" impeachment inquiry because the House has not voted to open one as it did during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments -- and Tuesday's resolution does not explicitly open the probe, either.

READ DEMS' FULL RESOLUTION FORMALIZING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The document instead formally specifies that ranking Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees (Reps. Doug Collins and Devin Nunes, respectively) will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony -- a major demand that the White House and top Republicans had made in recent weeks.

If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.

Nunes: Every day is a new conspiracy theoryVideo
The resolution also authorizes the Intelligence Committee to conduct an "open hearing or hearings" in which minority Republicans have equal time to question witnesses.

And, after that hearing is concluded, "to allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given."

GOP SUGGESTS RESOLUTION WON'T CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

The resolution also directs the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the other committees, to prepare a report on its findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually write any articles of impeachment. In response to GOP complaints about Democrats' selective leaks of opening statements and depositions, the document also authorizes the public release of testimony transcripts, with only sensitive or classified information being redacted.

There is no timeline given for the impeachment inquiry to conclude. The House Rules Committee, which is the gateway for most measures in the House, will meet Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET to prepare the resolution for the House floor. The full House will debate and vote on the measure Thursday morning, with a vote expected by midday.

Just before the resolution was filed, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Fox News flatly on Tuesday that “this is not an impeachment resolution.”

He did not answer when asked if he was concerned about the public perception of that term.

Former Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville says the Trump administration is not prepared for what lies ahead; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also insisted Monday night, “It’s not an impeachment resolution."

Four Democratic committee chairs -- Reps. Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Eliot L. Engel, and Carolyn Maloney -- said in a statement Tuesday that the "resolution provides rules for the format of open hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, including staff-led questioning of witnesses, and it authorizes the public release of deposition transcripts ... [it] establishes procedures for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and it sets forth due process rights for the president and his counsel in the Judiciary Committee proceedings."

They added: “The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a president who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the president’s misconduct.”

“It’s not an impeachment resolution."

— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Earlier in the day, the top Republicans on the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into the president blasted the investigation as “illegitimate” and a “sham," signaling that the new procedures wouldn't change their minds.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Nunes, R-Calif., Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul, R-Texas, penned a letter to Rep. James McGovern, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, who announced his panel would take up an impeachment procedure resolution on Wednesday to “ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward.”

Nunes, Jordan and McCaul accused McGovern, D-Mass., of not giving enough time for Republican members to review the resolution ahead of the vote, and they continued to blast the inquiry as a whole.

“Under House rules you championed at the beginning of this Congress, major legislation is required to be posted 72 hours in advance of a vote,” they wrote. “Yet, here, on the gravest and most solemn work the House can do, you are forcing the House to consider a resolution with text that is still not available two days before the vote.”

Republican Rep. Doug Collins calls the upcoming House vote to formalize the Trump impeachment process a 'sham' to cover Democrats' mishandling of the investigation.

“Without text, we know nothing about the Democrats’ intended impeachment process. Your website describes the resolution as ‘directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigation,’” they continued. “Chairman Schiff does not need a resolution to continue leaking selective facts from his basement bunker.”

They added, “We can only assume, therefore, that this resolution is necessary to allow Democrats to subvert the ordinary legislative process.”

Still, the Democrats' resolution appeared to address the White House's complaints from earlier this month, when it vowed not to participate in the inquiry.

SCHIFF SAYS 'WE' DIDN'T TALK TO WHISTLEBLOWER -- THEN BACKTRACKS

Democrats, the White House complained, had not permitted Republicans in the minority to issue subpoenas, contradicting the "standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

The White House had argued: "In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-introduce-resolution-formalizing-impeachment-inquiry

They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 29, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on October 29, 2019, 05:02:31 PM
They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D

Has there ever been a better advertisement for limited government?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on October 30, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
Democrats are thinking.

Spot the oxymoron.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on October 30, 2019, 10:53:51 AM
Folks, inquiry is going to go nowhere.

Schiff will become America's most hated scum bag, with Pelosi a close second.

All they're trying to do is pressure Trump into resigning like Nixon. Problem is they got nothing on him. All parties know it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 31, 2019, 06:22:51 PM
DOJ Clears Trump Less Than 24 Hours After Pelosi's Impeachment Announcement
By Joe Setyon
Published September 25, 2019

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it opted not to investigate President Donald Trump over a controversial phone call he had in July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The news came hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California announced the start of an official impeachment probe.

“The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections,” Pelosi told reporters on Tuesday from the Capitol Building, according to ABC News.

Pelosi cited the Ukraine controversy in her brief statement about impeachment.

Prior to the Wednesday release of the transcript of the call, Trump critics claimed the president was withholding $400 million in aid from Ukraine as a bargaining chip he was using to get Ukraine to investigate past activities of Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden’s son.

The transcript released by the White House does not mention the aid, which was eventually released to Ukraine in September.

Investigators looked into the call to see whether Trump had sought a sort of campaign contribution from Ukraine by asking Zelensky to probe the family of a political opponent, and decided there was no basis for a criminal investigation, The Washington Times reported.

The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division “reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told HuffPost for an article published Wednesday.

She said all “relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion, and the Department has concluded the matter.”

A legal opinion from Steven Engel, assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel, further explained the decision.

Engel cited the whistleblower complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General from an intelligence official who took issue with Trump’s phone call.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire has thus far refused to reveal the contents of the complaint to lawmakers, though the White House is reportedly preparing to release a redacted version of the complaint anyway.

“According to the ICIG, statements made by the President during the call could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the campaign-finance laws,” Engel wrote in his memorandum, which was written earlier this month but only released to the public this week.

“In the ICIG’s view, the complaint addresses an ‘urgent concern’ for purposes of triggering statutory procedures that require expedited reporting of agency misconduct to the congressional intelligence committees. Under the applicable statute, if the ICIG transmits such a complaint to the DNI, the DNI has seven days to forward it to the intelligence committees.”

So does the Trump administration have a legal obligation to share the contents of the complaint with lawmakers? The DOJ says no.

“The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the memo reads.

“Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence community complainant received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of ‘urgent concern’ that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees.”

“We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an ‘urgent concern’ within the meaning of the statute because it does not concern ‘the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the DNI.”

“That phrase includes matters relating to intelligence activities subject to the DNI’s supervision, but it does not include allegations of wrongdoing arising outside of any intelligence activity or outside the intelligence community itself,” the memo adds.

According to Kupec, Trump never asked Attorney General William Barr to discuss with Ukrainian officials anything relating to the Biden family.

“The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything related to former Vice President Biden or his son,” she said. “The president has not asked the attorney general to contact the Ukraine — on this or any other matter.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/doj-clears-trump-less-24-hours-pelosis-impeachment-announcement/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostBottomSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons&fbclid=IwAR0eQgCMCqv661W1hBuVspqYGw4VK4FqwQcGCUBCGxt5_LBphFtpELiCDiA
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 31, 2019, 07:16:43 PM
Today the Democrats guaranteed a second term for President Donald Trump.

And a two term presidency for Donald Trump Jr.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on October 31, 2019, 07:39:08 PM
Today the Democrats guaranteed a second term for President Donald Trump.

And a two term presidency for Donald Trump Jr.

Trump Jr. is just a businessman with no political experience.  He'd never get the nomination.   :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on October 31, 2019, 08:09:54 PM
Trump Jr. is just a businessman with no political experience.  He'd never get the nomination.   :D

2024 will be Donald Trump Jr. running against the winner of Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mayor Pete Buttplug

An easy 8 years
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 01, 2019, 11:33:04 AM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/no-further-discussion-talks-halt-between-whistleblower-lawyers-and-schiff-staff-amid-expectation-he-wont-testify


"The whistleblower whose complaint launched impeachment proceedings against President Trump is unlikely to testify to Congress, as talks have ceased between his legal team and committee leaders.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has overseen depositions in Democrats' impeachment proceeding, was initially eager for the whistleblower to testify before citing concern about the person being identified.

Republicans accuse Schiff, a California Democrat, of changing course to prevent inquiries into his staff's dealings with the whistleblower before he filed his Aug. 12 complaint to the Intelligence Community inspector general.

A source familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner that talks halted over potential testimony from the whistleblower and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."




But, but, but....you almost had him.  ???  ::)  :'(
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 01, 2019, 01:57:36 PM
Note how there is no wall-to-wall coverage over the fact this is an entirely partisan impeachment attempt.  Not a single Republican vote for this, which is much different than what happened with Nixon and Clinton.  In fact, two Democrats voted against it. 

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 01, 2019, 01:58:53 PM
Why are you posting this a month after it was relevant?

Because I just saw it.  And why is it irrelevant a month later??
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 01, 2019, 04:02:13 PM
Trump Jr. is just a businessman with no political experience.  He'd never get the nomination.   :D
I think Ivanka will be the first women President in 2024
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 01, 2019, 04:20:35 PM
It is relevant to history buffs. Otherwise, most have moved on to more current news.

The fact the DOJ is refusing to open a criminal investigation over the Trump-Ukraine phone call is current news.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 01, 2019, 06:43:46 PM
The fact the DOJ is refusing to open a criminal investigation over the Trump-Ukraine phone call is current news.
Should be a nice waste of taxpayers money watching the dummycrats run this "impeachment" attempt out until election season next year. ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on November 01, 2019, 07:54:28 PM
Hmmm, I guess passing the impeachment inquiry ( thur Oct 31) was fake legislation? ;)

You DO know that anything that is upheld by the House needs to be ratified by the Senate right?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 02, 2019, 09:46:03 AM
Hmmm, I guess passing the impeachment inquiry ( thur Oct 31) was fake legislation? ;)
Of course they passed the inquiry, they have to keep some sort of controversy for the next year in an attempt to get Trump out of office, God knows they can't beat him running on a platform. ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on November 02, 2019, 10:16:17 AM
Of course they passed the inquiry, they have to keep some sort of controversy for the next year in an attempt to get Trump out of office, God knows they can't beat him running on a platform. ::)

They have 2 platforms.. just not sure which one they want to run on yet

(https://www.label56.com/wp-content/uploads/democrat-platform-20201.jpg)

(https://img.memecdn.com/wow-so-much-to-offer_o_7251184.jpg)

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 02, 2019, 04:21:08 PM
This Topic (Impeachment) started on the 13th May, 2019  ::) ( 5 months ago)

Today is November 3, 2019 & Mr.Trump still rules  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 02, 2019, 04:54:29 PM
Perhaps October 5, 2019 is considered current.

Trump's Ukraine Call Might Violate Election Laws, But No One's Enforcing Them
October 5, 2019 5:00 AM ET
Brian Naylor



Strictly speaking, quid pro quo is not illegal.


Stopped reading right here
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 02, 2019, 09:24:35 PM
Stopped reading right here

Awwww nooooo.....Brian Naylor is an unbiased anti-Trumper.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on November 03, 2019, 11:17:29 PM
“We did not rush to this judgment.  As a matter of fact, this went on for over a year.  And both the Speaker and I said, no,
we’re not there, we’re looking at the facts, we’re committing oversight - which is our responsibility under the constitution.” 

The current impeachment matter is based on a summer of 2019 phone call, which was somewhat less than a year ago.

@ 2:43


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2019, 08:25:22 AM
This Topic (Impeachment) started on the 13th May, 2019  ::) ( 5 months ago)

Today is November 3, 2019 & Mr.Trump still rules  ;D ;D ;D

This topic was started on 13 May 2013
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2019, 08:28:11 AM
Don't really hear a lot of people talking about the fact this Ukraine phone call was classified.  Somebody may have broken the law by talking to the "whistleblower."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 04, 2019, 06:43:04 PM
Don't really hear a lot of people talking about the fact this Ukraine phone call was classified.  Somebody may have broken the law by talking to the "whistleblower."

Stop.....

Do you realize that there is a 50/50 chance that there is no whistleblower?

The highest likelihood right now is that Adam Schiff has completely made up the entire whistleblower.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2019, 07:12:37 PM
Stop.....

Do you realize that there is a 50/50 chance that there is no whistleblower?

The highest likelihood right now is that Adam Schiff has completely made up the entire whistleblower.

I guess that's possible, but I believe the reporting about who the kid is.  The guy who broke the story is pretty reliable. 

That said, Schiff is a snake. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 04, 2019, 07:34:08 PM
I guess that's possible, but I believe the reporting about who the kid is.  The guy who broke the story is pretty reliable. 

That said, Schiff is a snake. 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 07, 2019, 07:02:04 PM
This is what happens when you don't oversample Democrats. 

– Trust in the inquiry –

While there is growing public support for an inquiry, the public is not very confident with the process to date. Just 24% say they have a lot of trust in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far, 29% have a little trust, and 44% have no trust at all. Among those who support impeaching and removing Trump from office, 46% have a lot of trust in the process so far, 40% have a little trust, and 12% have no trust.  Among those who oppose impeachment, just 6% have a lot of trust and 20% have a little trust, while 71% have no trust. Half the public (50%) believes that holding more of the impeachment hearings in public will increase trust in the process, 17% say it will decrease trust, and 29% say it will have no impact.

Neither political party is seen as particularly high-minded in this process. Just 31% of Americans say congressional Democrats are more interested in pursuing the facts while 60% say they are more interested in finding ways to bring down Trump. Even fewer Americans (25%) say congressional Republicans are more interested in pursuing the facts while 61% say they are more interested in finding ways to defend Trump.

. . .

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_110519/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2019, 08:46:28 AM
It would not surprise me if Democrats try and drag this out through early next year, then demand that he not have the State of the Union Address while this is pending. 

And all of that with zero evidence that Trump committed treason, bribery, or any other high crime/misdemeanor. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 08, 2019, 12:00:59 PM
Does White House counsel refusing to honor subpoenas, thus disallowing folks to testify at the impeachment inquiry hearings not drag out the process?

PrimeNancy , still no impeachment  ??? :P
               

                 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 08, 2019, 12:27:32 PM
Was it supposed to happen today?

Yeah , on Antartica  ;D !.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2019, 12:53:23 PM
Does White House counsel refusing to honor subpoenas, thus disallowing folks to testify at the impeachment inquiry hearings not drag out the process?

No.  Serving a frivolous subpoena in a 100 percent partisan witch hunt with zero substance drags out this process. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2019, 02:55:30 PM
 :o

He's right.

GOP Sen. Kennedy on Impeachment Inquiry: ‘It’s Not Only Dumb’ — ‘It’s Dangerous’
TRENT BAKER  
8 Nov 2019

In a Friday interview with Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) issued a stark warning for the House Democrats’ impeachment process over the alleged quid pro quo demand during a phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Kennedy said the process is “not only dumb,” but it is also “dangerous” because it could lead to future “partisan impeachment” pushes.

“This whole process is not only dumb, but it’s dangerous,” Kennedy cautioned. “This is going to be the first partisan impeachment in the history of our country, and I’m worried that it’s going to establish a new normal. Some day we’ll have a Democratic president and then half of the country will be pushing us to impeach him or her. They’ll say, ‘Well, you did it to Trump, now do it to the new president.’ And I think that’s dangerous.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11/08/gop-sen-kennedy-on-impeachment-inquiry-its-not-only-dumb-its-dangerous/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2019, 02:59:57 PM
Maybe now they finally got him?  The end is near.  Again. 

BOLTON SIGNALS DEMS: I’VE GOT THE GOODS
John Bolton Knows Of ‘Many Relevant’ Conversations About Ukraine, Lawyer Says

The former national security adviser has been called to testify in the impeachment inquiry by lawmakers, but his lawyers want a court to clear him to do so first.
By Sarah Ruiz-Grossman
11/08/2019

President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton knows about “many relevant meetings and conversations” surrounding Trump’s communications with Ukraine, Bolton’s lawyer told lawmakers Friday.

Bolton has information that House impeachment investigators do not know about yet, his lawyer Charles Cooper said in a letter to the chief House lawyer, which was first reported by The New York Times. Lawmakers have called on Bolton to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry, but his lawyer first wants a court to rule on whether he should be made to do so, given that the White House has chosen not to cooperate with the inquiry.

According to Cooper’s letter, which he provided to HuffPost, Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which [lawmakers] have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”

Bolton did not show up Thursday for his deposition by lawmakers in the impeachment inquiry. He is one of several current and former Trump administration officials who have failed to appear for their closed-door depositions.

Bolton “stands ready” to testify if courts resolve the “conflicting demands of the Legislative and Executive Branches,” Cooper said in the letter.

Bolton, who was fired in September, would be a key witness in the impeachment inquiry into Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic frontrunners for 2020, and his son Hunter.

According to reports in October, Bolton was at one point so concerned about Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political help that he ordered an aide to warn White House attorneys about Giuliani’s behavior.

Lawmakers released testimony Friday from closed-door depositions with the aide in question, Fiona Hill, a former White House policy adviser on Russia, as well as Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

Both Hill and Vindman raised concerns about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, saying that officials conditioned a White House meeting with Ukrainian leaders on whether or not the country launched an investigation into Biden, and implicated acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in this quid pro quo.

Hill and Vindman also testified that Bolton cut short a July meeting between officials from the Trump administration and from Ukraine, after the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland began speaking of Ukraine conducting these investigations in order for the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to get a meeting with Trump.

The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees will be hosting the inquiry’s first public hearings next week, when three State Department officials who have already privately spoken with investigators will testify.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-bolton-ukraine-trump-impeachment_n_5dc5c16de4b0fcfb7f661939
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Board_SHERIF on November 09, 2019, 04:36:50 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75540201_1027254130955138_776658171631501312_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQmtyByufOoQdO-jAjF4cjIfmCTbDHf6APtE3YGGX9OAliCWErLEbtzZxLQIZ7RMkd0&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=e08dcddf57cefbfa8de12925e05553f9&oe=5E4ABE99)

LOL trust you to believe that....sad.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 09, 2019, 05:16:34 PM
Imagine a country where two of the largest media companies knowingly protect a liberal rapist and pedophile because his liberal wife is running for President.

How many innocent, underage girls were raped by Jeffrey Epstein’s friends between 2015 when ABC and CBS knew what was going on until Epstein hung himself in 2019?

Jail is too good for these people.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 09, 2019, 05:50:55 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75540201_1027254130955138_776658171631501312_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQmtyByufOoQdO-jAjF4cjIfmCTbDHf6APtE3YGGX9OAliCWErLEbtzZxLQIZ7RMkd0&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=e08dcddf57cefbfa8de12925e05553f9&oe=5E4ABE99)
Imagine a country where a woman compromises national security multiple times, then lies and tries to cover it up and her sheep don't care.... ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 09, 2019, 05:55:23 PM
Imagine a country where a woman compromises national security multiple times, then lies and tries to cover it up and her sheep don't care.... ::)

Imagine a country where the President can blatantly and repeatedly lie about you keeping your doctor under his new healthcare plan and his lemmings never question him on it one time.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 09, 2019, 06:00:34 PM
Imagine a country where the President can blatantly and repeatedly lie about you keeping your doctor under his new healthcare plan and his lemmings never question him on it one time.
And you get raped by the insurance companies on top of that.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 09, 2019, 06:54:58 PM
What are you implying? I just want to be sure what you wrote means what it suggests.

And who the fuck are you?

Why would I give a shit what you’re “sure” about?

What a distorted sense of self-importance. No one cares what you think.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 09, 2019, 07:00:02 PM
I care what I think.

You have to.

You have no one else.

Your kids despise you. Which is probably a good indication of their judgement of a person’s character.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 09, 2019, 07:09:34 PM
Carry on. When you go off like this, you just look stupid. And if you think your made up shit upsets me.....well think again. You are nobody to me. I don't give a rip what you think about me.

Liberal tears always make me happy.

PrimeJussieSmollett.

Some day God will avenge your wife and you will pay for what you’ve done.

And I will laugh.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 10, 2019, 06:52:08 AM
1. Bill Clinton has not been charged and found guilty in a court of law for this crime you accuse him of committing. Therefore, there is nothing for the two largest media companies to protect him from. And why would they anyway?

Nothing to protect?  His wife was running for office.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 10, 2019, 07:56:39 AM
You just love to throw that accusation around.  It's a good thing Getbig doesn't have a larger/broader audience or you'd be singing a different tune. Did you know Getbig posts are searchable on the Internet?

1. Bill Clinton has not been charged and found guilty in a court of law for this crime you accuse him of committing. Therefore, there is nothing for the two largest media companies to protect him from. And why would they anyway? His wife running for office? His reputation in the media as a former President of the United States?

2. I doubt any media is interested in protecting Epstein at this point.  :) Sure they do, we just saw that chick get fired after she said on a hot mic how her Epstein story was buried and not aired. Why bury a story about a rich, powerful pedophile connected to tons of rich, powerful politicians?

3. How many girls were raped? Nobody knows and likely nobody ever will. So, you could pretty much manufacture any number you want. Does it matter how many girls were raped? Is there a number that you find acceptable ???

4. In most cases, people aren't put in jail (prison) unless the are found guilty of a crime. Which none of the still living folks in your little scenario have been. They've not been found guilty because of their political connections and their last name. ::)

5. -No comparison between these two situations. Trump has been found guilty of misappropriating charitable donations and fined $2M in a court of law. He's agreed to pay an  additional $1.7M to a variety of charities that the judge approved. This is a lot of money to fork out if he could prove his innocence.

By the way, that little ditty in lavender I posted is all over the Internet. Would you post your accusations on Facebook and other social media where the world outside of Getbig can see and read them?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 10, 2019, 10:59:23 AM
Liberal tears always make me happy.

PrimeJussieSmollett.

Some day God will avenge your wife and you will pay for what you’ve done.

And I will laugh.


 ;D ;D
 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 10, 2019, 04:42:29 PM
I don't care if Hillary was running to be God. Her husband has not been charged with a crime. This why there is nothing for the media to protect them from.  home grown conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

Jesus fuck you are stupid. The reason Bill Clinton has not been charged with a crime is because in 2015 the investigation into Epstein, Clinton, and Prince Andrew and the subsequent reporting on their sex crimes was squashed by the MSM (and DOJ) so that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign wouldn’t be affected.

You can post your stupid lavender queer clip art all you want, while you ignore the billions of dollars the Clinton Foundation stole AND YOU DEFEND A GROUP OF LIKE-MINDED PEDOPHILES.

You aren’t even close to being self aware enough to realize you’re defending rapists and pedophiles by deflecting to some ridiculous topic that isn’t even in the same stratosphere of illegality.

You’re a sick fuck. You are seriously mentally challenged and it isn’t TDS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on November 10, 2019, 04:50:25 PM
You aren’t even close to being self aware enough to realize you’re defending rapists and pedophiles by deflecting to some ridiculous topic that isn’t even in the same stratosphere of illegality.


Or, maybe he is, which is even worse.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 10, 2019, 05:05:28 PM

Or, maybe he is, which is even worse.

Even worse than you could ever imagine.

And his defending of Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and that ilk is no accident.

Birds of a feather.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 10, 2019, 05:19:24 PM
Not surprising.

A pedophile covering up for pedophiles.


Dirty old jerk   >:( >:( >:(

Ron BAN him !.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 10, 2019, 06:16:17 PM
Keep it up.

What are you going to do?

Cry to the moderators?

Hold a secret hearing in your basement and call your own witnesses?

 Cheat on your wife again with random gay men?

Oh that’s right, that one ain’t gonna happen again.

Typical liberal crybaby, you bring this shit on, then cry when it backfires. You’re a sick fuck and it’s disgusting that you’re even allowed to post your deviant shit on this board
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 10, 2019, 08:05:37 PM
I'm the sick fuck? You should take a look in the mirror.

Yes, you’re sick.

Yes, you’re mentally deranged.

Yes, you’re senile.

Yes, you’re a seventy-something year old crybaby.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 11, 2019, 07:52:51 AM
Yes, you’re sick.

Yes, you’re mentally deranged.

Yes, you’re senile.

Yes, you’re a seventy-something year old crybaby.


Politics aside - this shit clogs up the threads and makes them unreadable.

At least prime is here mixing it up and challenging stuff.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 11, 2019, 07:57:23 AM
So Schiff has blocked ALL witnesses the Republicans have called, most notably Biden's son and the Whistleblower?

This will hurt him in the court of public opinion.

I mean, everyone has already made up their minds, but still.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on November 11, 2019, 10:03:09 AM

Politics aside - this shit clogs up the threads and makes them unreadable.

At least prime is here mixing it up and challenging stuff.


Primebullshittes loves clogging up our beloved Trump = Winning thread.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 11, 2019, 10:37:29 AM
If it is true that he's blocking all witnesses Republican's call, it seems like a bad move on Schiff's part. As to whether Biden's son or the whistleblower should testify could be rather complicated. Technically, isn't the whistleblower still anonymous, (forget that he or she has been supposedly outed by some people). Biden's son's testimony probably isn't relevant since this is not about what may have happened in 2016, it is about the shakedown of 2019. It is unlikely Biden's son would have any information  about Trump's phone conversation with the Ukranian President.

Biden's dealings can add context around the converstation.

If "not having any information" was the critera, there would be no witnessess - they have the transcript.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 11, 2019, 10:38:26 AM
I don't care if Hillary was running to be God. Her husband has not been charged with a crime. This why there is nothing for the media to protect them from.  Home grown conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

This is ridiculous - it was protecting them from:

Losing the election (happened anyway)
Future potential criminal charges
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 11, 2019, 11:13:54 AM
When in the future? Isn't there a statute of limitations on perjury and obstruction of justice? What about double jeopardy?

Dates: Dec 19, 1998 – Feb 12, 1999
Charges: Perjury, obstruction of justice

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas.

The judge in the Paula Jones case later ruled the Lewinsky matter immaterial, and threw out the case in April 1998 on the grounds that Jones had failed to show any damages. After Jones appealed, Clinton agreed in November 1998 to settle the case for $850,000 while still admitting no wrongdoing.


75 years old & so obsess with Trump, definitely affected by senility/Parkinsons/dementia  ::)

Get another hobby, collect butterfly's or something !.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 11, 2019, 12:07:12 PM

Politics aside - this shit clogs up the threads and makes them unreadable.

At least prime is here mixing it up and challenging stuff.


If I had a cock.

I’d tell you to blow me.

Hall monitor.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 11, 2019, 05:37:10 PM
I don't know how old you are, but it seems you are obsessed with me since you are commenting on my every post. Maybe it's you who should be collecting butterflies. Here's an idea learn to spell and use correct grammar and wording.

Silly old bugger (SOB) , I collect crocs eggs  ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 09:55:20 AM
House Republicans Outline Impeachment Defense with ‘Four Key Pieces of Evidence’
By TOBIAS HOONHOUT
November 12, 2019

One day before public impeachment hearings are set to begin, a new memo detailing House Republicans’ messaging strategy centers on “four key pieces of evidence” that they claim prove “fatal” to the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

“Stripping away the hyperbole and the hysteria, these indisputable pieces of evidence show that there was no ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the U.S. Constitution,” reads the document.

The four pieces of evidence Republicans cite are the White House transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump doesn’t mention military aid; confirmation of “no pressure on the call” by Zelensky; Ukraine’s lack of awareness that the military aid had been withheld at the time of the call; and the administration’s decision to release the aid in September without Zelensky acceding to the alleged demands.

“The evidence shows that President Trump had a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism toward Ukraine, and a vocal position that Europe should contribute more to regional defense,” the memo reads. Republicans mention that 2016 election interference from within Ukraine makes Trump’s much-discussed Ukraine strategy “entirely reasonable.”

. . . .

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/house-republicans-outline-impeachment-defense-with-four-key-pieces-of-evidence/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 10:22:32 AM
Impeachment Frenzy: TV Networks Blast Trump With 96% Negative News
By Rich Noyes | November 12, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-nets-aim-destroy-trump-96-negative-news
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 10:28:56 AM
How can any reasonable person take these people seriously?

MSNBC's Steve Schmidt: Impeachment About Shakedown By 'Dime-Store Mussolini'

By Mark Finkelstein | November 12, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/11/12/steve-schmidt-impeachment-about-shakedown-dime-store-mussolini
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 10:50:28 AM
Whether Trump is impeached or not, this may have a negative effect on his reelection. It depends on what the voters take from this process. It could also just as easily cause people who vote to side with Trump. I'm relatively confident that the Senate won't support Trump's impeachment, if it goes that far. This also depends on how voters respond. Politicians don't often do things that will cost them votes. The Senate will vote the way their constituency responds.

Of course this is designed solely to hurt his reelection chances.  The Democrat candidates suck and they cannot run and win on the issues, so this is their only shot. 

Are you concerned at all that this is a partisan impeachment attempt? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 12, 2019, 10:53:25 AM
Of course this is designed solely to hurt his reelection chances.  The Democrat candidates suck and they cannot run and win on the issues, so this is their only shot. 

Are you concerned at all that this is a partisan impeachment attempt? 


It’s Totally Pathetic & a Load of Crap.
You’d expect the DummyCraps to do a bit better than this
And actually have some sort of policies - Instead of Just Impeach Impeach Impeach
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 12, 2019, 10:57:57 AM
When in the future? Isn't there a statute of limitations on perjury and obstruction of justice? What about double jeopardy?

Dates: Dec 19, 1998 – Feb 12, 1999
Charges: Perjury, obstruction of justice

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas.

The judge in the Paula Jones case later ruled the Lewinsky matter immaterial, and threw out the case in April 1998 on the grounds that Jones had failed to show any damages. After Jones appealed, Clinton agreed in November 1998 to settle the case for $850,000 while still admitting no wrongdoing.



Why would anyone pay $850,000 if they didn’t believe they did anything wrong.
Strange don’t you think ?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 12, 2019, 11:08:36 AM


Why would anyone pay $850,000 if they didn’t believe they did anything wrong.
Strange don’t you think ?


Not only did she get the $$$ - she's still alive.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 12, 2019, 11:10:00 AM

Not only did she get the $$$ - she's still alive.

Ahhh Yes - She’s one of the Lucky one’s
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 11:13:26 AM
Not really. The Republican dominated Senate will most likely flip the partisanship to their side. Ideally, the House and the Senate would be evenly matched as to parties. I'll repeat this would be ideal, IMO. Voters insure that it will probably never happen. Over time, it balances out. During various administrations/Presidents, Republicans sometimes dominate Congress and at other times, Democrats hold the majority.

That's unfortunate.  There should never be a partisan impeachment of the POTUS.  Especially when there is zero factual basis for it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 12, 2019, 12:14:39 PM
If I had a cock.

I’d tell you to blow me.

Hall monitor.

You do.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 01:14:40 PM
I don't believe we know yet whether there is zero factual basis. If your opinion on this is correct, Trump won't be impeached.

Anyone who knows how to read, and is intellectually honest, knows exactly what the transcript says.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2019, 04:58:57 PM
Perhaps, but do they know what it says in total, minus the redaction? A couple of things of note are that the call lasted 30 minutes and the portion of the transcript released is 5 pages long. I don't know about other people, but if I were on the phone with someone for 30 minutes a transcript of that call would be more than 5 pages long.

The five pages released by the White House documenting President Donald Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy are not a word-for-word transcript of the call.

https://apnews.com/8f96294c8bc44ad485d74a7a0b0a0e00



Wait.  So the actual quid pro quo is in the "redactions"?  There is zero evidence of this.  Desperate times for Trump haters. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 12, 2019, 06:09:15 PM
Wait.  So the actual quid pro quo is in the "redactions"?  There is zero evidence of this.  Desperate times for Trump haters. 

The actual quid pro quo was in the Biden family.

The collusion with the Ukraine was in the Clinton family.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on November 13, 2019, 07:16:12 AM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74355247_1715398418595529_7783694695678345216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnfAjdI_f4Fg6QeQJjA4AC5-CJEPn8pDUDobQlKEZ0gTwXhzkXiJjeHasnHGAs6cdg&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=0e2a2d8f2736f8f7371e46920040d458&oe=5E4BCC33)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 13, 2019, 11:39:55 AM
Perhaps, but do they know what it says in total, minus the redaction? A couple of things of note are that the call lasted 30 minutes and the portion of the transcript released is 5 pages long. I don't know about other people, but if I were on the phone with someone for 30 minutes a transcript of that call would be more than 5 pages long.

The five pages released by the White House documenting President Donald Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy are not a word-for-word transcript of the call.

https://apnews.com/8f96294c8bc44ad485d74a7a0b0a0e00




P.Nancy, have U collected any butterflies today  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 13, 2019, 11:46:00 AM
Jim Jordan has already blown this whole thing up.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2019, 12:39:14 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJR6OjTXsAIHjlm?format=png&name=360x360)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 13, 2019, 01:13:58 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74355247_1715398418595529_7783694695678345216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnfAjdI_f4Fg6QeQJjA4AC5-CJEPn8pDUDobQlKEZ0gTwXhzkXiJjeHasnHGAs6cdg&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=0e2a2d8f2736f8f7371e46920040d458&oe=5E4BCC33)

Being chronically butthurt is not grounds for trying to impeach the President
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on November 13, 2019, 01:18:03 PM
Will be interesting how msm reports this

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 13, 2019, 01:21:36 PM
Doesn't matter - democrats have made up their minds.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on November 13, 2019, 01:24:28 PM
Note the preceding editorial they had to slap up prior to video  ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 13, 2019, 01:38:04 PM
Trump will be impeached for Bribery and also obstruction

Note what popular Trump guy had to say about obstruction

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 13, 2019, 02:18:32 PM
Holy shit did Jim Jordan have his way with ambassador Taylor’s asshole. That was ugly.


No wonder they wanted to have these hearings in private.

 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 13, 2019, 03:23:41 PM
Trump will be impeached for Bribery and also obstruction

Note what popular Trump guy had to say about obstruction



Now do Pelosi and Nadler talking about impeachment back then.

 ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2019, 03:48:37 PM
Note the preceding editorial they had to slap up prior to video  ::) ::) ::)



Nailed it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 13, 2019, 04:10:09 PM
It too cold for butterflies here. They gone south. ; )


Oh NO, U A gettin cold  :'(

Visit Wiggs or Shizo in FL (a lot of insects in FL) , or relocate to Suriname,Cuba,Venezuela ............... 8)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 13, 2019, 06:44:45 PM
Holy shit did Jim Jordan have his way with ambassador Taylor’s asshole. That was ugly.


No wonder they wanted to have these hearings in private.

 
Agreed.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 13, 2019, 07:20:33 PM
Democrats went on national television today to try to impeach the greatest President in modern history and their entire case was based on hearsay.

This will motivate the Republican Party base to vote in record numbers in 2020 and it will result in a historic landslide victory.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2019, 07:34:51 PM
Democrats went on national television today to try to impeach the greatest President in modern history and their entire case was based on hearsay.

This will motivate the Republican Party base to vote in record numbers in 2020 and it will result in a historic landslide victory.

Did you hear this idiot?

Democratic lawmaker: Hearsay evidence 'can be much better' than direct in some cases
by Tim Pearce
November 13, 2019

Rep. Mike Quigley defended the impeachment testimony of two witnesses by asserting that hearsay evidence is sometimes admitted into court.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor testified in the House’s impeachment proceedings into President Trump on Tuesday. Neither witness has had significant contact with Trump, and almost all of their testimony is based on the accounts of others shared with them.

"I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay," Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. "Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance."

An immediate challenge came from a GOP member saying that hearsay evidence would not be admissible into a court case such as the case for impeaching Trump.

Courts do not typically allow hearsay evidence because it does not allow defendants to cross-examine the person who made the statement or check for its accuracy, but the rule does come with exceptions, such as statements made that show the subject's emotional state.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democratic-lawmaker-hearsay-evidence-can-be-much-better-than-direct-in-some-cases
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2019, 08:39:08 PM
I hope he has the stones to do it. 

Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 11/13/19
 
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Wednesday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) should be a witness in the Senate's impeachment trial.

Graham was asked during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity if senators would try to call Schiff, his staff, the whistleblower or Hunter Biden as part of an impeachment trial.
 
"As a matter of oversight, I'm not going to call a House member, but if you impeach the president of the United States, I want to find out if in fact Schiff and his staff met with the whistleblower," Graham said.
 
"So if there's a trial in the Senate, one of the witnesses will be Adam Schiff because if he in fact did meet with the whistleblower and coach the guy up, I think that's relevant to the impeachment inquiry itself," Graham continued.
 
Graham appeared to be referring to a moment during the public impeachment inquiry hearing earlier in the day when Schiff pushed back against an accusation from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that he knew the identity of the whistleblower whose claim is at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.
 
When Jordan said Schiff was the only member of Congress who knew the whistleblower's identity, Schiff responded, "As the gentleman knows, that's a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower."
 
A spokesman for Schiff didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
 
Senate leadership has given no indication about who it may or may not allow to be called as witnesses as part of a likely Senate impeachment trial.
 
The Senate passed a resolution 100-0 during the Clinton impeachment trial that established the procedure for filing motions, how long senators would have to ask questions and the way witnesses would be called.
 
But a second resolution specifying which individuals would be called as witnesses faltered along party lines.
 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have not yet started holding similar negotiations.
 
Republicans have seized on Schiff as a top antagonist as they've looked for a strategy to combat the House impeachment inquiry, which centers on whether Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in an effort to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
 
A source familiar with the whistleblower's contacts told Reuters on Wednesday that the whistleblower never spoke or met with Schiff.
 
Republicans first homed in on Schiff in the wake of a New York Times story earlier this year reporting that the whistleblower reached out to him before going to the intelligence community's inspector general.
 
Democrats defended Schiff at the time, arguing that whistleblowers routinely reach out to the Intelligence Committee and that the chairman's staff followed protocol by telling him or her to contact the inspector general.
 
A spokesman for Schiff has also said that the committee didn't review the whistleblower complaint in advance and that Schiff knew neither the details of the complaint nor the whistleblower's identity.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470406-graham-says-schiff-should-witness-in-trump-impeachment-trial
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 14, 2019, 06:22:13 AM
Democrats went on national television today to try to impeach the greatest President in modern history and their entire case was based on hearsay.

This will motivate the Republican Party base to vote in record numbers in 2020 and it will result in a historic landslide victory.

It was an unbelievable fail for the Democrats. Two boob bureaucrats getting their assholes reamed as they try to explain their idiotic positions. And a Don Knotts looking guy heading up the proceedings.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 14, 2019, 08:57:24 AM
Graham said they won't continue if everything is based on heresay.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 09:19:40 AM
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/06/76/07/18604523/3/920x1240.jpg)
Republican Counsel Steve Castor questions witnesses during the first public hearings held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of the impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill November 13, 2019 in Washington, DC.
https://www.sfgate.com/local-politics/article/impeachment-hearing-memes-jokes-twitter-castor-14832163.php
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 09:30:27 AM
We finally have the alleged crime:  bribery.  How dumb is this woman??

Pelosi: Trump bribed Ukraine, makes Nixon's offenses 'look almost small'
BY MIKE LILLIS - 11/14/19
 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday accused President Trump of "bribery" in his dealings with Ukrainian leaders, linking the president's actions to the Constitution's impeachment clause even while emphasizing that Democrats remain undecided on whether they'll draft impeachment articles.

"That is in the Constitution, attached to the impeachment proceedings," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

She then explained the basis for the charge, which stems from a whistleblower's complaint that has since been supported by numerous government officials, that Trump leveraged U.S. military aid to Kyiv to secure political favors from Ukrainian leaders.

"The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections," she said. "That's bribery."

Pelosi declined to say if the bribery charge would become an article of impeachment, insisting Democrats — even as they move ahead with their investigation — have not concluded Trump committed impeachable offenses.

"We haven't even made a decision to impeach," she said. "That's what the inquiry is about. And when the committees decide that, then they will decide what the articles are."

"But I am saying, that what the president has admitted to, and says it's 'perfect,' I said it's perfectly wrong," she added. "It's bribery."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/470472-pelosi-trump-bribed-ukraine-makes-nixons-offenses-look-almost-small
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 14, 2019, 11:33:49 AM
I was thinking Palm Springs....but only in the winter. Summers in the Pacific Northwest are killer.


How is 'Global Warming'  ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 11:35:37 AM
Harold Ford: Nancy Pelosi May Pull Impeachment If It Does Not Go Well This Week For Democrats
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 12, 2019

Former Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN) gives his take on Michael Bloomberg and the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

BRET BAIER: We are getting ready for these public hearings on impeachment. How much do you think this factors in on the campaign trail and what 2020 candidates are talking about ahead of this debate in Atlanta?

FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN): By Wednesday evening, I think we're going to have a very strong sense. I think what Senator Kennedy said, he wants to measure the credibility of these witnesses. He wants to measure the tone of these witnesses. He wants to get a sense of hearing their words and hearing them talk, see them cross-examined.

I think by Wednesday evening and perhaps Friday afternoon after the ambassador comes forward, we're going to have a much better sense of Nancy Pelosi who I think has been the most mature of all the politicians in D.C. around this issue because I don't that she really wanted to do this.

But if she does not feel that the Democrats can have a sound vote, a bipartisan vote, and maybe even the chance to remove the president, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't pull this in the next several days. If this first week does not go well.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/12/harold_ford_nancy_pelosi_may_pull_impeachment_if_it_does_not_go_well_this_week_for_democrats.html?fbclid=IwAR0SsXN5NWss_tcAbotZaJGArvFCj6fM1FXRB3ykXSJG2uzhiyZIAEZNF7A
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 04:08:51 PM
I wonder which Democrat is going to be the first to say the president of Ukraine was lying when he repeatedly said he was not pressured to do anything? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 14, 2019, 05:55:00 PM
I wonder which Democrat is going to be the first to say the president of Ukraine was lying when he repeatedly said he was not pressured to do anything? 

I suspect most Democrats, especially Pelosi are seeing the ship  starting to sink and are looking for life rafts.


I originally thought there would be an impeachment vote, now it’s 50/50 at best.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 06:29:52 PM
I suspect most Democrats, especially Pelosi are seeing the ship  starting to sink and are looking for life rafts.


I originally thought there would be an impeachment vote, now it’s 50/50 at best.

The only way they have a vote is if she polls her lackeys and confirms she has a majority.  I suspect she will have enough Democrats to get it passed.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 06:30:45 PM
Now that "quid pro quo" has blown up, the new buzz word is "bribery." 

Bribery! Nets Approve of Pelosi’s New Impeachment Buzzword
By Nicholas Fondacaro | November 14, 2019 https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2019/11/14/bribery-nets-approve-pelosis-new-impeachment-buzzword
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 14, 2019, 06:48:20 PM
Now that "quid pro quo" has blown up, the new buzz word is "bribery." 

Bribery! Nets Approve of Pelosi’s New Impeachment Buzzword
By Nicholas Fondacaro | November 14, 2019 https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2019/11/14/bribery-nets-approve-pelosis-new-impeachment-buzzword

Wait until Alexandra Chalupa hits the stand and Jim Jordan takes her to the woodshed.

Trump and Rudy G know the link to the 2016 election meddling, Hillary, and the DNC is about to be blown wide open.

You have to wonder if the weak Democrat Party can even survive this impeachment debacle
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 07:02:18 PM
Wait until Alexandra Chalupa hits the stand and Jim Jordan takes her to the woodshed.

Trump and Rudy G know the link to the 2016 election meddling, Hillary, and the DNC is about to be blown wide open.

You have to wonder if the weak Democrat Party can even survive this impeachment debacle

You're assuming Schiff will allow Chalupa to testify.  Silly you. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 14, 2019, 07:11:03 PM
The only way they have a vote is if she polls her lackeys and confirms she has a majority.  I suspect she will have enough Democrats to get it passed.


Read an article quoting Ken Starr today.  He believes if there's nothing concrete that would sway any Senate votes, they won't call for a vote.

He believes she didn't want to do this originally, and she even hinted the they have not committed to calling one.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 07:15:44 PM

Read an article quoting Ken Starr today.  He believes if there's nothing concrete that would sway any Senate votes, they won't call for a vote.

He believes she didn't want to do this originally, and she even hinted the they have not committed to calling one.


I just saw clips of her saying in one breath Trump bribed the Ukrainian president then in the next breath saying she isn't sure the committees will vote to move forward with impeachment.  She's a retard.  I literally listen to her am dumbfounded that someone as dense as her is Speaker of the House.

She claimed the bribery is Trump withholding military aid in exchange for a public statement by the Ukrainian president that he will investigate Biden.  You just cannot make up how stupid this is.  It's as bad as the Trump as a Russian Manchurian Candidate crap.   

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 14, 2019, 07:21:44 PM
I wonder which Democrat is going to be the first to say the president of Ukraine was lying when he repeatedly said he was not pressured to do anything? 
Just quoting to quote it. :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 07:35:54 PM
Just quoting to quote it. :)

 :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 07:37:32 PM
Is this guy lying too?

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.

Trump and his allies are accused by Democrat opponents of freezing nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open investigations into Biden, Trump’s main rival for the 2020 presidential race.

Trump calls the inquiry a witch hunt.

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union
.

Prystaiko’s comments came a day after William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, testified in the first televised hearing of the impeachment inquiry.

In a disclosure that drew the most attention, Taylor pointed to Trump’s keen interest in getting the eastern European ally to investigate Biden and reiterated his understanding that $391 million in U.S. security aid was withheld from Kiev unless it cooperated.

Taylor said a member of his staff had overheard a July 26 phone call between Trump and Sondland in which the Republican president asked about investigations into the Bidens, and Sondland told him that the Ukrainians were ready to proceed.

That call occurred a day after Trump had asked Zelenskiy during a phone call to conduct the investigations.

“I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance,” Prystaiko was quoted as saying by Interfax. “Yes, the investigations were mentioned, you know, in the conversation of the presidents. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 14, 2019, 07:46:11 PM
You're assuming Schiff will allow Chalupa to testify.  Silly you. 

Chief Justice Roberts will....
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2019, 08:39:19 PM
Chief Justice Roberts will....

Yes different ball game in the Senate.  Thought you were talking about the Kangaroo Court in the House. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 14, 2019, 09:33:07 PM
Yes different ball game in the Senate.  Thought you were talking about the Kangaroo Court in the House. 

The thing is, the Democrats think it’s a game.

Once this gets to a senate trial, then these deep state Democrats lying in their testimony and trying to pull off a coup should be charged with treason
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 14, 2019, 09:40:00 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/a43cb607adb7e034029381ed09b95395/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 15, 2019, 03:43:53 AM
The thing is, the Democrats think it’s a game.

Once this gets to a senate trial, then these deep state Democrats lying in their testimony and trying to pull off a coup should be charged with treason

Cortez was actually dumb enough to say on camera that this was about "Uniting the party".
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 15, 2019, 04:17:20 AM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/a43cb607adb7e034029381ed09b95395/tenor.gif)


 :D  ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 15, 2019, 07:41:05 AM
Cortez was actually dumb enough to say on camera that this was about "Uniting the party".



OK...but look at the candidates you are uniting for...haha. This isn't going to work. The idea that "we almost had him but for the Senate" ... just not going to play well.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 15, 2019, 08:27:39 AM
Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch....serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. She was not "owed" staying in her position so there was no conspiracy against her as she tries to act this out. These people either really don't understand their job or are actual deep state actors.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2019, 10:53:55 AM
No quid pro quo and no "bribery" here either.

Donald Trump Releases Transcript of First Call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
CHARLIE SPIERING  15 Nov 2019
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/donald-trump-releases-transcript-of-first-call-with-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2019, 12:05:19 PM
I have not watched the testimony today, but can somebody please update this thread when this woman who is testifying confirms the "quid pro quo" or "bribery" by the POTUS? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2019, 12:14:53 PM
I have not watched the testimony today, but can somebody please update this thread when this woman who is testifying confirms the "quid pro quo" or "bribery" by the POTUS? 

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that you're so uninformed and basically just ignorant.

She wasn't part of the criminal conspiracy

She was fired because because she was trying to fight corruption in Ukraine and, as you know, Trump was actually trying to direct corruption toward Biden (i.e bribing the new President of Ukraine to gin up a phony investigation on Biden and to go on US television to announce it)

Too bad Trump and his criminal conspirators don't have the balls of Hillary Clinton to show up and answer questions under oath

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on November 15, 2019, 12:34:20 PM
Why do I have the feeling Trump would lie under oath anyway? Could it be because he's made it abundantly clear that he believes he is above the law?

It's even less complicated

He's a lifelong pathological liar who literally doesn't seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie

He's also a world class pussy
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 15, 2019, 12:37:54 PM
The TDS Twins.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2019, 12:49:11 PM
I'm sure you can find some station that is broadcasting it. Maybe even FOX.

Too busy.  And not interested.  I just need someone to post the Cliff's Notes about her confirmation of the "quid pro quo" and/or "bribery." 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
I have not watched the testimony today, but can somebody please update this thread when this woman who is testifying confirms the "quid pro quo" or "bribery" by the POTUS? 

So I found a summary that tells us all we need to know about her:

“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” asked Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) of former Ambassador Yovanovitch.

“No,” replied Yovanovitch.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?” asked Rep. Stewart.

“No,” answered Yovanovitch.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/former-u-s-ambassador-to-ukraine-marie-yovanovitch-admits-having-no-knowledge-of-trump-criminal-activity/

Why the heck was she testifying then??  How stupid is this entire process so far? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 15, 2019, 05:46:57 PM
There are no material witnesses in a hearsay case. The dems continue to sully the processes that were once held in regard. In a way they are achieving the progressive agenda just by eroding faith in the consitutional rights that everyone has to defend themselves in a court, etc. This has been going on for a few years now.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 15, 2019, 05:49:04 PM
So I found a summary that tells us all we need to know about her:

“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” asked Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) of former Ambassador Yovanovitch.

“No,” replied Yovanovitch.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?” asked Rep. Stewart.

“No,” answered Yovanovitch.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/former-u-s-ambassador-to-ukraine-marie-yovanovitch-admits-having-no-knowledge-of-trump-criminal-activity/

Why the heck was she testifying then??  How stupid is this entire process so far? 
Waste of time and our money......NEXT!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 15, 2019, 06:00:00 PM
So I found a summary that tells us all we need to know about her:

“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” asked Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) of former Ambassador Yovanovitch.

“No,” replied Yovanovitch.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?” asked Rep. Stewart.

“No,” answered Yovanovitch.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/former-u-s-ambassador-to-ukraine-marie-yovanovitch-admits-having-no-knowledge-of-trump-criminal-activity/

Why the heck was she testifying then??  How stupid is this entire process so far? 

Exactly what use or point was it her being brought in.

I’ll give her 10 out of 10 for her straight forward Honesty.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on November 15, 2019, 06:59:41 PM
Why do I have the feeling Trump would lie under oath anyway? Could it be because he's made it abundantly clear that he believes he is above the law?

Just a guess but Trump lies all the time and wouldn't be able to distinguish lying under oath vs not under oath. I doubt we will ever see the day Trump is under oath vs Clinton
 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 15, 2019, 07:06:31 PM
The DJIA went over 28,000 today.

I don’t care how many ugly, bull dyke, brain dead Ukrainian ambassadors President Trump fires.

Donald Trump is the greatest President in history.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on November 15, 2019, 07:09:20 PM
The DJIA went over 28,000 today.

I don’t care how many ugly, bull dyke, brain dead Ukrainian ambassadors President Trump fires.

Donald Trump is the greatest President in history.

Just my opinion, but I have never tied my bank account to my morals or my country. Money is one thing, my country, which I served for 10 years is another...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 15, 2019, 07:13:23 PM
The DJIA went over 28,000 today.

I don’t care how many ugly, bull dyke, brain dead Ukrainian ambassadors President Trump fires.

Donald Trump is the greatest President in history.
Says our 401 accounts.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 15, 2019, 07:14:11 PM
Just my opinion, but I have never tied my bank account to my morals or my country. Money is one thing, my country, which I served for 10 years is another...

She lied under oath today about the Biden video.

You can question her morals, not mine.

Your opinion is exactly that, just your singular opinion pertaining only to you.

Thank you for your service.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on November 15, 2019, 07:14:55 PM
Says our 401 accounts.

Sad that Americans would be so much about the almighty dollar and not whats right. but it is what it is
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 15, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
Sad that Americans would be so much about the almighty dollar and not whats right. but it is what it is

You’re not seriously trying to claim that this Impeachment Inquiry is right?

Legal?
Constitutional?
Due process?
Bipartisan?
Fair?
Equitable?

You’ve lost all credibility with that statement.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on November 15, 2019, 07:24:23 PM
You’re not seriously trying to claim that this Impeachment Inquiry is right?

Legal?
Constitutional?
Due process?
Bipartisan?
Fair?
Equitable?

You’ve lost all credibility with that statement.
Nah, you're just too stupid to acknowledge our President used his position to attempt to get a foreign power to stir up crap on his rival.  If it helps, you're not alone. There are a LOT of stupid americans...
PS you have never had credibility
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 15, 2019, 07:32:25 PM
Nah, you're just too stupid to acknowledge our President used his position to attempt to get a foreign power to stir up crap on his rival.  If it helps, you're not alone. There are a LOT of stupid americans...
PS you have never had credibility

Impeachable offenses: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Go ahead and point out the specific sections in the transcript of either President Trump call with the Ukraine where those impeachable offenses were committed.

I won’t stoop to your level and call you stupid, I will let your juvenile, misinformed posts make that point for me.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 15, 2019, 07:49:34 PM
Just my opinion, but I have never tied my bank account to my morals or my country. Money is one thing, my country, which I served for 10 years is another...

Expand on the morals thing.

The posters here from other countries seem to unanimously favor Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 16, 2019, 06:43:55 AM
Meaning?

Meaning I asked Agnostic about morals.  People always seem concerned about our reputation, but I see most foreign posters here respecting the man.

The man has condemned white supremacy, is working to get countries who criminalize homosexuality to cut the shit, wiping out terrorism, etc.

So I wanted to see what over arching immorality he believes exists.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 16, 2019, 09:31:03 AM
The people have already dismissed the Impeachment Inquiry as a sham.

Hence the reason the DJIA went over 28,000 yesterday.

God bless President Donald Trump, the greatest President in the country’s history
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 16, 2019, 09:46:47 AM
I heard on the radio ( UK) viewing figures for the sham goings on this week
Were a max of 14million !! Americans
That’s far less Americans than watched the last Stupid “royal” wedding.

Carry on DummyCraps
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 16, 2019, 10:02:04 AM
I heard on the radio ( UK) viewing figures for the sham goings on this week
Were a max of 14million !! Americans
That’s far less Americans than watched the last Stupid “royal” wedding.

Carry on DummyCraps

The Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry is so ridiculously illegitimate and the sham is poorly played out that the American public has forgotten how retarded Jerrold Nadler is.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 17, 2019, 03:03:24 PM
(http://forums.13x.com/index.php?attachments/bf267d14-62bb-4694-8ed0-18c74fc96b76-jpeg.162547/)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 17, 2019, 06:39:07 PM
Nah, you're just too stupid to acknowledge our President used his position to attempt to get a foreign power to stir up crap on his rival.  If it helps, you're not alone. There are a LOT of stupid americans...
PS you have never had credibility
Are you out of your fucking mind? Really? You assholes act like Presidents haven't been asking foreign countries for favor since the inception of the US. You half-cocked, brainless fuckwits have your silk panties in such a tight wad because some deranged girl didn't "get her turn".

PS: there are a lot of stupid Americans like yourself that just keep repeating what your TV tells you to, sheep.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 17, 2019, 07:44:25 PM
Are you out of your fucking mind? Really? You assholes act like Presidents haven't been asking foreign countries for favor since the inception of the US. You half-cocked, brainless fuckwits have your silk panties in such a tight wad because some deranged girl didn't "get her turn".

PS: there are a lot of stupid Americans like yourself that just keep repeating what your TV tells you to, sheep.

Democrats created a fake dossier with the Ukraine
The Obama Administration stole Ukrainian aid money
VP Biden and his son stole taxpayer money through corrupt a Ukraine business
Hillary paid for the fake dossier to use against Trump
The MSM, DOJ, FBI, and CIA used the dossier to try to keep Trump from being elected.
The Obama Administration lied to the FISA court and the public to spy on Trump
The Obama Administration and DNC used the fake dossier and Ukrainian info to create the Mueller scam.


Donald Trump: Wow, that sounds bad, we should look into that.

Democrats: See, he’s breaking the rules...IMPEACH HIM!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on November 18, 2019, 01:49:37 AM
Democrats created a fake dossier with the Ukraine
The Obama Administration stole Ukrainian aid money
VP Biden and his son stole taxpayer money through corrupt a Ukraine business
Hillary paid for the fake dossier to use against Trump
The MSM, DOJ, FBI, and CIA used the dossier to try to keep Trump from being elected.
The Obama Administration lied to the FISA court and the public to spy on Trump
The Obama Administration and DNC used the fake dossier and Ukrainian info to create the Mueller scam.


Donald Trump: Wow, that sounds bad, we should look into that.

Democrats: See, he’s breaking the rules...IMPEACH HIM!


A perfect summation, Sir.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on November 18, 2019, 08:14:53 AM
Are you out of your fucking mind? Really? You assholes act like Presidents haven't been asking foreign countries for favor since the inception of the US. You half-cocked, brainless fuckwits have your silk panties in such a tight wad because some deranged girl didn't "get her turn".

PS: there are a lot of stupid Americans like yourself that just keep repeating what your TV tells you to, sheep.

(https://i2.wp.com/www.theifod.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Lemmings.jpg?resize=450%2C322)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 09:25:40 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71789885_172473460563164_5653182915891167232_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_oc=AQlLxrrkFGmPcPt6_V7K_MEP8xZzWwIaH4T36Q1P-vnj-o6anTfHFNuCuMQrGuYgrJc&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=b84c1bf23a2edb7c2c72ab4e4255ed8a&oe=5E40A38F)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 09:31:42 AM
Democrat who voted against impeachment inquiry: Most folks are 'worn out,' want to 'move on'
By David Montanaro | Fox News

New York Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin and New Jersey Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew weigh in on the state of the House impeachment investigation.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, one of two House Democrats to vote against the impeachment inquiry, said Sunday he believes many voters are "tired" of the proceedings, as Capitol Hill gears up for more witnesses to testify this week.

In an exclusive interview with Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures," the New Jersey congressman said he's heard "concern" among his colleagues about how the hearings have been playing out.

"There is some discussion among some of them, quietly, privately, of concern certainly. I mean, what I'm hearing out in the street is they're kind of tired. They're kind of worn out. They're kind of bored, most folks. And they really want to move on unless there's something new and amazing. We know the end game here," he said.

Van Drew said he plans to vote against articles of impeachment unless he hears evidence against President Trump that "rises to the level of treason or a high crime."


Fallout continues from the first round of the public impeachment inquiry hearingsVideo
"But we don't see that," Van Drew argued, saying the testimony so far has been on "hearsay" about what Trump told the president of Ukraine about an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden's son, Hunter.

He said the "Founding Fathers had vigorous debates of whether they would even allow impeachment in the Constitution," and said he favors allowing voters to decide the matter in next year's election.

"You don't disenfranchise voters, millions upon millions of voters. Voters choose their leaders in America," said Van Drew.

Trump was accused by critics of intimidating former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch during her testimony on Friday when he sent out a disparaging tweet.

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?” Trump tweeted.

Democrats have accused Trump of “witness intimidation” with his tweet, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff read the tweet to Yovanovitch during her testimony and asked her to respond.

Asked by a reporter if he thought his tweets could be intimidating, Trump answered, “I don’t think so at all.”

"I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do," he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrat-jeff-van-drew-voted-against-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 09:33:43 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74486150_751304895336805_7945105493716893696_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQlGR6qWSd43RtM4F9VJEozusPzoGWTdjQ1c_dJ5GCYSWrnHFL1Mkib5l7N1q8UYz5w&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=0e8ba3f4807c63a25cdddbcf14e35d0a&oe=5E83CE39)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 18, 2019, 01:37:08 PM

A perfect summation, Sir.

Thanks.

I’m female though.
A real female.
Not an estrogen soaked liberal male.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 03:22:43 PM
Ron Johnson: Ukrainians Felt No Pressure From White House Over Withheld Aid
New testimony further calls into question Chris Murphy's characterization of Zelensky meeting
Brent Scher - NOVEMBER 18, 2019
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/ron-johnson-ukrainians-felt-no-pressure-from-white-house-over-withheld-aid/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on November 18, 2019, 04:33:30 PM
Thanks.

I’m female though.
A real female.
Not an estrogen soaked liberal male.


HA, HA, HA…

Forgive me, m'lady!!



(very easily in the top 5 posters on this site!!!)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 06:07:40 PM
Rep. Dina Titus slams Trump at Nevada conference: 'I'd like to impeach the bastard right now'
By Charles Creitz | Fox News

A House Democratic lawmaker slammed President Trump during a forum in Las Vegas this weekend that featured appearances by several top 2020 contenders.

Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., was speaking at the "First in the West" event at the Bellagio hotel Sunday night when she offered harsh words for the president in front of a raucous crowd.

"The heart and soul of our nation is on the ballot," she said. "This is the most important election of your lifetime."

Titus, 69, claimed Nevada's standing as the first western state to hold a Democratic caucus this year is "the first step to getting this con artist out of the White House."

"Frankly, I think the House [of Representatives] is going to do it and I'd like to impeach the bastard right now," she added, referencing the ongoing impeachment inquiry against Trump.

The fiery remarks drew chants of "Dina! Dina!" and loud applause from the crowd.

Turning to the Democrats hoping to challenge Trump, Titus claimed each candidate is "head and shoulders above anything he's got to offer."

The president, she said, has "a rabid fan base that will turn out no matter what he does."

"He will lie and cheat and steal and even bribe a foreign government to win this election, so we've got to be ready for it," Titus added.

Titus also spoke about recent Democrat election victories, singling out a newly-elected Virginia lawmaker who lost her previous job after she was photographed making an obscene gesture toward Trump's motorcade.

"We took the Kentucky governorship and the Louisiana governorship," she said, "but my favorite one was the lady who flipped off the president and then got elected."

Juli Briskman, 51, ran against Republican incumbent Suzanne Volpe for a spot on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Northern Virginia.

Briskman launched her campaign after she was fired from a government contracting firm for violating the “code-of-conduct policy." She'd revealed to her bosses at Virginia-based Akima LLC that she was the woman flipping off the motorcade in a viral photo.

Titus said Briskman's victory was also fitting because Loudoun County, outside Washington D.C., is also home to one of Trump's golf courses.

"Is that not poetic justice?" she asked. "It just doesn't get any better than that."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dina-titus-slams-donald-trump-impeach-the-bastard-nevada
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on November 18, 2019, 06:16:09 PM


Rep. Dina Titus slams Trump at Nevada conference: 'I'd like to impeach the bastard right now'
By Charles Creitz | Fox News

A House Democratic lawmaker slammed President Trump during a forum in Las Vegas this weekend that featured appearances by several top 2020 contenders.

Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., was speaking at the "First in the West" event at the Bellagio hotel Sunday night when she offered harsh words for the president in front of a raucous crowd.

"The heart and soul of our nation is on the ballot," she said. "This is the most important election of your lifetime."

Titus, 69, claimed Nevada's standing as the first western state to hold a Democratic caucus this year is "the first step to getting this con artist out of the White House."

"Frankly, I think the House [of Representatives] is going to do it and I'd like to impeach the bastard right now," she added, referencing the ongoing impeachment inquiry against Trump.

The fiery remarks drew chants of "Dina! Dina!" and loud applause from the crowd.

Turning to the Democrats hoping to challenge Trump, Titus claimed each candidate is "head and shoulders above anything he's got to offer."

The president, she said, has "a rabid fan base that will turn out no matter what he does."

"He will lie and cheat and steal and even bribe a foreign government to win this election, so we've got to be ready for it," Titus added.

Titus also spoke about recent Democrat election victories, singling out a newly-elected Virginia lawmaker who lost her previous job after she was photographed making an obscene gesture toward Trump's motorcade.

"We took the Kentucky governorship and the Louisiana governorship," she said, "but my favorite one was the lady who flipped off the president and then got elected."

Juli Briskman, 51, ran against Republican incumbent Suzanne Volpe for a spot on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Northern Virginia.

Briskman launched her campaign after she was fired from a government contracting firm for violating the “code-of-conduct policy." She'd revealed to her bosses at Virginia-based Akima LLC that she was the woman flipping off the motorcade in a viral photo.

Titus said Briskman's victory was also fitting because Loudoun County, outside Washington D.C., is also home to one of Trump's golf courses.

"Is that not poetic justice?" she asked. "It just doesn't get any better than that."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dina-titus-slams-donald-trump-impeach-the-bastard-nevada


On what grounds Representative?

Well....well... um..... this!

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74355247_1715398418595529_7783694695678345216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnfAjdI_f4Fg6QeQJjA4AC5-CJEPn8pDUDobQlKEZ0gTwXhzkXiJjeHasnHGAs6cdg&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=0e2a2d8f2736f8f7371e46920040d458&oe=5E4BCC33)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 06:20:40 PM


On what grounds Representative?

Well....well... um..... this!

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74355247_1715398418595529_7783694695678345216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQnfAjdI_f4Fg6QeQJjA4AC5-CJEPn8pDUDobQlKEZ0gTwXhzkXiJjeHasnHGAs6cdg&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=0e2a2d8f2736f8f7371e46920040d458&oe=5E4BCC33)

Truth.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 18, 2019, 06:33:29 PM
Personal favors?

P.S. And you don't? And you aren't?
Yes
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 18, 2019, 06:36:10 PM
1,814 DAYS LEFT IN THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY !!

Kiss it Libidiots !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 18, 2019, 06:38:13 PM
Yes, comments like these are unprofessional and outrageous. Unfortunately, Trump is no stranger to unprofessional and outrageous comments, as he made a ton of them himself.
Epic deflection.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 18, 2019, 06:47:02 PM
Perhaps....or maybe you're too blinded by you admiration for Trump that you can no longer see his imperfections. He's your God. I get it.
Or you're just too old and senile to see how the media has controlled your every thought. You are weak, fragile and easy manipulated by what the media has presented to you.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 06:48:15 PM
Yes, comments like these are unprofessional and outrageous. Unfortunately, Trump is no stranger to unprofessional and outrageous comments, as he made a ton of them himself.

This irks me.  I was talking to a friend this weekend who repeatedly responded to concerns I was raising about today's progressives with "both sides do it."  It's not true.  Both parties don't have all of the same problems.  I cannot tell you how many times a liberal-statist-progressive has responded to these kinds of outrageous comments/behavior by trying to use moral equivalency.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 18, 2019, 06:52:20 PM
This irks me.  I was talking to a friend this weekend who repeatedly responded to concerns I was raising about today's progressives with "both sides do it."  It's not true.  Both parties don't have all of the same problems.  I cannot tell you how many times a liberal-statist-progressive has responded to these kinds of outrageous comments/behavior by trying to use moral equivalency.  

The Progression of a Liberal Impeachment

1. Quid pro quo

To

2. Bribery

To

3. Mean Tweets
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 18, 2019, 07:17:37 PM
Just to be clear...in this scenario the mean tweets came before the bribery accusation. Not that there won't be more mean tweets of course.
Your generation was supposed to be tough.....what happened to you?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 18, 2019, 07:22:02 PM
Just to be clear...in this scenario the mean tweets came before the bribery accusation. Not that there won't be more mean tweets of course.

No.

You’re wrong.

You’re senile
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2019, 09:06:07 PM
After reading this and seeing how the hearings are going down in flames so far, I think it's actually possible they don't bring articles of impeachment to the floor for a vote.  Instead, I could see them trying to vote on an attempted face-saving resolution/censorship. 

Exclusive — Focus Group Data Show Impeachment Flopping with Swing Voters, 2020 Democrat Leftist Lurch Unpopular
MATTHEW BOYLE
18 Nov 2019

ARLINGTON, Virginia — New focus group data collected by a key group supporting President Donald Trump show that Democrats are losing ground with swing voters when it comes to their impeachment agenda—and when it comes to presidential candidates’ leftist policies.

America First Policies, the president’s official Super PAC, gave Breitbart News on Monday an exclusive sneak peek at findings from its focus group work nationwide in the last month. The organization has now conducted 18 separate focus groups in nine different American cities since late October.
 
Those cities include Des Moines, Iowa, Orlando, Florida, Charlotte, North Carolina, Phoenix, Arizona, Miami, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Columbus, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. America First Policies has gathered 36 total hours of focus group data from the participants, all of whom are independents or swing voters in their respective cities.

The biggest takeaway from all the groups, including one in Pittsburgh thatwas conducted after the first House Intelligence Committee public impeachment hearing last Wednesday that featured State Department officials Bill Taylor and George Kent, is that swing voters are not being moved in the slightest against Trump by the impeachment narrative Democrats are offering.

America First Policies screened footage from these focus groups for Breitbart News at their headquarters  just outside the nation’s capital on Monday afternoon, including the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, group that was filmed after that first Democrat impeachment hearing. When the moderator asked the room if anyone thinks Donald Trump should be impeached, not a single person in the room—all independents, most of whom do not like Trump’s personality—said they did.

After a moment of silence when the focus group conductor asked the room of independents if Trump should be impeached, a man finally said: “Not even close.”

The man continued when asked why the Democrats are pushing for impeachment:

This is their platform. This is all they got—and what they got is nothing. They want to keep to politics and Trump is not a politician. They are going to do everything they can because he bucked the system. He exposed what the draining the swamp and everything means. That’s the thing—they don’t even have anything close to valid. It’s just nothing. Instead of focusing on policies, they’re trying to do this to win the election.

When the moderator asks another man how House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has done handling the impeachment inquiry so far, he replies: “I don’t know because I can’t believe half of what the media puts out because they’re biased—and there’s been no proof on the table.”

“I’m not all Trump… I’m not a party voter,” that man continues. “But he calls it like it is. He’s a renegade… Do I respect the man? I don’t. But I respect the office. But I don’t see where they have enough to say he knew about it so…”

Up next was a woman, who said she is not a Trump supporter but thinks the president is getting railroaded:

I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but I totally disagree with what they’re doing. I know he’s not perfect, but by the same coin he’s right there and he tells you how it is. I don’t agree with all of the things. But at least he’s trying to do things.

After that another woman and another man—both of whom are not Trump supporters—made the case that Democrats’ impeachment goals are meaningless because the Senate will clear Trump even if the House impeaches him.

“Sadly, I don’t feel—just because they’ll stick to party lines—that this will go anywhere,” the woman said.

“And they have to know that, so then you have to ask why they’re doing this,” the man added.

“Correct,” the woman concurred. “It’s just a waste of the taxpayers’ money.”

Another man said he thinks the Democrats are doing it so Trump “has an asterisk next to his name going into the next election.” He went on:

But another thing is I think it shows a weakness, or a lack of confidence, in the Democrat field and concern that their eventual candidate can’t beat Donald Trump. Otherwise, why would you be doing this a year out from the election?

This dismissal of impeachment was a consistent theme throughout the focus groups that America First Policies conducted throughout the country. Generally speaking, most of the focus groups—video from all of which Breitbart News reviewed in America First’s northern Virginia offices—had no supporters of even the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. The handful of those that did support an actual inquiry—because they want elected leaders like Trump to face scrutiny and they support investigations, not because they think he actually did anything wrong—certainly do not think there is enough evidence to impeach, never mind convict Trump and remove him from office.

A woman in the North Carolina focus group, for instance, said Democrats are “wasting a lot of time and money” pursuing Trump’s impeachment and should instead “get back to doing what they’re supposed to be doing, passing laws.”
 
A man in that group also summed up what independents are thinking, dismissing the Democrats’ impeachment agenda:

When the news of this first broke, I was sitting there thinking okay these are conversations that mostly went on and then you step back and look what they are—from what media outlet—and you go, okay, his personality is arrogant. We’ve all seen him say something stupid. However, on the flip side of that, all this secrecy—the smoke and mirrors—the unwillingness to unmask the whistleblower out of fears of safety. Come on. What are you hiding?

These sentiments on impeachment were not the only thing that America First’s focus groups uncovered. Another consistent theme is that while these independent swing voters like President Trump’s policies and what he’s accomplished for the country, they do not like his personality or his tweets.

Generally speaking, the swing voters wish Trump would tweet less attacks on opponents—and not say certain things sometimes. But they did also reveal that while the voters find Trump’s abrasive personality off-putting at times, they do like that he is a “street fighter” in the words of one and that he has exposed corruption in the federal government.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the voters do not see him as part of the political system—they do not consider Trump a “politician,” despite the fact he’s been in office for nearly three years now—and they still consider him an outsider or “renegade,” in the words of one Pittsburgh-area independent.
 
What’s more, America First’s focus groups also uncovered a lot of sentiment among independents about several of the top Democrat presidential candidates. Regarding former Vice President Joe Biden, top terms focus group participants used were “too old,” “forgetful,” and “Obama’s second hand.” They also described Biden as a “creep” who makes unwanted advances against young women and as “the swamp,” a sign that America First Policies officials believe demonstrates that attacks on Biden’s son Hunter Biden are breaking through to voters nationwide.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is described as a “socialist,” “outspoken,” a “liar,” and “academic.” Warren’s history of falsely claiming to be a Native American has broken through, as several of the independent voters in the focus groups across the country called Warren “Pocahontas.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, meanwhile, was described as “too old,” “angry,” “crazy,” and “socialist.”

Another interesting finding from these focus groups is that these independent voters do not see much of a difference between any of the Democrats, even when there are actual policy-specific nuances separating them. For instance, when former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) called for door-to-door gun confiscation and mandatory government-controlled buybacks of Americans’ firearms before he later dropped out of the presidential race, one woman in a North Carolina focus group expressed outrage at the whole Democrat field over it. She said:

“I watched ten minutes of the Democratic debate and when I heard somebody talking about taking your guns I thought ‘you just fucking killed yourself.’ What was he talking about when he was saying he was going to take our guns?”

“No way in hell are they getting our guns,” another woman said.

The woman did not use the name “Beto O’Rourke” when expressing her frustrations with Democrats on gun confiscation, but just broadly spoke of all the Democrats like this. America First Policies officials told Breitbart News that generally speaking on issues like gun confiscation, illegal immigration, and healthcare—particularly the backing of the government takeover of healthcare through “Medicare For All”—these focus group voters do not see much nuance between the different Democrats’ plans and policy visions, a problem for Democrats as swing voters are painting them all with a broad brush into radically leftist socialist positions.

What’s more, the only two Democrat candidates for president these focus group independent swing voters spoke highly of were Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and businessman Andrew Yang. The swing voters, the America First Policies officials told Breitbart News, like Gabbard’s military service and the fight she just got in with 2016 Democrat nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. As for Yang, they said, the voters are intrigued by his different kinds of ideas like the universal basic income idea.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/18/exclusive-focus-group-data-show-impeachment-flopping-with-swing-voters-2020-democrat-leftist-lurch-unpopular/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 18, 2019, 09:12:05 PM
I have to hand it to the left. That any of them still have energy to be outraged after 3 years of Russia 24/7 is admirable. CNN and MSNBC have tortured their viewership, truly.



(https://www.libertynation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/You-almost-had-it-meme.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 19, 2019, 12:59:15 PM




HOLY SHIT
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 19, 2019, 01:04:32 PM
It's only you. Then again I doubt you would watch the whole thing play out. Jordan nails Schiff and this turd lying about leaking and setting up the whistleblower in all this.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 19, 2019, 05:10:05 PM
If you don't like the outing of a slimy bureaucrat hiding a scandal you won't like the guy doing it, either.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 19, 2019, 05:35:17 PM
Another day, another dud and complete waste of our tax dollars.

Morrison, Volker undercut claims of 'quid pro quo,' 'bribery' and 'cover-up' in pivotal day of testimony
By Gregg Re, Alex Pappas | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-ukraine-envoy-nsc-official-testify-in-second-round-of-impeachment-testimony?fbclid=IwAR35nKmOdEHcSIcBgl8C3PXNjNOJEytkwzs4Vgyn6rKjXrS1fNeOpGchKv0
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 19, 2019, 05:44:43 PM
Meaning? The bureaucrat or the fellow "outing" him.

To be honest, I not going to pretend to know who is being truthful and who isn't, other than to try and read it in their body language. The fellow being interviewed today who kept looking at the ceiling and elsewhere, spoke well enough. But, his wandering gaze suggests he's looking for answers. People telling the truth can normally look directly at the person asking the questions and not everywhere else in the room.

Here is one thing that I know for sure. I absolutely would not want to be the person sitting in the witness chair. Whether they are lying or being truthful, this process is intimidating. As for the politicians and lawyers asking the questions, that's their job so they better do it right. No matter how this turns out, I do not like Jordon's style. He appears to be a total asshole to me. Really? He's been in his shirtsleeves for at least two sessions. Who is he trying to impress?





Yes, it's obvious he's on the hot seat and had no idea he's be sticking his neck out like this. It doesn't make what he's part of honest however and in the end my point is that when light shines on this setup things don't add up. It's fabricated, period...certainly when the transcript has already been out there. The POTUS has say over these people whether they like it or not. We have hearings about "feelings" and it's a waste of the people's time and money spent on this congress.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on November 19, 2019, 05:57:37 PM




HOLY SHIT
Ahahaa he ran right through those dummycrats. That Colonel looked pissed that he was exposed. :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 19, 2019, 06:49:30 PM
1,813 DAYS LEFT IN THE GLORIOUS TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Buckle up liberal suckers !!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 19, 2019, 07:27:35 PM
Ahahaa he ran right through those dummycrats. That Colonel looked pissed that he was exposed. :D
He was owned right there.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 19, 2019, 07:58:52 PM
This guy could very well be the writer of the NT Times Op Ed


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 20, 2019, 01:07:01 PM
"Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the "family" of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party."


"The son of Templeton's founder, John Templeton Jr., was one of President Obama's major campaign donors. Another fund-related character is Thomas Donilon. Managing Director of BlackRock Investment Institute, shareholder Franklin Templeton Investments, which has the largest share in the fund. It is noteworthy that he previously was Obama's national security advisor," Derkach said.



https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html



GO AHEAD AND SPIN THIS ONE.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on November 20, 2019, 01:18:49 PM
Democrats seem to be losing this standoff

Poll: Opposition by independents to impeachment inquiry jumps 10 points

Opposition by independents to the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry jumped 10 percentage points in the last week, according to a Politico–Morning Consult poll released Tuesday.

The poll showed 47 percent of independents opposed the inquiry, compared to 37 percent last week. Meanwhile support for the inquiry by independents fell 7 points to 40 percent.

Support for the inquiry among all respondents fell 2 points to 48 percent, while opposition to it rose 3 points to 45 percent. 

The latest poll comes as the House launched a second week of public testimony on Tuesday, with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Pence, appearing in the morning.

The poll also showed that 48 percent of respondents support the House impeaching President Trump, compared to 44 percent who oppose it, while 47 percent backed the Senate removing the president from office.

The Politico–Morning Consult poll surveyed 1,994 registered voters from Nov. 15 to 17. The margin of error is of 2 percentage points.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/471057-poll-independent-opposition-to-impeachment-inquiry-jumps-10-points-in-last
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 20, 2019, 01:57:17 PM
Slimy Sondland of the ever changing testimony says, "I told the truth".

Here we go. Circular firing squad.

The problem is that this entire thing is bullshit that is based on nothing. The witnesses are all just pawns giving their opinions. When this is over they’ll just be kicked to the curb. At this point, they probably all regret testifying and wish they hadn’t done so.

I believe the Democrats also underestimated how prepared the Republicans would be.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 20, 2019, 03:49:05 PM
Is that Impeachment Nonsense Still On Going  ::)
FFS - DummyCrap’s Grow The Fuck Up.

So Really they’re Signaling they’ve got no Hope or policies to Win in 2020
And There Only Chance Is Impeachment- Otherwise They’d Be concentrating
On Campaigning for 2020.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 20, 2019, 03:51:58 PM
Can you imagine how much more brutal a Republican victory this would be if Schiff actually had to go by court of law rules?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 20, 2019, 04:39:36 PM
Slimy Sondland of the ever changing testimony says, "I told the truth".



Is this unclear?


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 20, 2019, 05:34:52 PM
Democrats seem to be losing this standoff

Poll: Opposition by independents to impeachment inquiry jumps 10 points

Opposition by independents to the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry jumped 10 percentage points in the last week, according to a Politico–Morning Consult poll released Tuesday.

The poll showed 47 percent of independents opposed the inquiry, compared to 37 percent last week. Meanwhile support for the inquiry by independents fell 7 points to 40 percent.

Support for the inquiry among all respondents fell 2 points to 48 percent, while opposition to it rose 3 points to 45 percent. 

The latest poll comes as the House launched a second week of public testimony on Tuesday, with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Pence, appearing in the morning.

The poll also showed that 48 percent of respondents support the House impeaching President Trump, compared to 44 percent who oppose it, while 47 percent backed the Senate removing the president from office.

The Politico–Morning Consult poll surveyed 1,994 registered voters from Nov. 15 to 17. The margin of error is of 2 percentage points.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/471057-poll-independent-opposition-to-impeachment-inquiry-jumps-10-points-in-last

Train wreck.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 20, 2019, 05:40:09 PM
The point where Schiff intervened to prevent LTC “Don’t call me Mr.” Vindman from saying who he told about the call was obviously an attempt to stop him from identifying Eric Ciaramella as the “Whistleblower.”  A comically transparent coverup. 

I think he perjured himself. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 20, 2019, 06:37:09 PM
Of course he did and they won't do nothing about it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 20, 2019, 07:30:06 PM
Just so you know. The Democratic Presidential candidates are definitely concentrating on their campaigns for 2020. In fact they hit the debate stage again tonight.

As they should be - The party in general should stop this Tomfoolery Impeachment Impeachment
Nonsense it’s stupid & Pathetic & why Do it if they Believe they going to win in 2020
Because they Know they Won’t.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 20, 2019, 08:26:16 PM
Is this?






Yes. It's clear that one of those testimonies is based in fact. One is based on supposition, assumption, bias, etc.

The question still remains....why are there two?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 20, 2019, 09:49:24 PM
Because Sondland is trying to cover his butt while retaining his Ambassadorship. Remember, I said he was slimy.


I agree with that. It's clear he was promised cover on his fake testimony in his opening statement and it didn't happen so he had to revert to the truth later on. Remember he had already "amended" his closed door testimony prior to this. The question is why?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 20, 2019, 10:18:27 PM




Hmmm....NOT dumb eh? Look at his face.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2019, 10:04:43 AM
So . . . any smoking gun yet showing the POTUS bribed the president of Ukraine?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2019, 10:11:01 AM
Crash and burn.

Americans sour on impeachment, more now oppose ousting Trump: Poll
By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 21, 2019

A larger share of American voters now oppose the impeachment effort against President Trump, revealed a new poll released Thursday.

An Emerson College national survey found 45% of voters oppose impeachment, compared to 43% that support it.

That’s a reversal of public opinion from the same poll in October before House Democrats held public hearings to showcase their impeachment case against Mr. Trump. In October, 48% supported impeachment and 44% opposed it.

“The biggest swing is among Independents, who oppose impeachment now 49% to 34%, which is a reversal from October where they supported impeachment 48% to 39%,” said the pollsters.

Mr. Tump’s approval rating also increased to 48%, a bounce from 43% approval last month.

The impeachment hearings are being watched or followed by 69% of voters, according to the poll.

A plurality of 26% said they were getting their information from Fox News, while 24% are tuning in to either ABC, NBC or CBS. Another 16% watch CNN and 15% watch MSNBC, with 19% going somewhere else for impeachment coverage.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hunter-biden-the-father-of-arkansas-womans-baby-dna-test-shows
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2019, 10:14:28 AM
Retired Army Officer Remembers Lt. Col. Vindman as Partisan Democrat Who Ridiculed America
 Debra Heine - November 4th, 2019
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/retired-army-officer-remembers-lt-col-vindman-as-partisan-democrat-who-ridiculed-america/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2019, 10:19:48 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/74392058_10219014258881084_7641931530478026752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ohc=ZKnIoJjgRwcAQl60y6qDCzQmyo9eEKBSUFXlRBYUKz2OXbimm_jsmsJUg&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=fa905a623ae3e86f6c82f9e1088b8152&oe=5E410A0D)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2019, 06:26:20 PM
So that's it?  No more witnesses or evidence?  You have got to be kidding me.

Dems could draft 4 articles of impeachment, GOP plans for full Senate trial, sources say
By Gregg Re, Chad Pergram | Fox News

Chris Wallace: Censure instead of impeachment seems like 'reasonable compromise'
'Fox News Sunday' anchor Chris Wallace says Democrats standing down on impeachment in favor of a censure might be a more favorable option for lawmakers.

Abuse of power. Bribery. Contempt of Congress. Obstruction of justice.

Those are the four potential articles of impeachment that House Judiciary Committee Democrats could draw up against President Trump as soon as next month, Fox News is told, after all scheduled public hearings before the House Intelligence Committee wrapped up on a testy note Thursday.

At a meeting with top GOP senators and Trump administration officials at the White House on Thursday afternoon, Fox News is told there was a consensus that should Trump be impeached by the House, the GOP-controlled Senate should hold a trial rather than tabling the issue.

Reports have surfaced that Republicans were considering even holding a long trial to disrupt the 2020 presidential primaries. Several Democrats seeking to unseat Trump -- including Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- are senators who would need to divert at least some of their campaigning time toward a potential trial.

"I think most everybody agreed there's not 51 votes to dismiss it before the managers get to call their case," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after huddling with other top Republican senators and White House officials. "The idea you would dismiss the trial before they presented the cases is a non-starter. You're not going to get a motion to dismiss."

Adam Schiff calls out attacks, smears on impeachment witnessesVideo
It remained possible the House Intelligence Committee could schedule more hearings, although no additional hearings are expected during Thanksgiving week. Or, the committee could prepare a report on its findings for the House Judiciary Committee -- which would have the option of holding its own hearings or simply drafting articles of impeachment outright.

Under a resolution passed by House Democrats on the Rules Committee this past October, Trump and the White House potentially would have more rights to defend themselves in Judiciary Committee hearings. For example, attorneys for the president could participate in such hearings. But, in a bid for leverage, Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., would be allowed under the rules to deny "specific requests" by Trump representatives if the White House continued refusing to provide documents or witnesses sought by Democratic investigators.

A possible timetable for impeachment has been unclear. It’s generally thought the Judiciary Committee may hold a "markup" in which it writes articles of impeachment in mid-December. If that were to happen, it's possible the full House could vote on articles of impeachment sometime close to Christmas. That would be a similar timeframe to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton: The House impeached Clinton just before Christmas in 1998. The Senate trial then began in January 1999.

However, the House theoretically could pass articles of impeachment, but delay a vote to send them to the Senate for consideration -- perhaps to delay handing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., control over the proceedings.

The White House

@WhiteHouse
President @realDonaldTrump delivers a statement on the sham impeachment process:

Embedded video
49.7K
8:32 AM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
22.5K people are talking about this
Graham, coming out of the White House discussion, added that "we didn't talk about" how to mount a case to "defend the president."

Instead, Graham said, the discussion centered around "how would the trial start -- you know, they'll make a request for witnesses, but that would have to be granted by the Senate, I guess that's the way we did it before."

Graham continued, "My preference was to try to follow the Clinton model as much as possible."

Clinton was acquitted on both perjury and obstruction counts in February 1999, with each vote falling fall short of the two-thirds majority required for removal.

In the Senate, impeachment procedures would allow witnesses to be called by the president's defense lawyers, GOP senators and a team of House Democrats who essentially would serve as prosecutors. The big catch: Republicans would need enough votes from the 53 GOP senators to muster a majority and prevent Democrats from blocking them.

Assuming Republican senators would stay united -- not a guarantee -- Trump's defenders could try refocusing the inquiry by seeking testimony from people like Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes questions Dr. Fiona Hill, former National Security Council aide, during her public testimony in the House impeachment inquiry.

During his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that led to a whistleblower complaint touching off the impeachment inquiry, Trump suggested Zelensky investigate Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine, including the former vice president's successful push to have Ukraine's top prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid while the prosecutor was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden served on the board.

Hunter Biden held that lucrative role despite limited expertise while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president. If Senate Republicans could put forward evidence showing the president's concerns about the Bidens' potential corruption were legitimate, they could undercut Democrats' central argument for impeachment.

On Thursday, Graham strongly signaled that Hunter Biden would be a key GOP focus. He sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting documents "related to contacts between Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden, other Obama administration officials and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko."

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified behind closed doors last month that he and other officials had qualms about Hunter Biden's lucrative role on the board of Burisma at the time.

"What Republicans want to do is broaden the story," said David Hoppe, who was chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., during Clinton's impeachment trial.

And, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said Thursday he'd like Senate testimony from the still-anonymous whistleblower, whose House appearance Democrats have blocked. Cramer said he might also like to hear from both Bidens and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

The White House has signaled it will mount an aggressive defense. "When this goes over to the Senate, you know, the people that actually started this thing, they are going to be put on the stand," Eric Trump, the president's son, told reporters Thursday. He said that would include "heads of the Democratic Party."

For his part, Trump has argued that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland's testimony before the Intelligence Committee was a total exoneration."I just noticed one thing and that would mean it’s all over," Trump said on the White House lawn before reading from handwritten notes taken during Sondland’s testimony. Sondland testified about a conversation with Trump during which he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine.

"It was a very short, abrupt conversation," the ambassador said. "He was not in a good mood, and he just said, 'I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.' Something to that effect."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-articles-senate-trial-republicans
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 21, 2019, 08:22:47 PM
The Senate will destroy this and nobody wants to testify there. I just don't believe this gets passed on to a GOP controlled venue given what we've seen.

Barr report is coming around Dec 9th. TICK TOCK.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 21, 2019, 09:25:09 PM
Planet Earth is laughing @ Nancy & Co,.  ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 22, 2019, 09:59:54 AM
In Their Rush to Impeachment, Pelosi and Schiff Overlooked One Little Thing, McCarthy Found It
Red State ^ | 8:18 am on November 22, 2019 | by Elizabeth Vaughn
Posted on 11/22/2019, 12:10:32 PM by Red Badger

In December 2018, the soon-to-be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was busy making changes in the House rules for the incoming 116th Congress. She was actually setting the stage for her anticipated impeachment of President Trump. At the time, The Conservative Treehouse’s “Sundance” wrote, “Remember when we warned [November 8th, 2018] that a convergence of left-wing groups, activists, DNC donors and specifically the Lawfare team, would align with (and meet) incoming Democrat leadership to construct a road-map for the “resistance” priorities? Well, exactly that planned and coordinated outcome is visible as incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi presents her new rules for the 116th congress.”

It appears there was one House rule Pelosi forgot to change and it may come back to bite them. That would be the “Minority Witness Rule (Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI).”

In a letter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), signed by the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) informs the chairman they are exercising their right to “convene a hearing with witnesses selected by the Minority to testify in the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”” McCarthy writes:

House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A) states that “the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.” House Rule XI, Clause 2(j)(1) provides that “the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify…” Notably, this rule was not displaced by H. Res. 660 and, therefore, under House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A), it applies to the Democrats’ “impeachment inquiry.”

As the Committee continues to conduct the Democrats’ partisan and one-sided “impeachment inquiry,” there are still important perspectives and serious issues that you have prevented the Committee from examining. We will inform you of the witnesses we intend to call once you have provided a hearing date and time to which we agree. “Your failure to schedule this hearing shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

Prior to the start of the public phase of the Schiff show, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) submitted a list of witnesses Republicans hoped to call before the committee which included the whistleblower, believed to be Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, former DNC operative and rabid anti-Trumper, Alexandra Chalupa and Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr.

Nunes also requested that Schiff himself testify. Nunes wrote:

As the American public is now aware, in August 2019, you and/or your staff met with or talked to the whistleblower.

Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed, the three committees deserve to hear directly from you, the substance and circumstances surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued regarding those discussions. Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these conversations.

Clearly, Schiff and Pelosi will try to ignore this and, if pushed, will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Although this may be a long shot, it is absolutely fair, especially considering that Democrats are trying to remove a duly elected president from office. The American people, by and large, respect fairness. Attempts to obstruct this will be viewed by Republicans and most independents (and maybe even some moderate Democrats) as unjust and devious. We’ll see how this develops.

Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment.

RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying. pic.twitter.com/TyFWxpzFwm

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) November 21, 2019
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 22, 2019, 12:59:00 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ7TLUzUwAAH1Dn?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on November 22, 2019, 01:29:39 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ7TLUzUwAAH1Dn?format=jpg&name=large)


Bold man & Botox !.

         ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 22, 2019, 01:35:04 PM
Kevin Spacey wannabe.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 22, 2019, 08:09:16 PM
Net result of all this is the same thing that always happens. Low level people are going to go to jail while the people who made the orders skate by on their privilege.

The guy below is the start of it as they throw bodies under the bus to slow it down.


"The New York Times has revealed that the "low-level lawyer" under criminal investigation for allegedly doctoring materials used to obtain renewals  of the Carter Page surveillance warrant is Kevin Clinesmith - who worked on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe, was part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, and interviewed Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos."



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/russia-investigation-inspector-general-report.html


(https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/i%20am%20numb_1_0.jpg?itok=j75arwG3)

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 23, 2019, 07:30:35 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ7TLUzUwAAH1Dn?format=jpg&name=large)

I am 100% certain that Strawman masturbates to that photo.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on November 24, 2019, 03:23:01 PM
Vulnerable Democrats spooked by GOP impeachment ad onslaught

(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/a6bb4b5/2147483647/resize/463x/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F05%2Fdb%2Fabd100d543d3a9ffc5f8be6bee0e%2F191122-pelosi-gty-773.jpg)


By SARAH FERRIS and ALLY MUTNICK

11/22/2019 06:25 PM EST

Vulnerable Democrats are watching in horror as GOP impeachment attacks deluge their districts back home. And they want a much stronger counteroffensive from their own party and its allies.

Some of those Democrats raised their concerns with party leaders this week as they prepared to leave for Thanksgiving recess, fearing that voters will be bombarded by anti-impeachment ads as families gather around the TV for parades and football, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.

Story Continued Below

GOP-aligned outside groups have spent roughly $8 million on TV spots this cycle in battleground districts, such as Rep. Anthony Brindisi's central New York seat. The vast majority of those ads specifically hammer Democrats over impeachment.

Meanwhile, swing-district Democrats are receiving little reinforcement from their own party or even other liberal coalitions. Democratic and pro-impeachment groups have spent about $2.7 million in TV ads, according to an analysis of spending by the ad tracking firm Advertising Analytics. And more than $600,000 of that total went to ads targeting Republican incumbents, not helping vulnerable Democratic members.

"Many of us have been expressing our concerns to leadership," said a Democratic lawmaker said, who declined to be named in order to speak candidly about strategy. "You don’t want to have to play catch up."

“Everyone knows you don't just take a shot and sit there,” the lawmaker said. “It’s like someone taped our arms to our side and punched us in the face.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/22/democrats-house-impeachment-moderates-072972
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 24, 2019, 03:38:40 PM
The thing is, not one witness has provided direct evidence of any high crimes and misdemeanors, treason or bribery.  If it goes to the Senate, expect a full onslaught by Republicans, calling in any witness they choose. I think rational Democrats may not vote for this.

Given that, house impeachment still feels like a slam dunk at this point, not because the trial proved anything, but because Democrats had already made up their minds and this is a political play.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 24, 2019, 05:02:25 PM
The thing is, not one witness has provided direct evidence of any high crimes and misdemeanors, treason or bribery.  If it goes to the Senate, expect a full onslaught by Republicans, calling in any witness they choose. I think rational Democrats may not vote for this.

Given that, house impeachment still feels like a slam dunk at this point, not because the trial proved anything, but because Democrats had already made up their minds and this is a political play.
I just can't see them wanting this to go to the Senate, and they will question Hunter Biden.  That would be the end of the dems.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 24, 2019, 05:25:02 PM
I just can't see them wanting this to go to the Senate, and they will question Hunter Biden.  That would be the end of the dems.

If it goes to the Senate, the first witness I’d call would be the Ukrainian prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired.

I’d also put Barry Sotero on the stand and subpoena his bank statements and college transcripts.

And then the coup de grace would be Hillary, Brennan, and Clapper.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on November 24, 2019, 05:27:35 PM
If it goes to the Senate, the first witness I’d call would be the Ukrainian prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired.

I’d also put Barry Sotero on the stand and subpoena his bank statements and college transcripts.

And then the coup de grace would be Hillary, Brennan, and Clapper.


and then you woke up and realized ALL rich and powerful people NEVER get brought to justice any longer
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 24, 2019, 05:34:48 PM

and then you woke up and realized ALL rich and powerful people NEVER get brought to justice any longer

Let’s start with Alexandra Chalupa.

Then Nellie Ohr.

Then Lisa Page.

See what they have to say when they’re facing 25 years in prison.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 24, 2019, 05:48:07 PM
Good news is when all these low level staffers go to jail for years it will chill this out in the future. Nobody with real name recognition ever goes to jail, but you can be sure the grunts that carried out what Obama, Clinton, Clapper, Brennan and Comey asked will.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 25, 2019, 10:13:40 AM
Reports: Since Dems Haven’t Proven Their Case, Pelosi Might Not Do an Impeachment Vote
Red State ^ | 6:00 pm on November 24, 2019 | by Nick Arama
Posted on 11/25/2019, 12:57:51 PM by Red Badger

How badly have the impeachment proceedings gone for the Democrats?

Well, it would be hard to measure and polls are indicating it didn’t convince anyone.

But one good indication might be after all this, after everything Democrats have done, there are now rumblings that Democrats may not try to officially impeach President Donald Trump.

From Daily Wire:

Top Republicans — and even some Democrats and members of the media — now believe Democrats may pull back on officially impeaching the president, particularly as polls haven’t borne out a clear advantage for Democratic candidates.

After two weeks of impeachment hearings, which yielded little in the way of evidence that the president most definitely offered Ukraine a “quid pro quo” agreement trading an increase in foreign aid for an investigation into “corruption” involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is left with a choice: call off the impeachment and look weak or keep going and risk failure at the ballot box.

Multiple polls taken last week reveal that the impeachment hearings are having their most marked effect on independents, who are supporting the impeachment in ever-declining numbers, leaving moderate Democrats at risk of losing their seats and Democratic presidential contenders at a loss going into 2020.

The Hill reports Sunday that “public opposition to impeachment has some Republicans … voicing skepticism that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go through with a vote on impeachment.”

While Trump said he welcomed a trial, even he seemed to doubt that he would face one, saying it would hard for the House to impeach, “when they have absolutely nothing.”

It’s pretty hard to impeach without one witness who can actually testify that Trump told him/her to condition aid on investigations. Plus all the witnesses who said it never happened.

But polls show voters aren’t enthusiastic about impeachment, and a subsequent multi-state media push from Republicans ripping vulnerable Democrats for supporting Pelosi’s crusade has those same moderate Democrats reportedly begging the Speaker to halt the process.

But now that Pelosi has gone this far, she’s put herself in a box. If she backs out and does nothing, her far left base will eat her alive. If she continues on this course and goes to a vote with nothing, they face getting punished severely at the ballot box. And then a Senate trial in which they call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) could open up a whole can of worms Democrats didn’t originally count on, going into the election.

Here’s Fox’s John Roberts suggesting that they may be considering the option of censure as an out to their dilemma.

You need to read the tweet. Jackson was CENSURED. I was talking about chatter on Capitol Hill that rather than impeach Trump, there may be a move to CENSURE him. Then you can come back and apologize. https://t.co/ttiH9jd9on

— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) November 22, 2019

Officially, however, the Hill says Democrats are still saying they’re proceeding apace.

“The hearings were nearly flawless and extremely damning for the president,” one Democrat aide told the Hill. “While no decision has been made to proceed with impeachment, the key facts are uncontested and not proceeding at this stage will be called a ‘total exoneration’ by the president.”

Everyone told them, they went for it anyway, because of the base.

Hopefully, it costs them big time at the ballot box.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Board_SHERIF on November 25, 2019, 10:36:00 AM
libatards do not deal with facts, just whatever they feel at a particular moment. So who knows what they will do next.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 25, 2019, 10:39:09 AM
The problem is the democrats only view through their own lenses, and aren't seeing  this clearly.

Even if they DO believe they've made a case (despite almost every witess having an exchange with republicans where they say they have nothing), the can't possibly think they've done anything to flip 20 senate votes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 25, 2019, 11:36:18 AM
The problem is the democrats only view through their own lenses, and aren't seeing  this clearly.

Even if they DO believe they've made a case (despite almost every witess having an exchange with republicans where they say they have nothing), the can't possibly think they've done anything to flip 20 senate votes.


They knew this from the beginning. They figured they could bloody Trump and soften him up for the election. Seems to have had the opposite effect.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 25, 2019, 01:13:10 PM
The heat that Schiff would endure in the Senate would be a thing to behold.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 25, 2019, 01:33:41 PM
The heat that Schiff would endure in the Senate would be a thing to behold.



This is why I’ve been saying that I don’t believe it goes to the Senate. Biden is going to get a hammered as well.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2019, 01:35:42 PM
This is why I’ve been saying that I don’t believe it goes to the Senate. Biden is going to get a hammered as well.

I think the main reasons why it may not go to the Senate is the "Whistleblower" and his bias, along with that of Schiff, will be exposed. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 25, 2019, 01:41:01 PM
I think the main reasons why it may not go to the Senate is the "Whistleblower" and his bias, along with that of Schiff, will be exposed.  

The whistle blower is just a pawn. He’ll be tossed aside one no longer needed. Biden, on the other hand, is the Democratic front runner for president.


Schiff just underestimated how prepared the Republicans were. Everyone of them came out strong. The breakout star of the proceedings was a Republican Congresswoman, Elise Stapanik.

If this goes to the Senate where the Republicans are actually in control, it’s going to be a complete train wreck for the Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2019, 02:45:05 PM
The whistle blower is just a pawn. He’ll be tossed aside one no longer needed. Biden, on the other hand, is the Democratic front runner for president.


Schiff just underestimated how prepared the Republicans were. Everyone of them came out strong. The breakout star of the proceedings was a Republican Congresswoman, Elise Stapanik.

If this goes to the Senate where the Republicans are actually in control, it’s going to be a complete train wreck for the Democrats.

I agree overall.  Yes Eric Ciaramella is a pawn, but I think having him testify in the Senate would blow the lid off this thing.  He will either have to (1) plead the Fifth or (2) say exactly who gave him (bad) intel about the phone call, which I think we have figured out was likely LTC "Don't call me Mr." Vindman.  In which case, Vindman perjured himself. 

In the end, this is going to blow up in Democrats' faces.  They should have just focused on running better candidates and coming up with better policy ideas. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 25, 2019, 05:35:23 PM
My understanding is that if the House impeaches Trump, the Senate has to take it up.

I’m saying Congress doesn’t vote and it never goes to the Senate.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
Watch it drop right when the IG report is released. 

Trump impeachment report could drop next week: Democrat
AFP•November 25, 2019

Washington (AFP) - US impeachment investigators said Monday they could present their report of presidential wrongdoing as early as next week but do not rule out calling new witnesses in the case against Donald Trump.

The three panels heading the probe have been preparing a file to deliver to the committee that will consider whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president.

It will be sent to the Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess, beginning next Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff told colleagues in a letter.

"The evidence of wrongdoing and misconduct by the president that we have gathered to date is clear and hardly in dispute," said Schiff, who has delivered searing condemnations of Trump's behavior and the Republicans' defenses of the president.

"What is left to us now is to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the office of the presidency, and whether the constitutional process of impeachment is warranted."

Schiff presided over two weeks of dramatic public hearings that he said uncovered a "massive amount of evidence in short order," despite efforts to obstruct the investigation by Trump and his administration.

It "conclusively shows" that Trump conditioned a White House meeting with Ukraine's new president and critical US military assistance on Ukraine announcing "sham, politically-motivated investigations that would help President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign," he said.

The committees "do not foreclose the possibility of further depositions or hearings," signaling they could seek to have more witnesses testify, Schiff added.

The White House and State Department have refused to turn over documents seen as crucial to the inquiry, or allow potential witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine pressure campaign to testify.

They include White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Schiff said such refusal to comply with subpoenas or testimony requests could lead the Judiciary Committee to consider an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress, in addition to the charges referring to Trump's underlying misconduct.

Trump has repeatedly denounced the process in the Democratic-led House of Representatives as a "witch hunt."

If Trump is impeached in the House, the process shifts to a trial in the Senate, where a Republican majority appears unlikely to oust him from office.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-report-could-drop-next-week-democrat-221631499.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2019, 06:27:11 PM
Which lenses do Republicans view through? Perhaps it is the Republicans who aren't seeing the impeachment with clarity.

I don't recall Republicans asking the witnesses many questions. They spent most of their 5 minutes, stating their preconceived opinions. IMO

How the Senate votes is up to the them. When the House votes to impeach Trump, the Senate will be required to try him. Senate impeachment rules seem a bit more stringent than those of the House specially with regards to witnesses.

Senate Impeachment Rules

The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of and disobedience to its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules and regulations, which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.  And the Sergeant-at-arms, under the direction the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, executive, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

  

What?  You should pull up clips of the hearing.  They asked pointed questions that blew up each and every witness. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 25, 2019, 07:46:05 PM
I’m absolutely 100% sure that I want this Impeachment farce to go to the Senate now.

Let President Donald Trump expose the disgusting Democrat scum that pollutes Washington
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 25, 2019, 07:56:51 PM
Which lenses do Republicans view through? Perhaps it is the Republicans who aren't seeing the impeachment with clarity.

I don't recall Republicans asking the witnesses many questions. They spent most of their 5 minutes, stating their preconceived opinions. IMO

How the Senate votes is up to the them. When the House votes to impeach Trump, the Senate will be required to try him. Senate impeachment rules seem a bit more stringent than those of the House specially with regards to witnesses.

Senate Impeachment Rules

The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of and disobedience to its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules and regulations, which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.  And the Sergeant-at-arms, under the direction the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, executive, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

  

If watched, the Republican lens was one looking for evidence, not hearsay, or presumption.  They only found the latter.

Also, the point stands that they must realize they haven’t turned 20 senate republicans.   Also, the Senate isn’t “required” to have a trial:

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.

The current rules governing Senate practice and procedure do not pose an insurmountable problem for this maneuver. Senate leadership can seek to have the rules “reinterpreted” at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment “trial” fully consistent with current rules—or even any trial at all. A chair’s ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2019, 11:44:49 PM
You don't say?

House Democrat backs down from impeachment: 'I don't see the value of kicking him out of office'
by Tim Pearce
November 25, 2019

Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan now favors censuring President Trump after backing impeachment proceedings over allegations that he withheld military aid from Ukraine for his personal benefit.

Lawrence appeared on the Michigan radio show No BS News Hour with host Charlie LeDuff on Sunday to discuss the impeachment process in the House. Lawrence told LeDuff, to his surprise, that she does not support removing the president from office and that she would ask her caucus to censure him instead.

"We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office," Lawrence said. "I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."

She continued, "I want to censure. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it."

Lawrence also said she would have a "discussion with the party and with the caucus" to censure Trump instead of impeaching him.

Her comments stand in contrast to her Oct. 4 interview with Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah, during which she appeared to back impeaching Trump over the allegations.

"I feel strongly that for my legacy, for my time in history, sitting here at this table with an oath of office to protect this country, to protect the democracy of the United States of America, I cannot sit silent, that I must move forward with [impeachment] because this is egregious," Lawrence said.

Lawrence represents a heavily Democratic district that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won with a roughly 60% margin in the 2016 presidential election. The district has not been represented by a Republican since 1948.

House Democrats launched impeachment proceedings against Trump after a CIA whistleblower filed a complaint alleging that the president leveraged United States military aid to pressure Ukraine into launching investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, with the intent of harming Biden’s 2020 presidential run.

Reports have suggested that the anonymous whistleblower is 33-year-old CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella but have not yet been confirmed. Ciaramella was Ukraine director on the National Security Council during the end of the Obama administration and remained there during the early months of the Trump administration when he was briefly acting senior director for European and Russian affairs.

The Washington Examiner reported that Ciaramella is now a deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the National Intelligence Council, reporting to the director of national intelligence.

Lawrence's office did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-democrat-backs-down-from-impeachment-i-dont-see-the-value-of-kicking-him-out-of-office
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 26, 2019, 07:18:59 AM
I assume by Congress, you mean the House. Congress includes the House and the Senate. Therefore, the House will vote to or not to impeach Trump. As I understand it, the intelligence committee will decide whether to move the impeachment to the judicial committee who will draft the articles of impeachment At this point, unless there is some other committee that takes it up the House will vote to impeach Trump or not to.

Unfortunately, there are other things at play. Namely, the 2020 Presidential election. Chances are, the Senate is going to rule against impeachment. If Trump gains the sympathy of the voters, he stands a better chance of being reelected. If the Democratic dominated House ends up looking like a lynch mob, Trump could be with us for another four years. Oh Lord!




This has already happened, dems just don't know until the polls tell them.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 26, 2019, 11:47:16 AM
Watch it drop right when the IG report is released. 

Trump impeachment report could drop next week: Democrat
AFP•November 25, 2019

Washington (AFP) - US impeachment investigators said Monday they could present their report of presidential wrongdoing as early as next week but do not rule out calling new witnesses in the case against Donald Trump.

The three panels heading the probe have been preparing a file to deliver to the committee that will consider whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president.

It will be sent to the Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess, beginning next Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff told colleagues in a letter.

"The evidence of wrongdoing and misconduct by the president that we have gathered to date is clear and hardly in dispute," said Schiff, who has delivered searing condemnations of Trump's behavior and the Republicans' defenses of the president.

"What is left to us now is to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the office of the presidency, and whether the constitutional process of impeachment is warranted."

Schiff presided over two weeks of dramatic public hearings that he said uncovered a "massive amount of evidence in short order," despite efforts to obstruct the investigation by Trump and his administration.

It "conclusively shows" that Trump conditioned a White House meeting with Ukraine's new president and critical US military assistance on Ukraine announcing "sham, politically-motivated investigations that would help President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign," he said.

The committees "do not foreclose the possibility of further depositions or hearings," signaling they could seek to have more witnesses testify, Schiff added.

The White House and State Department have refused to turn over documents seen as crucial to the inquiry, or allow potential witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine pressure campaign to testify.

They include White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Schiff said such refusal to comply with subpoenas or testimony requests could lead the Judiciary Committee to consider an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress, in addition to the charges referring to Trump's underlying misconduct.

Trump has repeatedly denounced the process in the Democratic-led House of Representatives as a "witch hunt."

If Trump is impeached in the House, the process shifts to a trial in the Senate, where a Republican majority appears unlikely to oust him from office.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-report-could-drop-next-week-democrat-221631499.html

Yep.

House Judiciary Committee announces first impeachment hearing, invites Trump to attend
The president has complained that he's been deprived of due process by the Democrats
Nov. 26, 2019
By Dareh Gregorian

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday announced it will hold its first public impeachment hearing next week, and invited President Donald Trump and his lawyers "to participate."

"I am hopeful that you and your counsel will opt to participate in the Committee's hearing, consistent with the rules of decorum and with the solemn nature before us," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in a letter announcing the hearing.

Nadler said the hearing, which will focus on "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," will take place on Dec. 4.

Nadler said the hearing comes as the inquiry enters "a new phase."

"Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct like those against President Trump," Nadler said, adding that Trump, who has complained that the House is not giving him due process, "has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/house-judiciary-committee-announces-first-impeachment-hearing-invites-trump-attend-n1091861?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2UsK2lwCXxL4brjBT_qet9z0qxDeBpVu0-iAiebyvvHcVLLTngd6Jp8iI&fbclid=IwAR2f46aDOxDDZUMHf48GCQwdUly5lb8wX9n55eiNkmcc4w8H76K63QqoWTA
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on November 26, 2019, 01:56:14 PM
Yep.

House Judiciary Committee announces first impeachment hearing, invites Trump to attend
The president has complained that he's been deprived of due process by the Democrats
Nov. 26, 2019
By Dareh Gregorian

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday announced it will hold its first public impeachment hearing next week, and invited President Donald Trump and his lawyers "to participate."

"I am hopeful that you and your counsel will opt to participate in the Committee's hearing, consistent with the rules of decorum and with the solemn nature before us," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in a letter announcing the hearing.

Nadler said the hearing, which will focus on "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," will take place on Dec. 4.

Nadler said the hearing comes as the inquiry enters "a new phase."

"Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct like those against President Trump," Nadler said, adding that Trump, who has complained that the House is not giving him due process, "has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/house-judiciary-committee-announces-first-impeachment-hearing-invites-trump-attend-n1091861?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2UsK2lwCXxL4brjBT_qet9z0qxDeBpVu0-iAiebyvvHcVLLTngd6Jp8iI&fbclid=IwAR2f46aDOxDDZUMHf48GCQwdUly5lb8wX9n55eiNkmcc4w8H76K63QqoWTA

They’re considering thinking about contemplating if they should wonder about a resolution.  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 26, 2019, 02:21:19 PM
Looks like you have a point.

Senate leadership can seek to have the rules “reinterpreted” at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment “trial” fully consistent with current rules—or even any trial at all. A chair’s ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.

Maybe it will come down to the will of the people.

Of course, this might never come to pass. If Trump were to be impeached, the evidence for his removal from office could turn out to be so overwhelming that it would be politically untenable for McConnell to adopt this course or impossible for him to hold his caucus in line. These outcomes are particularly likely if public opinion at the time swings decisively against the president. Or alternatively, one might hope the Republican leader retains institutional instincts that would kick in and lead him to follow Senate rules and precedent.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

Trump has said he wants the trial if impeached.  Sounds like someone who doesn't have something to hide.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 26, 2019, 06:15:34 PM
If the Bidens have nothing to hide, why aren’t they requesting an investigation into themselves to clear their good name?

LOL.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 26, 2019, 06:43:13 PM
Trump may not have a choice if he is impeached. He says a lot of things he doesn't do. In this case what's he got to lose by saying it. In fact, he's given you(and others) the impression he has nothing to hide.

If he's got nothing to hide, why is the White House refusing to let some people testify? And why is the White House refusing to turn over requested documents to the House? Are those the actions of an innocent man?

Yes they are.  You don't have to waive privileges to disprove ridiculous allegations.  And you don't have to justify exercising basic rights of privacy, due process, etc.  The "what have you got to hide" argument is just wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 26, 2019, 06:44:46 PM
Can any of you Democrats explain why this completely fair and totally unbiased farce that Adam Shit is overseeing hasn’t called Alexandra Chalupa as a witness yet?

I’m sure it’s just a temporary oversight...

Losing comes so natural for libidiots.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on November 26, 2019, 07:00:01 PM
Good question. Maybe father and son think there is already enough energy and time being wasted on this folderal. Better to spend their time on Joe Biden's campaign for the win as America's next President in 2020.

And honey, if what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. You should put a bug in your hero's ear. Why not ask him why he's doing everything possilble to obstruct an  investigation that he claims would clear him of any wrong doing(s)? Note: I added the 's' because they are multiple.

Your dislike for President Trump is deep. I trust it is so complete that you have removed any and all monies from any and all investments, i.e., your entire retirement portfolio.   You, being a stalwart stagnationist should stand proud and refuse to profit from his leadership.

Oh...And leave the United States.  And take Streisand with you.  ;D

Our nation needed a real world businessman.  Someone who is proud to be an American.  Someone who values our military and law enforcement personnel.  Someone that helps everyone to be able to help themselves.  Someone that refuses to apologize to the emotionally apoplectic.

I am first and foremost an American.  No fucking hyphen in that citizenship either.  President Trump is fantastic.

So then, you and everyone else here are full of crap unless you release your financial records and divest yourself entirely of all investments.  All of them.  And then give it to the fucking terminally lazy or as many of you like to refer to them...Welfare Recipients.

Abracadabra mother fuckers.  Indeed.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on November 26, 2019, 07:05:55 PM
Yep.

House Judiciary Committee announces first impeachment hearing, invites Trump to attend
The president has complained that he's been deprived of due process by the Democrats
Nov. 26, 2019
By Dareh Gregorian

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday announced it will hold its first public impeachment hearing next week, and invited President Donald Trump and his lawyers "to participate."

"I am hopeful that you and your counsel will opt to participate in the Committee's hearing, consistent with the rules of decorum and with the solemn nature before us," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in a letter announcing the hearing.

Nadler said the hearing, which will focus on "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," will take place on Dec. 4.

Nadler said the hearing comes as the inquiry enters "a new phase."

"Our first task is to explore the framework put in place to respond to serious allegations of impeachable misconduct like those against President Trump," Nadler said, adding that Trump, who has complained that the House is not giving him due process, "has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/house-judiciary-committee-announces-first-impeachment-hearing-invites-trump-attend-n1091861?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2UsK2lwCXxL4brjBT_qet9z0qxDeBpVu0-iAiebyvvHcVLLTngd6Jp8iI&fbclid=IwAR2f46aDOxDDZUMHf48GCQwdUly5lb8wX9n55eiNkmcc4w8H76K63QqoWTA
Now they are going to give failure Nadler a chance.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 26, 2019, 07:13:15 PM
What a glorious time we live in, where we finally have a President of the people and for the people.

I can’t wait for the 8 years of the Trump Jr. presidency and then the 8 years of the Ivanka presidency !!!

Thank God in heaven for making Hillary Clinton such a shitty candidate
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on November 27, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
Your dislike for President Trump is deep. I trust it is so complete that you have removed any and all monies from any and all investments, i.e., your entire retirement portfolio.   You, being a stalwart stagnationist should stand proud and refuse to profit from his leadership.

Oh...And leave the United States.  And take Streisand with you.  ;D

Our nation needed a real world businessman.  Someone who is proud to be an American.  Someone who values our military and law enforcement personnel.  Someone that helps everyone to be able to help themselves.  Someone that refuses to apologize to the emotionally apoplectic.

I am first and foremost an American.  No fucking hyphen in that citizenship either.  President Trump is fantastic.

So then, you and everyone else here are full of crap unless you release your financial records and divest yourself entirely of all investments.  All of them.  And then give it to the fucking terminally lazy or as many of you like to refer to them...Welfare Recipients.

Abracadabra mother fuckers.  Indeed.


"primemuscle" really is meant to be taken with a grain of salt.
Honestly: if the majority of people were like "him," how do you think our country would have survived this long?

Seriously - like coward/howard - he's NOT to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 27, 2019, 03:41:58 PM
Now they are going to give failure Nadler a chance.

He is inviting Trump to give it some legitimacy. At this point nobody gives a fuck anymore about the stupid impeachment. The Democrats controlled  the entire process yet support for impeachment has gone down. There’s no way to dance around the fact that it has been a failure.

The Washington Examiner is not a right wing media outlet:


Support for impeachment drops after second week of hearings: Poll


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/support-for-impeachment-drops-after-second-week-of-hearings-poll
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 27, 2019, 03:45:05 PM
Joe Biden is absolutely certain that he never talked to his son Hunter about how they were going to steal millions of dollars from China.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on November 27, 2019, 04:38:46 PM
Joe Biden is absolutely certain that he never talked to his son Hunter about how they were going to steal millions of dollars from China.


When somebody dares ask a question he doesn't like he starts shaking his cane at them.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on November 27, 2019, 05:34:39 PM
Long story short, your admiration for Trump has everything to do with money. So as long as the economy is doing well, you are his devotee. Makes one wonder if you'd still be his loyal suck up should the economy tank during his reign.

I am an American.  Trump is too.  You, on the LEFT hand...are not.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on November 27, 2019, 05:46:37 PM
President Donald Trump will have 50% approval by African-Americans by Christmas.

2020 is going to be a Republican landslide.

Blacks do not care about the Green New Steal or Open Borders
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on November 27, 2019, 06:41:25 PM
What a zinger!

I'd put my family tree up against yours any time. Then we can see who is the real American.

And therein lies the difference.  My family never lived in trees.  You cannot win at this. I am an American and proud of my Nation and our President.  You and several others here appear to be flaccid fools.  Ashamed of the Founding Fathers and all that came after them.  You wish to re-write history.  You would call a man a woman and a woman a man.  You would claim there are multiple "genders". 

You would toss out science except when it serves to belittle Christians.  Your family tree?  It has root rot and is long dead. 

Your past, your family history ?  It is only worthy of mention if you honor it. Being a pussy is not an honorable thing. 

Talk about Idiocracy...It is more than evident and not just in the young and feckless but also the aged and morally and mentally impotent.  As stated elsewhere,  Men such as I concern ourselves not so much with "left" and "right" politics but with what is right and what is wrong.

I chose right.  You can say a red light means go but sooner or later you will get your dumb libtard, everyone wins a trophy ass run over.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on November 27, 2019, 07:01:33 PM
Does your response mean your family immigrated to the U.S. at the end of the Korean war?

I am looking within my words for any indication that my family came here at the end of the Korean war and cannot find any.  Why you would ax that is beyond me, save for the assumption that this particular time period is without merit to you because your family arrived on the Gayflower or some other reason that lacks merit or humor.

It's called writing and a sense of humor.  I have it about myself. I am not very intelligent and I have a slight physical handicap. 

Some of my family fought in the Korean War.  Some in WWII.  We came here to be Americans, not "-Americans". 

Now run along before I say more things that go over your head because you're on your knees. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on November 27, 2019, 07:23:08 PM
When you joke, I don't see your sense of humor. Maybe it's too rancid. You've mentioned that you are unintelligent, before. Are you making excuses for your tendency to resort to ridiculous word alterations, such a Gayflower, or your obvious inuendos, such as suggesting I'm on my knees around you. Please...I just ate. Don't make be throw up.

Really?  No...Really?  Around me?  FTN.  You are such a fuckwad.  You feign ignorance of the English language and semantics and even worse lay claim to failing to  understand others here, asking them to explain their words to you.  And no, I am not here to look up any references for you.

You have professed homosexual tendencies here, ergo I make light of said tendencies albeit with a flair that you lack. Pathetic excuse for a man.   I make no excuses you simpleton.  I make light of my problems rather than be "triggered" (there, you should understand that term, you child of iniquity) by some here that feel (for such as they never actually think) they can belittle me for them. 

"Rancid".  How typically pathetic. "...ridiculous word alterations".  What a maroon.   Some here have a way with words (Kahn!), but you?  You and your ilk desire to have your way with not only nature but also history.  Think about it, idiot.  I do weary of your kind. Fucking dehydrated hippies, just add false pride and stand back, it's 1967 all over again.

You're in over your head in the shallow end of the gene pool, kiddo.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: keanu on November 27, 2019, 08:11:18 PM
Long story short, your admiration for Trump has everything to do with money. So as long as the economy is doing well, you are his devotee.
Yup. Could care less about him but love his pro business style, and many of my stocks doubling during his reign.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 02, 2019, 12:03:05 PM
Question for fools : How is impeachment 'progressing' !.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 02, 2019, 12:40:49 PM
On a side note, the House Intelligence committee invited Trump and his attorneys to have their say before they pass it on to the Judiciary Committee.

They gave him a 24 hour window when they knew he was out of the country.

It was a farce.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 02, 2019, 12:50:08 PM
Gonna be a lllllooooooooooooooooonn nnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg gggggggggg 5 more prosperous booming years for you demented trump hating queens 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 02, 2019, 12:53:29 PM
They gave him a 24 hour window when they knew he was out of the country.

It was a farce.

Right?  They give him an opportunity after they held secret meetings and questioned witnesses and after they held public hearings and questioned witnesses.  Absurd. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 02, 2019, 01:17:57 PM
Quote
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone added, in a letter addressed directly to Nadler, that the Judiciary Committee, like the Intelligence Committe, could “not begin to provide the president with any semblance of a fair process.”


Quote
If Nadler doesn’t improve upon Schiff’s performance, that also spells good news for the White House. A number of leftists, including several Democrats in close races, and even members of the mainstream media, have shied away from openly supporting a vote on impeachment now that Schiff’s stage of the impeachment inquiry has concluded. Even Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight was forced to admit, Monday, that Schiff had failed to produce a “smoking gun” proving the president was behind any quid-pro-quo agreement involving Joe and Hunter Biden.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 02, 2019, 01:22:18 PM
They gave him a 24 hour window when they knew he was out of the country.

It was a farce.

For Real !!
You’re correct absolutely Farcical.

DummyCraps Know they Not Going to Win Election
So they’re sticking to the dirty tricks campaign
& Impeachment Impeachment Impeachment   ::)  ::)

If they really believed they’d win they’d drop this Nonsense
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 02, 2019, 01:25:39 PM
For Real !!
You’re correct absolutely Farcical.

Any Reply Prime ??

He replied with an article from the "impartial" site Vox.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 02, 2019, 01:34:40 PM
He replied with an article from the "impartial" site Vox.


Yes I see he’d replied- & modified my post I think while you were posting.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 02, 2019, 01:51:08 PM
Get my replies straight. My reply to that post was this:


You stated they invited Donald - And he was out of the county at that time - Do you not see that as Stupid.
Forget about his attorneys.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 02, 2019, 03:57:47 PM
Though Trump has recently signaled openness to providing written testimony in the impeachment hearings, he has also repeatedly worked to delegitimize them, meaning his decision not to accept committee Chair Jerry Nadler’s invitation isn’t particularly surprising.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/2/20991529/impeachment-hearings-judiciary-nadler-trump

What's your point? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 02, 2019, 04:59:13 PM
Next up in Kangaroo Court:

Jerry Nadler Announces Four Professors for First Impeachment Inquiry Hearing in Judiciary Committee
JOEL B. POLLAK  2 Dec 2019

House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has announced the four legal scholars who will be the first witnesses at his committee’s hearings on the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The witnesses include three chosen by the committee’s Democrats, and one chosen by the committee’s Republicans.

The Democrats’ witnesses include Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, and University of North Carolina Law School professor Michael Gerhardt. The sole Republican witness is George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal who nonetheless has become a frequent critic of Democrats’ approach to the Constitution in recent years.

Last month, Turley said that Democrats were “proceeding on the narrowest basis for impeachment in the history of this country.”

Feldman is respected for the nuances of his constitutional insights, and worked on the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution in the wake of the toppling of Saddam Hussain a decade-and-a-half ago. Yet he was taken in by the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory, claiming in September 2017 that “more and more evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia has come to light.” (None was eventually found.) Feldman also argued that Trump could be impeached because of “conflicts of interest” and “foreign emoluments” — and even said Trump could be impeached for “defamation” after he accused former President Barack Obama of having his “wires tapped” at Trump Tower. As contemporaneous mainstream media coverage reported, the Obama administration had conducted surveillance of some Trump campaign operatives, including Carter Page.

Earlier on Monday, Rep. Doug Collins (R-TX), the ranking Republican member on the House Judiciary Committee, protested in a letter to Nadler that the witnesses had not been revealed with less than 48 hours before the hearing was due to start Wednesday morning. Nadler revealed the witness list shortly thereafter on the committee website.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/02/jerry-nadler-announces-four-professors-for-first-impeachment-inquiry-hearing-in-judiciary-committee/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 02, 2019, 05:22:03 PM
Liberals are without a doubt worthless to civilization and just plain fucking stupid.  I pray for the cRapture to happen.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 02, 2019, 05:38:13 PM
My, how things have changed over 21 years:

"WASHINGTON —  For only the third time in the republic’s 210 years, the House opened a formal
impeachment proceeding Thursday against the president of the United States, and its largely
party-line vote signaled a rancorous investigation.

"By a vote of 258 to 176, the House authorized its Judiciary Committee to investigate whether
President Clinton committed “high crimes and misdemeanors"--the Constitution’s vague standard
for impeachment--by committing perjury and obstructing justice in concealing his indiscretions
with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

"Not one of the 228 Republican members of the House voted against the resolution authorizing the
investigation, and they brought with them only 31 Democrats, most of them conservatives."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-oct-09-mn-30796-story.html


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 02, 2019, 05:41:41 PM
Next up in Kangaroo Court:

Jerry Nadler Announces Four Professors for First Impeachment Inquiry Hearing in Judiciary Committee
JOEL B. POLLAK  2 Dec 2019

House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has announced the four legal scholars who will be the first witnesses at his committee’s hearings on the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The witnesses include three chosen by the committee’s Democrats, and one chosen by the committee’s Republicans.

The Democrats’ witnesses include Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, and University of North Carolina Law School professor Michael Gerhardt. The sole Republican witness is George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal who nonetheless has become a frequent critic of Democrats’ approach to the Constitution in recent years.

Last month, Turley said that Democrats were “proceeding on the narrowest basis for impeachment in the history of this country.”

Feldman is respected for the nuances of his constitutional insights, and worked on the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution in the wake of the toppling of Saddam Hussain a decade-and-a-half ago. Yet he was taken in by the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory, claiming in September 2017 that “more and more evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia has come to light.” (None was eventually found.) Feldman also argued that Trump could be impeached because of “conflicts of interest” and “foreign emoluments” — and even said Trump could be impeached for “defamation” after he accused former President Barack Obama of having his “wires tapped” at Trump Tower. As contemporaneous mainstream media coverage reported, the Obama administration had conducted surveillance of some Trump campaign operatives, including Carter Page.

Earlier on Monday, Rep. Doug Collins (R-TX), the ranking Republican member on the House Judiciary Committee, protested in a letter to Nadler that the witnesses had not been revealed with less than 48 hours before the hearing was due to start Wednesday morning. Nadler revealed the witness list shortly thereafter on the committee website.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/02/jerry-nadler-announces-four-professors-for-first-impeachment-inquiry-hearing-in-judiciary-committee/

I can't recall - did the Republicans have four Horsemen of the Apocalypse law professors testify for the Clinton inquiry?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 02, 2019, 06:52:58 PM
Not to play the fool, but in the event you didn't already know this, here's what's comming up with the impeachment.

Well, according to the latest news, the House Intelligence Committee is working on drawing up articles of impeachment. When completed, these will go to the House Judiciary Committee, who will rehash all that we've been told and more in a very open and more contentious forum. When the House Judiciary Committee reaches their conclusion, the entire body of the House will vote to impeach. All this is hoped to happen before Christmas. After the house impeaches Trump, the Senate will hold an impeachment trial, where everything will once again be debated.  

On a side note, the House Intelligence committee invited Trump and his attorneys to have their say before they pass it on to the Judiciary Committee. Trump and his attorneys have declined with the proviso that they can reconsider.




OLD man, too much bla-bla-blabing !>

Just : YES or NO  ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 02, 2019, 08:51:06 PM
Trump's a loose cannon who often shoots himself in the foot.



Name a few things democrats have won as a result of Trump somehow damaging himself. This will be good.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 02, 2019, 10:22:39 PM
Why forget his attorneys? Chances are they wouldn't have wanted him to go even if he was standing on the House steps. Trump's a loose cannon who often shoots himself in the foot.

By not directly answering The Question posed I take it -

1. You were unable to
2, It was to difficult for you to give a direct answer
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on December 03, 2019, 09:49:07 AM
By not directly answering The Question posed I take it -

1. You were unable to
2, It was to difficult for you to give a direct answer

That's his playbook.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 03, 2019, 09:50:25 AM
By not directly answering The Question posed I take it -

1. You were unable to
2, It was to difficult for you to give a direct answer


That's his playbook.

Yep.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 03, 2019, 11:16:33 AM
Not this shit again. Find something new to say.

No it’s Not Shit - It’s you not / unable to answer direct questions
You’re a reasonably intelligent man, Yet you try hard to come across
As Stupid / Dim at Times.
That’s you’re Choice - Just expect to get called on it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 03, 2019, 03:38:19 PM
By not directly answering The Question posed I take it -

1. You were unable to
2, It was to difficult for you to give a direct answer



DEFLECTION is prime's best friend!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 03, 2019, 04:37:35 PM
A party-line vote. 

House Democrats vote to adopt Trump impeachment report, blast scheme to 'solicit foreign interference' in 2020 race
By Ronn Blitzer, Gregg Re | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-intel-committee-trump-impeachment-report-vote
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 03, 2019, 05:17:02 PM
1,798 GLORIOUS DAYS LEFT IN THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY!   

That’s a lot of hours of crying in mommy’s basement, libidiots !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 03, 2019, 05:23:01 PM
"An impeachment of a President is an undoing of national election"...



What's more terrible than the expected hypocrisy is the fact that the same people from over 20 years ago are still there... Just look at those faces... Term limits for everyone.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 03, 2019, 05:31:58 PM
"An impeachment of a President is an undoing of national election"...



What's more terrible than the expected hypocrisy is the fact that the same people from over 20 years ago are still there... Just look at those faces... Term limits for everyone.


Jerrold Nadler.....clearly off season.

I saw on TV the other day that he is under 5’-3” tall.

Fat penguin asshole.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 03, 2019, 08:01:11 PM
1,798 GLORIOUS DAYS LEFT IN THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY!   

That’s a lot of hours of crying in mommy’s basement, libidiots !

In 1798 days  PrimeNancy will celebrate his 81st birthday under Mr.Trump presidency  ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 04, 2019, 01:28:20 AM
"An impeachment of a President is an undoing of national election"...



What's more terrible than the expected hypocrisy is the fact that the same people from over 20 years ago are still there... Just look at those faces... Term limits for everyone.

. Jabba The Hut has spoken.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: tatoo on December 04, 2019, 04:35:18 AM
"An impeachment of a President is an undoing of national election"...



What's more terrible than the expected hypocrisy is the fact that the same people from over 20 years ago are still there... Just look at those faces... Term limits for everyone.



term limits x1000.... except for Trump!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 04, 2019, 04:05:57 PM


Name a few things democrats have won as a result of Trump somehow damaging himself. This will be good.


Let's simplify it more for the simpletons...




Name a few things ONE THING democrats have won as a result of Trump somehow damaging himself. This will be good.


Wonder-Twin powers, ACTIVATE!!!

form of...

DEFLECTION SHIELD!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 04, 2019, 04:24:37 PM
Jerrold Nadler.....clearly off season.

I saw on TV the other day that he is under 5’-3” tall.

Fat penguin asshole.

He's a Blobfish that sprouted a fat body and wears glasses and a wig.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o8YvbtC3Elw/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2019, 06:37:09 PM
So . . . how did it go today?  Other than one of the "constitutional scholars" attacking President Trump's 13 year old son? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2019, 07:43:48 PM
The 'attack' was this, "The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron," said Karlan...
Her comment may not the best analogy and is in poor taste, but it is not earth shattering either. Funny how some folks put up with Trump, who most rudely and crudely attacks vulnerable people on an almost daily basis, but a simple comment like Karlan made about this boy's name goes ballistic.

Moral equivalency fail.  It was totally inappropriate.  She should have apologized without mentioning Trump's conduct.  Just like you could have easily talked about how wrong it was without trying to compare it some other alleged wrongdoing.  But moral equivalency is what liberals do when faced with their own misconduct. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2019, 08:43:29 PM
Pamela Karlan: "I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/pamela-karlan-apologizes-for-invoking-barron-trump-but-urges-president-to-say-sorry-too/

The moral equivalency non-apology apology. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 04, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
So . . . how did it go today?  Other than one of the "constitutional scholars" attacking President Trump's 13 year old son? 

It would not bother me one bit to watch that bitch burn alive on national television.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2019, 08:53:55 PM
It would not bother me one bit to watch that bitch burn alive on national television.

Gaetz exposed her as a liberal hack. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on December 05, 2019, 08:53:55 AM
Love how this "impeachment" sham show started EXACTLY when the Epstein "suicide" happened to deflect attention.

AND

even on getbig everyone forgot about the REAL story..


TPTB truly know how to play you people...


take your mind off the real issues by some shit show everyone knows is just a complete waste of time.


Even Pelosi said a long time ago she didn't think impeachment proceedings was a good idea..... that was until Epstein offed himself and the owners of the country told her to get in line
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 10:13:53 AM
Watch it drop right when the IG report is released.  [/b]

Trump impeachment report could drop next week: Democrat
AFP•November 25, 2019

Washington (AFP) - US impeachment investigators said Monday they could present their report of presidential wrongdoing as early as next week but do not rule out calling new witnesses in the case against Donald Trump.

The three panels heading the probe have been preparing a file to deliver to the committee that will consider whether to draft articles of impeachment against the president.

It will be sent to the Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess, beginning next Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff told colleagues in a letter.

"The evidence of wrongdoing and misconduct by the president that we have gathered to date is clear and hardly in dispute," said Schiff, who has delivered searing condemnations of Trump's behavior and the Republicans' defenses of the president.

"What is left to us now is to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the office of the presidency, and whether the constitutional process of impeachment is warranted."

Schiff presided over two weeks of dramatic public hearings that he said uncovered a "massive amount of evidence in short order," despite efforts to obstruct the investigation by Trump and his administration.

It "conclusively shows" that Trump conditioned a White House meeting with Ukraine's new president and critical US military assistance on Ukraine announcing "sham, politically-motivated investigations that would help President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign," he said.

The committees "do not foreclose the possibility of further depositions or hearings," signaling they could seek to have more witnesses testify, Schiff added.

The White House and State Department have refused to turn over documents seen as crucial to the inquiry, or allow potential witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine pressure campaign to testify.

They include White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Schiff said such refusal to comply with subpoenas or testimony requests could lead the Judiciary Committee to consider an article of impeachment based on obstruction of Congress, in addition to the charges referring to Trump's underlying misconduct.

Trump has repeatedly denounced the process in the Democratic-led House of Representatives as a "witch hunt."

If Trump is impeached in the House, the process shifts to a trial in the Senate, where a Republican majority appears unlikely to oust him from office.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-report-could-drop-next-week-democrat-221631499.html

"The committee will hold its next hearing on Monday, December 9, at 9 a.m."

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-impeachment-updates-house-judiciary-committee-today-2019-12-05/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 10:18:26 AM
Oh, and of course the right never does this. ::)  Besides, I was comparing how the right accepts whatever vulgar shit Trump conjures up like it's normal and okay...(just Trump being Trump). Trump wasn't the target; you sheep on the right were. When you call out Trump for making inappropriate statements, we'll have something worth discussing.

Focus.  The issue is the totally inappropriate comment this hack "constitutional scholar" made about the president's 13 year old son. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 10:19:41 AM
Watch: Professor Pamela Karlan Rants About Trump, Admits Crossing Street to Avoid His Hotel
KYLE MORRIS and EZRA DULIS4 Dec 2019

Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, one of three witnesses called by Democrats to testify on the first day of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry, once admitted to despising President Donald Trump so much that she crossed the street rather than walk by one of his hotels.

In a 2017 American Constitution Society panel discussion — which also included former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol  and was moderated by the Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus — Karlan repeatedly launched into rants about Trump’s “outrageous” behavior both before and after he was elected, repeatedly saying that he “worries” her and questioning whether he is able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood.

She shared the anecdote about avoiding the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, in her very first statement for the panel. “I came in from the airport yesterday and I got off the bus from Dulles down at L’Enfant Plaza and I walked up to the hotel and as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump hotel… I had to cross the street, of course,” she said.

“Are you staying there?” Neil Siegel, a fellow panelist, asked.

Karlan responded, “God, no! Never!”

Karlan went on to characterize Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump as “inexperienced and loopy” and criticized Trump for his lack of public service experience prior to becoming president.

“This is the first time in our country’s history that we have elected a president who, before he became president, had never served in public service for a minute, a second, a nanosecond of his entire life, and we are reaping the whirlwind of that,” she said.

At one point, Karlan claimed President Trump does not believe in democracy, citing his opposition to Hillary Clinton.

My candidate for norm that has been violated that is the most critical is the norm of a belief in democracy. We have a president who fundamentally doesn’t believe in it. How do we know this? I’m going to look back to the campaign… threatening to put your opponent in jail when you’re running. Saying that you will only accept the result of the election if you win. Believing that, despite all of the evidence, you won the popular vote because there’s massive vote fraud. Creating a commission to look into voting in the United States that is so stacked with people who have already announced that they think that there are huge numbers of unqualified people voting, as opposed to being worried about the number of qualified people who can’t vote. Not believing in the rule of law– [MODERATOR: “So-called judges…”] “So-called judges.” I mean, we have a president who, for the first time, at least in my lifetime, does not even give lip service to the idea that this country is a democracy and that people should participate in the government. And that you need a free press. So instead of the Declaration of Independence, we now have “We hold this alternative reality to be self-evident.” And that really worries me. Because I think when the elite tells the people, ‘Don’t believe in democracy,’ it’s very hard to pull that back. And that’s the norm, just the belief that this country is a country of self-government, that has been blown through by this president and that, I think, has to be reclaimed. [emphasis added]

Karlan also questioned whether President Trump can clearly distinguish between “truth” and “falsity.”

“Do you think the president even knows that there is such a thing as the truth? What worries me here is, you talk about, ‘Well, people say things they know to be false,'” she stated. “What worries me with him is I don’t think the category of truth vs. falsity necessarily is something baked into him.”

At one point, began singing lyrics from the Broadway musical Candide and explained, “I burst into song all the time, and the thing that worries me is we’ve got a president who wants to sing ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me’ [from Cabaret].”

Karlan also claimed President Trump has “sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally.” The aside came in the middle of a monologue where she expressed fear that Trump’s opponents may never reach a “red-light moment” to end his term in office.

“Every day Trump says something outrageous and people go, ‘ah, at least it’s not as outrageous as the day-before thing.’ I remember this during the campaign, where he would say things, and you would think, ‘okay, that’s the end.’ When he mocked John McCain for having been shot down. When he made fun of the reporter with the disability. When the infamous tapes about grabbing women came out, and you kept thinking– [KRISTOL: “The Mexican judge”] The Mexican judge, the rapists — Donald Trump has sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally. By himself, he’s done more. And people have stopped — think about it, because it’s just like every day it’s a new one. And I worry about that, because I think that may stop us from ever getting to the red-light moment.” [emphasis added]

The Stanford Law School professor also insinuated that President Trump is trying to “destabilize the courts” to shift blame if a major terrorist attack happens on his watch.

“What worries me is, imagine that the next disaster is something like the [Oklahoma City] bombing. He’s gonna claim it was Muslims. And there’s gonna be backlash and there’s gonna be all kinds of problems there. Look at the fact that we haven’t had a mass terrorist attack in the United States, but we’ve had some pretty serious crimes since he’s become president, and look at how long it took him to say anything about the stabbing of those two men on the metro train in Portland… Part of why he’s trying to destabilize the courts is so there will be somebody else to blame rather than him if something goes wrong.”

Karlan made headlines for her heated testimony Wednesday, castigating House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) in her opening statement and invoking the name of Trump’s teenage son Barron for a dig against the president. Among her reasons for proceeding with impeachment, Karlan cited Trump’s campaign-trail joke that “Russia, if you’re listening,” should find and publish the deleted emails of Hillary Clinton from the unsecured homebrew server which handled her communications while Secretary of State.

According to FEC records, Karlan donated $1,000 to the presidential campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in July. When pressed on that fact by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Karlan vented during another lawmaker’s time: “I have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates. At the same time, we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigner from spending money in our elections.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/pamela-karlan-rants-about-trump-admits-crossing-street-to-avoid-his-hotel/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 05, 2019, 10:26:04 AM
Watch: Professor Pamela Karlan Rants About Trump, Admits Crossing Street to Avoid His Hotel
KYLE MORRIS and EZRA DULIS4 Dec 2019

Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, one of three witnesses called by Democrats to testify on the first day of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry, once admitted to despising President Donald Trump so much that she crossed the street rather than walk by one of his hotels.

In a 2017 American Constitution Society panel discussion — which also included former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol  and was moderated by the Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus — Karlan repeatedly launched into rants about Trump’s “outrageous” behavior both before and after he was elected, repeatedly saying that he “worries” her and questioning whether he is able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood.

She shared the anecdote about avoiding the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, in her very first statement for the panel. “I came in from the airport yesterday and I got off the bus from Dulles down at L’Enfant Plaza and I walked up to the hotel and as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump hotel… I had to cross the street, of course,” she said.

“Are you staying there?” Neil Siegel, a fellow panelist, asked.

Karlan responded, “God, no! Never!”

Karlan went on to characterize Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump as “inexperienced and loopy” and criticized Trump for his lack of public service experience prior to becoming president.

“This is the first time in our country’s history that we have elected a president who, before he became president, had never served in public service for a minute, a second, a nanosecond of his entire life, and we are reaping the whirlwind of that,” she said.

At one point, Karlan claimed President Trump does not believe in democracy, citing his opposition to Hillary Clinton.

My candidate for norm that has been violated that is the most critical is the norm of a belief in democracy. We have a president who fundamentally doesn’t believe in it. How do we know this? I’m going to look back to the campaign… threatening to put your opponent in jail when you’re running. Saying that you will only accept the result of the election if you win. Believing that, despite all of the evidence, you won the popular vote because there’s massive vote fraud. Creating a commission to look into voting in the United States that is so stacked with people who have already announced that they think that there are huge numbers of unqualified people voting, as opposed to being worried about the number of qualified people who can’t vote. Not believing in the rule of law– [MODERATOR: “So-called judges…”] “So-called judges.” I mean, we have a president who, for the first time, at least in my lifetime, does not even give lip service to the idea that this country is a democracy and that people should participate in the government. And that you need a free press. So instead of the Declaration of Independence, we now have “We hold this alternative reality to be self-evident.” And that really worries me. Because I think when the elite tells the people, ‘Don’t believe in democracy,’ it’s very hard to pull that back. And that’s the norm, just the belief that this country is a country of self-government, that has been blown through by this president and that, I think, has to be reclaimed. [emphasis added]

Karlan also questioned whether President Trump can clearly distinguish between “truth” and “falsity.”

“Do you think the president even knows that there is such a thing as the truth? What worries me here is, you talk about, ‘Well, people say things they know to be false,'” she stated. “What worries me with him is I don’t think the category of truth vs. falsity necessarily is something baked into him.”

At one point, began singing lyrics from the Broadway musical Candide and explained, “I burst into song all the time, and the thing that worries me is we’ve got a president who wants to sing ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me’ [from Cabaret].”

Karlan also claimed President Trump has “sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally.” The aside came in the middle of a monologue where she expressed fear that Trump’s opponents may never reach a “red-light moment” to end his term in office.

“Every day Trump says something outrageous and people go, ‘ah, at least it’s not as outrageous as the day-before thing.’ I remember this during the campaign, where he would say things, and you would think, ‘okay, that’s the end.’ When he mocked John McCain for having been shot down. When he made fun of the reporter with the disability. When the infamous tapes about grabbing women came out, and you kept thinking– [KRISTOL: “The Mexican judge”] The Mexican judge, the rapists — Donald Trump has sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally. By himself, he’s done more. And people have stopped — think about it, because it’s just like every day it’s a new one. And I worry about that, because I think that may stop us from ever getting to the red-light moment.” [emphasis added]

The Stanford Law School professor also insinuated that President Trump is trying to “destabilize the courts” to shift blame if a major terrorist attack happens on his watch.

“What worries me is, imagine that the next disaster is something like the [Oklahoma City] bombing. He’s gonna claim it was Muslims. And there’s gonna be backlash and there’s gonna be all kinds of problems there. Look at the fact that we haven’t had a mass terrorist attack in the United States, but we’ve had some pretty serious crimes since he’s become president, and look at how long it took him to say anything about the stabbing of those two men on the metro train in Portland… Part of why he’s trying to destabilize the courts is so there will be somebody else to blame rather than him if something goes wrong.”

Karlan made headlines for her heated testimony Wednesday, castigating House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) in her opening statement and invoking the name of Trump’s teenage son Barron for a dig against the president. Among her reasons for proceeding with impeachment, Karlan cited Trump’s campaign-trail joke that “Russia, if you’re listening,” should find and publish the deleted emails of Hillary Clinton from the unsecured homebrew server which handled her communications while Secretary of State.

According to FEC records, Karlan donated $1,000 to the presidential campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in July. When pressed on that fact by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Karlan vented during another lawmaker’s time: “I have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates. At the same time, we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigner from spending money in our elections.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/pamela-karlan-rants-about-trump-admits-crossing-street-to-avoid-his-hotel/

TDS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2019, 10:27:32 AM
Severe mental illness


Watch: Professor Pamela Karlan Rants About Trump, Admits Crossing Street to Avoid His Hotel
KYLE MORRIS and EZRA DULIS4 Dec 2019

Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, one of three witnesses called by Democrats to testify on the first day of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry, once admitted to despising President Donald Trump so much that she crossed the street rather than walk by one of his hotels.

In a 2017 American Constitution Society panel discussion — which also included former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol  and was moderated by the Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus — Karlan repeatedly launched into rants about Trump’s “outrageous” behavior both before and after he was elected, repeatedly saying that he “worries” her and questioning whether he is able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood.

She shared the anecdote about avoiding the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, in her very first statement for the panel. “I came in from the airport yesterday and I got off the bus from Dulles down at L’Enfant Plaza and I walked up to the hotel and as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now Trump hotel… I had to cross the street, of course,” she said.

“Are you staying there?” Neil Siegel, a fellow panelist, asked.

Karlan responded, “God, no! Never!”

Karlan went on to characterize Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump as “inexperienced and loopy” and criticized Trump for his lack of public service experience prior to becoming president.

“This is the first time in our country’s history that we have elected a president who, before he became president, had never served in public service for a minute, a second, a nanosecond of his entire life, and we are reaping the whirlwind of that,” she said.

At one point, Karlan claimed President Trump does not believe in democracy, citing his opposition to Hillary Clinton.

My candidate for norm that has been violated that is the most critical is the norm of a belief in democracy. We have a president who fundamentally doesn’t believe in it. How do we know this? I’m going to look back to the campaign… threatening to put your opponent in jail when you’re running. Saying that you will only accept the result of the election if you win. Believing that, despite all of the evidence, you won the popular vote because there’s massive vote fraud. Creating a commission to look into voting in the United States that is so stacked with people who have already announced that they think that there are huge numbers of unqualified people voting, as opposed to being worried about the number of qualified people who can’t vote. Not believing in the rule of law– [MODERATOR: “So-called judges…”] “So-called judges.” I mean, we have a president who, for the first time, at least in my lifetime, does not even give lip service to the idea that this country is a democracy and that people should participate in the government. And that you need a free press. So instead of the Declaration of Independence, we now have “We hold this alternative reality to be self-evident.” And that really worries me. Because I think when the elite tells the people, ‘Don’t believe in democracy,’ it’s very hard to pull that back. And that’s the norm, just the belief that this country is a country of self-government, that has been blown through by this president and that, I think, has to be reclaimed. [emphasis added]

Karlan also questioned whether President Trump can clearly distinguish between “truth” and “falsity.”

“Do you think the president even knows that there is such a thing as the truth? What worries me here is, you talk about, ‘Well, people say things they know to be false,'” she stated. “What worries me with him is I don’t think the category of truth vs. falsity necessarily is something baked into him.”

At one point, began singing lyrics from the Broadway musical Candide and explained, “I burst into song all the time, and the thing that worries me is we’ve got a president who wants to sing ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me’ [from Cabaret].”

Karlan also claimed President Trump has “sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally.” The aside came in the middle of a monologue where she expressed fear that Trump’s opponents may never reach a “red-light moment” to end his term in office.

“Every day Trump says something outrageous and people go, ‘ah, at least it’s not as outrageous as the day-before thing.’ I remember this during the campaign, where he would say things, and you would think, ‘okay, that’s the end.’ When he mocked John McCain for having been shot down. When he made fun of the reporter with the disability. When the infamous tapes about grabbing women came out, and you kept thinking– [KRISTOL: “The Mexican judge”] The Mexican judge, the rapists — Donald Trump has sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally. By himself, he’s done more. And people have stopped — think about it, because it’s just like every day it’s a new one. And I worry about that, because I think that may stop us from ever getting to the red-light moment.” [emphasis added]

The Stanford Law School professor also insinuated that President Trump is trying to “destabilize the courts” to shift blame if a major terrorist attack happens on his watch.

“What worries me is, imagine that the next disaster is something like the [Oklahoma City] bombing. He’s gonna claim it was Muslims. And there’s gonna be backlash and there’s gonna be all kinds of problems there. Look at the fact that we haven’t had a mass terrorist attack in the United States, but we’ve had some pretty serious crimes since he’s become president, and look at how long it took him to say anything about the stabbing of those two men on the metro train in Portland… Part of why he’s trying to destabilize the courts is so there will be somebody else to blame rather than him if something goes wrong.”

Karlan made headlines for her heated testimony Wednesday, castigating House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) in her opening statement and invoking the name of Trump’s teenage son Barron for a dig against the president. Among her reasons for proceeding with impeachment, Karlan cited Trump’s campaign-trail joke that “Russia, if you’re listening,” should find and publish the deleted emails of Hillary Clinton from the unsecured homebrew server which handled her communications while Secretary of State.

According to FEC records, Karlan donated $1,000 to the presidential campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in July. When pressed on that fact by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Karlan vented during another lawmaker’s time: “I have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to give money to candidates. At the same time, we have a constitutional duty to keep foreigner from spending money in our elections.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/pamela-karlan-rants-about-trump-admits-crossing-street-to-avoid-his-hotel/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 10:30:41 AM
This woman was apparently on the Supreme Court short list.   :-\
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 10:33:28 AM
This dude never gets tired of being wrong.

FNC’s Napolitano Predicts Trump Will Testify Under Oath in Impeachment Trial — With ‘200 Million People Watching’
PAM KEY5 Dec 2019

On Thursday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said he believes President Donald Trump will testify in his impeachment trial in the Senate.

Anchor Bill Hemmer asked, “If you go to a Senate trial, who testifies on behalf of the president?”

Napolitano said, “Himself.”

Hemmer asked, “You believe that could happen?”

Napolitano said, “I do. I think it will be the most dramatic, legal, political event in the history of our era. With the president of the United States testifying under oath in front of the chief justice and the full Senate and 200 million people watching on television.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/05/fncs-napolitano-predicts-trump-will-testify-under-oath-in-impeachment-trial-with-200-million-people-watching/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Irongrip400 on December 05, 2019, 11:39:28 AM
What now?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 05, 2019, 11:55:24 AM
The next session is next Monday. That's what.

Sex sessions  ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 05, 2019, 12:09:28 PM
The next session is next Monday. That's what.

Did they announce when the vote will be?🤔

What we have going on right now is a game of chicken. Let’s see if the Democrats have the balls to send it to the Senate.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 12:53:03 PM
What now?

They have a hearing on Monday, the same day the IG report drops.  Didn't see that one coming . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 01:46:05 PM
 :-\



WATCH: Democrat ‘Constitutional Expert’ Pamela Karlan’s 2006 Anti-White, Racist Tirade
December 4, 2019 by Raheem Kassam

Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan – the Democrats’ “constitutional expert” in the Judiciary Committee hearings – launched into a scathing tirade against white people in a 2006 speech to the American Constitution Society.
WATCH:

“We have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and on love of our country, because we have more reason than they do to love America,” she told a fawning, liberal audience.

“The rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world, and they always have.

“But what about us? Snarky, bisexual, Jewish women who want the freedom to say what we think, read what we want, and love who we do.”

Karlan used her prominent position at the Judiciary Committee to mock President Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron:

https://warroom.org/2019/12/04/pamela-karlan-raged-against-white-people/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 05, 2019, 04:03:26 PM
Nancy Pelosi just signed a death warrant for Democrats in States that Trump won in 2016.

The backlash against Impeachment in the swing states is going to be massive
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 05, 2019, 04:05:59 PM
So, in what other country have more bi snarky Jewish women done better?

How has she done by world standards?

Funny how these “global citizens” become very myopic when trying to paint themselves as victims.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 05, 2019, 04:19:57 PM
So, in what other country have more bi snarky Jewish women done better?

How has she done by world standards?

Funny how these “global citizens” become very myopic when trying to paint themselves as victims.

Children play with her hairy legs
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 04:24:23 PM
Democrat Jeff Van Drew says he plans to vote against all the articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 05, 2019, 05:19:45 PM
This woman was apparently on the Supreme Court short list.   :-\

I guess she was too "woke" for Obama-era Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on December 05, 2019, 06:03:06 PM
This dude never gets tired of being wrong.

FNC’s Napolitano Predicts Trump Will Testify Under Oath in Impeachment Trial — With ‘200 Million People Watching’
PAM KEY5 Dec 2019

On Thursday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said he believes President Donald Trump will testify in his impeachment trial in the Senate.

Anchor Bill Hemmer asked, “If you go to a Senate trial, who testifies on behalf of the president?”

Napolitano said, “Himself.”

Hemmer asked, “You believe that could happen?”

Napolitano said, “I do. I think it will be the most dramatic, legal, political event in the history of our era. With the president of the United States testifying under oath in front of the chief justice and the full Senate and 200 million people watching on television.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/05/fncs-napolitano-predicts-trump-will-testify-under-oath-in-impeachment-trial-with-200-million-people-watching/

Hillary showed up and testified for 11 hours

I guess She's got more balls that Trumptard

Gerald Ford testified before Congress when he was POTUS so there is no reason why the Traitor in Chief can't show up and tesitfy

Of course he'd perjure himself within the the first two minutes but it would be fun to watch him implode.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 05, 2019, 09:03:23 PM
Hillary showed up and testified for 11 hours

I guess She's got more balls that Trumptard

Gerald Ford testified before Congress when he was POTUS so there is no reason why the Traitor in Chief can't show up and tesitfy

Of course he'd perjure himself within the the first two minutes but it would be fun to watch him implode.


(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/7/21/1437489787132/cfc668bd-c0fe-4314-8beb-943cbf065635-1360x2040.jpeg?width=300&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=0d5d58575062d71bed8b11060e345f8b)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 09:53:23 PM
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/7/21/1437489787132/cfc668bd-c0fe-4314-8beb-943cbf065635-1360x2040.jpeg?width=300&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=0d5d58575062d71bed8b11060e345f8b)

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 05, 2019, 09:53:56 PM
Hahahahahahahaha!!!  ;D

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 06, 2019, 06:32:17 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79361162_536050720281106_5107169543231373312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=HdkhH-SM8iwAQmvSC1___sgkdXLlo9nNknafnlnrGozLDftgcBV6Ajy2Q&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=50f9edbf4e62fe86d1eef7de3b080d94&oe=5E7D9187)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 06, 2019, 06:34:55 PM
What a farce
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 06, 2019, 06:43:54 PM
(http://forums.13x.com/index.php?attachments/4ca3c959-b47c-46e6-bcef-88f1a0c65afd-jpeg.162850/)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 07, 2019, 02:46:44 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79361162_536050720281106_5107169543231373312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=HdkhH-SM8iwAQmvSC1___sgkdXLlo9nNknafnlnrGozLDftgcBV6Ajy2Q&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=50f9edbf4e62fe86d1eef7de3b080d94&oe=5E7D9187)


Bunch of sickos. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 07, 2019, 04:26:58 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79361162_536050720281106_5107169543231373312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=HdkhH-SM8iwAQmvSC1___sgkdXLlo9nNknafnlnrGozLDftgcBV6Ajy2Q&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=50f9edbf4e62fe86d1eef7de3b080d94&oe=5E7D9187)

And supposedly Otherwise Intelligent people on this Board Support
The Likes of Her & The DummyCraps  ::)
No wonder they can’t fathom what’s wrong with themselves or those they support.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 07, 2019, 05:40:48 AM
What a farce

LOL...The Farce is strong with that one.   :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 07, 2019, 08:13:22 AM
LOL...The Farce is strong with that one.   :D

Straw and prime probably have their vagina hats on watching the “hearings”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 07, 2019, 08:26:50 AM
Time to boogaloo yet ??? :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 07, 2019, 12:13:47 PM
Straw and prime probably have their vagina hats on watching the “hearings”

They'd give a whole new and utterly gross meaning to the term "fist pump".

Disgusting beings.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 07, 2019, 12:51:34 PM
On Monday, the Demo Dopes are going to be talking about impeachment off this jobs report.  Yeah, I’m sure they’ll win lots of people over.😂😂😂😂




Economy added booming 266,000 jobs in November and the unemployment rate fell to 3.5%

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/12/06/jobs-report-november-2019-xx-were-added-economists-expected-184-000/2624842001/

The gains, which eased recession fears, far outpaced the 184,000 expected even after accounting for the return of striking General Motors workers. And the strong job totals could help President Trump as the 2020 election draws closer.

The unemployment rate fell from 3.6% to 3.5%, matching a 50-year low, the Labor Department said Friday.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 07, 2019, 12:57:27 PM
That is one angry sista in that pic😡
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 07, 2019, 01:14:15 PM
Oh no! Not the dreaded, knitted pink p___y hat.  :)
Just shows she's a partisan witness. Like we needed any more proof. ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on December 07, 2019, 01:48:40 PM
COMMENTARY
By Frank Miele
December 06, 2019
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/12/06/speaker_pelosi_declares_a_coup_against_president_trump_141897.html

Speaker Pelosi Declares a Coup Against President Trump
Nancy Pelosi transparently announced a coup against President Trump on Thursday morning, Dec. 5, 2019, a date which will live in political infamy.

There was never any doubt that the House of Representatives will vote on a strictly partisan basis to impeach the president, but it could not have been foreseen that Pelosi would frame that approaching act as a naked power grab.

Yet that is exactly what she did.

In opening her announcement to draft impeachment charges by quoting the Declaration of Independence, she acknowledged more plainly than ever before that she is taking a revolutionary act, that she is overthrowing the established order and that, in modern terms, she has launched a coup.  

Consider the words she quoted:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another ..."

This is either wildly inappropriate or a fundamental clue to the deeper meaning of the necessity of impeachment, as seen by the Democrats. These are not the words of an orderly transfer of power via legal means. They are a confession of the underlying intent of what has long been called "The Resistance" — and that is revolution, rebellion, the overthrow of an executive power that does not conform to the expectations of an aggrieved ruling class.

What we must ask now is just who are "the people" on both sides of this conflict? Pelosi implied that "one people" are dissolving their political bonds with "another," so who exactly are Pelosi and her like-minded revolutionaries declaring independence from? President Trump, the 63 million people who voted for him, the Republican Party or the authors of the Constitution itself?

Pelosi dangled her quote from the Declaration of Independence in front of us, but did not complete it — for good reason. The rest of what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the rebellious Colonists is that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Pelosi does not lay out her "causes".

Jefferson and the co-signers of the Declaration bravely did just that, but as law professor Jonathan Turley so eloquently established in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Democrats in Congress have done nothing of the same. This has been an impeachment in search of a crime, and even now Pelosi cannot establish any basis for impeachment that is guaranteed to win even one Republican vote.

That tells you all you need to know about how far we are from 1776. This impeachment is not a unifying act like the joining together of 13 Colonies against a common enemy, but rather the tearing asunder of a union into separate camps much like the rebellion that Abraham Lincoln encountered in 1861.

If Democrats alone perceive a tyrannical disregard for the law by the president, and Republicans instead uniformly accuse the Democrats of acting from base political motivation, there is no happy outcome possible. There is no distant enemy on a foreign throne who can unite us in common battle. We are instead engaged in a great civil war testing whether the nation conceived in liberty by the signers of that immortal Declaration can endure much longer.

Pelosi rightly notes that our Founders were declaring their independence from “an oppressive monarch.” She implies that her mission to unseat President Trump is similarly noble, even implying that Trump is a “king president.”

But how exactly has Trump acted oppressively or dangerously? By delivering an economy that has resulted in historically low unemployment? By demanding the respect of all nations for the mission of the United States as a defender of freedom? By working to expose the corrupt underbelly of the Washington, D.C., establishment? No, wait, I’ve got it — by having a phone call with the president of Ukraine in which they both spoke frankly about their concerns of election interference and corruption.

There has been no abuse of power by President Trump. Instead, he has done what he promised to do when he was elected — to disrupt the crony politics that have corrupted our government for so long, to restore the people to their place as the rightful rulers, and to make America great again.

On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi and the Resistance leaders in the House of Representatives have endeavored to protect their turf and to restore predictability to their long-established self-enrichment racket. If Pelosi were being honest, she could have had Adam Schiff rewrite the Declaration of Independence with the same creative zeal that he rewrote Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelensky. This newly revised Democratic Declaration might have come out something like this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all politicians are created equal, but that some are more equal than others — that they are endowed by the Deep State with certain unalienable rights, that among these are power, wealth and the pursuit of reelection. That to secure these rights, dirty alliances are instituted among politicians, deriving their unjust powers from the oppression of the governed. That whenever any President becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the politicians to impeach him.”

Although that is a Schiff-inspired parody, it is sadly close to the truth. No matter how many flags and prayers Speaker Pelosi wraps herself in, she is still standing naked before the American people as the author of the greatest insurrection against constitutional authority in more than 150 years. As the whistleblower’s attorney noted prophetically on Twitter in January 2017, “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately.”

Fortunately, the revolution now moves on to the Senate, it WILL be televised, and it will fail miserably. Madame Speaker, delete your account.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 07, 2019, 01:59:31 PM
How'd you know?


A strong hunch
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 08, 2019, 01:49:31 PM
Folks, before anybody gets ahead of themselves... William Jefferson Clinton was impeached - by a consensus of both parties, with daily salacious details of the sexual encounters and the perjury for months....and he still won a 2nd term.

Does anybody think this was worth it?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 08, 2019, 04:07:09 PM
Folks, before anybody gets ahead of themselves... William Jefferson Clinton was impeached - by a consensus of both parties, with daily salacious details of the sexual encounters and the perjury for months....and he still won a 2nd term.

Does anybody think this was worth it?

Waste of money. But the dem controlled media will run 24/7 coverage of how Trump was supposed to be impeached during the 2020 election to hide the fact the Biden has lost his marbles completely.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 08, 2019, 06:28:23 PM
Personally, I think it is money well spent.  :)

Why ?? It didn’t achieve anything useful
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 08, 2019, 06:32:30 PM
Why ?? It didn’t achieve anything useful
Because he's a brainwashed liberal with no thought on his own.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 08, 2019, 06:45:11 PM
Because he's a brainwashed liberal with no thought on his own.

Yes Correct 🤣

Let’s see what wonderful answer he gives ........................
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Irongrip400 on December 08, 2019, 06:46:17 PM
Folks, before anybody gets ahead of themselves... William Jefferson Clinton was impeached - by a consensus of both parties, with daily salacious details of the sexual encounters and the perjury for months....and he still won a 2nd term.

Does anybody think this was worth it?


I thought he had already been elected to a second term by the time he was impeached?

Either way, Trumps not going anywhere until 2020 or 2024.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 08, 2019, 07:52:41 PM
Why ?? It didn’t achieve anything useful

It gets the Democrats’ hopes WAY up.

So when they fail AGAIN, the disappointment is even greater.

Trump 2020 !!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 09, 2019, 04:14:55 AM
Good News for Trump: Democrats Keep Changing Their Impeachment Accusations

https://www.yahoo.com/news/good-news-trump-democrats-keep-113000978.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 09, 2019, 04:21:13 AM
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 09, 2019, 04:50:19 AM
Its very simple - if you work and have a few dollars growing and investing you love trump.

If you are gay liberal cuck and desiring welfare and programs and cradle to grave govt - you vote democrats 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 09, 2019, 11:06:35 AM
Since I have several dollars invested and don't vote Trump, I'll  take "gay cuck" for the win.


Glad you said / Admitted That.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 09, 2019, 11:15:55 AM
Both of these are extremely narrow views. The world is not that black and white. You know this as well as anyone does.

Then you are a fng idiot.  Voting for a socialist dirtbag like Bernie who will wreck the economy - why ? Cause you dislike trump personally ?   Does that make any sense at all ?  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 09, 2019, 11:17:59 AM
It's one of the few replies most Trumpers seem to understand.
Go figure ;)


Wether it is or Not what you think they understand
It’s a Hell of a Thing To Admit To.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 09, 2019, 11:21:52 AM
Then you are a fng idiot.  Voting for a socialist dirtbag like Bernie who will wreck the economy - why ? Cause you dislike trump personally ?   Does that make any sense at all ?  

To Me - No it doesn’t at all.
Though from observing & listening to Many DummyCraps
It’s how they seem to decide - it’s all Feelings / like - dislike,
Very Little if Any Rational Thought Process.

No doubt Prime will answer for himself.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 09, 2019, 11:37:18 AM
Then you are a fng idiot.  Voting for a socialist dirtbag like Bernie who will wreck the economy - why ? Cause you dislike trump personally ?   Does that make any sense at all ?  



Men voting like women.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 09, 2019, 11:53:39 AM
I'm so glad you gave this some serious thought  ::)

As Did You Mastermind With You’re Admittance -  ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 09, 2019, 01:41:37 PM
Maybe so?
Regardless of who you ( or I) support, don't allow feelings about Trump make you bitter and angry.
Merry Christmas


Howard,

I lived in Chicago for many years.

Don’t try to sell me that liberal bullshit.

Merry Christmas Peedribbler !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 09, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
Frank Meile is entitled to his opinion which he's clearly expressed here. It is good to know what a commentator belief system is. Having looked into a little more about Mr. Miele, his bias becomes very clear.

Frank Miele (born c. 1948) is an American journalist and senior editor at Skeptic. He is best known for his advocacy of the concept of race, as well as defending the hereditarian hypotheses in its relation to race and intelligence.

Miele earned his B.A. in psychology in 1970 and an M.S. in 1972 from the University of Georgia where he studied under psychologist R. Travis Osborne. While an undergraduate, he became a regular contributor to Mankind Quarterly and collaborated with Donald A. Swan and A. James Gregor. He has also worked as a research assistant and consultant for Richard Lynn.

He made his first contribution to Skeptic in 1994. He has held interviews with notable figures from various disciplines including evolutionists Richard Dawkins and E. O. Wilson, anthropologists Donald Johanson, Lionel Tiger, and Robin Fox, and psychologist Robert Sternberg.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Miele

Skeptic magazine, is a quarterly science education and science advocacy magazine published internationally by The Skeptics Society, a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs. Founded by Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, the magazine was first published in the spring of 1992 and is published through Millennium Press. Shermer remains the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the magazine and the magazine’s Co-publisher and Art Director is Pat Linse. Other noteworthy members of its editorial board include, or have included, Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond, magician and escape artist turned educator James “The Amazing” Randi, actor, comedian, and Saturday Night Live alumna Julia Sweeney, professional mentalist Mark Edward, science writer Daniel Loxton, Lawrence M. Krauss and Christof Koch. Skeptic has an international circulation with over 50,000 subscriptions and is on newsstands in the U.S. and Canada as well as Europe, Australia, and other countries.

Every issue of the magazine opens with a description of The Skeptics Society and its mission statement, which is to explore subjects such as creationism, pyramid power, Bigfoot, pseudohistorical claims (as in the examples of Holocaust denial and extreme Afrocentrism), the use or misuse of theory and statistics, conspiracy theories, urban myths, witch-hunts, mass hysterias, genius and intelligence, and cultural influences on science, as well as controversies involving protosciences at the leading edge of established science, and even fads like cryonics and low-carb diets.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic_(U.S._magazine)



What is the cut-and-paste supposed to say about the substance of the article she posted?  Any comments on the substance?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 09, 2019, 02:07:38 PM
Source imparts the validity of substance.

Nonsense.  You can't impeach the data so you attack the source.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 09, 2019, 03:28:37 PM
It's amazing that every expert the Democrats call has bias, which is so easily blatant and easy to find.

https://twitter.com/CaliforniaPanda/status/1204179288670556166
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 09, 2019, 04:06:24 PM
Source imparts the validity of substance.

While it is true that an unreliable source typically cannot be trusted, you take it a step further by refusing to even read facts and opinions written by people who have a different political viewpoint than you.  Very small world you live in.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 09, 2019, 04:12:32 PM
If you don't question the validity of the data, you likely won't care about the legitimacy of the source.

You're going round in circles.  Have you any criticism or counterargument for what he wrote?  If so, make it plain.

Jack London wrote great stories...but he was racist, so, I can't recommend his books.  See what I did?  ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 09, 2019, 05:51:58 PM
How transparently biased can you get?  It's like they think all of the voters are stupid. 

Matt Gaetz Nails ‘Non-Partisan’ Democrat Impeachment Lawyer for ‘Pee Tape’ Tweet Against Trump
JOEL B. POLLAK9 Dec 2019

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) confronted Daniel Goldman, the Democrat counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, during Monday’s impeachment hearing over a tweet he posted last year attacking President Donald Trump over his so-called “pee tape.”

The tweet (screen-capped below) was a response to President Trump’s criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s impeachment inquiry. Trump had tweeted: “Why aren’t Mueller and the 17 Angry Democrats looking at the meetings concerning the Fake Dossier and all of the lying that went on in the FBI and DOJ? This is the most one sided Witch Hunt in the history of our country. Fortunately, the facts are all coming out, and fast!”

In response, Goldman tweeted: “What lying? Nothing in the dossier has proved to be false (including your pee tape). But we can agree that we all look forward to the facts coming out. Everything that has come out so far has shown you to be an out and out liar (eg Cohen tape, purpose of June 9 meeting, etc).”

(https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/12/Screen-Shot-2019-12-09-at-1.32.28-PM.png)
Daniel Goldman pee tweet (Daniel Goldman / Twitter)

Gaetz did not start with the tweet, however. He began by asking Goldman if he thought he was non-partisan. Goldman replied, under oath, in the affirmative: “I am not a partisan.”

Gaetz then asked Goldman’s Republican counterpart, Stephen Castor, if he had ever given political donations. He said no.

When he asked Goldman about his tens of thousands of dollars in political donations, Goldman dodged, attempting to say that he was performing a civic duty: “I think it’s very important to support candidates for office.”

Gaetz then displayed a posterboard with the offending tweet above, noting that the “pee tape” — the “dossier” — had in fact been disproven in several respects, and asked Goldman whether he regretted it.

Goldman declined to do so, but insisted that his inquiry had been thorough. “I would be happy to put my — this investigation up with any of the non-partisan investigations during my ten years as a federal prosecutor.”

“You either regret it, or you don’t. I guess you don’t want to answer the question,” Gaetz said.
 
Goldman has previously been an analyst on MSNBC and has worked with the left-wing Brennan Center.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/09/matt-gaetz-nails-non-partisan-democrat-lawyer-for-pee-tape-tweet-against-trump/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 09, 2019, 06:23:45 PM
Gotta keep that FISA report off the front page.  After this, they have to figure out how to schedule the vote by the full House so it drags out as long as possible. 

House Democrats expected to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 12/09/19

House Democrats are expected to unveil articles of impeachment against President Trump during a Tuesday morning press conference, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and other relevant committee chairs are expected to make the announcement, which is a sign that Democrats plan to stay on track with their fast-charging goal of wrapping up their impeachment inquiry into Trump's contacts with Ukraine ahead of the holiday season.

Multiple sources also told The Hill they believe the markup of the articles will either take place on Wednesday or Thursday, though they noted that the precise time has not been confirmed.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) told reporters Monday evening that Democrats are "going to work through the night" to determine the exact articles they expect to introduce, though they have heavily been indicting the rough outlines of what they believe are impeachable offenses.

Last week, Democrats heard from three constitutional scholars who said they believed Trump committed three impeachable offenses: Abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress.

But one source familiar said Democrats are expected to introduce only two articles of impeachment.

Still, Nadler was tight-lipped after leaving a meeting in Pelosi's office ahead of the gathering with members of his panel and declined to comment on how the articles of impeachment would take shape.

Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) too declined to say what the announcement would be, but he assumed a more somber tone that suggested serious next steps.

"I think that a lot of us believe that what happened with Ukraine especially is not something that we can just close our eyes to," Engel said as he left Pelosi's office. "This is not a happy day."
News that impeachment articles are imminent comes on the same day that Democrats and Republicans dueled over the propriety of Trump's contacts with Kyiv.

Democrats allege that Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to commit to opening two investigations that would benefit him politically, including into 2020 political rival former Vice President Joe Biden. They also say the president withheld the promise of a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in U.S. aid as leverage, all while Trump officials repeated the requests in meetings with Zelensky representatives.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473783-house-democrats-expected-to-unveil-articles-of-impeachment?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 09:03:18 AM
Two articles:  abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Absolutely ridiculous.  What happened to bribery? 

Read: Dems introduce articles of impeachment
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-dems-introduce-articles-of-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 10:16:44 AM
Group of Democrats floating censure of Trump instead of impeachment: report
BY MARTY JOHNSON - 12/10/19

A small group of House Democrats have been floating the idea of censuring President Trump instead of impeaching him, multiple lawmakers familiar with the situation told Politico.

The group consists of Democrats whose districts Trump won in 2016 and reportedly includes Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

"I think it’s certainly appropriate and might be a little more bipartisan, who knows,” Schrader told the publication Tuesday.

According to lawmakers, the idea of a censure is thought to have more bipartisan appeal than the impeachment does and would also allow Democrats in the Senate avoid a lengthy trial.

However, the chances are slim that the censure becomes something feasible. The group of House Democrats are reportedly very short of the 18 votes needed to block the impeachment vote on the House floor, and a majority of Democrats have already gotten behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the impeachment proceedings.

“I don’t think [moderate Democrats] have enough to block impeachment. 10 to 12 max. But they’re working to raise it,” a Republican lawmaker told Politico. “And [they’re] obviously reaching out to Republicans to see if they would join them.”

So far, only two Democrats – Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) – are expected to vote against the articles of impeachment that were formally introduced Tuesday morning.

No House Republican is expected to vote in favor of the articles, though, Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who left the Republican party this summer, said last week that he would most likely vote in favor of the articles depending on the language used.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/473890-group-of-democrats-floating-censure-of-trump-instead-of-impeachment-report?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 11:36:01 AM
It is fascinating and scary that someone third in line to be POTUS is literally not very bright and often incoherent.  Same of the person who is the likely Democrat nominee for POTUS.   

Pelosi Says Asking If She Hates Trump Is The Equivalent Of Saying, ‘Did You Starve Your Kids Before Coming Here Today?’
MARY MARGARET OLOHAN
SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER
December 10, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/10/nancy-pelosi-hate-trump-james-rosen/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 10, 2019, 11:38:57 AM
It is fascinating and scary that someone third in line to be POTUS is literally not very bright and often incoherent.  Same of the person who is the likely Democrat nominee for POTUS.   

Pelosi Says Asking If She Hates Trump Is The Equivalent Of Saying, ‘Did You Starve Your Kids Before Coming Here Today?’
MARY MARGARET OLOHAN
SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER
December 10, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/10/nancy-pelosi-hate-trump-james-rosen/

She is spiteful and senile.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 12:00:44 PM
She is spiteful and senile.

I agree.  We really need term limits. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 10, 2019, 12:04:45 PM
I agree.  We really need term limits.  

Unfortunately, Congress make rules and laws for themselves, while the President's terms are limited by the Constitution, so it is unlikely that members of Congress will vote to impose term limits on themselves.
I posted this a few days ago, just look at all the same faces we see today, more than 20 years ago:

"An impeachment of a President is an undoing of national election"...



What's more terrible than the expected hypocrisy is the fact that the same people from over 20 years ago are still there... Just look at those faces... Term limits for everyone.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 01:17:13 PM
Unfortunately, Congress make rules and laws for themselves, while the President's terms are limited by the Constitution, so it is unlikely that members of Congress will vote to impose term limits on themselves.
I posted this a few days ago, just look at all the same faces we see today, more than 20 years ago:


They are walking advertisements for term limits.  All of them.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 10, 2019, 03:18:57 PM
So funny listening to MSNBC and hearing them talking about what will happen if the impeachment goes to the Senate. Chuck Todd and a couple of hacks were going back-and-forth on whether Susan Collins will vote to impeach. They all know that it has no chance of succeeding yet none of them would even broach the subject.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 03:32:41 PM
So funny listening to MSNBC and hearing them talking about what will happen if the impeachment goes to the Senate. Chuck Todd and a couple of hacks were going back-and-forth on whether Susan Collins will vote to impeach. They all know that it has no chance of succeeding yet none of them would even broach the subject.

Chuck Todd is such a hack.  I really despise these journalists who mislead millions of people. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 10, 2019, 03:37:19 PM
Pelosi has a unique way of expressing herself. Like it or not, her communications have been pretty effective at achieving the Democratic party's wishes. It is a stretch to suggest she's senile. Her speaking style commands attention, which is generally what any speaker hopes to accomplish.

While I'm posting this Bill Barr is speaking on the television. He's someone else who has a unique speaking style although in an entirely different way.

I think anyone who listens to the questions and answers and is being objective can see that something is not quite right with her.  I don't know if its early onset dementia, the fact she isn't that intelligent, being partisan, or a combination of those things but she is not in any way, shape, or form articulate and intelligible when talking about matters of substance.  Same with Biden.  She's like his female twin. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 10, 2019, 11:32:20 PM
What I see is you trying and failing to be clever.

I am clever.  You, OTOH, un-cleverly used Miele’s’s history to dismiss his current writing.  That is intellectually lazy.

Just acknowledge that you have no dispute with Miele’s article and move on.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 11, 2019, 07:24:11 AM
Ok, fair enough, but that's YOUR personal opinion.

I think Trump is like Homer Simpson in a nice suit.

Trump is a rude, childish buffoon, that is an emabrrasment to the USA .


Spell Check yourself fool.   ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 11, 2019, 09:13:24 AM
Thank you for your opinion. I believe there are a lot of people who feel differently than you and anyone else you believe to be objective does about Biden and Pelosi's ability to communicate intelligently and articulately.

Yes I'm sure there are people who listen to Pelosi and Biden believe they are smart and articulate.  Those people, to the extent they are objectively reasonable people, are in denial. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TacoBell on December 11, 2019, 09:13:27 AM
Ok, fair enough, but that's YOUR personal opinion.

I think Trump is like Homer Simpson in a nice suit.

Trump is a rude, childish buffoon, that is an emabrrasment to the USA .


Irony
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 11, 2019, 09:13:41 AM
Ok, fair enough, but that's YOUR personal opinion.

I think Trump is like Homer Simpson in a nice suit.

Trump is a rude, childish buffoon, that is an emabrrasment to the USA .


 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 11, 2019, 09:17:52 AM
My sphincter tightens  when you give me the eyes  ;D

Whomever told you that you are funny lied to you.  You're not funny.  At all. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on December 11, 2019, 09:27:25 AM
Whomever told you that you are funny lied to you.  You're not funny.  At all. 
Nobody has.

He is that person who constantly makes attempts at humor and not one person even cracks a smile in response but he is too dense to see that.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 11, 2019, 09:51:05 AM
I think anyone who listens to the questions and answers and is being objective can see that something is not quite right with her.  I don't know if its early onset dementia, the fact she isn't that intelligent, being partisan, or a combination of those things but she is not in any way, shape, or form articulate and intelligible when talking about matters of substance.  Same with Biden.  She's like his female twin. 

WTF is wrong with the side of her nose, skin cancer?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 11, 2019, 10:53:46 AM
Nobody has.

He is that person who constantly makes attempts at humor and not one person even cracks a smile in response but he is too dense to see that.

He is a retard and a liar.

But he probably isn’t on here trolling for cock like that other senile liberal asswad
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 11, 2019, 11:01:27 AM
Ya know when I posted about you being a smart, decent guy ? I LIED  ;)

You lie about pretty much everything you post on this board. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
Or, those who think these two are senile suffer from wishful thinking.

Really - Have you not Watched Biden & Seen How Many errors he makes
Or are you going to deny that he does.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 11, 2019, 04:25:00 PM
I agree.  We really need term limits. 
X2
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 11, 2019, 05:25:50 PM
Or, those who think these two are senile suffer from wishful thinking.

I don't think they're "senile". 

They just ignorant, money-grubbing, tax & spend, waste of skin cuckolds.  By their own choosing.  They don't suffer from anything but we suffer because of them.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 11, 2019, 06:20:25 PM
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/10/19
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473849-two-house-articles-of-impeachment-fail-to-meet-constitutional-standards
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 11, 2019, 06:38:36 PM
As I've said repeatedly, he's not my pick for the Democratic nomination, but it is for reasons which have nothing to do with his ability to speak. I've read and heard that he makes guffas. Since I don't watch his campaign speaches, I can't argue with this. I have watch the debates and he did not impress me that much. He's also the front runner and he is doing better in the polls than Trump.



Come on Prime- Fuck what the polls say - You got Your Arses Kicked Good & Hard Last Time
Believing the Polls - How Far was Killary Ahead !!  🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 11, 2019, 06:42:56 PM
The Articles of Impeachment Are Very Weak
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 11, 2019
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/the-articles-of-impeachment-are-very-weak/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 11, 2019, 06:59:35 PM
Ok, fair enough, but that's YOUR personal opinion.

I think Trump is like Homer Simpson in a nice suit.

Trump is a rude, childish buffoon, that is an emabrrasment to the USA .



WTF you on about - and that limp wristed FFaggott Obuma wasn’t an Embarrassment.
He was a complete joke on the level of Macaroni (France) & Trudi (Canada)
I take it you look up to Cuckold Beta Men.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 11, 2019, 07:42:56 PM
So tell me this, do you have a better way of predicting who will win the 2020 Presidential election than following those 'inaccurate' polls?

Yes - Donald Will Win 👍🏻

In seriousness nope I don’t & I don’t take heed or quote such stupid polls.
After The Arse Kicking You got last Time I’d of thought you’d stay away from
Quoting such polls.
Have your beliefs/ Hopes / opinions & wait for The Results to Come in.
That’s what I Do.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 11, 2019, 08:20:11 PM
So tell me this, do you have a better way of predicting who will win the 2020 Presidential election than following those 'inaccurate' polls?



Yes, watch dem debates then look at the economy. If economy even just treads water in 2020 he wins. The Fed has said they intend no rate cuts in 2020 and we have the oldest bull market ever so it will be a race to that end.

Most media driven polls are oversampled to the left. There is no way around it after last election polls being so off.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 11, 2019, 08:58:41 PM
Interesting.

If the economy tanks while he's in office, will his loyal followers turn into a lynch mob?



Nope. His base isn't going anywhere.

What you and most leftists are missing here is that there are not enough people watching MSNBC and CNN to win an election. Your personal hate doesn't allow you to think that so-called independents and even traditional pre-woke democrats might not vote or "gasp" vote Trump for the sake of their pocketbooks. Why would they do this? The white working democrats have been alienated from the party.

The majority of the country is not that political, they are not posting about politics on the daily. They are however working and paying taxes and staring at their 401k balances - they also heard that Trump would have us going to hell in a handbasket and that hasn't happened. Quite the opposite...

The left is missing this big time and soon there will be another push for bad economic news to try and get there. There will be a major downturn in Trump's 2nd term IMO, but he gets re-elected. After 2-3 years of saying that it's Trump's fault and capitalism doesn't work we will have a true european style socialist revenge POTUS in 2024.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 11, 2019, 09:32:57 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw0uFATW8AEv9F7.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 12, 2019, 12:55:37 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw0uFATW8AEv9F7.jpg)


Ha ha ha
Fucking Hilarious
And just How Wrong & Stupid they Were.

98.1% Liberal Propaganda
And They Still Lost.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 12, 2019, 04:49:23 AM


Nope. His base isn't going anywhere.

What you and most leftists are missing here is that there are not enough people watching MSNBC and CNN to win an election. Your personal hate doesn't allow you to think that so-called independents and even traditional pre-woke democrats might not vote or "gasp" vote Trump for the sake of their pocketbooks. Why would they do this? The white working democrats have been alienated from the party.

The majority of the country is not that political, they are not posting about politics on the daily. They are however working and paying taxes and staring at their 401k balances - they also heard that Trump would have us going to hell in a handbasket and that hasn't happened. Quite the opposite...

The left is missing this big time and soon there will be another push for bad economic news to try and get there. There will be a major downturn in Trump's 2nd term IMO, but he gets re-elected. After 2-3 years of saying that it's Trump's fault and capitalism doesn't work we will have a true european style socialist revenge POTUS in 2024.



This is a point I've been stressing - it's simple and makes sense.

Most people aren't obsessive and ruled by every tweet. And, if exposed to a tweet, they either chuckle at the joke, or roll their eyes, then forget about it.  They aren't on twitter 24/7, they don't tie every aspect of life to Trump, they just exist the way they did before the election.

If they are making more $, they will look to keep that going.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 12, 2019, 05:08:24 AM
This is a point I've been stressing - it's simple and makes sense.

Most people aren't obsessive and ruled by every tweet. And, if exposed to a tweet, they either chuckle at the joke, or roll their eyes, then forget about it.  They aren't on twitter 24/7, they don't tie every aspect of life to Trump, they just exist the way they did before the election.

If they are making more $, they will look to keep that going.



Its amazing how easy and common sense this is to all but the committed and perennial die hard liberals like straw prime and howie. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 12, 2019, 05:36:09 AM

Ha ha ha
Fucking Hilarious
And just How Wrong & Stupid they Were.

98.1% Liberal Propaganda
And They Still Lost.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Pre-order your Newsweek magazine now. There's no way she can lose!

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pLMAAOSwc49Y6OWV/s-l1600.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 12, 2019, 06:37:33 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw0uFATW8AEv9F7.jpg)


Never gets old😂😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 12, 2019, 08:46:32 AM
Pre-order your Newsweek magazine now. There's no way she can lose!

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pLMAAOSwc49Y6OWV/s-l1600.jpg)

Is That a Reall Cover ?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 12, 2019, 12:39:08 PM
Pre-order your Newsweek magazine now. There's no way she can lose!

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/pLMAAOSwc49Y6OWV/s-l1600.jpg)


Where can I buy framed 1 for PrimeNancy !.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 12, 2019, 12:42:15 PM
Is That a Reall Cover ?



Yes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/madam-president-newsweek-copies-sale-online-buyer-beware-n690411
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 12, 2019, 05:48:30 PM
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Impeach President Trump
The president's Ukraine shakedown and stonewalling are too serious for the House to ignore: Our view
The Editorial Board USA TODAY
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/11/impeach-president-donald-trump-usa-today-editorial-board-editorials-debates/4391506002/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 12, 2019, 06:01:54 PM
Is this waste of taxpayers money over yet ???
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 12, 2019, 06:26:21 PM
Is this waste of taxpayers money over yet ???

McConnell was just on Hannity and said there was zero chance of the president being removed. As we’ve all been saying it’s just a dog and pony show.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 12, 2019, 06:36:48 PM

Where can I buy framed 1 for PrimeNancy !.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1e6azf.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 12, 2019, 06:40:50 PM
Yes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/madam-president-newsweek-copies-sale-online-buyer-beware-n690411


Great - The Fuckwit Believed her own Hype.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 12, 2019, 11:44:38 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/1e6azf.jpg)

I didn't realize she was actually signing the damn shit!

Haha now if THAT'S true then it gets taken up to a completely different notch.  8)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 13, 2019, 07:17:16 AM
(https://i.imgflip.com/1e6azf.jpg)


Hello Agnostic/ Straw / Prime / Howard & all DummyCrap supporters
You’re Noticeably Quiet about this.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2019, 08:33:25 AM
Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment against Trump, as GOP slams ‘kangaroo court’
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
House Judiciary Committee approves impeachment articles against President Trump along party lines

Two articles of impeachment against President Trump move to the full House for a vote.

The House Judiciary Committee on Friday voted to adopt two articles of impeachment against President Trump – capping a contentious three-day session that Republicans panned as a “kangaroo court” and teeing up a historic floor vote right before the holiday break.

The committee adopted both articles, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, on a party-line vote of 23-17. A final roll call in the full House is expected next week, which could trigger a Senate trial in the new year just as presidential primaries are set to get underway.

"Today is a solemn and sad day," Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told reporters after the vote. "For the third time in a little over a century and a half, the House Judiciary Committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president -- for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House will act expeditiously."

After the vote, the White House released a scathing statement, dismissing the inquiry as a "charade."

"This desperate charade of an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee has reached its shameful end," White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said. "The President looks forward to receiving in the Senate the fair treatment and due process which continues to be disgracefully denied to him by the House."

The committee vote was preceded by fireworks on Thursday night, when Nadler infuriated Republicans by wrapping up the hearing just before midnight and postponing the votes until the morning -- saying he wanted members on both sides of the aisle "to think about what has happened over these last two days, and to search their consciences before we cast their final votes."

That led to Republicans decrying what they called a “bush-league stunt” by Nadler to make sure the vote would be carried on daytime television.

"Mr. Chairman, there was no consulting with the ranking member on your schedule for tomorrow -- you just blew up schedules for everyone?" Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., said. "You chose not to consult the ranking member on a scheduling issue of this magnitude? This is the kangaroo court we're talking about.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapa, D-Wash., defended the Democrats' decision to postpone, saying it would be "disrespectful" to vote so late at night.

"We Democrats felt it was really important to take this vote to impeach the president of the United States in the daylight so everybody could see what was happening," she said on MSNBC. "It felt like a terrible, disrespectful thing to do to the American people to take that in the middle of the night."

But on Friday, the committee moved hastily through proceedings, taking less than 15 minutes to vote on the articles of impeachment.

Republicans have repeatedly and loudly objected to the impeachment inquiry, which focuses on Trump’s July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he pressed Zelensky to “look into” supposed Ukraine interference in the 2016 election and the conduct of former Vice President Joe Biden (a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate) in the country.

Democrats have alleged that the conversation was part of a quid pro quo in which Ukraine would conduct politically related investigations into Trump’s political rivals in exchange for then-withheld military aid and a White House meeting. The articles of impeachment being considered accuse Trump of “obstruction of Congress” and “abuse of power.”

Trump has strongly denied those claims and decried the probe as a “witch hunt.” Hours before the vote, Trump declared that poll numbers "have gone through the roof" against impeachment, especially in swing states.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Poll numbers have gone through the roof in favor of No Impeachment, especially with Swing States and Independents in Swing States. People have figured out that the Democrats have no case, it is a total Hoax. Even Pelosi admitted yesterday that she began this scam 2 1/2 years ago!

53.3K
2:01 AM - Dec 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
18.9K people are talking about this
"People have figured out that the Democrats have no case, it is a total Hoax," he declared.

The articles are likely to pass in the House, although questions have been raised about moderate Democrats in districts that voted for Trump in 2016 -- many of whom have not said whether they will vote for impeachment.

Should the articles pass the full House, the debate will shift to the Senate for an impeachment trial -- where the Republican-controlled chamber would be expected to easily acquit the president.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-judiciary-committee-vote-on-articles-of-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 13, 2019, 12:05:50 PM

Hello Agnostic/ Straw / Prime / Howard & all DummyCrap supporters
You’re Noticeably Quiet about this.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Gang of electric scooter drivers  ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 13, 2019, 01:20:00 PM
If McConnell does an up and down dismissal vote the first morning I would LOL.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 13, 2019, 01:45:05 PM
If McConnell does an up and down dismissal vote the first morning I would LOL.

Seems like it could go either way at this point. Some believe just dismissing it and moving on would be the best move, others want to put on the show and put everybody on the stand. I’m leaning towards the latter.

Why give everybody a pass from testifying?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 13, 2019, 02:04:13 PM
Seems like it could go either way at this point. Some believe just dismissing it and moving on would be the best move, others want to put on the show and put everybody on the stand. I’m leaning towards the latter.

Why give everybody a pass from testifying?

I would love to see Schiff / Hunter Biden questioned.

Think about it - in an inquiry they controlled they failed to prove anything, and got owned on so many occasions.

They'd get obliterated in the Senate.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 13, 2019, 02:41:04 PM
When this Impeachment farce hits the Senate, Democrats will look like absolute fools and Hunter Biden, Nadler, Schiff, and Pelosi should end up in prison.

But....I also hope that scumbag traitor John McCain gets exposed for the lying piece of shit that he was.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2019, 02:47:43 PM
I would love to see Schiff / Hunter Biden questioned.

Think about it - in an inquiry they controlled they failed to prove anything, and got owned on so many occasions.

They'd get obliterated in the Senate.

I think the only witnesses they should call are LTC "Don't Call Me Mr. Vindman, Eric Ciaramella, and Sondland.  Introduce the transcript.  Have a vote.  I'd like to see Schiff too, but they don't really need him if they call Ciaramella IMO. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 13, 2019, 03:14:56 PM
I think the only witnesses they should call are LTC "Don't Call Me Mr. Vindman, Eric Ciaramella, and Sondland.  Introduce the transcript.  Have a vote.  I'd like to see Schiff too, but they don't really need him if they call Ciaramella IMO.  

Seems perfectly legitimate to call Biden. He was the pointman for corruption in the Ukraine and then his crackhead son gets a job at a corrupt natural gas company for an absurd salary.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 14, 2019, 10:07:15 AM
McConnell was just on Hannity and said there was zero chance of the president being removed. As we’ve all been saying it’s just a dog and pony show.


It's an "attempted" smear campaign before the upcoming election.

And, a futile attempt at that.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: James on December 14, 2019, 10:24:25 AM
Bingo! Sen Josh Hawley absolutely NAILS IT Questioning Horowitz! Must watch video!



Well, I missed this exchange during the hearings ...Hawley destroys the DNC and FBI>> a must see!



[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 14, 2019, 10:33:05 AM
Bingo! Sen Josh Hawley absolutely NAILS IT Questioning Horowitz! Must watch video!



Well, I missed this exchange during the hearings ...Hawley destroys the DNC and FBI>> a must see!



[ Invalid YouTube link ]


This was outstanding. What continually jumps out at me is how much more articulate and intelligent the Republican senators and Congress people are than the Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 14, 2019, 01:53:58 PM
You and many others are barking up the wrong tree. The impeachment is about what Trump did. It is not an inquiry into what the Bidens may or may not have done.


The reason Trump withheld aid was because of corruption. I know Democrats want to act like Biden is sacrosanct but he isn’t. He was the pointman to the Ukraine.


Once it goes to the Senate, no more shifty and no more Nadler. The days of having your cake and eating it too are over.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 14, 2019, 03:05:24 PM
Here comes the first possible defection.


(https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/76w8NGO1JlkpF0SScV_aRKw4BgU=/1400x932/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/W4Z75WBJ75GZPEIWI6S56XKFN4.jpg)

New Jersey Democrat outspoken against Trump impeachment expected to switch parties, source says


(CNN)A freshman Democrat, who strongly opposes House Democrats' impeachment of President Donald Trump, is expected to switch to the Republican Party and is telling colleagues his intentions, according to a senior Democratic aide.

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew was one of just two Democrats who in October voted against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, and announced earlier this month that he would vote against all articles of impeachment on the House floor. The full House of Representatives is expected to vote next week on two House Judiciary Committee-approved articles of impeachment, which will set up a trial in the Senate.

The move, while a symbolic boost for Trump, likely won't change the outcome of the House vote that would see Trump as only the third president in American history to be impeached. The expected switch comes as Van Drew struggles in New Jersey politics. Internal polling has shown he was losing major support from Democrats in the district, Democratic sources told CNN on Saturday.

The Washington Post, citing officials, first reported Saturday that Van Drew is expected to join the Republican Party "in the coming days" after meeting with Trump on Friday at the White House. The New York Times reported Saturday that the congressman could make an announcement as soon as next week.

CNN has reached out to Van Drew's office and the Trump administration for comment. Van Drew, his chief of staff and communications director did not respond to the Post's requests for comment Saturday.

According to the Post, Van Drew denied on Tuesday that he was switching parties.

"I'm not changing anything -- just doing my job. I'm still a Democrat, right here," he told the Post in a brief interview.
Van Drew said last week that he plans to vote against all articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before."

After voting against the formal inquiry in October, the New Jersey congressman said in a statement that "without bipartisan support I believe this inquiry will further divide the country tearing it apart at the seams and will ultimately fail in the Senate."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/14/politics/jeff-van-drew-democrat-switch-parties-republican-trump-impeachment/index.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 14, 2019, 03:34:58 PM
If Ukrainian corruption was Trump's motivation, why withhold aid to Ukraine in July 2019 and not when the U.S. signed the $1 billion loan guarantee agreement in June 2016.  Or on December 22, 2017  when the United States agreed to supply Ukraine with more lethal weapons, including Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Instead of going rogue, why did Trump not follow  the usual practices of investigating foreign corruption? CIA's primary mission is to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security.

So, an ELECTED president is going rogue by not handing over a foreign policy authority to UNELECTED  bureaucrats.

Like everything else, you’ve got it ass backwards.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on December 14, 2019, 05:11:56 PM
(https://assets.change.org/photos/6/bu/vo/eKbUVogtrAavVUg-800x450-noPad.jpg?1548013769)





https://www.change.org/p/donald-j-trump-impeach-pelosi-and-schumer/sign


wooooshhh
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 14, 2019, 06:25:30 PM
Is there some type of certification required, that proves you’re a complete retard, before you can vote Democrat?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 14, 2019, 06:39:22 PM
Is there some type of certification required, that proves you’re a complete retard, before you can vote Democrat?


MSNBC actually tried to defend Pelosi by saying that she later said she was talking about the Mueller Report. So, it wasn’t really going on for 2.5 years because they were using a different scam other than the Ukraine one to get Trump.


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Nancy Pelosi just got duped in an interview to admitting that she has been working on impeaching me for “two and a half years.” In other words, she lied. This was the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats plan all along, long before the Ukraine phone call. Impeachment Hoax!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on December 14, 2019, 11:06:54 PM


            IMPEACHMENT = IMPLOSION

                              ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 14, 2019, 11:57:59 PM
Here comes the first possible defection.


(https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/76w8NGO1JlkpF0SScV_aRKw4BgU=/1400x932/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/W4Z75WBJ75GZPEIWI6S56XKFN4.jpg)

New Jersey Democrat outspoken against Trump impeachment expected to switch parties, source says


(CNN)A freshman Democrat, who strongly opposes House Democrats' impeachment of President Donald Trump, is expected to switch to the Republican Party and is telling colleagues his intentions, according to a senior Democratic aide.

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew was one of just two Democrats who in October voted against formalizing the impeachment inquiry, and announced earlier this month that he would vote against all articles of impeachment on the House floor. The full House of Representatives is expected to vote next week on two House Judiciary Committee-approved articles of impeachment, which will set up a trial in the Senate.

The move, while a symbolic boost for Trump, likely won't change the outcome of the House vote that would see Trump as only the third president in American history to be impeached. The expected switch comes as Van Drew struggles in New Jersey politics. Internal polling has shown he was losing major support from Democrats in the district, Democratic sources told CNN on Saturday.

The Washington Post, citing officials, first reported Saturday that Van Drew is expected to join the Republican Party "in the coming days" after meeting with Trump on Friday at the White House. The New York Times reported Saturday that the congressman could make an announcement as soon as next week.

CNN has reached out to Van Drew's office and the Trump administration for comment. Van Drew, his chief of staff and communications director did not respond to the Post's requests for comment Saturday.

According to the Post, Van Drew denied on Tuesday that he was switching parties.

"I'm not changing anything -- just doing my job. I'm still a Democrat, right here," he told the Post in a brief interview.
Van Drew said last week that he plans to vote against all articles of impeachment "unless there's something that I haven't seen, haven't heard before."

After voting against the formal inquiry in October, the New Jersey congressman said in a statement that "without bipartisan support I believe this inquiry will further divide the country tearing it apart at the seams and will ultimately fail in the Senate."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/14/politics/jeff-van-drew-democrat-switch-parties-republican-trump-impeachment/index.html





CONFIRMED



https://news.yahoo.com/democratic-rep-jeff-van-drew-220448426.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 15, 2019, 07:37:08 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-defends-fbis-fisa-process-after-scathing-ig-report?fbclid=IwAR0uVZJu_Wh3aq2pmeQnguJY0fKU7IhAFuSOwbvv06eY-GDhkyGpwaTBmnA



 ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 15, 2019, 12:01:52 PM
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/11/steve-cohen-trump-impeachment-mlk/



Lmfao.   These idiots are sick
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 16, 2019, 05:46:03 AM
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/12/14/collin-peterson-says-likely-vote-against-impeachment?fbclid=IwAR0OFnc-STatSPJz0meBZfHrht6XfxgRd4z8GkXYk2BSQ0BZlHF8VJYhWMI

Another defection. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 16, 2019, 05:53:39 AM
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/12/14/collin-peterson-says-likely-vote-against-impeachment?fbclid=IwAR0OFnc-STatSPJz0meBZfHrht6XfxgRd4z8GkXYk2BSQ0BZlHF8VJYhWMI

Another defection. 

The only way you can vote for impeachment AFTER the inquiry was if you made up your mind beforehand, as it proved zero.

That's the easiest way to call these people out.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 16, 2019, 08:53:36 AM
The only way you can vote for impeachment AFTER the inquiry was if you made up your mind beforehand, as it proved zero.

That's the easiest way to call these people out.


There are some liberals calling for not handing the articles over to the Senate as if they didn’t know it was doomed to failure from the start.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 16, 2019, 09:32:33 AM

There are some liberals calling for not handing the articles over to the Senate as if they didn’t know it was doomed to failure from the start.

There are definitely democrats who are giving pause.

Likely won't be enough to change the outcome.

Those on the fence in red districts know they'll get primaried by the democrats if they vote against, and likely lose if they vote for.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 16, 2019, 09:49:15 AM
There are definitely democrats who are giving pause.

Likely won't be enough to change the outcome.

Those on the fence in red districts know they'll get primaried by the democrats if they vote against, and likely lose if they vote for.

431 current members of the house, so 216 need to vote yes to move things to the Senate. 
If Republicans vote party line, 18 of the 233 Democrats would have to vote no to stop it.  Exciting times!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 16, 2019, 09:50:29 AM
There are definitely democrats who are giving pause.

Likely won't be enough to change the outcome.

Those on the fence in red districts know they'll get primaried by the democrats if they vote against, and likely lose if they vote for.

Talk about a short-sighted approach.  I read that Republicans need a net gain of 19 seats to take back the House.  There are 31 Democrats in Trump districts and something like 8 million or more Republican voters stayed home during the 2018 midterms.  With Trump on the ballot, and this ridiculous partisan impeachment, they are setting themselves up for losing the House.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 16, 2019, 10:07:14 AM
Talk about a short-sighted approach.  I read that Republicans need a net gain of 19 seats to take back the House.  There are 31 Democrats in Trump districts and something like 8 million or more Republican voters stayed home during the 2018 midterms.  With Trump on the ballot, and this ridiculous partisan impeachment, they are setting themselves up for losing the House.  

100% agree.

They pushed themselves into a corner.

I don't want 100% of one party in control - I want strength on both sides.

But the left has gone batshit.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 16, 2019, 10:37:31 AM
100% agree.

They pushed themselves into a corner.

I don't want 100% of one party in control - I want strength on both sides.

But the left has gone batshit.

Yeah I typically like divided government, but agree that the left is nuts.  We are going to see continued partisan investigations if Trump wins and the Democrats keep the House. 

Plus there is no way Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi et al. should be running anything given how blatantly dishonest they have been with the public.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 16, 2019, 01:41:40 PM
I have been too lazy to look this up. So, thanks for the numbers. What's is also exciting and confusing is what happens if the House votes to impeach and it goes to trial in the Senate. It may seem like a slam dunk for Trump to be acquitted but the process in very complicated.

If your interested in reading the Senate rules on impeachment, check out this link: https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation




The only thing that will make it complicated is that the Senate will be run according to the rules rather than whatever that was in the House. Same conclusion either way.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 16, 2019, 05:34:52 PM
Crying Chuckie Schumer leading the Democrats in their impeachment farce.

History is going to annihilate Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, and Nadler.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 16, 2019, 06:55:06 PM
Report: Democrats Have the Votes to Impeach President Trump
MATTHEW BOYLE  16 Dec 2019
House Democrats now have the votes to impeach President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported late Monday.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/16/report-democrats-have-the-votes-to-impeach-president-trump/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 16, 2019, 08:23:01 PM
These DemocRats are traitors to our Nation. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 16, 2019, 09:33:51 PM
Haven't read the house rules. Maybe I should. Have you? If not, how do you know whether they followed them or not? If you're interested in the 2019 House Rules for impeachment, check these out. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf and https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/


Come on now it was well-reported that past impeachment processes allowed equal time for questioning and calling witnesses among other things. Why is Schumer now calling for those same things? Shouldn't it bo okay for the Senate to have the same rules as the House just had? I mean since the majority can change any process they like seems fine to me.  ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 17, 2019, 04:23:00 AM
Dem Rep Elissa Slotkin had a town hall where she was ripped by constituents for supporting impeachment.

When she was asked what was wrong with investigating corruption, she ignored that question.

But she offered this:

Quote
Moments later Slotkin said that she did not initially support impeachment because she expected the 2020 election to “take care” of Trump, which some online said implied that she was suggesting that she wanted to impeach Trump to prevent him from winning in 2020.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 17, 2019, 06:53:29 AM
Hey, I just posted links to the House rules for impeachment. Where did I suggest I either agreed or disagree with them. You are basically arguing with yourself. Play with yourself instead....it's definitely more fun.  ;D



I have no idea what this creepy post means.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 17, 2019, 07:41:28 AM
https://saraacarter.com/rudy-giuliani-yovanovitch-was-part-of-cover-up-she-had-to-be-ousted/



"Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.

She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that’s not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion.”




Obama ambassador was covering for Biden/s and ultimately election interference by the dems in Ukraine. So, if you want to know why Rudy is over there - here ya go.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 17, 2019, 07:59:21 AM


I have no idea what this creepy post means.

Prime = Biden


Regarding the subject at hand, this summarizes it quite well:


Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo) “They (the Dems) don’t have anything. This whole thing is a joke, and it’s time to get the President exonerated. The House has no evidence of any impeachable offense. There’s nothing there, and they didn’t even charge a crime. They’ve had their chance, they’ve had their kangaroo court, they’ve had their circus for weeks and months. There just isn’t anything there and there’s no way I’m voting for Impeachment for somebody who hasn’t committed any impeachable offenses.” - Ingraham Angle
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 17, 2019, 08:18:53 AM
Accusation made.

No direct evidence produced

Ukranian leader says he was not pressured, later we find they didn't even know.

Aid delivered.

Impeach.

Yup, makes sense.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 17, 2019, 10:13:40 AM
Accusation made.

No direct evidence produced

Ukranian leader says he was not pressured, later we find they didn't even know.

Aid delivered.

Impeach.

Yup, makes sense.


TDS seems to create a distortion of reality. Liberal Democrats view the evidence as what they wish it would be as opposed to what it actually is.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 17, 2019, 11:25:42 AM
Accusation made.

No direct evidence produced

Ukranian leader says he was not pressured, later we find they didn't even know.

Aid delivered.

Impeach.

Yup, makes sense.

They started with “impeach” pretty much from day 1. Remember, for example, Tlaib’s outbursts and Al Green’s repeated attempts to impeach.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 17, 2019, 02:16:10 PM
The day before the House vote on Trump's impeachment, he pens a 6 page angry letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accusing her and the House of 'obstruction of justice' and 'abuse of power'. Sound familiar? Really....when are the people we elect to represent us going to start acting like grownups? This comes off like two kids on the playground in a verbal argument. Nancy says, "You obstructed justice and abused your power." Trump responds, "No you obstructed justice and abused your power." "You did!" "No you did!" and on and on.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1207055742840246272

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-sends-pelosi-letter-railing-impeachment-illegal-partisan/story?id=67784052&cid=social_twitter_abcn

Except he's right.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 17, 2019, 02:18:14 PM
Except he's right.

They limited witnesses, Schiff started it off with an embarrassing mafia story lie, and had "experts" testify who were clearly partisan.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 17, 2019, 02:20:36 PM
They limited witnesses, Schiff started it off with an embarrassing mafia story lie, and had "experts" testify who were clearly partisan.

Correct, although it started with a "whistleblower" report by Eric Ciaramella, after his coordination with Schiff's office, that contained numerous false statements (e.g., the POTUS pressured the Ukrainian president to do an investigation 7 or 8 times, etc.). 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 17, 2019, 02:27:50 PM
He's right.....no, she's right....and on and on. Maybe their both right or maybe nobody is right. Guess we will just have to wait and see. What I see is a Senate impeachment trial coming up soon. What remains to be seen is whether it will be a kangaroo court event.

The House already was.  Complete shit show.

The Senate really should not legitimize it.

Unless they feel they can truly expose the left and exonerate.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 17, 2019, 02:30:44 PM
He's right.....no, she's right....and on and on. Maybe their both right or maybe nobody is right. Guess we will just have to wait and see. What I see is a Senate impeachment trial coming up soon. What remains to be seen is whether it will be a kangaroo court event.

We've already seen a Kangaroo Court in the House.  

It's not that difficult to figure who is right in this instance.  We have the transcript.  We have the president of Ukraine and the Ukraine ambassador both saying nothing happened.  And nothing in fact happened because the aid was released without an investigation.  This is an incredibly stupid argument by House Democrats.  

And it's not difficult to figure out this is politically motivated.  Just look at the votes.  First time in American history we have a purely partisan impeachment.  So yeah, the POTUS is right.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 17, 2019, 02:49:34 PM
We've already seen a Kangaroo Court in the House.  

It's not that difficult to figure who is right in this instance.  We have the transcript.  We have the president of Ukraine and the Ukraine ambassador both saying nothing happened.  And nothing in fact happened because the aid was released without an investigation.  This is an incredibly stupid argument by House Democrats.  

And it's not difficult to figure out this is politically motivated.  Just look at the votes.  First time in American history we have a purely partisan impeachment.  So yeah, the POTUS is right.  

Well put, and hard to refute.

The Democrats keep going back to the phone call and ignore all the context you provided.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 17, 2019, 03:33:30 PM
Lieutenant Colonel Vidman is a lying Trump-deranged Democrat weirdo.

He’s 100% a “don’t ask, don’t tell” liberal homosexual
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 17, 2019, 03:53:23 PM
Lieutenant Colonel Vidman is a lying Trump-deranged Democrat weirdo.

He’s 100% a “don’t ask, don’t tell” liberal homosexual


Sometimes, you don't ask, but you can still tell...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 17, 2019, 04:08:21 PM

Sometimes, you don't ask, but you can still tell...

I will take your word for it.....

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 17, 2019, 04:13:19 PM
I will take your word for it.....

 ;D


 :-X ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 17, 2019, 04:19:17 PM
Since when did “but the media said Hillary would win” and “Trump’s success makes us look like complete idiots” become articles for impeachment?

Being a Libidiot must be like being a gay, broke, fat, dumb, black man.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 17, 2019, 04:25:30 PM
Since when did “but the media said Hillary would win” and “Trump’s success makes us look like complete idiots” become articles for impeachment?

Being a Libidiot must be like being a gay, broke, fat, dumb, black man.


I stopped watching the televised circus.

Did they ever finally establish what Trump did that is "impeachable?"
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 17, 2019, 04:27:11 PM

I stopped watching the televised circus.

Did they ever finally establish what Trump did that is "impeachable?"

Yes.

He won the 2016 election and will win the 2020 election.

President Donald Trump is Barry Sotero’s greatest gift to America
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 17, 2019, 04:30:12 PM
Yes.

He won the 2016 election and will win the 2020 election.

President Donald Trump is Barry Sotero’s greatest gift to America


Then, we must thank Barry Hussein.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 17, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
I know I already posted this - maybe even in this thread, but... piss on it... here it is again:


Even if/when the House decides to impeach Trump, the Senate will never go for it. That's a given.
The most "damage" the lib-fucks can hope for is a smear campaign before the next election.

There are sources (if you believe them) claiming Trump's support base is growing & strengthening because of this outlandish bullshit.
I hope that's true.

I've never "voted by Party" in my life, but I will very likely avoid voting for ANY DEMONCRAT in future elections.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 17, 2019, 06:02:54 PM

I stopped watching the televised circus.

Did they ever finally establish what Trump did that is "impeachable?"

Yes, he had the nerve to ask about a democratic corruption scheme in the Ukraine involving Joe Biden and his crackhead son.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 17, 2019, 06:40:02 PM

Then, we must thank Barry Hussein.

Barry Obozo’s legacy is President Donald Trump !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 18, 2019, 01:38:38 AM
Most of us are work paying for these slobs and leeches.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 18, 2019, 08:15:05 AM
House is having another 6 hour debate before the  vote on the two articles of impeachment tomorrow 12/18/2019. They plan to allow each side to have the same amount of time at the mike. Should be boring. How many times does the House plan rehash this before actually voting. Will Trump pull another dumb stunt, like the letter he sent to Pelosi today? Maybe that's what she's counting on.

There were nationwide demonstrations today demanding Trump be impeached. As best as I can tell, there were no counter demonstrations. 

There are no counter demonstrations, because those are the normal people who go about their day.

It's the vocal left who do this shit, who create human chains to prevent students from seeing conservatives speak, and block traffic about climate change.

Normal, rational people, like the ones who see this for what it is, do not.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 18, 2019, 08:46:57 AM
There are no counter demonstrations, because those are the normal people who go about their day.

It's the vocal left who do this shit, who create human chains to prevent students from seeing conservatives speak, and block traffic about climate change.

Normal, rational people, like the ones who see this for what it is, do not.

And they have jobs, and their own home/apartment too.  So no time for that shiitte.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 18, 2019, 08:52:21 AM
There are no counter demonstrations, because those are the normal people who go about their day.

It's the vocal left who do this shit, who create human chains to prevent students from seeing conservatives speak, and block traffic about climate change.

Normal, rational people, like the ones who see this for what it is, do not.

Alyssa Milano has free time because Harvey Weinstein’s dick is under house arrest.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 18, 2019, 10:43:19 AM
 :D

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788986542/after-being-impeached-himself-congressman-looks-to-impeach-trump?fbclid=IwAR0sskh4F8In5XHZ9mA4SjXBRCqZmyt43zqrJm0u0p9UvxdRU6B1FHSBFQs

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Kahn.N.Singh on December 18, 2019, 12:28:12 PM
From CNN* -- LOL:

[A] new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning**…shows two things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up a formal impeachment inquiry in October regarding Trump's conduct with Zelensky:

1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.


* https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html
** https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Powerlift66 on December 18, 2019, 01:19:47 PM
If impeachment happens, its just another step in the wrong direction.
He's trying to hold off the inevitable (looney left allowing killers, muzzies, rapists, trannies, mentally impaired kids, etc) to run free and reign.
(DUH, LETS ALL DO WHAT THIS ASPEGER KIDS TELL US TO, DUHHHHH).

Talking to a few old-timers recently (in their 90's, so they are out of here) said they are glad to be moving on from this ever changing (for the worse) shit-show.

People no longer have a mind, they do what a device tells them to.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2019, 05:44:46 PM
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said this last year: “Impeachment is to me divisive,” she said. “If the facts are there, the facts are there; then this would have to be bipartisan to go forward. But if it is viewed as partisan, it will divide the country. And I just don’t think that is what we should do.”

And House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said this in 1998: "There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then. “Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

The House has just voted to impeach President Trump along a party line vote. The first time in American history that impeachment was passed without the allegation of an actual crime. All “yay” votes were Democrats, including Pelosi and Nadler. Zero Republican “yay” votes. The first partisan impeachment in American history. Do you see why I call politicians liars?

This sad episode in our history will thankfully die a quick death in the Senate. But to those partisans who voted for this absurdity, all I have to say is this: That’s it! Dishonor! Dishonor on your whole family! Make a note of this: dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow . . . .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 18, 2019, 05:45:40 PM
From CNN* -- LOL:

[A] new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning**…shows two things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up a formal impeachment inquiry in October regarding Trump's conduct with Zelensky:

1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.


* https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html
** https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx

CNN shedding tears over this.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 18, 2019, 05:47:36 PM
CNN shedding tears over this.

This is why they’re rushing this thing through. They just wanna get this over with as they realize people are tired of hearing about it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 18, 2019, 05:51:27 PM
It’s a sad day for democracy in America.

It was an embarrassing day for the Constitution of the country.

It’s time to wage open war on liberalism.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 18, 2019, 05:56:56 PM

It’s time to wage open war on liberalism.


Boogaloo!! :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2019, 07:28:10 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/80381561_10218233388041072_5627650602331799552_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=4Ou-yQrERqIAQn9JBAmsvwiG7W_T8d0rtNmzPFQnNdca73eDw3lyl4fRA&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=62180b39b2a04c8f36581363a0ef4fe9&oe=5E793873)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 18, 2019, 07:32:02 PM
All the Democrats really accomplished was to make impeachment meaningless. It’s essentially the losing team saying that the winner should be disqualified and then the referee, the Senate, saying fuck off.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79330960_477229512917458_1034115257431228416_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=FjSsNlLZD4cAQkv0cYg1wfDtbUVhL3Xrax_vnr9-CaTqUnKBvc6kMcKPA&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=54f1b2680af28319b5acafdc75c6a628&oe=5E791EFA)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 18, 2019, 07:58:51 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79330960_477229512917458_1034115257431228416_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=FjSsNlLZD4cAQkv0cYg1wfDtbUVhL3Xrax_vnr9-CaTqUnKBvc6kMcKPA&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=54f1b2680af28319b5acafdc75c6a628&oe=5E791EFA)

Superb, sir!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2019, 08:06:29 PM
Interesting . . .

Pollak: Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment
JOEL B. POLLAK  18 Dec 2019

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.

That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

That is all.

The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

Case closed.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/18/pollak-senate-can-acquit-even-if-house-doesnt-transmit-articles-of-impeachment-constitution/?fbclid=IwAR0ZTorRGQGaQ6JGT8IJP8TqI_c8PeyXblNZyTVSpo8sz3X6dXxnSl5YFDQ
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2019, 08:13:02 PM
Good discussion between Levin and Dershowitz.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 18, 2019, 08:39:49 PM
Galvanized his base and cemented him as the anti-establishment candidate to independents even after running the country for 3 years. Dems are screwed in 2020.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 18, 2019, 10:20:01 PM
I suspect that Pelosi wants to withhold the articles until January, guaranteeing that the impeachment matter
is headline news next year.  McConnell’s brusque dismissal would render her hard-earned “victory” into
a quick session of dry-humping. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 19, 2019, 02:00:50 AM
Overreach. The are likely millions of other people like me who don't fit your definition. I'm clearly liberal by Getbig standards. I was employed all of my teenage and adult life until I retired at 65 years of age. I married, had children and owned my first home when I was in my twenties, and have not rented or "lived in my mom's basement" since (my mom never had a house with a basement). Okay, you got me on the out demonstrating part because that has never been my thing. This doesn't mean I have fought for what I believe in.

LOL...WTF?  You really thought my post was about you?  Have you recently created human chains to prevent students from seeing conservatives speak?  Have you recently blocked traffic to protest climate change?

Oh yeah, you think everything is about you, you self centered homosexual drunk.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 19, 2019, 06:01:22 AM
Pelosi throws impeachment into confusion

"Minutes after the House impeached President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw the process into confusion by refusing to say when or whether she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial."

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 19, 2019, 06:58:33 AM
Pelosi throws impeachment into confusion

"Minutes after the House impeached President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw the process into confusion by refusing to say when or whether she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial."





Games. Taxpayers are taking note of this waste.

Unfortunately soon there will be less potential voters paying taxes than those that aren't and that will be the point of socialism taking over. It's at 44.4% now.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2019, 07:01:24 AM
Don't they need a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove him from office?

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 19, 2019, 07:38:15 AM
Don't they need a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove him from office?



Correct.  Will never happen.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 19, 2019, 07:39:35 AM
Trump campaign raises $5 million on day of impeachment
By Emily JacobsDecember 19, 2019

President Trump’s reelection campaign raked in $5 million in donations Wednesday — the same day the House of Representatives voted to impeach him, his campaign manager said.

“Incredible fundraising numbers!” the manager, Brad Parscale, tweeted.

“[Trump] has raised over [$5 million] (still growing) today as Americans use their wallet to show support against Pelosi’s impeachment hoax!” he added.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) also brought in record fundraising numbers, raising $20.6 million in the month of November, according to Federal Election Commission data obtained by Fox News.

Party officials told the network that it has the most cash on hand that it’s had since 2012.

The House voted on Wednesday almost entirely along party lines to impeach President Trump following a day of heated debate.

The vote made him just the third president in US history to be impeached.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/trump-campaign-raises-5-million-on-day-of-impeachment/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on December 19, 2019, 07:39:56 AM
Correct.  Will never happen.

Yep, this is just a shit show.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 19, 2019, 07:45:38 AM
Yep, this is just a shit show.  

For the "obstruction" charge, this is within Trumps right to do.

However, the process calls for it to be taken to the courts to decide.

The Democrats didn't do that, claiming imperative timing.

Now that they have their vote, they might not send to the Senate?

What happened to the urgent timing?

History will show this President was impeached for nothing, in a partisan vote, exactly what impeachment was not supposed to be.

I went into this inquiry fully prepared for the possibility that direct evidence would show, without a doubt, that he tried to meddle in the 2020 election.

But it wasn't even close to being proven.  In fact, it showed the Democrats actually DID have a hand in meddling with 2016 and, as a side effect, the 2018 mid terms.

Hatred of this President legit has caused people to lose their minds.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 19, 2019, 07:45:53 AM
Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'

The only Democrat or Republican to vote "present" to impeach President Donald Trump in the House on Tuesday on both articles of impeachment was Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

In a statement after her vote, Gabbard, who is also running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, released a statement, claiming that after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard said.

Earlier Wednesday, she introduced a resolution to instead censure Trump, which expresses strong disapproval of conduct, whereas impeachment could result in removal from office.

Gabbard said she worked for the best interests of the country whether in the military or in Congress.

'He gave us no choice': Nancy Pelosi's glare and more top impeachment moments from a historic day

Hawaiian State Sen. Kai Kahele, who is running mostly uncontested to replace Gabbard in the U.S. House, slammed her “present” votes.

“Clearly her vote is unacceptable. It’s disappointing,” he told USA TODAY on a call. “The two most consequential votes a member of Congress will ever take are to send our troops into harm’s way...and a vote to impeach the president of the United States”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-tulsi-gabbard-vote-present-house/2695437001/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 19, 2019, 07:59:53 AM
Tulsi Gabbard on Trump impeachment: 'I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no'

The only Democrat or Republican to vote "present" to impeach President Donald Trump in the House on Tuesday on both articles of impeachment was Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

In a statement after her vote, Gabbard, who is also running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, released a statement, claiming that after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

“I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard said.

Earlier Wednesday, she introduced a resolution to instead censure Trump, which expresses strong disapproval of conduct, whereas impeachment could result in removal from office.

Gabbard said she worked for the best interests of the country whether in the military or in Congress.

'He gave us no choice': Nancy Pelosi's glare and more top impeachment moments from a historic day

Hawaiian State Sen. Kai Kahele, who is running mostly uncontested to replace Gabbard in the U.S. House, slammed her “present” votes.

“Clearly her vote is unacceptable. It’s disappointing,” he told USA TODAY on a call. “The two most consequential votes a member of Congress will ever take are to send our troops into harm’s way...and a vote to impeach the president of the United States”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/18/trump-impeachment-tulsi-gabbard-vote-present-house/2695437001/

Stupid Cortez criticized her publicly for this.

Have a debate, and watch Tulsi mop the floor with her.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 19, 2019, 08:24:21 AM
Obama made a career of voting present but Tulsi is a Russian ASSet after all....

Dems don't want to send this to the Senate for fear of more Biden exposure to Ukraine...which is also their own exposure.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 19, 2019, 08:27:03 AM
Pelosi throws impeachment into confusion

"Minutes after the House impeached President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw the process into confusion by refusing to say when or whether she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial."




(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=479049.0;attach=782246;image)

McConnell calls out Democrats, says they're 'afraid' to send 'shoddy' impeachment articles to Senate

“Looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet,” McConnell said.

"They said impeachment was so urgent that it could not even wait for due process but now they’re content to sit on their hands. It is comical," McConnell said.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/democrats-getting-cold-feet-mcconnell-says-afraid-send-150833693.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 19, 2019, 08:27:13 AM
Stupid Cortez criticized her publicly for this.

Have a debate, and watch Tulsi mop the floor with her.

Pelosi. AOC. The rest of 'The Squad'.

I realize Tulsi is pretty far to the left on some issues herself but there has to be times when she sitting there, looking around and saying, "Why the hell am I even associated with these people??"
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 19, 2019, 09:04:36 AM
Rep Gabbard made a decision based on her values and political judgements.
But, it's tough to say someone "mopped the floor " with a rival when their proposal gets few followers.


Read it again slowly, Howard.

Quote
Have a debate, and watch Tulsi mop the floor with her.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 19, 2019, 09:16:34 AM
Ok, I see what you wrote. I thought you were referring to Gabbards defending her "present" vote on impeachment
It's a hypothetical debate. Interesting question, but still hypothetical.

AOC is very popular within the dem progressive wing and does well debating/defending those issues.

LOL...sure she does, in the "three chambers of congress"

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 19, 2019, 09:18:30 AM
Ok, I see what you wrote. I thought you were referring to Gabbards defending her "present" vote on impeachment
It's a hypothetical debate. Interesting question, but still hypothetical.

AOC is very popular within the dem progressive wing and does well debating/defending those issues.

LOL.

No, she doesn't.  She does "well" on twitter.

IRL, she's an absolute train wreck when she has to go off script and is challenged.

This is why 99% of the time she's in a controlled environment to avoid this.

Below is one of many examples.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 19, 2019, 09:49:39 AM
AOC is very popular with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
She's young and far from perfect, but some voters overlook and few hicups along the way.
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.
I know it all sounds crazy, but that's politics. ;D


The context was how she defends her positions.  The above is different.

Far from perfect is putting it lightly.

The parallel to Trump makes no sense either.  People wanted an outsider, liked his business experience etc.   Not really the same as a bartender who auditioned for a role with a group that identified districts where Democratic incumbents could be primaried and easily defeated.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 19, 2019, 10:06:04 AM
AOC is very popular with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
She's young and far from perfect, but some voters overlook and few hicups along the way.
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.
I know it all sounds crazy, but that's politics. ;D

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/023/865/trumpderanged.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 19, 2019, 10:08:01 AM
The context was how she defends her positions.  The above is different.

Far from perfect is putting it lightly.

The parallel to Trump makes no sense either.  People wanted an outsider, liked his business experience etc.   Not really the same as a bartender who auditioned for a role with a group that identified districts where Democratic incumbents could be primaried and easily defeated.

Typical libtard.  Can't face the facts, so he changes the subject and goes back to the dem's main political issue...Trump bad.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 19, 2019, 10:12:40 AM
AOC is very popular with the progressive wing of the democratic party.
She's young and far from perfect, but some voters overlook and few hicups along the way.
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.
I know it all sounds crazy, but that's politics. ;D


You left out the billionaire with a supermodel wife part.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 19, 2019, 12:25:39 PM
(https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2019/12/19/d7a15cb9c82743399d9a86275865727c_18.jpg)


Putin says impeachment case against Trump is 'fabricated'


By Vladimir Soldatkin and Andrew Osborn

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that U.S. Democrats had impeached President Donald Trump for "fabricated" reasons in order to reverse his 2016 election victory.

Putin, speaking at his annual year-end news conference, said he expected Trump to survive the proceedings and stay in office.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to impeach Trump, but Putin, like most observers, said he expected the Republican Senate to acquit him.

"It's unlikely they will want to remove from power a representative of their party based on what are, in my opinion, completely fabricated reasons," said Putin.

"This is simply a continuation of the (U.S.) intra-political battle where one party that lost an election, the Democratic Party, is trying to achieve results using other methods and means.

"They first accused Trump of a conspiracy with Russia. Then it turned out there wasn't a conspiracy and that it couldn't be the basis for impeachment. Now they have dreamt up (the idea) of some kind of pressure being exerted on Ukraine."

https://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-impeachment-case-against-113211628.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 19, 2019, 03:26:57 PM
Ok, I see what you wrote. I thought


Therein lays your problem.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 19, 2019, 05:58:58 PM
Tulsi Gabbard has bigger balls than any 10 Democrat men
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 19, 2019, 07:06:10 PM
Tulsi Gabbard has bigger balls than any 10 Democrat men


She didn't blindly follow her "establishment" (which IS fantastic, and I do respect her for that), but I don't feel her explanation contains as much "conviction" as some supporters from the other side are giving her.

Quote
Gabbard released a statement, claiming that, after doing her "due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

658 "pages" wasn't enough to make a "concrete" decision?
I'd have much more respect had she come out and flatly disagreed with the accusations. IMO, she did disagree, but far less directly.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 19, 2019, 07:12:46 PM
In 2016, millions supported an old man with an orange face, 58" waist, crazy hair and no GOV experience for President.


And, in 2008, millions supported a Muslim with limp 6" wrists, kinky hair, and no GOV experience for President.

Thank you very little, asshole...
Fortunately, the country is starting to recover.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 19, 2019, 07:19:52 PM

She didn't blindly follow her "establishment" (which IS fantastic, and I do respect her for that), but I don't feel her explanation contains as much "conviction" as some supporters from the other side are giving her.

658 "pages" wasn't enough to make a "concrete" decision?
I'd have much more respect had she come out and flatly disagreed with the accusations. IMO, she did disagree, but far less directly.

658 pages of bullshit is still bullshit.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 19, 2019, 07:23:51 PM
True.

BTW - I didn't know if you caught this in another pathetic thread:


I, for one, hope he never chills. The longer he continues to be a loose cannon, the more likely it is at least a few of his loyal flock with even an ounce of intelligence will see him for the sham that he is and push him over the cliff and not follow him to a certain death.

Another example of the peaceful left: wishing death by murder upon the POTUS from his supporters.

Merry Christmas to you, too, "prime."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 20, 2019, 08:23:01 AM
Noah Feldman, a legal scholar who also served as a Democratic impeachment witness, argued in a Bloomberg op-ed that the Constitution did not allow for an indefinite hold.

“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all,” Feldman wrote. “That’s because ‘impeachment’ under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/what-happens-to-the-articles-of-impeachment-now-223422540.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 20, 2019, 10:48:56 AM
Ok, my feeble minded enemy, I'm about to post something you might agree with:

Granted we don't agree on the articles used to impeach Trump. BUT, at this point, Pelosi and the dems need to send it over to the senate
 and try for the fairest trial possible.
  I agree with the dems, that Trump is guilty, but also know, politics isn't about legal points or being fair.
 
This impeachment has come down to raw, naken POLITICS. The dems had the majority of votes to impeach him and the senate as the GOP votes to find him NOT guilty.  Playing more games, is getting old.

It's politics deciding a political issue. On to 2020 and see who wins.


It’s hypocritical of you to even mention the word “fair” after the bullshit that Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, and fuckwad Schiff just pulled.

Democrats have become the party of hypocrisy and stupidity
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 20, 2019, 11:09:57 AM
Ok, my feeble minded enemy, I'm about to post something you might agree with:

Granted we don't agree on the articles used to impeach Trump. BUT, at this point, Pelosi and the dems need to send it over to the senate
 and try for the fairest trial possible.
  I agree with the dems, that Trump is guilty, but also know, politics isn't about legal points or being fair.
 
This impeachment has come down to raw, naken POLITICS. The dems had the majority of votes to impeach him and the senate as the GOP votes to find him NOT guilty.  Playing more games, is getting old.

It's politics deciding a political issue. On to 2020 and see who wins.

LOL...mentally challenged "physics teacher" calling others feeble minded. Are you a glutton for punishment, mama's boy?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 20, 2019, 11:50:45 AM
Insults and name calling won't help anyone  understand the issue.

Can we at least agree , this issue has become very partisan.

Blue team  wants Trump out and Red team wants him in.



Ok, my feeble minded enemy, I'm about to post something you might agree with:

Granted we don't agree on the articles used to impeach Trump. BUT, at this point, Pelosi and the dems need to send it over to the senate
 and try for the fairest trial possible.
  I agree with the dems, that Trump is guilty, but also know, politics isn't about legal points or being fair.
 
This impeachment has come down to raw, naken POLITICS. The dems had the majority of votes to impeach him and the senate as the GOP votes to find him NOT guilty.  Playing more games, is getting old.

It's politics deciding a political issue. On to 2020 and see who wins.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/Y4mlOAOqVoT7nEyNFL/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 20, 2019, 12:26:06 PM
(http://forums.13x.com/index.php?attachments/d8ac5db3-ac71-4125-b1ae-6b34d7c4843b-jpeg.163874/)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on December 20, 2019, 05:06:09 PM
Too bad you have no ability to recognize a metaphor.... it does not speak well of your level of intelligence.


Now, THIS is backpedaling at it's finest...
From our very own resident (self-admitted) drunkard...


Once again dousing the board with his "faux" cerebral rhetoric...
The same "man" who so vehemently DEFENDED PEDOPHILIA on this board until relentlessly called out on it...

Was that a "metaphor," too, YOU SICK FUCK??
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 21, 2019, 04:53:36 PM
What the Democrats have really achieved:

They’ve impeached two Presidents who embarrassed Hillary Clinton.

Nothing more.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 23, 2019, 12:36:41 PM
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/ebf2bed/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ff3%2Fc3%2Fbeac108f49209580872e0c760cdc%2F191222-doug-jones-gty-773.jpg)

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones may vote against convicting Trump in impeachment if 'dots aren't connected'


Sen. Doug Jones, who faces a tough 2020 reelection battle as a Democrat in Alabama, said Sunday that he is open to voting to acquit President Donald Trump on the two articles of impeachment approved last week by the House of Representatives if he feels the evidence in the case is lacking.

Trump is accused of abusing his power by withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening investigations that he thought would benefit him politically. The president has denied using the aid as leverage, and his defenders have said his push for the investigations was motivated by his concern about corruption.

Jones said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that if the allegations are proven, "I think it's an impeachable matter."

"If a president of the United States is using his office and the power of the presidency"  to "withhold aid that is there to battle Russians," and "he's doing that just to get a political advantage for his own personal campaign, that is a serious, serious matter."

Jones said he hadn't watched all of the testimony and debate in the House impeachment inquiry and was still "trying to see if the dots get connected."

"But if those dots aren't connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too," he said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/22/trump-impeachment-doug-jones-open-mind/2727625001/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 23, 2019, 01:14:24 PM
(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/EMHuXhFU0AAgO7P-419x600.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 23, 2019, 01:53:06 PM
Meanwhile both Joseph Mifsud and Christopher Steele who started the dossier are missing. Officials in Italy put Mifsud being dead at 80% probability. Steele didn't show for a hearing in UK. Wonder why?



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EL1TiMbXsAILk2j.jpg)

(https://arlinluttrell.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/arkancide-cdc.png)


(https://pics.me.me/thumb_as-fbi-director-i-dont-always-overlook-criminal-activity-but-46723543.png)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 23, 2019, 02:30:09 PM
Meanwhile both Joseph Mifsud and Christopher Steele who started the dossier are missing. Officials in Italy put Mifsud being dead at 80% probability. Steele didn't show for a hearing in UK. Wonder why?



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EL1TiMbXsAILk2j.jpg)

(https://arlinluttrell.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/arkancide-cdc.png)


(https://pics.me.me/thumb_as-fbi-director-i-dont-always-overlook-criminal-activity-but-46723543.png)

LMAO!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: polychronopolous on December 23, 2019, 04:47:43 PM
Impeachment 2? House lawyers say more charges possible


(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2019_52/3159491/191223-donald-trump-se-332p_b2a525444c98524c735353917ace22a2.fit-760w.jpg)

Dec. 23, 2019, 3:20 PM CST
By Dareh Gregorian

Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee floated the possibility that the panel could take up additional articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, according to a document filed in a federal appeals court Monday.

Urging the court to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, the committee's lawyers said that his testimony could lead to more revelations about the president's behavior.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the lawyers said.

In a separate filing Monday, the Department of Justice argued the appeals court should reject the House's bid to force McGahn to testify. "This court should decline the committee's request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches," the DOJ filing says.

The House sued to force McGahn to testify in August after the White House directed him not to testify before the Judiciary Committee. The White House and the Justice Department argued McGahn had "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress.

McGahn is a key figure in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He met with Mueller's investigators for over 30 hours, and his name is mentioned over 500 times in the report.

He's also a key player in what Democrats believe is one of the clearest cases of obstruction of justice outlined in Mueller's report: Trump’s directive that McGahn fire Mueller. Trump has publicly disputed the former White House lawyer’s account, placing greater importance on what McGahn would testify to publicly under oath before Congress.

A Washington federal court judge ruled in the House's favor in November, finding "absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/impeachment-2-house-lawyers-say-more-charges-possible-n1106706
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 23, 2019, 05:09:24 PM
Impeachment 2? House lawyers say more charges possible


(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2019_52/3159491/191223-donald-trump-se-332p_b2a525444c98524c735353917ace22a2.fit-760w.jpg)

Dec. 23, 2019, 3:20 PM CST
By Dareh Gregorian

Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee floated the possibility that the panel could take up additional articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, according to a document filed in a federal appeals court Monday.

Urging the court to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, the committee's lawyers said that his testimony could lead to more revelations about the president's behavior.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the lawyers said.

In a separate filing Monday, the Department of Justice argued the appeals court should reject the House's bid to force McGahn to testify. "This court should decline the committee's request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches," the DOJ filing says.

The House sued to force McGahn to testify in August after the White House directed him not to testify before the Judiciary Committee. The White House and the Justice Department argued McGahn had "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress.

McGahn is a key figure in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He met with Mueller's investigators for over 30 hours, and his name is mentioned over 500 times in the report.

He's also a key player in what Democrats believe is one of the clearest cases of obstruction of justice outlined in Mueller's report: Trump’s directive that McGahn fire Mueller. Trump has publicly disputed the former White House lawyer’s account, placing greater importance on what McGahn would testify to publicly under oath before Congress.

A Washington federal court judge ruled in the House's favor in November, finding "absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/impeachment-2-house-lawyers-say-more-charges-possible-n1106706


No limit to the Left's perfidy.  Less than 11 months to go, so expect a kitchen sink or two thrown in for "good" measure.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 23, 2019, 10:10:49 PM
You have to ask, why is the White House so against these folks testifying? If they (Trump) has nothing to hide, you'd think his lawyers would welcome the opportunity to produce these witnesses.   


You can start with the premise that there are no fact witnesses on the other side and go from there.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 09:13:40 AM

You can start with the premise that there are no fact witnesses on the other side and go from there.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 09:31:16 AM
You literally cannot believe anything these liberal partisan hacks say. 

Fact Check: No, Trump Admin Did Not ‘Begin’ Hold on Ukraine Funds 91 Minutes After Call with Zelensky
AARON KLEIN  24 Dec 2019

The news media and Democrats are quickly seizing on a government email to paint a misleading picture that the Trump administration requested the Pentagon withhold military aid to Ukraine just 91 minutes after President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The decision to withhold aid was actually announced seven days prior to Trump’s July 25 phone call while the email in question was part of a weeklong discussion about withholding aid and was unrelated to the call, the Trump administration explained.

The email was obtained on Friday along with 146 pages of other documents given to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.

CPI has been openly funded by billionaire activist George Soros’s Open Society, which formally listed CPI as a media “partner.”  CPI is also funded by the Soros-financed Tides Foundation.

The email being hyped by the media shows an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, contacted Pentagon officials 91 minutes after Trump’s call with Zelensky to discuss withholding aid.

“Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process,” Duffey wrote, according to the documents.

The OMB immediately pushed back explaining the aid hold was announced seven says before Trump’s July 25 phone call and that the Center for Public Integrity was harping on one line to paint an inaccurate and misleading picture of the timing of the aid hold.

The OMB strongly denied the email, one of many, had anything to do with Trump’s phone call, explaining the communication was procedural and part of a process put into place one week early.

Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for OMB, told reporters it was “reckless to tie the hold of funds to the phone call.”

“As has been established and publicly reported, the hold was announced in an interagency meeting on July 18,” she said. “To pull a line out of one email and fail to address the context is misleading and inaccurate.”

A senior administration official further said the email was part of a discussion already going on for one week between OMB and the Pentagon about withholding aid.

Despite the known timeline that the decision to withhold aid was taken on July 18, Senator Chuck Schumer already claimed the “explosive” email underscored the need to call new witnesses with new alleged impeachment evidence.

“If there was ever an argument that we need Mr Duffey to come and testify, this is that information. This email is explosive,” Schumer said.

“A top administration official, one that we requested, is saying, stop the aid 90 minutes after Trump called Zelensky and said keep it hush, hush. What more do you need to request a witness?”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/24/fact-check-no-trump-admin-did-not-begin-hold-on-ukraine-funds-91-minutes-after-call-with-zelensky/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 12:47:45 PM
And you know this how? Have you spoken with/questioned Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney and John R. Bolton?

People want to know, was Mr. Pence told about a suspected link between security aid and investigations of Mr. Trump’s political opponents, as one witness testified? Did Mr. Pompeo sign off on it? Did Mr. Mulvaney facilitate the scheme? Did Mr. Bolton ever bring his objections directly to the president?

BS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 24, 2019, 12:54:42 PM
You have to ask, why is the White House so against these folks testifying? If they (Trump) has nothing to hide, you'd think his lawyers would welcome the opportunity to produce these witnesses.   

Why did the Democrats prevent the whistleblower, Schiff, Biden, Biden's son, and all the other witnesses the Republicans called from testifying?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 04:47:51 PM

I do not believe the whistle blower can be required to testify. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is a law that protects federal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government organization. If you do not wish to disclose your identity, you may remain anonymous when contacting the OIG.


This is wrong.  Don't you care at all that these people keep lying to you?  The IG is the only one precluded from disclosing the whistleblower's identity. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 05:27:45 PM
What people would these people be?

The media, Adam Schiff, the person who wrote the blurb you pulled off the internet, pretty much every Democrat member of Congress. 

Do you care that they are all lying to you? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 05:55:58 PM
Why, because you say they are lying? Why should I believe you? Who are you? Why do you set yourself up as an expert and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? I don't mean to be offensive here, but I have no intention of believing what you say just because you say it. I'll leave that to Trump's sheep.

You could actually read the statute yourself, which isn't that hard to do.  But you're the same person who refused to watch Joe Biden's explicit quid pro quo on video.  You probably haven't even read the transcript of the Ukraine call. 

But you should believe me, because unlike you, I don't live in a bubble.  Unlike you, I don't engage in confirmation bias.  Unlike you, I read things that are not confined to my tiny world view.  It's sad that you don't even realize how badly uninformed and misinformed you are and that the party you have a slavish addiction too repeatedly lies to you.   

In any event, here is another article for you to ignore:

ANALYSIS: Despite Schiff’s claims, whistleblower has no 'statutory right' to anonymity
by Jerry Dunleavy
Nov 21, 2019

Rep. Adam Schiff has repeatedly stated in impeachment hearings in front of the House Intelligence Committee that the Ukraine whistleblower has “a statutory right to anonymity” and blocked Republican questions about him.

The problem, many legal experts say, is that the committee chairman, a California Democrat, is wrong — no specific legal requirement to shield the whistleblower’s identity from the public exists.


The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act establishes rules for whistleblowers to report on waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner, and it, along with presidential directives, provides legal protections against reprisals and punishment. Anonymity, however, is not one of those guarantees.

“There is no language in the statute as written — or amended — that gives a whistleblower from the intelligence community the statutory right to anonymity,” Cully Stimson, a former Pentagon official and the head of the Heritage Foundation’s National Security Law Program, told the Washington Examiner. "That’s separate and distinct from whether Congress wants to make the decision to not provide the name — that’s at the discretion of the chairman.”

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who received the whistleblower’s complaint in August, has said he must keep the whistleblower’s name secret, but it does not appear this legal prohibition extends to President Trump, his allies, or anyone else. Atkinson said his review of the whistleblower's allegations related to a July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate."

He wrote, “Such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible."

Arthur Rizer, a former Army officer and DOJ prosecutor who leads the R Street Institute’s criminal justice team, said he doubts the law guarantees whistleblower anonymity.

“I am pretty sure on its plain reading only the individual who receives the complaint has a ‘statutory obligation’ to keep anonymity — and, I think, even then, there are circumstances where the veil of anonymity can be pierced,” Rizer told the Washington Examiner. “So, as a starting point, the chairman’s comment is vague and overbroad — and legally speaking, that makes him wrong.”


There are, however, laws against witness intimidation that could apply if the whistleblower was outed.

“In a nutshell, there’s no per se right to whistleblower anonymity,” Stephen Vladeck, a national security legal expert and law professor at the University of Texas, told the Washington Examiner. “But revealing the whistleblower’s identity here may nevertheless be unlawful.”

Both Vladeck and Ukraine whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid referred the Washington Examiner to an article in Just Security, a left-leaning online legal journal based at New York University’s Law School, that offers a lengthy analysis of whistleblower protections.

“Many of those seeking to protect the whistleblower argue that it is unlawful to publicly identify an anonymous whistleblower. Whether that is, in fact, the case is complicated and highlights a significant flaw in how the whistleblower protection laws actually apply,” wrote national security expert Kel McClanahan, who runs the D.C.-based National Security Counselors, in the journal article. “Simply put, there is no clear, unambiguous provision in either the criminal or civil law generally prohibiting the disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity.”

. . .

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-despite-schiffs-claims-whistleblower-has-no-statutory-right-to-anonymity
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 07:34:17 PM
Trump chats with attorney Alan Dershowitz at Mar-a-Lago
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 12/24/19

President Trump was spotted greeting attorney Alan Dershowitz at his Mar-a-Lago resort in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Tuesday as the Harvard law professor joined the president for a Christmas Eve party.

Pictures taken by the Daily Mail showed the two men standing together in conversation, the attorney clad in a wrinkled black jacket and Trump wearing his signature red tie with a blue suit.

Trump is reportedly considering bringing Dershowitz, a vocal supporter of the president on many legal issues, onto his legal team as his attorneys battle the House's impeachment inquiry, which looks to head to the Senate for a trial in the weeks ahead.

Dershowitz, a contributor to The Hill, wrote earlier this year that he believed the Supreme Court could overturn an impeachment verdict were the Senate to convict Trump and remove him from office without a fair trial.

"Were Congress to try to impeach and remove a president without alleging and proving any such crime, and were the president to refuse to leave office on the ground that Congress had acted unconstitutionally, there would indeed be such a constitutional crisis," he wrote in May.

Republican allies of the president, including Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), have publicly urged Trump to make the addition official, touting Dershowitz's prowess as a legal scholar.

“I have advocated that there needs to be one other attorney that's added to the mix for the president. And that is Alan Dershowitz,” Meadows said earlier this month on a House Freedom Caucus podcast, adding, “I think he'd be great to come in, get Alan Dershowitz in to be part of that defense team.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475892-trump-meets-with-attorney-alan-dershowitz-at-mar-a-lago
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2019, 08:02:44 PM
You assume way too much. I have read the redacted transcript. I've read the statute just today. Frankly, like the way many laws are written, it is open to interpretation.

You and other's keep going on about the Bidens when we're discussing Trump's phone call. Whatever Biden did or didn't do in 2016 does not excuse what Trump did in April 2019 when he withheld funds from Ukraine in leiu of information (dirt) on Biden and his son.

You claim to have an open mind about things but your posts suggest otherwise.

Finally! Dinner is ready. Bye for now.

lol.  Ok.  It's open to interpretation, even though it says absolutely nothing about prohibiting disclosure of the identity of the whistleblower, except for the IG.  I really doubt you actually read it.  Maybe you did, but I'm not sure I believe you.  And I gave you plenty of opinions from experts to show that Schiff and others have been lying to you.  You really don't care. 

And you can keep saying the president withheld funds to get "dirt" on Biden and his son, but that is a lie.  A bald faced lie.  Unsupported by any evidence.  The transcript does not say that.  The president of Ukraine denied it.  The Ukraine ambassador denied it.  This is as bad as the Russian Manchurian Candidate crap.   

Enjoy your dinner. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 25, 2019, 11:19:08 AM
You assume way too much. I have read the redacted transcript. I've read the statute just today. Frankly, like the way many laws are written, it is open to interpretation.

You and other's keep going on about the Bidens when we're discussing Trump's phone call. Whatever Biden did or didn't do in 2016 does not excuse what Trump did in April 2019 when he withheld funds from Ukraine in leiu of information (dirt) on Biden and his son.

You claim to have an open mind about things but your posts suggest otherwise.

Finally! Dinner is ready. Bye for now.

(https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/stewie-head-turn-gif-8.gif)

Fucking retard...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 25, 2019, 11:36:15 AM
Liberals.  They despise our Constitution and call its authors "white racist meanies".  And worse.

I "pray" daily for the Crapture of all of them, including that side of my family that is hollyweird hebrew (they only deserve lower case).  All you that side with these fuckwad democrats are traitors to these United States. Treasonous bitches the lot of you.

Talk about kangaroo courts...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 26, 2019, 02:30:57 PM
I suspect Reiner is starting to feel the heat. He is part of an organization that was investigating Russian interference. One of the advisers is Clapper. That’s  why he’s so desperate to get Trump out.


See new Tweets
Conversation

Rob Reiner
@robreiner
Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Gardner, Alexander, Porter, Sasse, McSally. Any 4 of you or any additional Republican Senator with a conscience & a beating heart has the power to insure a fair trial. For the sake of our Republic you all know what must be done.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 26, 2019, 03:02:19 PM
I suspect Reiner is starting to feel the heat. He is part of an organization that was investigating Russian interference. One of the advisers is Clapper. That’s  why he’s so desperate to get Trump out.


See new Tweets
Conversation

Rob Reiner
@robreiner
Murkowski, Romney, Collins, Gardner, Alexander, Porter, Sasse, McSally. Any 4 of you or any additional Republican Senator with a conscience & a beating heart has the power to insure a fair trial. For the sake of our Republic you all know what must be done.

Targeting RINOs.  You should see the clown of a senator from my state (Schatz).  He keeps repeating this mantra that all they need is four Republican votes for a fair trial.  The same idiot who was silent when House Democrats shredded the Constitution.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 26, 2019, 03:50:57 PM
Targeting RINOs.  You should see the clown of a senator from my state (Schatz).  He keeps repeating this mantra that all they need is four Republican votes for a fair trial.  The same idiot who was silent when House Democrats shredded the Constitution.



So their strategy is to not have it dismissed, get a trial and drag it out as long as possible. Tells you what they think of Biden. They want no focus on him and keep it all anti Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 26, 2019, 04:20:46 PM
THERE ARE 1,776 DAYS LEFT IN THE GLORIOUS TRUMP PRESIDENCY !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 26, 2019, 06:05:33 PM
So their strategy is to not have it dismissed, get a trial and drag it out as long as possible. Tells you what they think of Biden. They want no focus on him and keep it all anti Trump.


I think part of the reason Pelosi didn't immediately send over the articles is the Senate might have wrapped this up by Christmas.  This is the same pattern they followed with the Russian hoax.  They knew very early on that it was a stupid conspiracy theory, but needed it to play through the 2018 midterm election.   

In end, it's not going to work.  They cannot prevent the public from knowing (a) how amazing the economy is doing and (b) that some people might be going to jail as part of the Russia hoax. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2019, 11:25:08 AM
McConnell hit for impeachment coordination with Trump – but Dems did the same with Clinton
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-hit-for-impeachment-coordination-with-trump-but-dems-did-the-same-with-clinton
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 27, 2019, 01:57:52 PM
Calling what was going on in the House only "coordination" would be an understatement. Went 95% uncovered by the press of course.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 27, 2019, 03:02:50 PM
What I can't quite figure out is why McConnell said this at all. Could it be he's afraid he won't be reelected in 2020 if he doesn't constantly pander to his base?

Because he knew there was video of Schumer saying the same thing during the Clinton impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 27, 2019, 04:24:40 PM
So their strategy is to not have it dismissed, get a trial and drag it out as long as possible. Tells you what they think of Biden. They want no focus on him and keep it all anti Trump.


They’re probably waiting for Adam Schiff to release his “damning evidence” of collusion with Russia, more than circumstantial evidence, a scandal of a size beyond Watergate.”

I’m sure that will be released and contradict the Mueller Report findings any day now.

Liberal fucktards.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 27, 2019, 08:12:17 PM
What I can't quite figure out is why McConnell said this at all. Could it be he's afraid he won't be reelected in 2020 if he doesn't constantly pander to his base?

He said it because that's what he's going to do, just like the Democrats did with Clinton. 

And the Democrats crying about process are absolute hypocrites. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on December 28, 2019, 05:18:24 PM
I found three MSM articles on Bill Clinton regarding a couple of controversies.  They’re all from 14-15
years after his presidency, and not one mentions his impeachment.

Can you imagine an MSM article well after Trump leaves office NOT mentioning his impeachment?

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473428472/bill-clinton-gets-into-heated-exchange-with-black-lives-matter-protester

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-admits-his-crime-bill-made-mass-incarceration-worse

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/08/bill-clinton-almost-apologizes-for-arguing-with-black-lives-matter-protesters/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 28, 2019, 11:16:18 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/facing-blowback-biden-clarifies-stance-165108609.html



"I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests," Biden said on Twitter.

"But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial," Biden added.

The statement came one day after Biden said in an interview with the Des Moines Register that he would not comply with a Senate subpoena because it would be a tactic by Trump to distract from the president's wrongdoing.

Some legal experts and commentators had criticized Biden for his remarks to the Iowa newspaper, noting that the White House's refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas was part of the reason why Trump had been impeached.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 29, 2019, 03:14:57 PM
Prime, it continues to crack me up how the republicans change their story to back Trump.
1st it was that the dems couldn't possibly impeach him.
Now, that's happened so they call this reality a fake hoax and try to pretend it's not valid.
Then, they spin it to say it's really great because the impeachment will help him get elected.

LOL, after hearing them you'd think every President wanted to be impeached in their 1st term .

It reminds me of some clueless dude that gets shot down by Miss Hotty.
He spins her refusal by saying she did him a favor.
Now , he can get a shot at the hotter babes.

And you have yet to change that diaper of yours.

This is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.  Your kind would make it the land of the freak and the home of the slave.

It's called "writing".  Truly, you are even less intelligent than I.  Typist.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 29, 2019, 03:17:52 PM
Prime, it continues to crack me up how the republicans change their story to back Trump.
1st it was that the dems couldn't possibly impeach him.
Now, that's happened so they call this reality a fake hoax and try to pretend it's not valid.
Then, they spin it to say it's really great because the impeachment will help him get elected.

LOL, after hearing them you'd think every President wanted to be impeached in their 1st term .

It reminds me of some clueless dude that gets shot down by Miss Hotty.
He spins her refusal by saying she did him a favor.
Now , he can get a shot at the hotter babes.
The House impeached along party lines because there is no evidence to support impeachment, only their hurt feelings. That's why Nancy won't send it to the senate, she knows they won't convict Trump without evidence and their whole game will be exposed as a waste of taxpayers money like most normal people already knew it was.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on December 29, 2019, 03:25:53 PM
You love this word. Is it because it so aptly describes who you are?

So many years behind you and yet neither your wit nor your wisdom show those years.

You behave as a child and so I will deal with you as one.  Hush.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 29, 2019, 04:07:54 PM
So many years behind you and yet neither your wit nor your wisdom show those years.

You behave as a child and so I will deal with you as one.  Hush.


Prime = Peter Pan of Getbig
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 29, 2019, 04:18:22 PM

Prime = Peter Pan Kevin Spacey of Getbig

Fixed for accuracy.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 30, 2019, 03:20:50 PM
Fixed for accuracy.

😂😂😂😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 30, 2019, 05:08:14 PM
😂😂😂😂

Oh, you missed the senile crybaby’s posts about “reporting to moderators” that have since been deleted.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on December 30, 2019, 07:46:06 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/80061327_1100442920287542_2835515130823835648_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=SbucLjayT14AQkEsnL7hUX8KhzJ6D6Gdb2Xs2nDcpTJfVrLzN_6Vs0uLA&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=6ffd77409c51d949717c07e4e58ba31b&oe=5EA0982F)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on December 30, 2019, 07:52:17 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/80061327_1100442920287542_2835515130823835648_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=SbucLjayT14AQkEsnL7hUX8KhzJ6D6Gdb2Xs2nDcpTJfVrLzN_6Vs0uLA&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=6ffd77409c51d949717c07e4e58ba31b&oe=5EA0982F)

I doubt this is true. Where specifically in the Constitution is this "term nullification" mentioned?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on December 30, 2019, 08:25:35 PM
I doubt this is true. Where specifically in the Constitution is this "term nullification" mentioned?

I don't think its true either.. but it sure works in getting snowflakes all riled up :-)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TacoBell on December 30, 2019, 10:56:15 PM
I don't think its true either.. but it sure works in getting snowflakes all riled up :-)

Check you facts before you post dumb shit like this. Save yourself from looking the fool.

Wow it does work.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on December 30, 2019, 11:03:02 PM
Wow it does work.

Prime sure proves the theory every single time without fail..lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 31, 2019, 08:46:57 AM
Check you facts before you post dumb shit like this. Save yourself from looking the fool.

(https://i2.wp.com/www.the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ECnJ3cvXsAAlxVL.png?ssl=1)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on December 31, 2019, 10:26:28 AM
(https://i2.wp.com/www.the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ECnJ3cvXsAAlxVL.png?ssl=1)


Of all the snowflake Memes, in my estimation, this one is the best. 👍
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 31, 2019, 10:32:25 AM

Of all the snowflake Memes, in my estimation, this one is the best. 👍

You're probably right.   :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 31, 2019, 12:22:16 PM
So......impeaching quickly was so important, but now they've sat on the articles for three weeks.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on December 31, 2019, 04:29:38 PM
So......impeaching quickly was so important, but now they've sat on the articles for three weeks.
Because they have no facts to back up their claims and they know if it goes to the senate they'll be laughed out. Dems should disband and call it quits.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on December 31, 2019, 04:33:38 PM
How come they never show any anti-trumper pics of guys like me?

How about a pic of me, wearing my old USMC cap, holding my AR-15 and NRA card with a caption saying;
" Surprise ? I didn't vote for Trump! I think he's a con man" :o


The public always feel uncomfortable seeing a photo of someone with Downs Syndrome.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 31, 2019, 05:14:58 PM
So......impeaching quickly was so important, but now they've sat on the articles for three weeks.

This thing will blow up in their faces in spectacular fashion. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on December 31, 2019, 06:18:00 PM
So......impeaching quickly was so important, but now they've sat on the articles for three weeks.


yes.. because it was never about impeachment.. it was 100% getting Epstein out of the news cycle for good
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 31, 2019, 07:06:38 PM
GOP Sen. Susan Collins Sides With Mitch McConnell On Impeachment Trial
The Maine senator said she’s “open” to calling witnesses at President Trump’s trial, but argued it’s too early to decide definitely.
By Ryan Grenoble and Igor Bobic
POLITICS 12/31/2019

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she is “open” to calling witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. However, she added that it is too early to determine which witnesses should appear and that the Senate ought to decide after opening arguments and initial questioning of both sides.

“I am open to witnesses. I think it’s premature to decide who should be called until we see the evidence that is presented and get the answers to the questions that we senators can submit through the chief justice to both sides,” Collins told Maine Public Radio on Monday.

Collins’ stance on the parameters of the impeachment trial aligns her with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has all but promised a swift acquittal of Trump. McConnell has argued for following the framework of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, which punted a decision on witness testimony until after the initial arguments and senatorial questioning.

“We haven’t ruled out witnesses,” McConnell said last week in a “Fox & Friends” interview. “We’ve said let’s handle this case just like we did with President Clinton. Fair is fair.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, is demanding the Senate agree upfront to hear from witnesses who refused to appear during House committee hearings, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton. The Democratic leader argued that witnesses with firsthand knowledge about Trump’s decision to block military assistance to Ukraine could provide crucial information.

“President Trump, if you are so confident you did nothing wrong, why won’t you let your men testify?” Schumer said at a press conference in New York City on Monday. “What are Senator McConnell and President Trump afraid of if all the facts come out?”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has delayed sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, reportedly to give Schumer more leverage in talks with McConnell over procedures for a “fair” trial. The Senate cannot begin the trial until the House formally transmits the articles to the upper chamber. But just days before senators are due to return to Washington from their holiday break, there are no signs the impasse between the two Senate leaders is easing.

In her interview with Maine Public Radio, Collins also called McConnell’s vow of “total coordination” with the White House on the trial process “inappropriate,” while chiding some Senate Democrats for rushing to judgment.

“It is inappropriate, in my judgment, for senators on either side of the aisle to prejudge the evidence before they have heard what is presented to us because each of us will take an oath, an oath that I take very seriously, to render impartial justice,” she said.

“And I have heard Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, saying that the president should be impeached, found guilty and removed from office,” Collins added. “I’ve heard the Senate majority leader saying that he’s taking his cues from the White House. There are senators on both sides of the aisle who, to me, are not giving the appearance of and the reality of judging this in an impartial way.”

McConnell told reporters earlier this month that he didn’t view himself as an impartial juror. “I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate,” he said. “I’m not impartial about this at all.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the first Republican to publicly voice concern over the Senate majority leader’s handling of the proceedings, telling KTUU last week that she was “disturbed” by McConnell’s comments.

Democrats in the Senate want to hear from White House officials who, at Trump’s urging, defied House subpoenas and didn’t testify. The list includes Mulvaney; Bolton; Robert Blair, senior adviser to Mulvaney; and Michael Duffey, associate director for national security at the Office of Management and Budget.

To subpoena their desired witnesses, Democrats will need to convince at least four Republican senators to vote with them. Moderates like Collins and Murkowski will be their top targets.

Collins is seeking reelection in 2020 in what is shaping up to be a fierce contest.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/susan-collins-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-witnesses_n_5e0b6f03e4b0b2520d1b6293
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on January 03, 2020, 10:31:05 AM
Democratic lawmaker admits efforts to impeach Trump began before he was elected

Running for office is now an impeachable offence.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/democratic-lawmaker-admits-efforts-impeach-004403587.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 03, 2020, 11:28:42 AM
Impeachment = Nancy Pelosi has a gun to her head and she is running around yelling, “stop or I’ll shoot.”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on January 07, 2020, 12:30:19 PM



How is Impeachment 'progressing' ?.


              ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 07, 2020, 11:22:28 PM
McConnell has the votes to block Democrats' witness demands in Trump impeachment trial
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 01/06/20
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 09, 2020, 10:47:04 AM
This is an example I'm seeing of a  bizarre cycle of back and forth convos:

Left "We need the senate to allow witnesses!"

Right "You just had a whole inquiry where you disallowed every republican witness request"

Left "We need a fair trial!"

Right "You just had a whole inquiry where you disallowed every republican witness request"

Left "We need witnesses!"
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 09, 2020, 11:15:19 AM
This is an example I'm seeing of a  bizarre cycle of back and forth convos:

Left "We need the senate to allow witnesses!"

Right "You just had a whole inquiry where you disallowed every republican witness request"

Left "We need a fair trial!"

Right "You just had a whole inquiry where you disallowed every republican witness request"

Left "We need witnesses!"

Has Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff told they public why they didn’t subpoena Bolton in the House inquiry?

Seems like quite the senile senior moment to forget to do that.

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 09, 2020, 11:28:56 AM
Has Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff told they public why they didn’t subpoena Bolton in the House inquiry?

Seems like quite the senile senior moment to forget to do that.



Not sure on that one.

But it looks like a lot of Democrats are starting to needle her to send in the articles.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 09, 2020, 06:40:53 PM
Not sure on that one.

But it looks like a lot of Democrats are starting to needle her to send in the articles.
They'll be laughed out of the house.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 09, 2020, 09:33:01 PM
I may be wrong, but I think it had something to do with his only agreeing to testify if he was subpoenaed. It would have required a Supreme court decision, This would have seriously delayed the process in the house. Some would say timing is everything

Bullshit.

The only delay in this entire sham has been manufactured by Nancy Pelosi. She lied to the country about urgency and the libidiots ate it up.

Bolton could call a press conference tomorrow and say whatever he wanted.

Pelosi and Schiff are obviously senile and retarded respectively. But not calling Bolton is a fuck up of a major degree. Unless of course Schiff’s coordination with the whistleblower would have obviously have been exposed.

Eat shit and suck another dick, you aids infested soggy old queer.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 09, 2020, 09:52:38 PM
(http://forums.13x.com/index.php?attachments/upload_2020-1-6_11-21-49-jpeg.164784/)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 09, 2020, 10:25:14 PM
I may be wrong, but I think it had something to do with his only agreeing to testify if he was subpoenaed. It would have required a Supreme court decision, This would have seriously delayed the process in the house. Some would say timing is everything


Bolton is getting his neo-con wet dream in Iran, he's back on board the Trump train.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 16, 2020, 10:26:02 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83168628_181511589712584_1763136671177506816_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=vQfoJ38Q7hoAX9TmHJf&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=bf54071ce8b0fc7ce95d3297e749134f&oe=5ED386B4)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on January 16, 2020, 12:35:38 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83168628_181511589712584_1763136671177506816_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=vQfoJ38Q7hoAX9TmHJf&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=bf54071ce8b0fc7ce95d3297e749134f&oe=5ED386B4)

For some strange Reason The Laurel & Hardy Theme Tune Springs To Mind
When Looking at That Pic... 😂🤣😂

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on January 16, 2020, 01:22:31 PM
I take it you didn't watch the video then. Laurel and Hardy were funny. This group was anything but funny unless you think a funeral procession is funny.

Opinions vary - We’ll See where this goes.
Personally I think it’s all Hilarious & complete sham / waste of Time
They should concentrate their efforts on having one unified Candidate & Focus on Uniting
Behind that person.

Forget this silly pathetic crap.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on January 16, 2020, 03:14:37 PM
Watching this was just weird.


So is reading the majority of your posts.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on January 16, 2020, 03:26:25 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83168628_181511589712584_1763136671177506816_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=vQfoJ38Q7hoAX9TmHJf&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=bf54071ce8b0fc7ce95d3297e749134f&oe=5ED386B4)


Naive question from a distance: WHY is 9 people needed to carry 2-3 pages of paper ,  ??? ::) .
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 16, 2020, 05:56:09 PM

Naive question from a distance: WHY is 9 people needed to carry 2-3 pages of paper ,  ??? ::) .

Congressional short bus seats 9...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on January 16, 2020, 06:29:53 PM
Congressional short bus seats 9...
Exactly
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on January 16, 2020, 10:49:30 PM
Congressional short bus seats 9...


Oh, so much happines on those 9 faces ..................... ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 17, 2020, 04:15:54 AM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83168628_181511589712584_1763136671177506816_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=vQfoJ38Q7hoAX9TmHJf&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=bf54071ce8b0fc7ce95d3297e749134f&oe=5ED386B4)

It's true...They travel in herds turds...

Bunch of smug, self-righteous, fuckwads.  Talk about mental masturbation in the round.  It is my hope that the next election sends these twatlings packing in a revelatory Crapture off to live in the Hell they've created.  Better still, put a burka on all of them and deport them, Prime and Straw Man to muslime lands.  These beings don't deserve civilization. FTN.

Fucking bipedal dung beetles.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 17, 2020, 12:26:19 PM
Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr join Trump's defense team.  :o





(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/669/430/9ce.gif)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 17, 2020, 04:26:23 PM
comments.

Monica Lewinsky weighs in on Trump’s impeachment defense team
nypost ^ | 01/17/2020 | Natalie O'Neill
Posted on 1/17/2020, 3:43:11 PM by ChicagoConservative27

Monica Lewinsky responded with some choice words Friday to the news that Ken Starr will join President Trump’s impeachment defense team — tweeting, “Are you f—king kidding me?”

The famously scandal-scarred former White House intern — whose affair with President Bill Clinton was exposed by Starr, leading to Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 — appeared to be flabbergasted.

“this is definitely an ‘are you f—ing kidding me?’ kinda day,” she tweeted shortly after hearing that Starr will team up with Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz to defend Trump.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 18, 2020, 04:55:09 PM
Jay Sekelow, Alan Dershowitz, and Ken Starr

Versus

Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler

The Democrats are absolutely going to get their asses kicked again
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on January 18, 2020, 06:34:39 PM
The democrats are done. I used to vote democrat and can attest that even people on the left are fed up with Pelosi and Schiff.

The democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential elections is going to be Michelle Obama.

There's no way any of the current panel of lunatics is going to get the final nod.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 20, 2020, 01:19:10 PM
The democrats are done. I used to vote democrat and can attest that even people on the left are fed up with Pelosi and Schiff.

The democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential elections is going to be Michelle Obama.

There's no way any of the current panel of lunatics is going to get the final nod.
Oh you're going to get blasted by the dummycrats on this board!!! :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 20, 2020, 04:40:10 PM
Senate resolution sets a fast pace for Trump impeachment trial
by Susan Ferrechio
 | January 20, 2020
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate-resolution-sets-a-fast-pace-for-trump-impeachment-trial
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on January 20, 2020, 07:49:58 PM
.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 20, 2020, 08:28:11 PM
(https://wethepeopleoftheunitedstates3.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/gps-meme.jpg?w=191)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 20, 2020, 08:29:55 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/56/fe/df/56fedfdfd42eace4fbc14ee8960869a5.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 20, 2020, 09:32:51 PM
.



Another Adam Schiff quote -  as in, it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on January 21, 2020, 08:58:52 AM
(https://wethepeopleoftheunitedstates3.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/gps-meme.jpg?w=191)

The citizens of the United States thank McCain

that dossier documents Trumps allegiance and subservience to Russia
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on January 21, 2020, 09:04:10 AM
LOL

a "trial" with no evidence or witnesses

that really shows a lot of confidence in Trumptards innocence

A Trumptard defense lawyer who spent time on Epsteins pedo island who used to say that said you can be impeached without committing a crime. Now he says you can't be

This quote below sounds like it was custom tailored for Trumptard

Quote
In August 1998, during the summer leading up to then-President Bill Cinton's impeachment, Dershowitz argued that a president does not have to commit a "technical crime" in order for it to constitute impeachable conduct.

"It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," Dershowitz told "Larry King Live."

He added: "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution."

Hmm, I wonder what the difference is this time

BTW - Trump did commit a crime .

OUR GAO said so last week

If Trump did nothing wrong then the best thing to do would be to bury the Dems with witnesses and documents supporting the claim that he is innocent and everything he did was "perfect"

That's what I would want if I were innocent

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IroNat on January 21, 2020, 09:26:05 AM
Thank goodness Mike Pence is standing in the wings...just in case.

You wouldn't have a problem with Pence as President would you, Straw?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Board_SHERIF on January 21, 2020, 01:42:10 PM
LOL

a "trial" with no evidence or witnesses

that really shows a lot of confidence in Trumptards innocence

A Trumptard defense lawyer who spent time on Epsteins pedo island who used to say that said you can be impeached without committing a crime. Now he says you can't be

This quote below sounds like it was custom tailored for Trumptard

Hmm, I wonder what the difference is this time

BTW - Trump did commit a crime .

OUR GAO said so last week

If Trump did nothing wrong then the best thing to do would be to bury the Dems with witnesses and documents supporting the claim that he is innocent and everything he did was "perfect"

That's what I would want if I were innocent



The burden is not to proove one's innocence, but to prove guilt. 
Can you proove you are not a Russian Spy ?  of course not...so that means you are one ??

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on January 21, 2020, 01:52:53 PM
The burden is not to proove one's innocence, but to prove guilt. 
Can you proove you are not a Russian Spy ?  of course not...so that means you are one ??



Yes that’s how it’s meant to Be.
Only not if your a DummyCrap Liberal Leftist Twat.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 21, 2020, 01:57:58 PM
LOL

a "trial" with no evidence or witnesses

that really shows a lot of confidence in Trumptards innocence

A Trumptard defense lawyer who spent time on Epsteins pedo island who used to say that said you can be impeached without committing a crime. Now he says you can't be

This quote below sounds like it was custom tailored for Trumptard

Hmm, I wonder what the difference is this time

BTW - Trump did commit a crime .

OUR GAO said so last week

If Trump did nothing wrong then the best thing to do would be to bury the Dems with witnesses and documents supporting the claim that he is innocent and everything he did was "perfect"

That's what I would want if I were innocent



The Senate voted to kill the first Schumer amendment, which would have subpoenaed the White House for documents related to Ukraine.
 - NBC News


 ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 21, 2020, 02:09:37 PM
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who wants to summon witnesses to testify at a Senate trial in the impeachment of President Trump, voted against calling witnesses when President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1999.

 - Washington Post

Someone definitely trying to make up for their massive deficiencies.

Crying Chuckie Schumer proving once again that liberalism is a sickness
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 21, 2020, 03:55:25 PM
I just listened to Schiff for about 15 minutes.  That is one slimy, lying, partisan hack.  What an absolute embarrassment. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 21, 2020, 06:34:42 PM
 CRYING CHUCKIE SCHUMER’S SHAM VOTED DOWN AGAIN !

LOL....DO THE DEMOCRATS EVER GET TIRED OF THE NON-STOP LOSING ?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 21, 2020, 07:58:16 PM
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who wants to summon witnesses to testify at a Senate trial in the impeachment of President Trump, voted against calling witnesses when President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1999.

 - Washington Post

Someone definitely trying to make up for their massive deficiencies.

Crying Chuckie Schumer proving once again that liberalism is a sickness

He's a traitor to our Nation.  He and all DemocRats.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 21, 2020, 08:48:09 PM
Zoe Lofgren makes little tiny Democrat peckers semi-hard.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 22, 2020, 12:25:51 PM
Chris Matthews: 'Bugs Bunny' McConnell 'always gets away with' wrongdoing (Huh?)
The Hill ^ | 01 22 2020 | Joe Concha
Posted on 1/22/2020, 3:21:51 PM by yesthatjallen

MSNBC's Chris Matthews referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as "Bugs Bunny" during the network's live coverage of the Senate impeachment trial.

The "Hardball" host said the Kentucky senator "always gets away" with something he did wrong.

“If the Bugs Bunny, I call him, of this business, the clever Mitch McConnell, who is so much a Bugs Bunny character, he always gets away with it," Matthews said. "And we know he got away with something that he did wrong, just like Bugs Bunny.”

The Senate early Wednesday morning approved a rules resolution for the impeachment trial that largely echoes the rules McConnell had hoped to set.

It prevents Democrats from calling new witnesses or offering new documents for evidence. Democrats will get a chance to have the Senate vote to consider witnesses again after the impeachment managers and President Trump's impeachment team offer their arguments.

Matthews has referred to McConnell as the iconic cartoon character before, including on Jan. 14 when discussing impeachment trial rules.

"But sometimes, he is Bugs Bunny, you know. He's not Elmer Fudd sometimes. He knows what he's doing," Matthews, a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, said.

SNIP

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 22, 2020, 06:04:38 PM
If there was a God, he would have made Justice Kavanaugh the judge in the Senate Impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 22, 2020, 06:20:31 PM
Ol' Chris Matthews... It's not like McConnell outsmarted the dems here, they just had no case and went with it anyway. This is shooting fish in a barrel for the Senate not because they are devious but because the House didn't do the job that would have weight required for a conviction.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 22, 2020, 06:24:08 PM
Ol' Chris Matthews... It's not like McConnell outsmarted the dems here, they just had no case and went with it anyway. This is shooting fish in a barrel for the Senate not because they are devious but because the House didn't do the job that would have weight required for a conviction.

The Democrats don’t know which they hate more:

President Trump or their own 2020 candidates
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on January 22, 2020, 08:32:28 PM
If there was a God, he would have made Justice Kavanaugh the judge in the Senate Impeachment.
How good would that be.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2020, 01:55:50 PM
I just walked by a TV screen and I swear Schiff has been talking for like three days straight.   ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: funk51 on January 23, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
If there was a God, he would have made Justice Kavanaugh the judge in the Senate Impeachment.
               ;)  kavanaugh after he was told that he won't be judging the impeachment trial.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on January 23, 2020, 05:29:25 PM
Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
Starting tomorrow we will begin cracking through the Swamp media’s cover-up of TOP level Democrats selling their public office, resulting in multi-millions, in Ukraine and the conspired attempt with foreign officials to “destroy” the Trump candidacy.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on January 23, 2020, 05:55:49 PM
               ;)  kavanaugh after he was told that he won't be judging the impeachment trial.

What a pussy.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 23, 2020, 06:44:22 PM
Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
Starting tomorrow we will begin cracking through the Swamp media’s cover-up of TOP level Democrats selling their public office, resulting in multi-millions, in Ukraine and the conspired attempt with foreign officials to “destroy” the Trump candidacy.
He needs to put up or shut up, he sounds like a bitchy liberal with this shit.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 23, 2020, 07:19:22 PM
He needs to put up or shut up, he sounds like a bitchy liberal with this shit.

Calm your tits, Chumlee.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 23, 2020, 08:40:32 PM
Calm your tits, Chumlee.
Sounds like you have small tits.  :-*
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on January 23, 2020, 08:45:02 PM
Opinions vary - We’ll See where this goes.
Personally I think it’s all Hilarious & complete sham / waste of Time
They should concentrate their efforts on having one unified Candidate & Focus on Uniting
Behind that person.

Forget this silly pathetic crap.

On one hand I agree with you but not for the same reason. The Senate Republican majority will NEVER vote against Trump. We can argue over the whys, you can say its because the evidence is lacking I could argue they won't buck Trump for fear of damaging their career and re election which is very important to them. I would offer support that the Republicans that have spoken out against Trump have decided not to run for re election. You would have to be pretty naive to not see a connection.
But on the other hand, regardless of what one party will do, if a President does what Trump is alleged to do, and the evidence seems to suggest he did, they would be remiss in their responsibilities not to go through the process.
My personal take based on the information at hand, the one thing it isnt is a sham
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2020, 08:45:56 PM
He needs to put up or shut up, he sounds like a bitchy liberal with this shit.

Completely agree. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on January 23, 2020, 08:46:57 PM
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who wants to summon witnesses to testify at a Senate trial in the impeachment of President Trump, voted against calling witnesses when President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1999.

 - Washington Post

Someone definitely trying to make up for their massive deficiencies.

Crying Chuckie Schumer proving once again that liberalism is a sickness

Just for arguments sake, the difference is there were hours of depositions in the Clinton trial with pertinent witnesses due to a special prosecutor. That is not the case here.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on January 23, 2020, 08:49:06 PM
I just walked by a TV screen and I swear Schiff has been talking for like three days straight.   ::)

Funny how ones personal experiences can totally be wrong
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2020, 09:16:53 PM
Funny how ones personal experiences can totally be wrong

What exactly does that mean? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on January 23, 2020, 09:20:31 PM
What exactly does that mean? 

He hadn't been talking for hours. You just felt like he did and came here and expressed that.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 23, 2020, 09:30:54 PM
Just for arguments sake, the difference is there were hours of depositions in the Clinton trial with pertinent witnesses due to a special prosecutor. That is not the case here.

Not in the Clinton Senate trial. The majority of the depositions were taken during the Ken Starr investigation.

In the Senate trial only Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal were deposed, because Jordan and Blumenthal were coaching Lewinsky on committing perjury.

Not the same thing at all as what Schumer is demanding.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 23, 2020, 09:35:25 PM
He needs to put up or shut up, he sounds like a bitchy liberal with this shit.


The Carlin quote about big money politics "it's a big club and you ain't in it" applies here. This is just bargaining tactics.

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton doesn't go to jail for multiple felonies...do you think ANY of this is anything but show up to the election?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2020, 11:56:58 PM
He hadn't been talking for hours. You just felt like he did and came here and expressed that.

So you don't understand what a figure of speech is? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on January 24, 2020, 01:33:53 PM
Why is Saggy Prime gone so silent ........... ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on January 24, 2020, 01:39:48 PM
I just walked by a TV screen and I swear Schiff has been talking for like three days straight.   ::)

That's because MSM has all the bull$#!t lie clips on an endless loop.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 24, 2020, 02:36:50 PM
Trump said, "I've done nothing wrong." If this is true, why not let those who are in a position to prove this testify. If this is true, why not turn over all documents exonerating him? He's done nothing wrong. He should therefore have nothing to hide. He should insist the Senate call witnesses and read all relevant documents.

Because you prove guilt in this country, not innocence.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 24, 2020, 02:56:32 PM
Trump said, "I've done nothing wrong." If this is true, why not let those who are in a position to prove this testify. If this is true, why not turn over all documents exonerating him? He's done nothing wrong. He should therefore have nothing to hide. He should insist the Senate call witnesses and read all relevant documents.

Why weren’t the witnesses the Republicans wanted to testify called in the House ?

Why weren’t the Republicans allowed to call any witnesses in the House process?

Why weren’t the Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses in the House?

Why haven’t the full transcripts of the House testimony been released ?

If the Bidens are innocent and there was no corruption, why aren’t they calling for an investigation to exonerate them ? (Don’t give me the MSM “debunked bullshit).

This entire impeachment farce is going to go down in history as the greatest political failure of all time when Trump crushes the Democrats in November
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on January 24, 2020, 03:59:14 PM
Why weren’t the witnesses the Republicans wanted to testify called in the House ?

Why weren’t the Republicans allowed to call any witnesses in the House process?

Why weren’t the Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses in the House?

Why haven’t the full transcripts of the House testimony been released ?

If the Bidens are innocent and there was no corruption, why aren’t they calling for an investigation to exonerate them ? (Don’t give me the MSM “debunked bullshit).

This entire impeachment farce is going to go down in history as the greatest political failure of all time when Trump crushes the Democrats in November
Good points.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Princess L on January 24, 2020, 04:05:18 PM

This entire impeachment farce is going to go down in history as the greatest political failure of all time when Trump crushes the Democrats in November

It will be whitewashed just as much of American history is being removed from historical curriculum.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 24, 2020, 04:56:27 PM
It will be whitewashed just as much of American history is being removed from historical curriculum.

Trump will have huge majorities in the House and the Senate.

He will close the border.
Repeal Obozocare
And Ruth Bader Ginsburg will die and he will get another SCJ.

And every liberal cocksmoker can weep uncontrollably while President Trump keeps winning

The MSM isn’t relevant at all anymore
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 24, 2020, 06:17:26 PM
Because you prove guilt in this country, not innocence.
:o Imagine that!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 24, 2020, 06:41:36 PM
Impeachment going on but politics board dead as can be. Dems really screwed the pooch on this one.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on January 24, 2020, 11:59:39 PM
Impeachment going on but politics board dead as can be. Dems really screwed the pooch on this one.


Japanese would do Harakiri , but looks like Am-Demo cowards have no balls to do it !.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Irongrip400 on January 25, 2020, 08:00:43 AM
Purpura gave an excellent opening argument. I’m almost wondering if the Democrats have some kind of bombshell that’ll blow this thing open because what I’ve seen so far is beyond weak. I don’t even think the Trump haters can dispute this case is weak as it stands.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on January 25, 2020, 08:03:28 AM
Purpura gave an excellent opening argument. I’m almost wondering if the Democrats have some kind of bombshell that’ll blow this thing open because what I’ve seen so far is beyond weak. I don’t even think the Trump haters can dispute this case is weak as it stands.

They got nothing.

I like the way he used videos of the testimonies to back up his case.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on January 25, 2020, 09:35:56 AM
Purpura gave an excellent opening argument. I’m almost wondering if the Democrats have some kind of bombshell that’ll blow this thing open because what I’ve seen so far is beyond weak. I don’t even think the Trump haters can dispute this case is weak as it stands.


Doubtful.

The impeachment "research" started when Trump was elected.
We've seen their "best material."

I suspect that they knew in the beginning they'd never get him impeached. I honestly believe this is all merely a smear campaign - another desperation move since the usual levels of corruption and deception failed in 2016.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on January 25, 2020, 09:52:48 AM
Because you prove guilt in this country, not innocence.

You hear that ridiculous argument come up a lot. Why should you do anything to help somebody who’s trying to screw you over?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 25, 2020, 10:00:30 AM

Doubtful.

The impeachment "research" started when Trump was elected.
We've seen their "best material."

I suspect that they knew in the beginning they'd never get him impeached. I honestly believe this is all merely a smear campaign - another desperation move since the usual levels of corruption and deception failed in 2016.
This. They've been trying desperately for 3 years to sway public opinion against Trump. We've seen their best "evidence", they have nothing and are openly wasting our tax dollars in an attempt to influence the 2020 election.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on January 25, 2020, 10:43:17 AM
Trump said, "I've done nothing wrong." If this is true, why not let those who are in a position to prove this testify. If this is true, why not turn over all documents exonerating him? He's done nothing wrong. He should therefore have nothing to hide. He should insist the Senate call witnesses and read all relevant documents.

Why weren’t the witnesses the Republicans wanted to testify called in the House ?

Why weren’t the Republicans allowed to call any witnesses in the House process?

Why weren’t the Republicans allowed to cross examine witnesses in the House?

Why haven’t the full transcripts of the House testimony been released ?

If the Bidens are innocent and there was no corruption, why aren’t they calling for an investigation to exonerate them ? (Don’t give me the MSM “debunked bullshit).

This entire impeachment farce is going to go down in history as the greatest political failure of all time when Trump crushes the Democrats in November


Apparently "Soggy" only considers "half" of the matter: the WRONG half... as usual.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 25, 2020, 10:46:28 AM

Apparently "Soggy" only considers "half" of the matter: the WRONG half... as usual.

The trouble with this whole thing is intent.....either he's investigation corruption or looking for dirt to influence and election.

But the accusers have not been able to prove it.

Couple in the shady process in the House, not sending it to the courts and just slapping "obstruction", Schiff starting it off with a made up story, and it's all crap.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Slapper on January 25, 2020, 11:48:32 AM
What I'm really interested to know is what island in the middle of the Pacific Schiff is going to move to once the 2020 presidential election results are announced.

It's all looking like a huge bluff exercise that was only intended to pressure Trump into resigning before the articles made it to the Senate.

If that's the case, and only time will tell, my question is this: have democrats watched any television in the past 30 years? One episode of The Apprentice would've told them everything they needed to know.

Honestly, the democrat leadership have too many good lawyers among their staff. That they were passing such an assured loss of a case to a Senate full of republicans would've prevented anyone in that party from passing anything past the first day of deliberations.

I'm telling you, the goal all along has been to force Trump to quit.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 25, 2020, 02:48:55 PM
Skip to comments.

Sen. Joni Ernst Says White House Impeachment Counsel ‘Entirely Shredded The Case’ Against Trump
Daily Caller ^ | January 25, 2020 | Henry Rodgers
Posted on 1/25/2020, 3:00:50 PM by kevcol

Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Saturday reacted to the White House counsel’s defense against impeaching President Donald Trump, saying they “shredded” the House managers’ case in just two hours.

“Within two hours I thought that the White House Counsel and their team entirely shredded the case that has been presented by the house managers,” Ernst said to reporters on Capitol Hill after listening to Trump’s lawyers.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 25, 2020, 05:24:39 PM
Are you saying there is no need for a defense? Why then does Trump have an expert team of defense Attorneys representing him? Although a Senate impeachment is not a criminal trial, it is never-the-less a trial. It is not uncommon for the defense to call witnesses.

I seriously doubt the Senate is going reach a two-thirds supermajority to convict Trump of impeachable offenses. However, a lot of folks believe what Trump did was wrong, even though they don't want to see him impeached. If these witnesses and documents can exonerate him, the cloud over his actions will be lifted and the road to his reelection next November clearer.


 

You make me look intelligent.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 25, 2020, 05:35:54 PM
Are you saying there is no need for a defense?
 
Are you retarded? What in the ever-loving fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on January 25, 2020, 06:01:09 PM
You make me look intelligent.
Lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 25, 2020, 06:05:13 PM
THERE ARE 1,746 DAYS LEFT IN THE GLORIOUS TRUMP PRESIDENCY !

CHOKE ON FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED DICKS LIBIDIOTS 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 25, 2020, 07:20:08 PM
Thank you for reminding me that it is pointless to argue with imbeciles.

Since you refuse to look into a mirror because they are most definitely your Picture of Dorian Gray someone has to remind you just how retarded you are.  Oh wait...chaos is already doing just that.  ;D

Given that it's your constipational right to be stoopid, it is safe to say you'll never have to wipe again.. 

Think, not feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel, about that.  Yeah.  You're full of shit. 



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 25, 2020, 07:50:09 PM
Thank you for reminding me that it is pointless to argue with imbeciles.

Reminds me of Shizzo.....

The 1,000 Members of Getbig: “Fuck off Shizzo you fucking retard.”

Shizzo: “You guys are dumb.”
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 26, 2020, 05:38:16 AM
Reminds me of Shizzo.....

The 1,000 Members of Getbig: “Fuck off Shizzo you fucking retard.”

Shizzo: “You guys are dumb.”

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 26, 2020, 07:56:27 AM
Thank you for reminding me that it is pointless to argue with imbeciles.
This warning should be the preamble to every single one of your posts.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on January 26, 2020, 08:15:38 AM
Reminds me of Shizzo.....

The 1,000 Members of Getbig: “Fuck off Shizzo you fucking retard.”

Shizzo: “You guys are dumb.”


LMFAO...

SHIZOGGY!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on January 26, 2020, 09:08:43 AM
What I'm really interested to know is what island in the middle of the Pacific Schiff is going to move to once the 2020 presidential election results are announced.

It's all looking like a huge bluff exercise that was only intended to pressure Trump into resigning before the articles made it to the Senate.

If that's the case, and only time will tell, my question is this: have democrats watched any television in the past 30 years? One episode of The Apprentice would've told them everything they needed to know.

Honestly, the democrat leadership have too many good lawyers among their staff. That they were passing such an assured loss of a case to a Senate full of republicans would've prevented anyone in that party from passing anything past the first day of deliberations.

I'm telling you, the goal all along has been to force Trump to quit.

My take is that they’re just trying to appease their base. If you listen to the liberal media, Schiff is the greatest human being who has ever lived. When it inevitably fails, they can say that they fought tooth and nail to get Trump out but the evil Republicans didn’t have the guts to do what’s right.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on January 26, 2020, 09:12:09 AM
My take is that they’re just trying to appease their base. If you listen to the liberal media, Schiff is the greatest human being who has ever lived. When it inevitably fails, they can say that they fought tooth and nail to get Trump out but the evil Republicans didn’t have the guts to do what’s right.


Yep...
Just like the "war on drugs:" it reads and sounds good/admirable/commendable/good-intentioned, but... it can never be "won."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on January 26, 2020, 12:22:57 PM
Reminds me of Shizzo.....

The 1,000 Members of Getbig: “Fuck off Shizzo you fucking retard.”

Shizzo: “You guys are dumb.”


 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 26, 2020, 02:34:24 PM

Yep...
Just like the "war on drugs:" it reads and sounds good/admirable/commendable/good-intentioned, but... it can never be "won."

They already have their excuse:  "If Trump didn't block witnesses, the evidence would be clear.  But the corrupt Senate let him get away with it".
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 26, 2020, 05:19:10 PM
Liberals bitch and moan like Trump is going to murder all the homosexuals and trannies, take away women's rights, make pedophilia legal and impose slavery on whomsoever they wish.

Like he's a muslime.

Libs just love them some muslimes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Powerlift66 on January 27, 2020, 05:48:47 AM
 ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 27, 2020, 03:52:46 PM
Apparently, the President's defense team put on quite a defense today.

I watched some of live and saw some writeups and videos, but CNN confirmed it because their webpage headline mentions NOTHING about the defense, just that they're "feeling pressure to allow witnesses", and the sub headline about the defense implies the same.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on January 27, 2020, 07:40:53 PM
Apparently, the President's defense team put on quite a defense today.

I watched some of live and saw some writeups and videos, but CNN confirmed it because their webpage headline mentions NOTHING about the defense, just that they're "feeling pressure to allow witnesses", and the sub headline about the defense implies the same.
Crazy how all the networks played the dems whole 24 hours and no one has the Rep defense on TV, not even fox. They are just showing clips on it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on January 27, 2020, 08:48:57 PM
Crazy how all the networks played the dems whole 24 hours and no one has the Rep defense on TV, not even fox. They are just showing clips on it.

lol.. thought it was just me.... I keep checking all the news channels and all I can ever find is Schiff and Dems


WTF?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on January 28, 2020, 04:39:00 AM
Pam Bondi, Trump defense attorney argues Biden corruption concerns are legitimate and states. "It was nepotism at best and nefarious at worst, I repeat it was nepotism at best and nefarious at worst!"

10:52




Are you fucking kidding me? Trump and nepotism....

Be glad that the cardio-respiratory systems are involuntary, otherwise your feeble brain would not support life. 

Thanks (again) for making me look intelligent.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 28, 2020, 01:01:06 PM
Pam Bondi is pretty damned hot for 54, gentlemen.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 28, 2020, 01:22:49 PM
Will Obama need a teleprompter to help him plead the 5th ?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on January 28, 2020, 01:57:59 PM
Be glad that the cardio-respiratory systems are involuntary, otherwise your feeble brain would not support life. 

Thanks (again) for making me look intelligent.


 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 28, 2020, 03:41:23 PM
 :o

Feinstein says she’s a maybe on acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments
By MOLLY O’TOOLE, JENNIFER HABERKORN, ELI STOKOLS
JAN. 28, 2020
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton?fbclid=IwAR05EWQrAhQfloGLiFJQnP_QLLoLwiIHYoWSrhzz-53yMBiKVuhv009cX5U
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 28, 2020, 05:05:07 PM
:o

Feinstein says she’s a maybe on acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments
By MOLLY O’TOOLE, JENNIFER HABERKORN, ELI STOKOLS
JAN. 28, 2020
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton?fbclid=IwAR05EWQrAhQfloGLiFJQnP_QLLoLwiIHYoWSrhzz-53yMBiKVuhv009cX5U

She already caved on this.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 28, 2020, 05:39:34 PM
She already caved on this.

lol.  A moment of temporary sanity.  Was probably pummeled by her colleagues.  I wonder how many Democrats will actually do the right thing and vote to acquit?  I'm thinking maybe 2 or 3?  I don't see any Republicans voting to convict. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 28, 2020, 05:47:37 PM
None of this testimony will change the facts one bit, but I'm cool with this.  The only additional witness I want to hear from is Eric Ciaramella, the alleged whistleblower. 

Graham Predicts 51 GOP Sens. Will Vote for Testimony from Bidens: Hunter Turned Ukraine into ‘ATM Machine’
EDWIN MORA  28 Jan 20209
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), while talking to reporters on the sidelines of the Senate impeachment trial, predicted that a majority of Republican senators would likely vote in favor of testimony from former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and the “whistleblower.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/28/graham-predicts-51-gop-sens-will-vote-for-testimony-from-bidens-hunter-turned-ukraine-into-atm-machine/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 28, 2020, 07:00:09 PM
GOP confident of win on witnesses
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 01/28/20
The Hill

Republican senators emerged from a caucus meeting Tuesday voicing confidence they will win a vote later this week that would block new witnesses from being called and end President Trump’s impeachment trial this week.

While Republican sources acknowledged several senators are wrestling with the question of whether to bring in former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness, they said Democrats do not have the four GOP votes they need to win such a vote.

While it does not appear that Republicans have the votes to reject such a motion yet, GOP senators on Tuesday said they thought the caucus would get there.

“We’ve been 100 percent united in this process to this point and it would be my hope that we can remain that way,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).

He said Republicans will have at least the 50 votes they need to defeat the motion on witnesses.

“It’s either going to be 53, 52 or 51, some number that starts with five would be my guess would be the vote to not have witnesses,” Cramer said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also voiced confidence.

“I feel good. I feel good that we’re in a good spot,” he said, “in terms of ending the trial sooner rather than later.”

Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the chamber’s No. 2 Republican, also expressed confidence, saying the trial shouldn’t go past Friday.

The Tuesday meeting, held after Trump’s defense team closed its impeachment case, using only 11 of its 24 hours in process, was an effort by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to persuade his colleagues to unify on the issue.

Republican senators described the special meeting as an effort to shore up the small group of GOP colleagues who might be willing to join Democrats in calling for testimony from Bolton or other witnesses.

One weapon McConnell and GOP leaders are using in their argument to try to persuade colleagues against voting for Bolton’s testimony is Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). They say agreeing to witnesses could give the minority leader carte blanche to force additional votes on subpoenaing more witnesses and documents, sources say.

During the meeting a handful of Republicans voiced concern about the public fallout of an unpublished book manuscript by Bolton that claims Trump told his former aide that he wanted to freeze military aid for Ukraine until Ukrainian officials announced an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, an assertion that goes to the heart of the Democrats’ case against Trump.

Only two Republicans, Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Susan Collins (Maine), say they will vote to consider motions to subpoena additional witnesses and documents. McConnell has prevented further defections.

But several other Republicans are on the fence.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told reporters after the meeting that he will wait until senators have used their 16 hours of allotted time to ask questions before making a decision.

“I think the path forward is we got two days of questions and answers. That will take Wednesday and Thursday, and as far as I’m concerned after I finish hearing the answers to the questions and consider the record — I’ve now heard the arguments of both sides — then I’ll make a decision about whether we need more evidence,” he said.

Under the organizing resolution passed by all 53 GOP senators last week, the Senate is set to vote Friday on “whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents.”

If the measure wins fewer than 50 votes, it will fail and the Senate will move to vote “yes” or “no” on the two articles of impeachment passed by the House.

If it gets 51 votes, the Senate will embark on an open-ended debate during which Schumer can force a litany of votes on witnesses and documents, as he did on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week when he kept the Senate voting past 2 a.m.

Republican senators are worried that Schumer will painfully drag out the process if they vote to consider additional witnesses, and not just settle for hearing from Bolton, according to two GOP lawmakers familiar with internal conference discussions.

In the case of a 50-50 tie, there’s a possibility that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts could step in and rule in favor of witnesses.

Schumer on Tuesday said he would like to see Roberts rule in favor of witnesses, arguing that the weight of his opinion would convince enough Republicans to go along with it. Other Democrats say Roberts should break a 50-50 tie. But either move would be seen as highly political and polarizing — a reason Roberts might choose to avoid either step.

Republicans are also looking for ways that would make it easier for them to not vote for Bolton’s testimony.

One proposal garnering buzz came from Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who said he was in negotiations with the White House to make Bolton’s unpublished manuscript available for senators to read in a classified setting. The National Security Council is currently reviewing the draft to make sure it doesn’t include classified information.

By keeping the manuscript in Congress’s sensitive compartmented information facility, senators can read it before it’s fully declassified.

Democrats have scoffed at that idea, and Republicans aren’t fully on board with the proposal.

“I don’t know,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a pivotal swing vote, said Tuesday afternoon when asked about Lankford’s proposal.

“Is it looking at the whole manuscript? Is it just isolated references? If it’s classified, how can we gain access to it? What can we say about it? It’s an idea that’s been presented. I just don’t know,” she said.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) is pushing for a swap of witness testimony, whereby the House managers would have a chance to seek testimony from Bolton and Trump’s lawyers would be able to ask questions of Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

But McConnell hasn’t yet signed onto the idea and would prefer to avoid subpoenaing new witnesses and risking a battle over executive privilege that could extend the trial indefinitely.

Another proposal floated by Republican senators Tuesday afternoon was to give Roberts “a more elevated” role so that he could perhaps make a ruling to hear from Bolton but not additional witnesses, according to a lawmaker in the room.

McConnell warned wavering Republicans at a lunch meeting earlier Tuesday that if they vote to bring in new witnesses it could extend the trial for weeks and would inevitably result in Trump’s acquittal.

He cautioned colleagues that opening up the trial to new evidence could take it in unpredictable directions for an unknown amount of time, eating up the Senate calendar.

The GOP leader told undecided colleagues to “sort through this to look at the information” and “look at the big picture in terms of what this means,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.).

If four Republicans vote to subpoena new evidence, it would be a major political victory for Schumer, who has made the debate more about seeking damaging information about Trump than actually removing him from office.

Sixty-seven votes are needed to convict Trump on articles of impeachment passed by the House, and Democrats acknowledge they’re nowhere close to having enough support to do that.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480413-gop-confident-of-win-on-witnesses?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 29, 2020, 02:55:31 PM
GOP senators believe they have the votes to block witnesses
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 01/29/20
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480526-gop-senators-believe-they-have-the-votes-to-block-witnesses
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 29, 2020, 06:28:31 PM
So have the Democrats used the Steele dossier, Mueller report, or Impeachment Inquiry to get rid of President Donald Trump yet ?

Talk about born to lose...it’s like Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, Strawman, and Primeidiot have an aversion to truth and winning.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 29, 2020, 06:49:49 PM
Well, it's been revealed that Schiff withdrew subpoena challenges that the courts said they would expedite.

So, the Democrats are playing a game to force it on the Senate, and make them look bad, and the GOP sees right through it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 29, 2020, 07:15:08 PM
You have to wonder if President Donald Trump ever gets tired of teabagging liberals ?

He’s going raw, no condom, pull out for the big mike cox style finish on Democrat’s ass !
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on January 30, 2020, 05:22:57 PM
So have the Democrats used the Steele dossier, Mueller report, or Impeachment Inquiry to get rid of President Donald Trump yet ?

Talk about born to lose...it’s like Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, Strawman, and Primeidiot have an aversion to truth and winning.

I watched a bit today, this clown Jeffries conceded that Ukraine had a corruption problem and Trump’s  actions were consistent as he didn’t like giving out foreign aid.

I also saw on Trump Jr.s Twitter that Schiff’s daughter is dating the whistleblower. Meanwhile Schiff claimed to not know his ID.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 30, 2020, 06:48:20 PM
The GOP must be banking on most of the nation not watching this trial. It seems to me a lot more questions have been raised then answered. You'd think people would want to know the answers, regardless of what way they hope the witnesses' testimonies  go.

If no impeachable offenses have been committed, then what answers are you trying to fit to questions ?

Anyone with a scintilla of sense realizes that this Democrat farce is the absolute low point of politics in the history of the United States.

You soggy old senile queer.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on January 30, 2020, 07:52:59 PM
(http://forums.13x.com/index.php?attachments/dc42fc47-fb14-4593-a140-39e19027b968-jpeg.166022/)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 01, 2020, 12:14:01 AM
If no impeachable offenses have been committed, then what answers are you trying to fit to questions ?

Anyone with a scintilla of sense realizes that this Democrat farce is the absolute low point of politics in the history of the United States.

You soggy old senile queer.


Old fart Soggy is totally demoralized ,  :-\

                  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 01, 2020, 12:19:49 AM
The GOP must be banking on most of the nation not watching this trial. It seems to me a lot more questions have been raised then answered. You'd think people would want to know the answers, regardless of what way they hope the witnesses' testimonies  go.

That's what they're banking on? The public not watching? Like that will make any difference. They're banking on the fact that this was a sham trial and know that the Senate will acquit him. Something everybody on both sides knew. But it seems like
your anally bored-out soggy old queer mind remains clueless.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 01, 2020, 12:34:29 AM
That's what they're banking on? The public not watching? Like that will make any difference. They're banking on the fact that this was a sham trial and know that the Senate will acquit him. Something everybody on both sides knew. But it seems like
your anally bored-out soggy old queer mind remains clueless.


Let's add Old bugger Saggy as #.16 to that list  ;D

Saggy vs Trump, just imagine that  ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on February 01, 2020, 08:28:55 AM
Trump said, "I've done nothing wrong." If this is true, why not let those who are in a position to prove this testify. If this is true, why not turn over all documents exonerating him? He's done nothing wrong. He should therefore have nothing to hide. He should insist the Senate call witnesses and read all relevant documents.

LOL....President Trump kicks the shit out of the loser liberals AGAIN !

And you had such high hopes, you soggy old pedo queer.

DEMOCRATS ARE LOSERS !!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on February 01, 2020, 02:35:54 PM
Most were aware this would never pass the senate.

Given that assumption, it explains why the House didn't utilize the courts to have them rule on the blocked witnesses.

They knew that didn't have a case, so it was obviously a political move.

The make the Senate look corrupt and unfair, by giving the public THEY were the ones to not allow witnesses.

Most don't realize the process is for the House to do the inquiry, and the senate to cast vote based on that.

For that matter, it's a success for them.  It's evident the dummies bought it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 03, 2020, 11:42:54 AM
The GOP must be banking on most of the nation not watching this trial. It seems to me a lot more questions have been raised then answered. You'd think people would want to know the answers, regardless of what way they hope the witnesses' testimonies  go.

There facts are clear.  The aid was released before the deadline.  There is no threat, bribe, quid pro quo in the transcript.  Both the Ukraine president and ambassador both stated they were not pressured to do anything and didn’t even know the aid was delayed.  In short, there is nothing there. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 03, 2020, 12:08:26 PM
They may be clear to you, but you are in the minority.

I don’t care what any poll says about this particular issue.  I know how to read.  I read the transcript.  I understand basic facts.  That’s all you need to reach a logical conclusion here.  
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on February 03, 2020, 12:37:31 PM
I don’t care what any poll says about this particular issue.  I know how to read.  I read the transcript.  I understand basic facts.  That’s all you need to reach a logical conclusion here.  

Jeez - Is this Farce still ongoing??
I’d of thought it’d be Kicked out Long ago.

WTF is it with these Idiotic Liberal Leftists - They Completely On Another Planet.

Is there an end in Sight. ?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on February 03, 2020, 12:39:07 PM
They may be clear to you, but you are in the minority.


Only in the House of Rep is any belief in this represented as a majority.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: mazrim on February 03, 2020, 12:47:20 PM
I wasn't aware that I referenced any polls. You read the rough transcript released by the White House as many of us did. Why do you feel you need to explain how you reached your 'logical' conclusion? What I posted stands. On the topic of whether there is anything there, you are in the minority.
What are you referencing then when saying he is in the minority?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 03, 2020, 01:01:12 PM
I wasn't aware that I referenced any polls. You read the rough transcript released by the White House as many of us did. Why do you feel you need to explain how you reached your 'logical' conclusion? What I posted stands. On the topic of whether there is anything there, you are in the minority.

The only way for you to determine that I am in “in the minority” is to rely on polling data.  Or did you actually personally question thousands of people? 

I read THE transcript of the call. 

What I posted stands.  But I’m being reasonable.   :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on February 03, 2020, 06:20:18 PM
What are you referencing then when saying he is in the minority?
He has no fucking clue, he's just repeating whatever Straw Man PMs him to. ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on February 03, 2020, 07:26:22 PM
The majority of Americans are Democrats. Don't believe me? Look it up. Without a doubt most of Trump's base are Republican. However there are at least a few Republicans who don't support him. Are there any Democrats who do? Do the math before demonstrating your stupidity. It is you who has no fucking clue.

There are 328,000,000 citizens in the United States.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton got 62,900,000 votes.

So what makes you think the majority of Americans are Democrats?

Senile soggy old deviant queer.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 03, 2020, 08:15:46 PM
The majority of Americans are Democrats. Don't believe me? Look it up. Without a doubt most of Trump's base are Republican. However there are at least a few Republicans who don't support him. Are there any Democrats who do? Do the math before demonstrating your stupidity. It is you who has no fucking clue.


You really are a twat.  Turn from the Farce. Embrace what it means to be an American first.  Realize that socialism only "works" until you either run out of other folks money or those people (the productive ones) rise up against you and your fellow swine and vote you out of their lives forever.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on February 04, 2020, 01:47:27 AM
There are 328,000,000 citizens in the United States.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton got 62,900,000 votes.


And, that includes illegals, deceased, and all other forms of fraudulent voters.

Trump may have actually won the popular vote, considering.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 04, 2020, 04:40:19 PM
All from LA and NYC.   

What a sad day to be a liberal.  Almost rock bottom


Clinton received almost three million more votes (65,853,514 to 62,984,828) in the general election than Trump, giving Clinton a popular vote lead of 2.1% over Trump. Assuming the roughly the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats actually vote, the obvious conclusion is that their are more Democrats than Republicans. Of course there is always the possibility more Republicans than Democrats fail to vote.

Gallup. As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.

Nearly four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) identify as politically independent, but most “lean” toward one of the two major parties. Only 7% of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party and 17% lean toward the Democratic Party.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on February 04, 2020, 04:41:28 PM

And, that includes illegals, deceased, and all other forms of fraudulent voters.

Trump may have actually won the popular vote, considering.

Throwing shit at the wall just to see what sticks.  Your retardation is quite strong.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 04, 2020, 04:55:36 PM
Yeah deblasio abs cuomo have ruined NYC like those commie pedo freaks you love in San Fran.



In most instances in the U.S., majority rules. Makes no difference where that majority lives. Incidentally, don't you live in NYC? Maybe you should move, your 'type' is out numbered....go live with your own, somewhere out in the boonies where there is a greater ratio of Republicans. ;)

(https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/full-page/public/migrated-images_parent/migrated-images_46/deliverance_wf.jpg?itok=8hpfPqqH)

(https://i1.wp.com/gay-themed-films.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Deliverance_071Pyxurz.jpg?fit=1024%2C535&ssl=1)

Republicans at home.



Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on February 04, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
In most instances in the U.S., majority rules. Makes no difference where that majority lives. Incidentally, don't you live in NYC? Maybe you should move, your 'type' is out numbered....go live with your own, somewhere out in the boonies where there is a greater ratio of Republicans. ;)

(https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/full-page/public/migrated-images_parent/migrated-images_46/deliverance_wf.jpg?itok=8hpfPqqH)

(https://i1.wp.com/gay-themed-films.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Deliverance_071Pyxurz.jpg?fit=1024%2C535&ssl=1)

Republicans at home.








Ah, the limousine liberal stuff...


Wait, aren't those two guys your brethren? Like in deeds not geographically of course.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on February 04, 2020, 05:12:08 PM
Clinton received almost three million more votes (65,853,514 to 62,984,828) in the general election than Trump, giving Clinton a popular vote lead of 2.1% over Trump. Assuming the roughly the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats actually vote, the obvious conclusion is that their are more Democrats than Republicans. Of course there is always the possibility more Republicans than Democrats fail to vote.

Gallup. As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.

Nearly four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) identify as politically independent, but most “lean” toward one of the two major parties. Only 7% of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party and 17% lean toward the Democratic Party.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/

Republicans may be close behind but there are still more Democrats than Republicans. Close, but no cigar.

Soggy old queer....you said more Americans.

Not more voters, not more adults...you said more Americans.

Why would you think you know which political party American children support?

Fuck off you know-nothing senile old adulterer.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 04, 2020, 05:47:12 PM
Clinton received almost three million more votes (65,853,514 to 62,984,828) in the general election than Trump, giving Clinton a popular vote lead of 2.1% over Trump. Assuming the roughly the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats actually vote, the obvious conclusion is that their are more Democrats than Republicans. Of course there is always the possibility more Republicans than Democrats fail to vote.

Gallup. As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.

Nearly four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) identify as politically independent, but most “lean” toward one of the two major parties. Only 7% of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party and 17% lean toward the Democratic Party.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/

Republicans may be close behind but there are still more Democrats than Republicans. Close, but no cigar.

Some more recent data from Gallup paints a different picture:

As of Jan 2-15 2020:
27% Republicans
45% Independents
27% Democrats

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on February 04, 2020, 05:55:51 PM

As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.

If this were true, we'd easily have a third party candidate. :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 04, 2020, 06:10:44 PM
If this were true, we'd easily have a third party candidate. :)

They don't vote independent. Most people vote for they just like better regardless of party. A lot of people here that call themselves Republican and Independent support Tulsi Gabbard because they just like her and she is from Hawaii. They don't care that she supported a Socialist in the last election.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on February 04, 2020, 06:15:45 PM
They don't vote independent. Most people vote for they just like better regardless of party.
That's my point. People can "identify" as whatever they want in some silly poll, but reality is at the poll, they vote however they really like.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on February 04, 2020, 06:34:20 PM
SOTU Address:

“I did the opposite of the suckwad Obama and America has never been in better shape.”

Two Term President Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 04, 2020, 07:03:09 PM
SOTU Address:

“I did the opposite of the suckwad Obama and America has never been in better shape.”

Two Term President Donald Trump.

I think I just heard the President refer to Kommiefornia as a "stanktuary state".  It was a slip of the lip but he is right, this state is crap.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on February 04, 2020, 07:31:22 PM
I think I just heard the President refer to Kommiefornia as a "stanktuary state".  It was a slip of the lip but he is right, this state is crap.

President Trump: The theme of tonight’s SOTU speech is me setting my nuts on Nancy Pelosi’s forehead AGAIN.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 05, 2020, 01:41:19 AM
That's my point. People can "identify" as whatever they want in some silly poll, but reality is at the poll, they vote however they really like.

Ah, OK. Point taken.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 05, 2020, 01:43:08 AM
President Trump: The theme of tonight’s SOTU speech is me setting my nuts on Nancy Pelosi’s forehead AGAIN.

Jeeze! LMAO! You are quite the character.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on February 05, 2020, 03:34:25 PM




How’d the Impeachment Go Fucktards

Donald’s Still There 👍🏻

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on February 05, 2020, 03:43:03 PM



I felt similarly from 2008-2016.


Difference is, I'm a rational adult...





...who KNEW A "CORRECTION" was coming!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on February 05, 2020, 04:00:31 PM

I felt similarly from 2008-2016.


Difference is, I'm a rational adult...





...who KNEW A "CORRECTION" was coming!!!

Maybe I’m Wrong only I don’t recall you ever Crying & Bellyaching & Bitching
About Donald.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on February 05, 2020, 04:03:40 PM
Maybe I’m Wrong only I don’t recall you ever Crying & Bellyaching & Bitching
About Donald.


I concede, good Sir.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Pray_4_War on February 05, 2020, 05:11:57 PM


How’d the Impeachment Go Fucktards

Donald’s Still There 👍🏻

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Ha ha ha.  Eat a big bag of shit.....all of you. 

MAGA

KAG
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 05, 2020, 07:01:35 PM
That's my point. People can "identify" as whatever they want in some silly poll, but reality is at the poll, they vote however they really like.

Never forget that libtards can self identify as the opposite sex, no sex, one of 34332 different genders, animals and anything under the full moon they desire.

But only good people are democRats and there's no way you can be one of their protected and be Conservative.   Fuck That Noise.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on February 06, 2020, 04:07:09 AM
Anyone and everyone can self identify as whatever they want. Whether others buy it or not is a different story.

Why is Then it’s always the Screwed Up Thinking Liberal Leftists that are Banging that Drum
& Pushing Those Stupid Agendas & have some Silly Tag or Name for those that won’t accept
Take notice of their Stupidity.

Case in Point HomoPhobic as you’ve used - which in fact is an incorrect useage of the word Phobic. 🙄
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 06, 2020, 04:11:15 AM



How’d the Impeachment Go Fucktards

Donald’s Still There 👍🏻

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

ha ha ha ha!!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 06, 2020, 04:22:22 AM
Anyone and everyone can self identify as whatever they want. Whether others buy it or not is a different story.

Doing so does not make it so.  How is it that I know this and yet you and others do not?

Facts and the truths they reveal do not cease to exist because so many choose to ignore them to salve their pathetic egos.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 06, 2020, 11:35:45 AM
Anyone and everyone can self identify as whatever they want. Whether others buy it or not is a different story.


Saggy, how is 'impeachment' going on .................
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 06, 2020, 11:49:18 AM
It is going as I expected it would. I am not about to lose sleep over it, or cry, or yell or get crazy. But, there are a lot of silly folks who think that I should. Maybe to make themselves feel better or something....I don't know.


Adolf Hitler was optimist too , BUT  :-[
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Powerlift66 on February 06, 2020, 11:54:12 AM
Progressives melting in their tears... :-[

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: JustPlaneJane on February 06, 2020, 12:47:26 PM
Someone needs to step in and help Nancy Pelosi with her dementia meds

I would laugh so hard I would cry if that senile old bitch stroked out during the SOTU Address
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 06, 2020, 12:56:46 PM
Someone needs to step in and help Nancy Pelosi with her dementia meds

I would laugh so hard I would cry if that senile old bitch stroked out during the SOTU Address


Strait-jacket 4 Nancy  ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 07, 2020, 04:46:29 PM
So every Democrat and one RINO voted to convict?  Not only did they fail to reach the 2/3 majority needed to convict, they failed to reach a simply majority.  What a colossal failure and waste of time and money. 

Democrats better act fast to come up with the next hoax, because Durham is coming, the economy is booming, and the Democrat candidates are horrible. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on February 08, 2020, 10:09:37 PM
Rudy going on the offensive. Claims some heavy proof here regarding corruption.


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: borsen8 on February 08, 2020, 11:11:23 PM
it's only a matter of time before impeachment happens
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Powerlift66 on February 09, 2020, 05:14:59 AM
 :o

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 09, 2020, 11:18:40 AM
it's only a matter of time before impeachment happens


 bullet for stupidity





Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Montague on February 09, 2020, 04:41:16 PM
it's only a matter of time before impeachment happens


How insightful.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 09, 2020, 08:09:20 PM
it's only a matter of time before impeachment happens

Your problem, like so many cucks,  is that you feel you have time.  What's even more hilarious is that your parents are forever contemplating the fact that you were once the fastest sperm...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: borsen8 on February 10, 2020, 10:37:09 PM
Your problem, like so many cucks,  is that you feel you have time.  What's even more hilarious is that your parents are forever contemplating the fact that you were once the fastest sperm...

why do you insist on calling me a "cuck"? I married my wife when were were 18 and 20, each, and we were the first love of each others life, and the only ones to be with each other, as well.

you are probably more of a "cuck", because, if you are married, the odds are high that you did not marry a virgin but in fact a woman who has been with several men before.

your hypocrisy knows no bounds, Scott.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on February 11, 2020, 03:10:17 AM
it's only a matter of time before impeachment happens

It did & Was a Total sham & waste of Time & Money.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 11, 2020, 07:26:09 PM
why do you insist on calling me a "cuck"? I married my wife when were were 18 and 20, each, and we were the first love of each others life, and the only ones to be with each other, as well.

you are probably more of a "cuck", because, if you are married, the odds are high that you did not marry a virgin but in fact a woman who has been with several men before.

your hypocrisy knows no bounds, Scott.

You only know that which I reveal to you and to be honest, you've no real clue of the veracity of those words.  But the source is like President Trump.

Unimpeachable.

You are a cuckold.  Your words, posited here on this site prove as such.  Don't like it.  Quit being it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: borsen8 on February 11, 2020, 07:51:58 PM
You only know that which I reveal to you and to be honest, you've no real clue of the veracity of those words.  But the source is like President Trump.

Unimpeachable.

You are a cuckold.  Your words, posited here on this site prove as such.  Don't like it.  Quit being it.

what do you mean "unimpeachable"? THe House of Representatives found him guilty. It was only because his party, who he obviously has dirt on and is clearly blackmailing into supporting him (who would support such a racist homophobe otherwise?) was able to control the fake "court" in the senate that it did not go all the way.

But Mr Trump will always be stained with the "impeached" asterisks by his name.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 11, 2020, 08:21:28 PM
what do you mean "unimpeachable"? THe House of Representatives found him guilty. It was only because his party, who he obviously has dirt on and is clearly blackmailing into supporting him (who would support such a racist homophobe otherwise?) was able to control the fake "court" in the senate that it did not go all the way.

But Mr Trump will always be stained with the "impeached" asterisks by his name.

The House “found him guilty”? The House can’t find him guilty, they can only bring articles of impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 11, 2020, 08:56:19 PM
what do you mean "unimpeachable"? THe House of Representatives found him guilty. It was only because his party, who he obviously has dirt on and is clearly blackmailing into supporting him (who would support such a racist homophobe otherwise?) was able to control the fake "court" in the senate that it did not go all the way.

But Mr Trump will always be stained with the "impeached" asterisks by his name.

How Shizzonian of you. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: borsen8 on February 11, 2020, 09:12:43 PM
The House “found him guilty”? The House can’t find him guilty, they can only bring articles of impeachment.

yes, they are the ones who decided he has done crimes worthy of being impeached. if he was so innocent, why did an entire house decide he wasnt?

just because those on his side of the political spectrum sided with him does not mean he did not make a big crimes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 11, 2020, 09:53:42 PM
yes, they are the ones who decided he has done crimes worthy of being impeached. if he was so innocent, why did an entire house decide he wasnt?

just because those on his side of the political spectrum sided with him does not mean he did not make a big crimes.

And just because those who are not on his side of the political spectrum sided against him doesn't mean he did commit "big" crimes. Especially when they vowed to impeach him the day after he was elected.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 11, 2020, 09:57:45 PM
what do you mean "unimpeachable"? THe House of Representatives found him guilty. It was only because his party, who he obviously has dirt on and is clearly blackmailing into supporting him (who would support such a racist homophobe otherwise?) was able to control the fake "court" in the senate that it did not go all the way.

But Mr Trump will always be stained with the "impeached" asterisks by his name.

He blackmailed the senate because he "obviously" has dirt on them. Do you have any evidence of this? It should be easy since it's "obvious".

And everyone who supports Trump is a racist homophobe?

You wonder why liberals and the democrats are losing so much credibility and can find a Presidential candidate that can beat Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: borsen8 on February 11, 2020, 10:11:54 PM
He blackmailed the senate because he "obviously" has dirt on them. Do you have any evidence of this? It should be easy since it's "obvious".

And everyone who supports Trump is a racist homophobe?

You wonder why liberals and the democrats are losing so much credibility and can find a Presidential candidate that can beat Trump.

I don't think Trump can be beat.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 12, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
yes, they are the ones who decided he has done crimes worthy of being impeached. if he was so innocent, why did an entire house decide he wasnt?

just because those on his side of the political spectrum sided with him does not mean he did not make a big crimes.

It wasn’t the entire House.  It was every House Democrat.  Zero Republicans.  The first purely partisan impeachment in American history.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on February 12, 2020, 01:13:47 AM
I don't think Trump can be beat.

Respect your honesty.

I think anybody can be beaten. You never know what can happen in 9 months, but the Dems are not doing themselves any favors. It seems that the top runners, Biden and Warren, are falling fast. Mayor Pete is moving up but there is no way America will vote for a 38-year-old gay man. Same with Sanders. Even the Democrats realize that a Socialist isn't going to beat Trump and are doing what they can to sabotage him again. Amy Klobuchar is starting to immerge as the moderate (for a Democrat) but she's too new and an unknown and doesn't have the entrenched political machine that Hillary has, who I have not ruled out. I think Hillary has the best chance. Her running will energize the Democrats like nothing else. Time to get their just revenge. I believe a lot of people didn't bother to vote because they didn't take Trump seriously and the media promoted that. They will now.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on February 12, 2020, 04:55:22 AM
It wasn’t the entire House.  It was every House Democrat.  Zero Republicans.  The first purely partisan impeachment in American history.

Despite the small nuances that prime felt were important, this is the issue.

It's hilarious that those who oppose Trump point to an almost partisan acquittal, while completely ignoring the partisan impeachment vote in the House.

Unreal.

These people are so fucking dumb.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 12, 2020, 12:35:59 PM
Not only did the entire House not vote for impeachment, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), voted against the impeachment articles, being the only Democrat to buck the party line and vote against the resolution.

It is accurate to say the majority of the House voted to impeach Trump, just not the entire House.

Yes one Democrat voted no and one switched parties. 

It is accurate to say exactly what I said:  this is the first purely partisan impeachment in American history. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 12, 2020, 12:36:46 PM
Despite the small nuances that prime felt were important, this is the issue.

It's hilarious that those who oppose Trump point to an almost partisan acquittal, while completely ignoring the partisan impeachment vote in the House.

Unreal.

These people are so fucking dumb.

Right?  Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 12, 2020, 01:29:32 PM
I agree it was a partisan impeachment. Not surprising considering the degree of partisanship we currently have.

Justin Amash, Representative for Michigan's 3rd congressional district. He was originally a member of the Republican Party, Amash became an independent in July 2019. He voted for impeachment.

And calling Amash an independent is like calling Bernie Sanders and independent.  A distinction without a difference.  They both caucus with Democrats and vote with Democrats. 

But keep on splitting those hairs. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on February 12, 2020, 02:31:31 PM
I agree it was a partisan impeachment. Not surprising considering the degree of partisanship we currently have.

Justin Amash, Representative for Michigan's 3rd congressional district. He was originally a member of the Republican Party, Amash became an independent in July 2019. He voted for impeachment.

Ooooohhh Yipeeee !!!

Come on Prime give it up - It was a load of Nonsense as well you Know.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on February 12, 2020, 04:00:59 PM
And calling Amash an independent is like calling Bernie Sanders and independent.  A distinction without a difference.  They both caucus with Democrats and vote with Democrats. 

But keep on splitting those hairs. 

Other than Amash voting for impeachment can you tell me what else he caucuses with the democrats on?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 12, 2020, 04:02:37 PM
Other than Amash voting for impeachment can you tell me what else he caucuses with the democrats on?

Probably eating dick.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Thin Lizzy on February 12, 2020, 04:27:53 PM
I am stating the facts. You are splitting hairs.


This thread is over. We’re about a week removed from impeachment and the whole thing has been forgotten as though it never even happened.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on February 12, 2020, 06:16:20 PM

This thread is over. We’re about a week removed from impeachment and the whole thing has been forgotten as though it never even happened.

In before the lock!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on February 12, 2020, 06:27:12 PM
In before the lock!


No more International news  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on February 12, 2020, 06:31:14 PM
I don't think Trump can be beat.
Neither does Vegas.  Check out his odds for winning.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on February 12, 2020, 07:18:26 PM
Probably eating dick.

Salient point.  You should have been added to the impeachment team.
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: The Scott on February 12, 2020, 08:00:05 PM
I don't think Trump can be beat.

But for some dumb-ass reason, you and your ilk keep picking on dead horses.

It's called writing.  Typist.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2020, 06:35:49 PM
This would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn't such a waste of taxpayer money. 

Dems tell Supreme Court of 'ongoing' new impeachment inquiry in effort to obtain Mueller materials
By Gregg Re | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-cite-ongoing-new-impeachment-inquiry-in-effort-to-obtain-mueller-materials
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 13, 2021, 01:52:25 PM
BREAKING: House Democrats votes to impeach the president and here are the Republicans who joined them
JAN. 13, 2021
BY THE RIGHT SCOOP

House Democrats have just voted to impeach the president without a hearing or without legitimate charges against him:
 
As you can clearly see, 10 Republicans joined Democrats impeach President Trump. Here are their names:

Liz Cheney - (R-WY At-Large)
Jaime Herrera Beutler - (R-WA 3rd)
John Katko - (R-NY 24th)
Adam Kinzinger - (R-IL 16th)
Peter Meijer - (R-MI 3rd)
Dan Newhouse - (R-WA 4th)
Fred Upton - (R-MI 6th)
Tom Rice - (R-SC 7th)
Anthony Gonzalez - (R-OH 16th)
David Valadao - (R-CA 21st)

The final vote was 232-197 for impeachment of a president who is a week from leaving office. A very sad day in the history of this nation.

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-house-democrats-votes-to-impeach-the-president-and-here-are-the-republicans-who-joined-them/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on January 13, 2021, 02:02:40 PM
This would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn't such a waste of taxpayer money. 

Dems tell Supreme Court of 'ongoing' new impeachment inquiry in effort to obtain Mueller materials
By Gregg Re | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-cite-ongoing-new-impeachment-inquiry-in-effort-to-obtain-mueller-materials

even funnier are the idiots who think this is a waste of money when no "extra" money was spent doing this and even if it did require additional funds it would a small price to pay to defend OUR DEMOCRACY against THE TRAITOR and ENEMY OF THIS COUNTRY

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Straw Man on January 13, 2021, 03:51:01 PM
BREAKING: House Democrats votes to impeach the president and here are the Republicans who joined them
JAN. 13, 2021
BY THE RIGHT SCOOP

House Democrats have just voted to impeach the president without a hearing or without legitimate charges against him:
 
As you can clearly see, 10 Republicans joined Democrats impeach President Trump. Here are their names:

Liz Cheney - (R-WY At-Large)
Jaime Herrera Beutler - (R-WA 3rd)
John Katko - (R-NY 24th)
Adam Kinzinger - (R-IL 16th)
Peter Meijer - (R-MI 3rd)
Dan Newhouse - (R-WA 4th)
Fred Upton - (R-MI 6th)
Tom Rice - (R-SC 7th)
Anthony Gonzalez - (R-OH 16th)
David Valadao - (R-CA 21st)

The final vote was 232-197 for impeachment of a president who is a week from leaving office. A very sad day in the history of this nation.

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-house-democrats-votes-to-impeach-the-president-and-here-are-the-republicans-who-joined-them/

I wonder how soon it will be before these ten people start reporting that they are receiving death threats from their fellow Republicans
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: LurkerNoMore on January 13, 2021, 04:10:38 PM
Nothing sad about this day.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on January 13, 2021, 08:54:46 PM
Nothing sad about this day.

Depends on how you look at it. The fact he wasn't removed from office during the first impeachment when everyone knew or SHOULD have known he was a danger to this country, and we had to go to a historical second impeachment is kind of sad 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 26, 2021, 12:11:33 AM
More waste of my tax dollars. 

Trump Impeachment Article Arrives in the Senate, But Trial Delayed Until Early February
Lisa Hagen 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-impeachment-article-arrives-in-the-senate-but-trial-delayed-until-early-february/ar-BB1d5tUC
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on January 26, 2021, 09:32:15 AM
Depends on how you look at it. The fact he wasn't removed from office during the first impeachment when everyone knew or SHOULD have known he was a danger to this country, and we had to go to a historical second impeachment is kind of sad
He was less of a danger to this country than your crooked coworkers out there smoking black men at random.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 26, 2021, 09:38:19 AM
Depends on how you look at it. The fact he wasn't removed from office during the first impeachment when everyone knew or SHOULD have known he was a danger to this country, and we had to go to a historical second impeachment is kind of sad

This is horseshit.

Anyone with any intelligence knew the entire deal with that impeachment - you either believed he was investigating corruption in 2016, or getting dirt on a future political rival.

Either conclusion could be drawn from the statement depending on viewpoint.

However, that then puts it on the accuser to have clear, undeniable evidence to convict.  The left didn't even come close.  They even changed the charges from bribery mid impeachment because they KNEW they had nothing but heresay and conjecture.

So, if the Democrats knew they couldn't convict, what's the rational conclusion on why they tried?

Politics - simple politics.

Exactly what the founding fathers did NOT want impeachment to be.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: monsterman500 on January 26, 2021, 09:38:42 AM
He was less of a danger to this country than your crooked coworkers out there smoking black men at random.
Fucking Gold  :D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2021, 10:03:42 AM
Depends on how you look at it. The fact he wasn't removed from office during the first impeachment when everyone knew or SHOULD have known he was a danger to this country, and we had to go to a historical second impeachment is kind of sad

Total FNG bs.  Muller said there was NO PROOF of collusion with Russia.  Seek help leech on a pension. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2021, 01:31:45 PM
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on January 26, 2021, 03:22:41 PM
This impeachment is a waste of money.  Certainly, there must be blowjobs out there to investigate to the tune of 70 or 80 million dollars, right?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on January 26, 2021, 03:35:57 PM
This impeachment is a waste of money.  Certainly, there must be blowjobs out there to investigate to the tune of 70 or 80 million dollars, right?

FFS 😱 Jeez My Mental Health Must Be Fucking Awful - Only

To Right - Good Post. 👍🏻
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on January 26, 2021, 06:00:03 PM
FFS 😱 Jeez My Mental Health Must Be Fucking Awful - Only

To Right - Good Post. 👍🏻

da fuck?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 27, 2021, 04:00:55 AM
The push for a second impeachment should be what ends Pelosi.

But it won't.

Sheep.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: sync pulse on January 27, 2021, 06:15:43 AM
Impeaching Trump again does not make much sense and I doubt it will fly. It will take time away from other matters Congress should be working on. I'm not particularly concerned about Trump being reelected in 2024.

Trump needs to be kicked in the ass on the way out of the door...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 27, 2021, 06:19:37 AM
Trump needs to be kicked in the ass on the way out of the door...

He is already gone.    ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 27, 2021, 06:24:59 AM
Sen. Patrick Leahy, set to preside over Trump impeachment, taken to hospital
CNBC ^ | 1-26-21 | Dan Mangan
Posted on 1/26/2021, 6:09:4


Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is set to preside over the upcoming impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, was taken to a Washington hospital on Tuesday afternoon after “not feeling well,” his spokesman said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on January 27, 2021, 06:51:25 AM
Sen. Patrick Leahy, set to preside over Trump impeachment, taken to hospital
CNBC ^ | 1-26-21 | Dan Mangan
Posted on 1/26/2021, 6:09:4


Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is set to preside over the upcoming impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, was taken to a Washington hospital on Tuesday afternoon after “not feeling well,” his spokesman said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...

i was watching CNN this morning for a few minutes.  This is gonna be shit show.  The GOP said if the Dems call witnesses they will too and drag this out for months.  Meanwhile I think I saw them talking about how 45 GOP senators oppose the impeachment trial.

I don't see how they re going to get the 17 needed votes.

 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 27, 2021, 06:52:43 AM
i was watching CNN this morning for a few minutes.  This is gonna be shit show.  The GOP said if the Dems call witnesses they will too and drag this out for months.  Meanwhile I think I saw them talking about how 45 GOP senators oppose the impeachment trial.

I don't see how they re going to get the 17 needed votes.

This is why I will never ever vote for a D ever.  No matter what.   Ever.  This is what you get when you elect kids from the Magic Garden and Romper Room to office. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: OzmO on January 27, 2021, 08:12:45 AM
This is why I will never ever vote for a D ever.  No matter what.   Ever.  This is what you get when you elect kids from the Magic Garden and Romper Room to office.

If this looks like its going to drag out we need to move on.  We have to resurrect small businesses and get people employed.  That's job #1 IMO.

Otherwise, our economy will be #2 sooner.

 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on January 27, 2021, 08:20:30 AM
i was watching CNN this morning for a few minutes.  This is gonna be shit show.  The GOP said if the Dems call witnesses they will too and drag this out for months.  Meanwhile I think I saw them talking about how 45 GOP senators oppose the impeachment trial.

I don't see how they re going to get the 17 needed votes.

Pelosi knew she had nothing on the first impeachment, but did it anyway.

This is no different.

It's personal with her.

I would love to do a half hour live interview with her.

Her legacy should be:

2x failed partisan impeachment
Telling people on video to come to chinatown in the early pandemic
Showing people her $12 per quart ice cream in front of her 24k refrigerator at the pandemic height
Getting busting without a mask in a hair salon during pandemic and blaming the salon owner
Tearing up the SOU that highlighted veteran sacrifices.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 27, 2021, 08:54:46 AM
If this looks like its going to drag out we need to move on.  We have to resurrect small businesses and get people employed.  That's job #1 IMO.

Otherwise, our economy will be #2 sooner.

 

Absolutely - anything else and it infuriates me to no end.  Getting people working and making $ to feed their families needs to be the ONLY main priority now.  Not trannys, not illegals, not BLM, etc
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 27, 2021, 05:34:05 PM
The push for a second impeachment should be what ends Pelosi.

But it won't.

Sheep.

Those people can do whatever the heck they want.  Violate the Constitution.  Ignore the law.  Ignore common sense.  Invent "crimes" for impeachment.  Incite people to commit harassment and violence.  Bail looters and other criminals out of jail.  Doesn't matter. 

But hey at least we don't have to read mean tweets anymore.   ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on January 27, 2021, 06:47:58 PM
Those people can do whatever the heck they want.  Violate the Constitution.  Ignore the law.  Ignore common sense.  Invent "crimes" for impeachment.  Incite people to commit harassment and violence.  Bail looters and other criminals out of jail.  Doesn't matter. 

But hey at least we don't have to read mean tweets anymore.   ::)
Spot  on.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 15, 2021, 05:27:15 PM
Massive failure.  Again. 

Former President Donald Trump acquitted in 2nd impeachment trial
Donald Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached twice.
By Lauren Lantry
February 13, 2021
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-donald-trump-acquitted/story?id=75853994
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on February 15, 2021, 06:34:03 PM

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 16, 2021, 12:09:02 AM
(https://media.babylonbee.com/articles/article-5400-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on February 16, 2021, 12:15:12 AM
Massive failure.  Again. 

Former President Donald Trump acquitted in 2nd impeachment trial
Donald Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached twice.
By Lauren Lantry
February 13, 2021
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-donald-trump-acquitted/story?id=75853994

Also the only President to be acquitted twice.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 20, 2021, 09:15:54 AM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9911499/Osama-bin-Laden-predicted-Joe-Biden-lead-America-crisis.html


Biden needs to go
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 20, 2021, 09:34:56 AM
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IRON CROSS on August 20, 2021, 03:15:02 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9911499/Osama-bin-Laden-predicted-Joe-Biden-lead-America-crisis.html


Biden needs to go

Taliban love him !.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on August 20, 2021, 05:40:22 PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9911499/Osama-bin-Laden-predicted-Joe-Biden-lead-America-crisis.html


Biden needs to go

That leaves us with Kamala.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 20, 2021, 05:42:47 PM
That leaves us with Kamala.

Yeah.  She might wind up taking over before 2024 anyway, but I don't think people are thinking through the side-effects of impeachment and removal. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: TheGrinch on August 20, 2021, 06:13:03 PM
That leaves us with Kamala.

pelosi would just sick Hildog and her hit squad on her..... and you'd be left with


PELOSI/SCHUMER running the country


Let's do this!!


PEDO FOR POTUS 2024!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: pellius on August 21, 2021, 01:06:04 AM
Yeah.  She might wind up taking over before 2024 anyway, but I don't think people are thinking through the side-effects of impeachment and removal.

No way on Heaven and Earth. She was kicked out early in the primaries and in a recent poll, even the majority of Democrats don't think she is qualified to be President. If you were part of the President's cabinet would you want her as a boss?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on August 21, 2021, 01:35:32 AM
No way on Heaven and Earth. She was kicked out early in the primaries and in a recent poll, even the majority of Democrats don't think she is qualified to be President. If you were part of the President's cabinet would you want her as a boss?

No, I wouldn't want her as a boss, but:

I believe that her political ambitions are too close to being realized, and that no one could persuade her to go quietly.  The DNC made the call (I don’t think that Biden had much say in VP choice) and can’t change direction – to do so would be considered racist, sexist, etc.  Stupid woke-ism.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 26, 2021, 10:35:32 AM
Yeah.  She might wind up taking over before 2024 anyway, but I don't think people are thinking through the side-effects of impeachment and removal.

At least one person is:

Nikki Haley
@NikkiHaley
Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes. But that would leave us with Kamala Harris which would be ten times worse. God help us.
#ItDidntHaveToBeThisWay #GodBlessOurTroops #AfghanistanDisaster
9:51 AM · Aug 26, 2021·Twitter for iPad
419
 Retweets
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2021, 01:04:15 PM
Resign, you bastard
Flopping Aces ^ | 08-26-21 | DrJohn
Posted on 8/26/2021, 3:47:35 PM by Starman417



Enough is enough.

At least ten US service members have been killed in a terrorist attack at Kabul airport.

But Biden assured us that no one’s being killed:

“Oh, there is,” Biden said when asked about “pandemonium” near the airport by Stephanopoulos. “But, look – but no one’s being killed right now, God forgive me if I’m wrong about that, but no one’s being killed right now.”
The US has been made a laughingstock by Joe Biden’s actions. His unilateral decision to abandon our allies in Afghanistan has been met with both scorn and ridicule.
The United Kingdom’s Parliament on Wednesday held President Joe Biden in contempt for his withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, calling the move “catastrophic” and “shameful.”
Members of Parliament, including some who served alongside U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, accused Biden of “throwing us and everybody else to the fire” with his decision to withdraw. They also attacked Biden for his “shameful” criticism of the Afghan National Army and said it was “dishonourable” to blame Afghanistan’s fighting force for the Taliban’s takeover.

“Those who have never fought for the colours they fly should be careful about criticising those who have,” said Tom Tugendhat, a British Army veteran of the Afghanistan war and the Conservative chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Biden is one of only a few U.S. presidents who have not served in the military.

After the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, Biden said he stood “squarely behind” his decision to pull out, adding that “there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.” He blamed Afghanistan’s president and military for the collapse of the country.

Back in January Biden said
 “We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.”
He’s said a lot of things. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called Biden an “imbecile.”
“I am president of the United States of America, and the buck stops with me,”
Sure, other than he has consistently tried to pin the blame for the disaster on Donald Trump
Biden blamed his predecessor, former President Trump, for empowering the Taliban and leaving them “in the strongest position militarily since 2001.”
Then Biden proceeded to arm the Taliban with $83 billion in military assets and all the classified data the Taliban needs to identify and kill all the Afghans who aided the US. As liberals have ZERO long term memory let’s revisit what Biden said not long ago
https://rumble.com/vl8uwp-biden-timeline-and-manner-of-afghanistan-withdrawal-was-my-decision.html

He made all the decisions but it’s still Trump’s fault. Just yesterday Biden thought the idea of leaving Americans stranded in Afghanistan was funny:

Joe Biden joked about the evacuation with an NBC News reporter as thousands of Americans and Afghans still wait to escape the country.
The president, who has strongly defended his administration’s response to the crisis, was asked by Peter Alexander what he would do if Americans are still in Afghanistan after the 31 August deadline to withdraw US troops.

And the smiling Commander-in-Chief told Alexander, “You’ll be the first person I call.”

A week ago Biden said
“…any attack on our forces or disruption of our operations at the airport will be met with a swift and forceful response.” Joe Biden, August 20, 2021.
I can’t wait to see that one. I bet it’ll be a stern, strongly worded letter. So today?
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2021, 02:43:30 PM
Holy F is he done.  Listening now.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Moontrane on August 26, 2021, 04:22:33 PM
The irony:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/10/biden-obama-will-be-tested-013284

Biden: Obama will be tested
By BEN SMITH 10/20/2008 09:28 AM EDT
Joe Biden shifted things briefly onto what's thought to be McCain's turf at a Seattle fundraiser yesterday:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 22, 2021, 11:49:13 AM
Rep. Bob Gibbs introduces articles of impeachment against Biden
by Emily Brooks, Political Reporter |   | September 21, 2021
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bob-gibbs-impechment-articles-biden
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on January 31, 2022, 05:14:36 PM
50% Support Biden’s Impeachment
Monday, January 31, 2022
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2022/50_support_biden_s_impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on June 18, 2022, 01:55:11 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVUBjxHWAAEgeAz?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 18, 2022, 06:10:59 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVUBjxHWAAEgeAz?format=jpg&name=large)

Typical
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on June 19, 2022, 08:50:58 AM
Typical

The Atlantic also published the phony story about Trump calling troops who died in combat losers, with the editor backtracking and basically admitting the entire crux of the story was wrong.

But it served it's purpose and is still true in the minds of the infected / affected.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 14, 2023, 01:39:54 PM
If this influence peddling stuff is true, the House has to impeach Biden.  I doubt the Senate removes him, because Democrats are great at circling the wagon and will not convict Biden unless there is a video of him physically accepting bribe money. 

But as things start to heat up, what if Biden pardons Trump, Hunter, and himself?  Crazy I know, but we are living in crazy times. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 14, 2023, 03:12:58 PM
Also the only President to be acquitted twice.

This only follows, a President cannot be acquitted twice of it unless he or she was twice impeached.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 14, 2023, 08:33:23 PM
This only follows, a President cannot be acquitted twice of it unless he or she was twice impeached.

and lets not ignore the conviction rate vs other presidents.. but hey, Trump, regardless of his impeachment and indictment records, but have been a phenomenal upstanding President every Christian and Patriot could get behind.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 15, 2023, 02:21:20 PM
This only follows, a President cannot be acquitted twice of it unless he or she was twice impeached.

Partisan impeachments, which Democrats previously said should never happen. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 15, 2023, 05:22:53 PM
and lets not ignore the conviction rate vs other presidents.. but hey, Trump, regardless of his impeachment and indictment records, but have been a phenomenal upstanding President every Christian and Patriot could get behind.
Do you agree those "impeachments" and "indictments" were legitimate or were they partisan attacks?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 15, 2023, 07:58:57 PM
Do you agree those "impeachments" and "indictments" were legitimate or were they partisan attacks?

Legit... you can only ignore so much unethical behavior before you are forced to deal with it
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 15, 2023, 08:10:34 PM
Legit... you can only ignore so much unethical behavior before you are forced to deal with it
So you would consider Biden and all of his 47 years mooching off the taxpayer as ethical?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 15, 2023, 08:38:51 PM
So you would consider Biden and all of his 47 years mooching off the taxpayer as ethical?

We had the Mueller investigation, seems there were some serious issues in that.. they let it slide.

The impeachments and the indictment had ample investigations and there was ample evidence to support each.

On Biden, all I hear are 3rd person and right wing politicians hurling accusations. They may all be true, (not a great track record but ok) and if so, I expect with the Republicans having a majority in the House, we will at least get to hear some actual facts verses depending on them to just tell us something nefarious is up.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 16, 2023, 01:26:53 PM
We had the Mueller investigation, seems there were some serious issues in that.. they let it slide.

The impeachments and the indictment had ample investigations and there was ample evidence to support each.

On Biden, all I hear are 3rd person and right wing politicians hurling accusations. They may all be true, (not a great track record but ok) and if so, I expect with the Republicans having a majority in the House, we will at least get to hear some actual facts verses depending on them to just tell us something nefarious is up.
Why wouldn't they indict if they had some serious issues with the Mueller investigation? Because there really wasn't anything there?
The impeachments had investigations tainted by terrible media manipulation and partisan hacks.
As far as Bidens racist, manipulative, underhanded deals, I wish republicans would put out or get out, quit talking about it and sack up.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 16, 2023, 02:17:09 PM
So you would consider Biden and all of his 47 years mooching off the taxpayer as ethical?

The folks who elected and reelected him to public office must have thought it was ethical or they would not have voted for him.

The electoral history of Joe Biden, the 46th and current president of the United States, began in 1970 when he was elected to New Castle County Council District 4 with more than 55% of the vote.

In 1972, Biden defeated Republican incumbent J. Caleb Boggs to become the junior U.S. senator from Delaware. He was the only Democrat willing to challenge Boggs, and with minimal campaign funds, he was given no chance of winning. Yet is won with over 50% of the vote.

In the 1978 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 58% of the vote.

In the 1984 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 60% of the vote.

In the 1990 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 63% of the vote.

In the 1996 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 60% of the vote.

In the 2002 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 58% of the vote.

In the 2008 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 65% of the vote.

He did not fare as well in the Presidential Primaries. But he made enough of a positive impression to be chosen Obama and the Democratic party's Vice President on the ticket in the general election 2008.

If folks believe their House Rep or Senator is not doing a good job, they have an opportunity to vote them out of office upon reelection. If they do a terrible job, they can be impeached.

Holding public office is not a "gift" which cannot be taken back. Many if not most private sector jobs come with more job security than do elected positions such as Senators and Representatives. As was evident during Trump's time in office, appointees have even less job security (actually no job security at all).

Dianne Feinstein, the senior United States senator from California has held her Senate seat since 1992.     




Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on June 16, 2023, 05:32:05 PM
The folks who elected and reelected him to public office must have thought it was ethical or they would not have voted for him.

The electoral history of Joe Biden, the 46th and current president of the United States, began in 1970 when he was elected to New Castle County Council District 4 with more than 55% of the vote.

In 1972, Biden defeated Republican incumbent J. Caleb Boggs to become the junior U.S. senator from Delaware. He was the only Democrat willing to challenge Boggs, and with minimal campaign funds, he was given no chance of winning. Yet is won with over 50% of the vote.

In the 1978 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 58% of the vote.

In the 1984 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 60% of the vote.

In the 1990 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 63% of the vote.

In the 1996 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 60% of the vote.

In the 2002 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 58% of the vote.

In the 2008 United States Senate election in Delaware, he won with 65% of the vote.

He did not fare as well in the Presidential Primaries. But he made enough of a positive impression to be chosen Obama and the Democratic party's Vice President on the ticket in the general election 2008.

If folks believe their House Rep or Senator is not doing a good job, they have an opportunity to vote them out of office upon reelection. If they do a terrible job, they can be impeached.

Holding public office is not a "gift" which cannot be taken back. Many if not most private sector jobs come with more job security than do elected positions such as Senators and Representatives. As was evident during Trump's time in office, appointees have even less job security (actually no job security at all).

Dianne Feinstein, the senior United States senator from California has held her Senate seat since 1992.   
LOL @ Feinstein....you want to talk about wheeling around the dead. ::)

Do you think Biden would have won any of those elections if the internet was around and information was freely shared?
Of course you do, you're a partisan line walker.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on June 16, 2023, 06:22:54 PM
LOL @ Feinstein....you want to talk about wheeling around the dead. ::)

Do you think Biden would have won any of those elections if the internet was around and information was freely shared?
Of course you do, you're a partisan line walker.

Truthfully, I don't give a lot of thought to 'might have beens'. The internet was not around until its birth on January 1, 1983. This leaves some 20+ years that information was rapidly becoming freely shared and Biden ran for reelection to the Senate.

As for Feinstein... what's your point? I was simply demonstrating that there are people in Congress who have made a lifelong career out of their public service, thanks to the voters. And maybe a lack of interest in public service from other qualified people. I mean, what person in their right mind would run for Congress much less President of the U.S. these days? Would you?

Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), 16, 1985 to present, age 81

Chuck Grassley (R-IA), January 3, 1981 to present, age 89

House:
John Carter (R-TX), January 3, 2003 to present, age 81

Hal Rogers (R-Ky), January 3, 1981 to present, age 85


Interestingly, there are more long term Democrats in the Senate and house then there are Republicans. Does this mean Republican voters are fickle or wise? Does this mean Democratic voters are loyal and perhaps not so wise (at least when it comes to old people in Congress). LOL!

Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on June 16, 2023, 08:09:07 PM
Why wouldn't they indict if they had some serious issues with the Mueller investigation? Because there really wasn't anything there? be
The impeachments had investigations tainted by terrible media manipulation and partisan hacks.
As far as Bidens racist, manipulative, underhanded deals, I wish republicans would put out or get out, quit talking about it and sack up.

You answered your first question with your second line.. Even if they had, you would have dismissed them. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 16, 2023, 11:54:27 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVUBjxHWAAEgeAz?format=jpg&name=large)

lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on June 22, 2023, 01:06:45 PM
Exclusive: Marjorie Taylor Greene to Force Joe Biden Impeachment Vote
WENDELL HUSEBØ
22 Jun 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/22/exclusive-marjorie-taylor-greene-force-joe-biden-impeachment-vote/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on June 22, 2023, 07:24:55 PM
Exclusive: Marjorie Taylor Greene to Force Joe Biden Impeachment Vote
WENDELL HUSEBØ
22 Jun 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/22/exclusive-marjorie-taylor-greene-force-joe-biden-impeachment-vote/
Greene is one tough chick.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 21, 2023, 06:24:19 PM
Greene is one tough chick.

Yes she is.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 21, 2023, 06:26:55 PM
The House has more than enough evidence to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Biden for bribery.  Does the House GOP have the spine to start the process?  (I doubt it.)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on July 22, 2023, 01:37:07 AM
The House has more than enough evidence to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Biden for bribery.  Does the House GOP have the spine to start the process?  (I doubt it.)

Very sad state they're in if they don't.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on July 22, 2023, 09:07:14 PM
The House has more than enough evidence to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Biden for bribery.  Does the House GOP have the spine to start the process?  (I doubt it.)

Simply stated... You're full of shit. again. They don't or they would... What you WISH, has never and will never be the standard for justice in the US. If this confuses you ask a lawyer
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Skeletor on July 22, 2023, 09:38:48 PM
The House has more than enough evidence to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Biden for bribery.  Does the House GOP have the spine to start the process?  (I doubt it.)

As seen with the previous impeachments, unfortunately it is a matter of party line vote, not factual evidence. With the relatively thin majority the Republicans have I don't think they will want to risk it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 24, 2023, 11:08:09 AM
Very sad state they're in if they don't.

I'll be surprised if they have the stones to actually do the right thing.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 24, 2023, 11:10:27 AM
Simply stated... You're full of shit. again. They don't or they would... What you WISH, has never and will never be the standard for justice in the US. If this confuses you ask a lawyer

Like chaos recently said:

If I wanted the opinion of a fucking idiot, I would have directed the questions towards you. :)

Now go sit in the corner and be quiet until I call on you.

(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/469648578/photo/bunsinessman-in-dunce-cap-sits-on-a-stool-in-corner.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=D0cyoYdwCnvFiGB5P7MFn0GUlhqCW_AwEFrtvbzJnpI=)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 24, 2023, 11:12:40 AM
As seen with the previous impeachments, unfortunately it is a matter of party line vote, not factual evidence. With the relatively thin majority the Republicans have I don't think they will want to risk it.

Impeachments should never be partisan, but a partisan impeachment is the only way it will happen with Biden, because Democrats are great a circling the wagons and protecting their own, regardless of what crimes their people commit. 

At a minimum, they need to start an inquiry.  But I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 24, 2023, 10:40:20 PM
Speaker McCarthy must be reading the board.   :)

Kevin McCarthy Says Impeachment Inquiry of Joe Biden Being Prepared
By Bonchie | July 24, 2023

Is Joe Biden finally about to face the first steps of impeachment? That’s what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy signaled on Monday evening.

While appearing on Fox News, McCarthy laid out the case that Joe Biden accepted bribes and funneled money through a variety of shell companies. He then said at the end of the segment with Sean Hannity that “this is rising to the level of an impeachment inquiry.”

MCCARTHY: We would know none of this if Republicans had not taken the majority. We have only followed where the information has taken us, but this is rising to the level of impeachment inquiry, which provides Congress the strongest power to get the rest of the knowledge and information needed because this president has also used something we have not seen since Richard Nixon, used the weaponization of government to benefit his family and deny Congress the ability to have the oversight.

McCarthy indicates that what they’ve learned so far rises to the level of an impeachment inquiry and that one will be necessary to garner relevant facts to continue the investigation. As he notes at the end of his statement, the Biden administration has stonewalled Congress to this point, and an impeachment inquiry will give them new powers to demand and receive information.

Still, some of what was said could be considered vague. McCarthy doubled down, though, later in his comments, saying definitively that “this is gonna rise to the level of an impeachment inquiry.”

MCCARTHY: I believe we will follow this all the way to the end, and this is gonna rise to an impeachment inquiry, the way the Constitution tells us to do this, and we have to get the answers to these questions.

That doesn’t sound like a statement McCarthy will have an easy time walking back if he didn’t actually mean it. With the FD-1023 form having been recently released and direct quotes tying Biden to the alleged bribery scheme at the center of all this, the Speaker would likely have a mutiny on his hands if he didn’t move forward at this point.

Past attempts to impeach Biden have been one-offs by individual congressional members. An impeachment inquiry with the backing of leadership is a completely different ballgame. Only by going through that process is there any chance of gaining majority support to adopt articles of impeachment.

This is a developing story. RedState will provide further updates if they become available.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/07/24/breaking-kevin-mccarthy-says-impeachment-inquiry-of-joe-biden-being-prepared-n781673
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 27, 2023, 08:35:53 PM
House Republicans line up behind McCarthy on the Biden impeachment seesaw
The speaker and his members are caught between two competing forces: conservative eagerness to target the president and skittishness from members in battleground seats.
By SARAH FERRIS, OLIVIA BEAVERS and JORDAIN CARNEY
07/26/2023
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/26/impeachment-politics-biden-mccarthy-garland-mayorkas-gop-00108235
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2023, 01:17:27 PM
Congress obligated to launch Biden impeachment inquiry after he 'clearly lied': Jonathan Turley
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he is considering an impeachment inquiry over Hunter Biden deals
By Fox News Staff | Fox News
Published July 28, 2023

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley joined ‘The Faulkner Focus’ to discuss the fallout over the collapse of Hunter Biden's plea deal and his take on a potential Biden impeachment inquiry.

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argued Friday it is Congress' obligation to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden after he "clearly lied" to Americans about his involvement in his son Hunter's business deals. The GWU law professor told "The Faulkner Focus" on Friday that questions surrounding potential bribery "cannot go unanswered."

JONATHAN TURLEY: We often talk about the powers of Congress and not its obligations. What is the House supposed to do? You know, you have a president who has clearly lied, lied for years, lied to the American people, lied through his representatives at the White House during his presidency. He obviously did know about these deals. He had involvement with some of these meetings. There was money that went to China. And then you've got IRS agents saying that the fix was in, that this case was actively managed to avoid serious charges for the president's son. You have millions of dollars moving through a labyrinth of accounts. You have a trusted source saying that there was a bribery allegation. The crime that is the second one mentioned in the impeachment clause. So what are you supposed to do about that? And the answer is you have to investigate. And an impeachment inquiry gives the House that ability. It doesn't mean they're going to impeach. It means they're taking the responsibility seriously no matter what the administration may want out of this. The one thing the House cannot allow is for these questions to go unanswered.

House Republicans have floated launching an impeachment inquiry against President Biden amid newly surfaced allegations that suggest his involvement in the business dealings of his son. But can congressional lawmakers initiate the use of that constitutional tool for alleged treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors that transpired before holding the office of the presidency?

"The answer is clear," Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Digital. "No one knows."

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states: "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."

But it doesn’t specify whether those alleged actions need to take place during the time the official holds the office.

"The crucial impeachment language in the Constitution is not limited to ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ committed while ‘in office,’" senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation Hans A. von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. "That language is not there."

Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy noted that "impeachment is a political process, not a legal one."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/congress-obligated-launch-biden-impeachment-inquiry-clearly-lied-jonathan-turley
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on July 28, 2023, 02:07:02 PM
As soon as Pelosi gave in and started an impeachment she knew had no chance in the Senate, a counter impeachment was inevitable.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2023, 02:23:11 PM
As soon as Pelosi gave in and started an impeachment she knew had no chance in the Senate, a counter impeachment was inevitable.

The difference here is they have evidence of actual crimes. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on July 28, 2023, 02:45:43 PM
The literal hard evidence is overwhelming





Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2023, 03:26:00 PM
The literal hard evidence is overwhelming







I listened to the podcasts with Rep. Comer.  Damning stuff.  Money was flowing from foreign countries/entities to Biden's grandchildren.  There were 170 Suspicious Activity Reports generated by banks for these transactions. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on July 31, 2023, 10:36:44 AM
Congress obligated to launch Biden impeachment inquiry after he 'clearly lied': Jonathan Turley
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he is considering an impeachment inquiry over Hunter Biden deals
By Fox News Staff | Fox News
Published July 28, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/media/congress-obligated-launch-biden-impeachment-inquiry-clearly-lied-jonathan-turley
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on July 31, 2023, 04:05:21 PM
Greene is one tough chick.

Tough chick also known as a stewing hen or a tough old bird. Stewing as in to brood angrily. Yup! It all describes MTG. ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on August 01, 2023, 12:13:07 AM
Congress obligated to launch Biden impeachment inquiry after he 'clearly lied': Jonathan Turley
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he is considering an impeachment inquiry over Hunter Biden deals
By Fox News Staff | Fox News
Published July 28, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/media/congress-obligated-launch-biden-impeachment-inquiry-clearly-lied-jonathan-turley

I don't know that he lied.. he may have.. I will wait until compelling evidence is presented,  but if he did... I don't think simply lying is impeachable or Trump would have been impeached over 30,000 times
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2023, 10:53:42 AM
I don't know that he lied.. he may have.. I will wait until compelling evidence is presented,  but if he did... I don't think simply lying is impeachable or Trump would have been impeached over 30,000 times

Biden said he never talked to Hunter about his overseas business dealings.  That was a lie.  There is overwhelming evidence that this is a lie. 

The fact you are citing the "30,000" lies published by a hack reporter is pretty funny.  You know you did not review all 30,000 of these alleged lies. This same reporter shut down his "lie" detector when Biden was elected.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on August 01, 2023, 07:53:11 PM
Biden said he never talked to Hunter about his overseas business dealings.  That was a lie.  There is overwhelming evidence that this is a lie. 

The fact you are citing the "30,000" lies published by a hack reporter is pretty funny.  You know you did not review all 30,000 of these alleged lies. This same reporter shut down his "lie" detector when Biden was elected.

Post the overwhelming evidence..
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2023, 08:15:46 PM
Post the overwhelming evidence..

I've posted numerous links on this board.  Go do your own homework.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on August 01, 2023, 09:48:33 PM
I've posted numerous links on this board.  Go do your own homework.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devon-archer-hunter-biden-house-oversight-committee-testifies/

Goldman told reporters that there's "no connection" between the president and his son's business dealings.

"The witness indicated that Hunter spoke to his father every day," Goldman said. "And approximately 20 times over the course of [a] 10-year relationship, Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings. As he described it, it was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, 'what's going on?' There wasn't a single conversation about any of the business dealings that Hunter had."

Not like he called a President of another country and tried to get him to open a PUBLIC investigation on his political oppenent or aid might be witheld.. that would certainly be impeach.....oh wait...

You're all hot air, no substance these days. What happened to you?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2023, 10:00:42 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devon-archer-hunter-biden-house-oversight-committee-testifies/

Goldman told reporters that there's "no connection" between the president and his son's business dealings.

"The witness indicated that Hunter spoke to his father every day," Goldman said. "And approximately 20 times over the course of [a] 10-year relationship, Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings. As he described it, it was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, 'what's going on?' There wasn't a single conversation about any of the business dealings that Hunter had."

Not like he called a President of another country and tried to get him to open a PUBLIC investigation on his political oppenent or aid might be witheld.. that would certainly be impeach.....oh wait...

You're all hot air, no substance these days. What happened to you?

The fact you are quoting Dan Goldman (who is as dishonest as Adam Schifff) and ignoring the actual evidence that Biden did actually discuss Hunter Biden's business deals doesn't surprise me at all. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on August 01, 2023, 10:10:21 PM
The fact you are quoting Dan Goldman (who is as dishonest as Adam Schifff) and ignoring the actual evidence that Biden did actually discuss Hunter Biden's business deals doesn't surprise me at all.

well it shouldn't, since you've posted no actual evidence...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-goldman-and-gop-s-donalds-spar-over-devon-archer-coverage/ar-AA1eEQsQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c1a29f6f95264427bb731fcf006bc59f&ei=14

But continue to pretend you have.. I'm sure some on the right here will just assume you did and get behind you
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2023, 10:16:07 PM
well it shouldn't, since you've posted no actual evidence...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-goldman-and-gop-s-donalds-spar-over-devon-archer-coverage/ar-AA1eEQsQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c1a29f6f95264427bb731fcf006bc59f&ei=14

But continue to pretend you have.. I'm sure some on the right here will just assume you did and get behind you

If you think I'm going to waste my time trying to educate someone like you (again) then you should put the crack pipe down.  Or pass it to Hunter Biden. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on August 01, 2023, 10:35:28 PM
If you think I'm going to waste my time trying to educate someone like you (again) then you should put the crack pipe down.  Or pass it to Hunter Biden.

I am not celebrating this win, I'm actually sad it had to happen.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on August 01, 2023, 10:47:36 PM
The fact you are quoting Dan Goldman (who is as dishonest as Adam Schifff) and ignoring the actual evidence that Biden did actually discuss Hunter Biden's business deals doesn't surprise me at all.

Please direct me to this 'actual' evidence you speak of. So far, all I have seen or heard about is purported evidence.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2023, 11:02:12 PM
I am not celebrating this win, I'm actually sad it had to happen.

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2023, 11:03:56 PM
Please direct me to this 'actual' evidence you speak of. So far, all I have seen or heard about is purported evidence.

You're asking me for evidence that Joe Biden discussed Hunter Biden's business deals with him?  Am I being punked?  lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on August 01, 2023, 11:04:15 PM
I am not celebrating this win, I'm actually sad it had to happen.

Me neither. It is sad. Dos and Coach are now parroting each other. Coach/Dos, there is actual evidence. The response is to show us this actual evidence. Coach/Dos, I can’t be bothered to do this once again. My question is how can they do something again that they have failed to do before? Since when did opinions become evidence? I missed it. ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on August 01, 2023, 11:53:07 PM
Me neither. It is sad. Dos and Coach are now parroting each other. Coach/Dos, there is actual evidence. The response is to show us this actual evidence. Coach/Dos, I can’t be bothered to do this once again. My question is how can they do something again that they have failed to do before? Since when did opinions become evidence? I missed it. ;)

It's truly sad. I honestly have no desire to gloat. We've been talking for years. I had hoped we developed a mutually respectful relationship. But the refusal to provide the evidence they refer to while we are supplying in earnest, evidence that contradicts their claims.. The claims I am a liar, it's disheartening. I just recently had Coach post a meme about Ashley Biden that has been debunked so many times it has bandages, and it broke my heart. It made me realize we just aren't on the same level. And I hate that. Basic research is so lacking it is embarrassing. I  have literally held Coaches hand trying to show him how to navigate bogus information to avoid such embarrassment and it isn't 24hrs, it isn't 12 hours before he's back to posting the same nonsense. What is really sad is, it's not Coach, or Dos Equis that behaves this way, it's almost half of America. 70+ percent of Republicans don't believe Trump did anything seriously wrong..  it's basically a Jim Jones type cult mentality and I don't have a clue how to break through. Facts won't work... showing time and again their posts are not true doesn't phase them. So I'm kind of at a loss
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 08, 2023, 08:03:13 PM
House Republicans Lurch Toward Impeachment Inquiry Against Joe Biden
The politically explosive move could divide Republicans in both chambers of Congress.
By Arthur Delaney, Igor Bobic, and Jonathan Nicholson
Aug 8, 2023
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-impeachment-biden-ukraine_n_64d2828de4b0b9c9f3e3c053
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 08, 2023, 08:04:00 PM
Mitch McConnell Urges House Republicans to Avoid Biden Impeachment
PAUL BOIS  8 Aug 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/08/mitch-mcconnell-urges-house-republicans-to-avoid-biden-impeachment/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on August 09, 2023, 11:53:47 AM
Mitch McConnell Urges House Republicans to Avoid Biden Impeachment
PAUL BOIS  8 Aug 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/08/mitch-mcconnell-urges-house-republicans-to-avoid-biden-impeachment/


He needs to go as well as most of the RINOS.

There are 50 things that would be "impeachable offenses" if Trump was in office. That's how weak they are. They just get beaten slowly by radicals and are fine with it.

ANYONE thinking voting establishment GOP is going to fix anything is stark raving mad.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 09, 2023, 12:01:01 PM
Mitch McConnell Urges House Republicans to Avoid Biden Impeachment
PAUL BOIS  8 Aug 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/08/mitch-mcconnell-urges-house-republicans-to-avoid-biden-impeachment/

Other than blocking merrick garland on the SC, he is useless and corrupt
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 09, 2023, 01:02:18 PM

He needs to go as well as most of the RINOS.

There are 50 things that would be "impeachable offenses" if Trump was in office. That's how weak they are. They just get beaten slowly by radicals and are fine with it.

ANYONE thinking voting establishment GOP is going to fix anything is stark raving mad.

Other than blocking merrick garland on the SC, he is useless and corrupt

He definitely needs to go, but I do give him credit for keeping Garland off the Supreme Court and getting Trump's three picks through. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on August 09, 2023, 06:36:55 PM
Mitch McConnell Urges House Republicans to Avoid Biden Impeachment
PAUL BOIS  8 Aug 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/08/mitch-mcconnell-urges-house-republicans-to-avoid-biden-impeachment/
Old ass swamp creature.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: B_B_C on August 11, 2023, 12:24:23 PM
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. — Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 11, 2023, 01:16:28 PM
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. — Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

?

Ok.  And?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 14, 2023, 12:29:48 PM
Rep. Greg Steube Files Articles Of Impeachment Against Joe Biden
HENRY RODGERS
CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT
August 11, 2023

Republican Florida Rep. Greg Steube filed articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden on Friday.

The Daily Caller obtained the resolution, which lists Bribery, Extortion, Obstruction of justice, Fraud and Financial involvement in drugs & prostitution as reasons to impeach Biden.

“It’s long past time to impeach Joe Biden,” Steube said in a statement after introducing the resolution. “He has undermined the integrity of his office, brought disrepute on the Presidency, betrayed his trust as President, and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice at the expense of America’s citizens. The evidence continues to mount by the day – the Biden Crime Family has personally profited off Joe’s government positions through bribery, threats, and fraud. Joe Biden must not be allowed to continue to sit in the White House, selling out our country.”

Article 1 states: “Robert Hunter Biden (Hunter Biden) and James Biden sold access to then Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (Joe Biden) while he was in office from 2009 to 2017 and sold promised access to a future Biden Presidential Administration while he was out of office from 2017 to 2021. Hunter and James appear to have promised official actions by Joe Biden in return for payments and business opportunities from foreign and domestic business partners. Joe Biden assisted by making appearances, phone calls, meeting with the ‘business partners,’ and knowingly allowing his family members to promise access to him and actions by him in furtherance of these schemes. Hunter Biden threatened business partners that official actions could be taken against them if they did not meet terms or make payments. In at least one instance, Hunter implied that Joe Biden was aware of these threats and willing to assist in enforcing the threats, potentially through official actions. Hunter Biden attempted to enrich himself and the Biden family by threatening official actions from his father, who he claims was willing to assist in the scheme. These acts are abuses of power as well as the following federal crimes or conspiracy to commit the following federal crimes: Bribery of Public Officials, 18 USC § 201; Hobbs Act Extortion ‘Under Color of Official Right,’ 18 USC § 1951; Honest Services Fraud relating to use of official position, 18 USC § 1346.”

Article 2 States: “According to testimony from IRS whistleblowers, members of the Biden campaign improperly colluded with Justice Department (DOJ) officials to improperly interfere with investigations into tax crimes alleged to have been committed by Hunter Biden. These acts constitute an abuse of power as well as Obstruction of Justice, 18 USC §§ 1505, 1510, 1512.”

READ THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HERE:

Article 3 States: “James Biden recruited ‘investors’ for business ventures that ultimately failed. There is evidence to suggest that these investment opportunities were sold to investors based on false and fraudulent pretenses and promises. Access to Joe Biden and indications that Joe Biden supported these schemes were used to lure investors into the schemes. These acts constitute fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 1943, 1949.” (RELATED: MTG Introduces Articles Of Impeachment Against Joe Biden)

Article 4 States: “Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have a long history of comingled and intertwined finances. Between 2010 and 2019 thousands of dollars of Biden family money was spent on illegal drug transactions and prostitution. These acts constitute violations of or conspiracy to violate federal drug laws at 21 USC §§ 841, 842, 843, 846 and federal prostitution laws at 18 USC §§ 2421, 2421A, 2422.” (RELATED: House Moves To Delay Impeachment Vote For Biden)

In late June, The U.S. House of Representatives voted to delay efforts to impeach Biden. The vote was 219-208.

In May, Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced articles of impeachment against Biden during a press conference.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/11/florida-greg-steube-articles-of-impeachment-joe-biden-hunter-james/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 30, 2023, 09:07:06 PM
15 Questions A Biden Impeachment Inquiry Must Ask Because Corporate Media Won’t
BY: ELLE PURNELL
AUGUST 30, 2023
https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/30/15-questions-a-biden-impeachment-inquiry-must-ask-because-corporate-media-wont/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on August 30, 2023, 09:20:36 PM
Florida GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna announces impeachment inquiry vote likely to happen in October
"Hearing vote on impeachment inquiry is going to happen... likely in October," Luna wrote.
By Charlotte Hazard
Updated: August 25, 2023
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/hold-florida-gop-rep-anna-paulina-luna-announces-impeachment-inquiry-likely-happen?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gym Rat on August 31, 2023, 01:52:49 AM
Master of Shitting who's pulling the chain!!!!
Flushing that shite right down the drain!!!!
Blinded by stench you can't see a thing!!!!
Just call corrupt and Joe will be seen!!!


MASTER, BLASTER!!!

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Metallica_-_Master_of_Puppets_cover.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 07, 2023, 09:37:17 PM
'A Big Circle Jerk': John Fetterman Dares Republicans To Impeach Joe Biden
“Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” said the Democratic senator. "It's a loser."
By Igor Bobic
Sep 6, 2023
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-impeachment-john-fetterman_n_64f8df8de4b0d44852edd611
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 08, 2023, 08:25:02 AM
Which will probably immediately followed by another Trump indictment.

Rep. Comer to Newsmax: Impeachment Inquiry Vote Possible Mid-Sept.
By Luca Cacciatore    |   Thursday, 07 September 2023

James Comer, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, suggested Thursday that a House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden could come as early as the middle of this month.

The GOP Kentucky lawmaker also told Newsmax's "Rob Schmitt Tonight" that he believes there are enough Republican votes for it to pass.

"I think the House will vote in September. And this is all up to [House Speaker] Kevin McCarthy [R-Calif.], but he and I have had several conversations. I know [House Judiciary Chair] Jim Jordan [R-Ohio] has spoken with him many times, as well.

"I would predict that in the middle of September, we have a vote. I would predict that it passes."

Comer also said the inquiry would be helpful for gaining information from federal agencies, like the National Archives and the Internal Revenue Service, that have slow-walked providing requested bank records.

"I believe that we've gotten more information than anyone could have ever dreamed possible, and yet, there's still a lot of information left to get," he emphasized.

The chair further acknowledged that a number of Republicans were initially "nervous" about the prospects of an inquiry.

However, allegations that Joe Biden communicated with his son, Hunter Biden, through pseudonyms about foreign business dealings "was the straw that broke the camel's back" for them.

"They realized that we need this tool to be able to win in court because that's where we're headed," Comer insisted. "We've just about picked all the low-hanging fruit."

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/joe-biden-impeachment-inquiry/2023/09/07/id/1133671/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on September 08, 2023, 02:37:39 PM
Which will probably immediately followed by another Trump indictment.

Rep. Comer to Newsmax: Impeachment Inquiry Vote Possible Mid-Sept.
By Luca Cacciatore    |   Thursday, 07 September 2023

James Comer, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, suggested Thursday that a House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden could come as early as the middle of this month.

The GOP Kentucky lawmaker also told Newsmax's "Rob Schmitt Tonight" that he believes there are enough Republican votes for it to pass.

"I think the House will vote in September. And this is all up to [House Speaker] Kevin McCarthy [R-Calif.], but he and I have had several conversations. I know [House Judiciary Chair] Jim Jordan [R-Ohio] has spoken with him many times, as well.

"I would predict that in the middle of September, we have a vote. I would predict that it passes."

Comer also said the inquiry would be helpful for gaining information from federal agencies, like the National Archives and the Internal Revenue Service, that have slow-walked providing requested bank records.

"I believe that we've gotten more information than anyone could have ever dreamed possible, and yet, there's still a lot of information left to get," he emphasized.

The chair further acknowledged that a number of Republicans were initially "nervous" about the prospects of an inquiry.

However, allegations that Joe Biden communicated with his son, Hunter Biden, through pseudonyms about foreign business dealings "was the straw that broke the camel's back" for them.

"They realized that we need this tool to be able to win in court because that's where we're headed," Comer insisted. "We've just about picked all the low-hanging fruit."

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/joe-biden-impeachment-inquiry/2023/09/07/id/1133671/

Another crime to indict Trump won't be hard to find. The four current indictments are without a doubt just 'the tip of the iceberg,' as it were.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2023, 01:30:38 PM
The House has more than enough evidence to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Biden for bribery.  Does the House GOP have the spine to start the process?  (I doubt it.)

Simply stated... You're full of shit. again. They don't or they would... What you WISH, has never and will never be the standard for justice in the US. If this confuses you ask a lawyer

Like chaos recently said:

If I wanted the opinion of a fucking idiot, I would have directed the questions towards you. :)

Now go sit in the corner and be quiet until I call on you.

(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/469648578/photo/bunsinessman-in-dunce-cap-sits-on-a-stool-in-corner.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=D0cyoYdwCnvFiGB5P7MFn0GUlhqCW_AwEFrtvbzJnpI=)

McCarthy directs House committees to open Biden impeachment inquiry
BY EMILY BROOKS AND MYCHAEL SCHNELL - 09/12/23
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4199641-mccarthy-directs-house-committees-to-open-biden-impeachment-inquiry/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on September 12, 2023, 03:31:26 PM
Another crime to indict Trump won't be hard to find. The four current indictments are without a doubt just 'the tip of the iceberg,' as it were.

If the system was a just system how many do you think Biden and his puppeteers would have?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: AbrahamG on September 12, 2023, 05:19:50 PM
If the system was a just system how many do you think Biden and his puppeteers would have?

Just one.  Hunter is a piece of shit.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on September 12, 2023, 05:24:28 PM
If the system was a just system how many do you think Biden and his puppeteers would have?

-Not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it for me? Thanks.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on September 12, 2023, 05:38:26 PM
-Not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it for me? Thanks.

He is saying that because the "system" (courts, grand juries) indicted Trump, it's not a just system, but if it was just, how many indictments do you think Biden would have? Although his only proof that the system is unjust is it indicted Trump.. that's how he rolls.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on September 12, 2023, 06:40:12 PM
So finally the ones with the power give the green light.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on September 12, 2023, 06:41:18 PM
He is saying that because the "system" (courts, grand juries) indicted Trump, it's not a just system, but if it was just, how many indictments do you think Biden would have? Although his only proof that the system is unjust is it indicted Trump.. that's how he rolls.
Thank you for explaining this to me.

Coach says I am picking on his grammar/typos when I ask him to explain something like this to me because I could not make sense of it. He counters with it is the fault of speech to text, not a typo or grammar issue. Who cares? When someone posts something, it needs to be clear enough so folks can understand it.

Written communications are fraught with misunderstandings because various aspects of a discussion are absent, such as voice inflection, facial expression, and body language. Plus, the time lag between posting, replying and the final explanation makes matters worse.

The internet and social media are great tools for increasing communication. But they are far from perfect. As Coach often suggests “let’s debate” only how we legitimately do this using the internet? Debates need to happen in person for them to work. I use Zoom for business meetings which is great, especially for me because I am hearing impaired and headphones are a great asset, but it simply is not the same us folks being in a room together.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2023, 09:19:19 PM
So finally the ones with the power give the green light.

I'm actually surprised they had the stones to do the right thing.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2023, 09:20:20 PM
Thank you for explaining this to me.

Coach says I am picking on his grammar/typos when I ask him to explain something like this to me because I could not make sense of it. He counters with it is the fault of speech to text, not a typo or grammar issue. Who cares? When someone posts something, it needs to be clear enough so folks can understand it.

Written communications are fraught with misunderstandings because various aspects of a discussion are absent, such as voice inflection, facial expression, and body language. Plus, the time lag between posting, replying and the final explanation makes matters worse.

The internet and social media are great tools for increasing communication. But they are far from perfect. As Coach often suggests “let’s debate” only how we legitimately do this using the internet? Debates need to happen in person for them to work. I use Zoom for business meetings which is great, especially for me because I am hearing impaired and headphones are a great asset, but it simply is not the same us folks being in a room together.

Hilarious that someone like you who constantly plagiarizes stuff on the internet would correct anyone's grammar.   :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 15, 2023, 05:54:11 PM
Five Facts That Compel the Biden Impeachment Inquiry
September 14, 2023

Below is my column in The Messenger on the reason why an impeachment inquiry is warranted.  I do not believe that a case for impeachment has been made, but there is clearly a need for an investigation into a growing array of allegations facing the President in this corruption scandal.

I also reject the notion that, because a conviction is unlikely in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the House should not go down this road. I rejected the same argument made by some Republicans during the Trump impeachment. The House has a separate constitutional duty in the investigation of potential impeachable offenses and to pass articles of impeachment if those allegations are found to be valid. My objection to the Trump impeachments were first and foremost the failure to fully investigate the underlying allegations and to create a full record to support the articles of impeachment. The Senate has its own constitutional function under the Constitution that it can either choose to fulfill or to ignore.  A House impeachment holds both constitutional and historical significance separate from any conviction. That does not mean that grounds for impeachment will be found in this inquiry.  While the President deserves a presumption of innocence in this process, the public deserves answers to these questions.

Here is the column:

With the commencement of an impeachment inquiry this week, the House of Representatives is moving the Biden corruption scandal into the highest level of constitutional inquiry. After stonewalling by the Bidens and federal agencies investigating various allegations, the move for a House inquiry was expected if not inevitable.

An impeachment inquiry does not mean that an impeachment itself is inevitable. But it dramatically increases the chances of finally forcing answers to troubling questions of influence-peddling and corruption.

As expected, many House Democrats — who impeached Donald Trump after only one hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, based on his phone call to Ukraine’s president — oppose any such inquiry into President Biden. House Republicans could have chosen to forego any hearings and use what I called a “snap impeachment,” as then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did with the second Trump impeachment in January 2021.

Instead, they have methodically investigated the corruption scandal for months and only now are moving to a heightened inquiry. The House has established a labyrinth of dozens of shell companies and accounts allegedly used to transfer millions of dollars to Biden family members. There is now undeniable evidence to support influence-peddling by Hunter Biden and some of his associates — with Joe Biden, to quote Hunter’s business partner Devon Archer, being “the brand” they were selling.

The suggestion that this evidence does not meet the standard for an inquiry into impeachable offenses is an example of willful blindness. It also is starkly different from the standard applied by congressional Democrats during the Trump and Nixon impeachment efforts.

The Nixon impeachment began on Oct. 30, 1973, just after President Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor looking into the Watergate allegations. The vote in the judiciary committee was along party lines. The House was correct to start that impeachment inquiry, although House leaders stressed that they were not prejudging the existence of impeachable offenses. The inquiry started roughly eight months before any indictments of defendants linked to the Watergate break-in. It was many months before clear evidence established connections to Nixon, who denied any wrongdoing or involvement.

Every impeachment inquiry is different, of course. In this case, there is a considerable amount of evidence gathered over months of methodical investigations by three different committees.

Consider just five established facts:

First, there appears to be evidence that Joe Biden lied to the public for years in denying knowledge of his son’s business dealings. Hunter Biden’s ex-business associate, Tony Bobulinski, has said repeatedly that he discussed some dealings directly with Joe Biden. Devon Archer, Hunter’s close friend and partner, described the president’s denials of knowledge as “categorically false.”

Moreover, Hunter’s laptop has communications from his father discussing the dealings, including audio messages from the president. The president allegedly spoke with his son on speakerphone during meetings with his associates on at least 20 occasions, according to Archer, attended dinners with some clients, and took photographs with others.

Second, we know that more than $20 million was paid to the Bidens (and Biden associates) by foreign sources, including figures in China, Ukraine, Russia and Romania. There is no apparent reason for the multilayers of accounts and companies other than to hide these transfers. Some of these foreign figures have allegedly told others they were buying influence with Joe Biden, and Hunter himself repeatedly invoked his father’s name — including a text exchange with a Chinese businessman in which he said his father was sitting next to him as Hunter demanded millions in payment. While some Democrats now admit that Hunter was selling the “illusion” of influence and access to his father, these figures clearly believed they were getting more than an illusion. That includes one Ukrainian businessman who reportedly described Hunter as dumber than his dog.

Third, specific demands were made on Hunter, including dealing with the threat of a Ukrainian prosecutor to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter was given a lucrative board position. Five days later, Joe Biden forced the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor, even though State Department and intelligence reports suggested that progress was being made on corruption. Likewise, despite warnings from State Department officials that Hunter was undermining anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, he continued to receive high-level meetings with then-Secretary of State John Kerry and other State Department officials.

Fourth, Hunter repeatedly stated in emails that he paid his father as much as half of what he earned. There also are references to deals that included free office space and other perks for Joe Biden and his wife; other emails reference how Joe and Hunter Biden would use the same accounts and credit cards. Beyond those alleged direct benefits, Joe Biden clearly benefited from money going to his extended family.

Fifth, there is evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Hunter that could be linked to covering up these payments, from the failure to pay taxes to the failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. What is not established is the assumption by many that Joe Biden was fully aware of both the business dealings and any efforts to conceal them.

The White House is reportedly involved in marshaling the media to swat down any further investigation. In a letter drafted by the White House Counsel’s office, according to a CNN report media executives were told they need to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans “for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.” It is a dangerous erosion of separation between the White House and the president’s personal legal team. Yet, many in the media have previously followed such directions from the Biden team — from emphasizing the story that the laptop might be “Russian disinformation” to an unquestioning acceptance of the president’s denial of any knowledge of his son’s dealings.

Notably, despite the vast majority of media echoing different defenses for the Bidens for years, the American public is not buying it. Polls show that most Americans view the Justice Department as compromised and Hunter Biden as getting special treatment for his alleged criminal conduct. According to a recent CNN poll, 61% of Americans believe Joe Biden was involved in his family’s business deals with China and Ukraine; only 1% say he was involved but did nothing wrong.

The American public should not harbor such doubts over corruption at the highest levels of our government. Thus, the House impeachment inquiry will allow Congress to use the very apex of its powers to force disclosures of key evidence and resolve some of these troubling questions. It may not result in an impeachment, but it will result in greater clarity. Indeed, it is that very clarity that many in Washington may fear the most from this inquiry.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/14/five-facts-that-compel-the-biden-impeachment-inquiry/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
Latest Reuters Poll on Biden Impeachment Is Awful News for the President
By Bonchie | September 18, 2023
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/09/18/latest-reuters-poll-on-biden-impeachment-is-awful-news-for-the-president-n2163943
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on September 18, 2023, 04:28:56 PM
Latest Reuters Poll on Biden Impeachment Is Awful News for the President
By Bonchie | September 18, 2023
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/09/18/latest-reuters-poll-on-biden-impeachment-is-awful-news-for-the-president-n2163943
Liberals love polls. Why aren't they in here talking about how great this poll is?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on September 18, 2023, 07:04:11 PM
Hilarious that someone like you who constantly plagiarizes stuff on the internet would correct anyone's grammar.   :)

Is plagiarizing bad grammar? Who knew?

Besides, you missed the point, I didn't correct Coach's grammar, I asked him to explain something he wrote which made no sense to me. This had nothing to do with his grammar. Coach is a master at deflecting. Rather than providing the explanation, which he probably couldn't do, he pretended it was about his grammar. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2023, 07:08:33 PM
Is plagiarizing bad grammar? Who knew?

Besides, you missed the point, I didn't correct Coach's grammar, I asked him to explain something he wrote which made no sense to me. This had nothing to do with his grammar. Coach is a master at deflecting. Rather than providing the explanation, which he probably couldn't do, he pretended it was about his grammar.

You actually missed the point.  You constantly plagiarize stuff you post on the board.  Given that fact, it's ironic and funny that you would have anything to say about anyone's grammar, spelling, etc. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on September 18, 2023, 07:21:02 PM
You actually missed the point.  You constantly plagiarize stuff you post on the board.  Given that fact, it's ironic and funny that you would have anything to say about anyone's grammar, spelling, etc.

Explain for me what plagiarism has to do with grammar, spelling and whatever else you threw in with that 'etc.' What exactly is your point?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2023, 07:25:23 PM
Explain for me what plagiarism has to do with grammar, spelling and whatever else you threw in with that 'etc.' What exactly is your point?

The point is that you take other people's writing and try and pass it off as your own.  That writing is usually mistake-free.  Given that fact, you should not be criticizing other people's writing, because you routinely steal other people's content.  You don't have much of a funny bone, so I don't expect you to see how funny this is, but you have to see the irony here. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on September 18, 2023, 07:36:02 PM
The point is that you take other people's writing and try and pass it off as your own.  That writing is usually mistake-free.  Given that fact, you should not be criticizing other people's writing, because you routinely steal other people's content.  You don't have much of a funny bone, so I don't expect you to see how funny this is, but you have to see the irony here.


Conservatives have a FAR better sense of humor these days.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on September 18, 2023, 07:42:09 PM
The point is that you take other people's writing and try and pass it off as your own.  That writing is usually mistake-free.  Given that fact, you should not be criticizing other people's writing, because you routinely steal other people's content.  You don't have much of a funny bone, so I don't expect you to see how funny this is, but you have to see the irony here.

Lots of articles, news stories and other publications are loaded with gematrical errors, misspelled words and typos. It makes me wonder whose editing this stuff. However, the point you missed is that I wasn't criticizing Coach's grammar which is something I already explained to you. What he wrote did not make sense, at least not to me. I asked him to tell me what he meant. My question had nothing to do with his grammar. His reply suggests that either he could not explain what he meant, or he misunderstood my request.  Where is the irony? Maybe you have a definition for the word ironic that I’ve not heard of.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 18, 2023, 07:51:45 PM

Conservatives have a FAR better sense of humor these days.

Without question. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 19, 2023, 10:30:31 AM
House will hold first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing next Thursday
House Republicans are moving forward with their impeachment inquiry into President Biden as soon as next week
By Chad Pergram , Chris Pandolfo Fox News
Published September 19, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-hold-first-biden-impeachment-inquiry-hearing-thursday
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: chaos on September 19, 2023, 04:40:49 PM
Is plagiarizing bad grammar? Who knew?


Suppose we could ask Joe Bite'm, he seems to be an expert.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 19, 2023, 11:47:19 PM
New Poll Spells Bad News For Biden, Shows Half Of Independent Voters Want To Impeach Him - Do You Support Impeachment?
by: Bryan Richardson 09.19.2023 Source: DC Enquirer

An explosive new poll from CBS News/YouGov finds that fifty percent of independent voters want to impeach Joe Biden from office for matters surrounding his son, Hunter Biden.

The survey, which covers the period from September 12th through September 15th, finds that 81 percent of Republicans favor impeaching Joe Biden, with only 19 percent of GOP voters opposing an impeachment. The opposite is true of the Democrats; 88 percent oppose House Republicans impeaching Biden, with only 12 percent looking upon the Republican efforts favorably. Independents are split 50-50 on the question of impeaching the Democrat president, echoing the general sentiment of those polled. Forty-seven percent of those polled favor the impeachment, and 53 percent are opposed.

All the same, Republicans have controlled the House for less than a year, and, as such, these numbers are impressive indeed. The American people want to see corruption exposed, and the corruption of the Biden Crime Family is especially important to the people of our nation, no matter their background.

We, the people, are interested in knowing our current president's business dealings. We, the people, are interested in learning what lies behind the plethora of shell companies Hunter Biden and his associates started. We also demand answers to Joe Biden's knowledge of his son's business dealings and whether he benefited from them. These are critical questions, questions the Democrats must answer to win the trust of the American people.

The corruption of Joe Biden and his crime family could not be clearer, which makes it all the more infuriating when the entire justice system is weaponizing itself against the 45th President and the leading Republican presidential contender, Donald J. Trump. One of the major reasons for that weaponization is Trump's dominance in the GOP field. Moreover, Trump remains a potent force to win the presidency in 2024. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Biden and Trump neck and neck in most surveys. Donald Trump has even managed to take the lead away from Joe Biden in recent polls. This has to scare Biden and the Democrats since Republicans have historically been able to lose the popular vote while winning the electoral college.

As such, it stands to reason that the radical, far-left Democrats would use any means necessary to gain a much-needed political advantage -- including indicting their most likely political opponent. We, the people, must act politically to make sure Joe Biden and the Democrats lose big league in 2024, and that means rallying around the future Republican nominee.

https://dcenquirer.com/new-poll-spells-bad-news-for-biden-shows-half-of-independent-voters-want-to-impeach-him
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on September 22, 2023, 08:35:49 AM
Comer: Impeachment Inquiry ‘Unfortunate’ But Biden ‘Blocked and Obstructed Us at Every Turn’

House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) said Thursday on FNC’s “The Faulkner Focus” that it was “unfortunate” House Republicans have started an impeachment inquiry, but President Joe Biden and his legal team “have blocked and obstructed” their investigation at “every turn.”

Comer said, “This is an impeachment inquiry. It’s unfortunate we have had to go here, but this family, the Biden family, this administration, the Biden administration and his legal team have blocked and obstructed us at every turn.”

He continued, “Yet we continue to uncover more findings, more evidence of wrongdoing by the Biden family. So this is the next step: an impeachment inquiry. We are not talking about having an impeachment vote. This is not an impeachment trial. This is an inquiry so that we have every tool at our disposal to get to a speedy trial if and when we head to court over these personal bank records.”

Comer added, “We’re having an impeachment inquiry because we have gotten to the point to where there is so much evidence of wrongdoing by the Biden family, and Joe Biden has lied so many times to the American people about his knowledge of his family’s wrongdoings.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2023/09/21/comer-impeachment-inquiry-unfortunate-but-biden-blocked-and-obstructed-us-at-every-turn/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 28, 2023, 06:42:29 PM
Good job of laying out evidence that justifies the impeachment inquiry.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1707429785410982159?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1707429785410982159%7Ctwgr%5Ee84cc90f983eb5f16f44d09cbcf9d627ae1ea8fa%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2023%2F09%2F28%2Fbyron-donalds-torches-dems-no-evidence-line-with-receipts-during-impeachment-inquiry-n2164416
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 28, 2023, 07:43:56 PM
Legal expert tells Biden impeachment hearing: President 'has lied'
Also 'may have benefited from corruption' as millions of dollars sent to family
By Bob Unruh
Published September 28, 2023

Jonathan Turley, a popular legal commentator and a law professor who holds the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, had testified before Congress many times.

He's even represented members of Congress in court, but key this week as the U.S. House opens hearings on whether Joe Biden should be impeached is the fact he's testified before Congress during the Clinton impeachment, and the two failed impeach-and-remove schemes assembled by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against President Donald Trump.

In his presentation, Turley went into detail about the history of impeachment, what has been used as a standard in the past, and pointed out that investigations by Congress, which has been investigating what appears to be a huge influence peddling scheme operated by Biden family members, have proven the need for such hearings.

"I believe that the record has developed to the point that the House needs to answer troubling questions surrounding the president," he wrote in his prepared remarks.

"The record currently contains witness and written evidence that the president (1) has lied about key facts in these foreign dealings, (2) was the focus of a multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme, and (3) may have benefited from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family…"

He then listed 10 "disclosures" about which American people need more answers:

Hunter Biden and his associates were running a classic influence peddling operation using Joe Biden as what Devon Archer called "the Brand." While this was described as an "illusion of access," millions were generated for the Bidens from some of the most corrupt figures in the world, including associates who were later accused of or convicted of public corruption.

Some of the Biden clients pushed for changes impacting United States foreign policy and relations, including help in dealing with Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin investigating corruption.

President Biden has made false claims about his knowledge of these dealings repeatedly in the past, including insisting that he had no knowledge of Hunter’s foreign dealings which Archer has declared "patently false." The Washington Post and other media outlets have also declared the President’s insistence that his family did not take money from China is false.

The President had been aware for years that Hunter Biden and his uncle James were accused of influence peddling, including an audiotape of the President acknowledging a New York Times investigation as a threat to Hunter.

President Biden was repeatedly called into meetings with these foreign clients and was put on speakerphone. He also met these clients and foreign figures at dinners and meetings.

E-mails and other communications show Hunter repeatedly invoking his father to secure payments from foreign sources and, in one such message, he threatens a Chinese figure that his father is sitting next to him to coerce a large transfer of money.

A trusted FBI source recounted a direct claim of a corrupt Ukrainian businessman that he paid a “bribe” to Joe Biden through intermediaries.
Hunter Biden reportedly claimed that he had to give half of his earnings to his father and other e-mails state that intermingled accounts were used to pay bills for both men, including a possible credit account that Hunter used to allegedly pay prostitutes.

At least two transfers of funds to Hunter Biden in 2019 from a Chinese source listed the President’s home in Delaware where Hunter sometimes lived and conducted business.

Some of the deals negotiated by Hunter involved potential benefits for his father, including office space in Washington. At least nine Biden family members reportedly received money from these foreign transfers, including grandchildren.18 For Hunter Biden, this included not just significant money transfers but gifts like an expensive diamond and a luxury car.

He confirmed, "These are only some of the serious corruption allegations facing the president, but each could raise impeachable conduct if a nexus is established to the president."

And Turley called for Congress to do due diligence in its investigation and development of evidence, especially has Pelosi's second failed assault on Trump was done with "no hearing at all." He emphasized the need for documentation, proof.

He said the current allegations "concern an alleged effort to sell influence or access, as well as other wrongdoing. Corruption allegations involving a president are particularly damaging for our political system, effectively dissolving the public trust in the government."

He identified the areas on which Congress should focus: "Influence peddling is a form of corruption," he said. "Second, influence peddling is often accompanied by criminal or impeachable acts of concealment. Third, the alleged corrupt conduct of President Biden could amount to impeach offenses and the House has an obligation to establish if such conduct occurred."

He said, "If President Biden was engaged in selling access or influence, it is clearly a corrupt scheme that could qualify as impeachable conduct. An inquiry into such allegations of corruption would clearly have been viewed by the Framers as a matter of the highest priority for congressional investigation."

He said, "The object of the House should be to create a full record upon which a verdict can be fairly and efficiently adjudged by the Senate. Obviously, the Senate can expand that record with its own witnesses and discovery. Yet, the House should strive to achieve an open and deliberative process where the president has the opportunity to not just contest allegations but appear on his own behalf. It should be based on a presumption of innocence that demands more than pure speculation as to a President’s conduct or knowledge. As with a grand jury, it is not meant to conclusively establish guilt, but rather, to guarantee that a threshold of evidence is met to justify a trial."

He continued, "Potentially criminal conduct creates the strongest foundation for other articles on collateral impeachable conduct like obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering. The criminal code not only puts presidents on notice of the gravity of their actions, but also executive staff. The active involvement of White House staff in promulgating false or misleading accounts can become a matter for an impeachment inquiry. The front-loading of potential criminal conduct allows the House to then consider common non-criminal impeachable claims of abuse of power. That article is stronger when actions are taken to facilitate conduct that is arguably criminal, though it is not limited to such conduct in prior impeachments. This framing also serves to create a focus for investigatory staff."

https://www.wnd.com/2023/09/legal-expert-tells-biden-impeachment-hearing-president-lied/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on September 28, 2023, 09:52:53 PM
Comer subpoenas personal, business bank records for Hunter Biden, James Biden as part of impeachment inquiry
Comer says 'bank records don't lie'


House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer issued three subpoenas Thursday night for the personal and business bank records belonging to President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden, as part of the House impeachment inquiry. Comer, R-Ky., who signaled earlier this month his intention to subpoena those records, did so just hours after the first hearing as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

Fox News Digital reviewed the subpoenas. The subpoenas have redactions over the names of the banks. It is unclear which financial institutions were subpoenaed for these records. The subpoenas compel records, including account statements, direct deposits, deposits, cashier checks, wire transfers, electronic transfer payments, credit and debit card records, loan documents and other records related to Hunter Biden; his shell companies Owasco, P.C. and Owasco, LLC; Skaneateles; business associate Eric Schwerin; James Biden; Lion Hall Group, LLC: and JBBSR, Inc.

"From day one of our investigation of Joe Biden’s abuse of public office, we’ve followed the money and that continues with today’s subpoenas for Hunter and James Biden’s bank records," Comer said Thursday night. "Bank records don’t lie, and coupled with witness testimony, they reveal that Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain."

Comer said the financial records that his committee has obtained to date "reveal a pattern where the Bidens sold access to Joe Biden around the world to enrich the Biden family."

As the Bidens were sealing deals around the world, Joe Biden showed up, met with, talked with, shook hands with, and had meetings with the foreign nationals sending money to his family. This culture of corruption demands further investigation," Comer said.  "The Oversight Committee, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and Ways and Means, will continue to follow the money to determine whether President Biden’s involvement in his family’s corrupt business schemes makes him compromised and threatens our national security."

HUNTER BIDEN RECEIVED $250K WIRES ORIGINATING IN BEIJING WITH BENEFICIARY ADDRESS LISTED AS JOE BIDEN'S HOME

Comer vowed to provide "the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people demand and deserve."

The subpoenas also come after Fox News Digital first reported that the House Oversight Committee has learned that the Biden family and their business associates brought in more than $24 million between 2014 and 2019 by "selling Joe Biden as ‘the brand’ around the world."

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., added that President Biden "was not just aware of his son’s business dealings, but in fact he was connected to them, it has become clear that whether it was lunches, phone calls, White House meetings, or official foreign trips, Hunter Biden cashed in by arranging access to his father."

While top Biden officials, Hunter’s lawyers, and congressional Democrats have offered little more than disinformation and lies, these bank records will bring us closer to the truth," Smith said. "Issuing these subpoenas is an appropriate – and necessary – step to following the facts wherever they lead, and may shed light on the $24 million the Biden family has received in exchange for selling their family ‘brand’ as part of a global influence peddling scheme."

The White House maintains that President Biden was never in business with his son and never discussed business with his son or his family. White House officials have blasted the impeachment inquiry against the president as an "evidence-free" political stunt.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comer-subpoenas-personal-business-bank-records-hunter-biden-james-biden-part-impeachment-inquiry














Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on September 29, 2023, 01:53:46 PM
Amid Damning Wire Transfer Revelations, Let's Review What the Bidens Said About Chinese Money
Guy Benson
September 28, 2023
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2023/09/28/flashback-amid-wire-transfer-revelations-lets-review-what-joe-and-hunter-said-about-money-from-china-n2629048#google_vignette
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on October 11, 2023, 09:58:43 AM
Pretty comprehensive analysis.

Hard Evidence Warranting the Impeachment of Joe Biden
By James D. Agresti
October 11, 2023
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/hard-evidence-warranting-the-impeachment-of-joe-biden
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 06, 2023, 09:43:50 AM
WATCH: James Comer Says Biden Should Be Impeached Following Major Revelations
by: Sterling Mosley 11.06.2023
https://dcenquirer.com/watch-comer-says-biden-should-be-impeached-following-major-revelations
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 06, 2023, 02:48:36 PM
They Banned a sitting president from Twitter
Impeached him twice , jailed his supporters,
Raided his home, and indicted him four times...
And then go on MSM and try to tell us That
We're the Fascists.

Fucking lowlife Scumbag Khvnts Democrats 🤬🤬🤬
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 06, 2023, 03:06:49 PM
They Banned a sitting president from Twitter
Impeached him twice , jailed his supporters,
Raided his home, and indicted him four times...
And then go on MSM and try to tell us That
We're the Fascists.

Fucking lowlife Scumbag Khvnts Democrats 🤬🤬🤬


Exactly.   Perfect post reported. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 06, 2023, 03:22:08 PM

Exactly.   Perfect post reported.


Thank you.

Something very dangerously wrong with Democrats.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 06, 2023, 03:44:41 PM
They Banned a sitting president from Twitter
Impeached him twice , jailed his supporters,
Raided his home, and indicted him four times...
And then go on MSM and try to tell us That
We're the Fascists.

Fucking lowlife Scumbag Khvnts Democrats 🤬🤬🤬


Exactly.   Perfect post reported.

Yep.  Spot on.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 17, 2023, 09:50:39 AM
Speaker Johnson to Newsmax: Impeaching Biden, Mayorkas Slow Process
By Michael Katz    |   13 November 2023
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/mike-johnson-joe-biden-alejandro-mayorkas/2023/11/13/id/1142137/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on November 17, 2023, 01:42:47 PM
Yep.  Spot on.

How cute! Observe a bunch of likeminded people 'glad handing' each other on a nearly obsolescent internet forum.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: deadz on November 17, 2023, 02:20:47 PM
WATCH: James Comer Says Biden Should Be Impeached Following Major Revelations
by: Sterling Mosley 11.06.2023
https://dcenquirer.com/watch-comer-says-biden-should-be-impeached-following-major-revelations
Just with what has been revealed I'd agree. Biden sold out America for his own gain. Treason!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 17, 2023, 11:54:03 PM
How cute! Observe a bunch of likeminded people 'glad handing' each other on a nearly obsolescent internet forum.

(https://media.tenor.com/pgqf6BDXADIAAAAC/the-office-steve-carell.gif)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 18, 2023, 07:37:20 AM
Libturdia - freedom
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on November 18, 2023, 07:59:04 AM
(https://media.tenor.com/pgqf6BDXADIAAAAC/the-office-steve-carell.gif)

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on November 18, 2023, 08:03:33 AM
How cute! Observe a bunch of likeminded people 'glad handing' each other on a nearly obsolescent internet forum.

Maybe, but the stuff he posted actually happened.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on November 18, 2023, 12:05:18 PM
How cute! Observe a bunch of likeminded people 'glad handing' each other on a nearly obsolescent internet forum.

Truth Hurts some.

Oh so you & you're very few like minded on here aren't continually patting each
other on the Back then.  ::)

Oh & check the leaders post also  ;D :D :D ;D ;D




Just a Reminder for you -   ;D HTH

They Banned a sitting president from Twitter
Impeached him twice , jailed his supporters,
Raided his home, and indicted him four times...
And then go on MSM and try to tell us That
We're the Fascists.

Fucking lowlife Scumbag Khvnts Democrats 🤬🤬🤬
More than a Slight bit of Hypocrisy FFS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on November 19, 2023, 03:25:33 PM
Truth Hurts some.

Oh so you & you're very few like minded on here aren't continually patting each
other on the Back then.  ::)

Oh & check the leaders post also  ;D :D :D ;D ;D




Just a Reminder for you -   ;D HTH

They Banned a sitting president from Twitter
Impeached him twice , jailed his supporters,
Raided his home, and indicted him four times...

And then go on MSM and try to tell us That
We're the Fascists.

Fucking lowlife Scumbag Khvnts Democrats 🤬🤬🤬
More than a Slight bit of Hypocrisy FFS.

Cry me a river.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on November 19, 2023, 03:48:04 PM
Cry me a river.

Communist much?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on November 19, 2023, 04:02:26 PM
McCarthy makes stunning admission on Biden impeachment inquiry: The facts have led 'even closer'


Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy revealed on ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ that the GOP has recently moved "closer" to filing an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, an effort to hold the U.S. government "accountable" that is now being pursued by the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: No one in America would have known that President Biden has lied, that they did receive money from China…that he did get involved in the business dealings. When he went to Cafe Milano, his son got a new Porsche and $3 million was sent to him. We have systematically followed every place the facts have taken us each and every day. And now it's moved even closer because now we've got the subpoenas going in to get the bank statements. We found all of this, the shell companies no one knew about prior. This is important.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mccarthy-stunning-admission-biden-impeachment-inquiry-facts-closer
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on November 21, 2023, 09:43:07 PM
House GOP nears decision on Biden impeachment articles
Story by By Jordain Carney 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-gop-nears-decision-on-biden-impeachment-articles/ar-AA1khjKk?cvid=e8fba28bc7ea4c848b70401d953aadff&ei=16
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on November 21, 2023, 11:51:59 PM
McCarthy makes stunning admission on Biden impeachment inquiry: The facts have led 'even closer'

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy revealed on ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ that the GOP has recently moved "closer" to filing an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, an effort to hold the U.S. government "accountable" that is now being pursued by the new House Speaker, Mike Johnson.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: No one in America would have known that President Biden has lied, that they did receive money from China…that he did get involved in the business dealings. When he went to Cafe Milano, his son got a new Porsche and $3 million was sent to him. We have systematically followed every place the facts have taken us each and every day. And now it's moved even closer because now we've got the subpoenas going in to get the bank statements. We found all of this, the shell companies no one knew about prior. This is important.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mccarthy-stunning-admission-biden-impeachment-inquiry-facts-closer

You mean as in close, but no cigar?  :)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: deadz on November 26, 2023, 01:22:11 PM
McCarthy was a wet noodle, Johnson will make things right.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on November 26, 2023, 01:36:40 PM


No…what this means is like a real investigation with real attorneys is that even though they have enough for a slam dunk, they want more to put the nail in the coffin. See, in a real investigation the prosecution uses real, hard evidence and not hearsay with a partisan jury. See how that works?

It’s kinda like if someone broke into my house and threatened my family. I wouldn’t wound them, I would make sure they never do it again by putting the nail in their coffin
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2023, 10:25:27 AM
Biden White House Sends Democrats Fresh Impeachment Inquiry Talking Points
JAMES LYNCH
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER
December 01, 2023
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/01/joe-biden-white-house-sends-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-talking-points/?pnespid=uuNpFz4dMrpGgeiQoyrrGJzV5h3.Xphrc.a1w7RxvERm.BRfVsEH6rXxeVcV0I1VtO9jiESFqA


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 04, 2023, 06:31:20 PM
McCarthy was a wet noodle, Johnson will make things right.

At last something we agree on. McCarthy is a wet noodle. Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on December 05, 2023, 01:52:16 PM
“The House will vote next week on formalizing its Biden impeachment inquiry, Speaker Johnson says”

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House will vote next week on formally authorizing its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday, asserting Republicans have “no choice” but to push ahead as the White House has rebuffed their requests for information.

Johnson and the rest of the Republican leadership team had been contemplating in recent weeks whether to hold a formal vote on their monthslong inquiry into the president, which has centered on the business dealings of other family members. Their investigation so far has yet to produce any direct evidence of wrongdoing by Biden himself.

While some Republicans are wary of holding a vote on the inquiry, Johnson said the House needs to exercise its authority to the fullest amid a standoff with the White House over requests for information related to Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

“The House has no choice if it’s going to follow its constitutional responsibility to formally adopt an impeachment inquiry on the floor so that when the subpoenas are challenged in court, we will be at the apex of our constitutional authority,” Johnson told reporters.

The White House has repeatedly dismissed the inquiry as a “baseless exercise” meant to appease right-wing lawmakers.

Republicans had long said a vote on the impeachment investigation was unnecessary but began to reconsider when White House lawyers used the lack of formal House authorization to argue that the entire investigation lacked “constitutional legitimacy.”

But a vote on the House floor — going into a presidential election cycle — amounts to a major test of party unity, given the GOP's narrow 221-213 majority. House Democrats for their part have remained unified in their opposition to the impeachment process, saying it is a farce used by the GOP to take attention away from former President Donald Trump and his legal woes.

For the impeachment probe vote to succeed, nearly all House Republicans will have to vote in favor of the inquiry, putting them on record in support of a process that can lead to the ultimate penalty for a president, dismissal from office for what the Constitution describes as “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

For some moderate Republicans, especially those representing districts that Biden won in the 2020 election, it’s a vote that could come with considerable political risk.

Johnson on Tuesday dismissed concerns that he wouldn't be able to rally his vulnerable members to support moving forward with the inquiry. He emphasized the House is not voting to impeach Biden, only to continue to investigate.

“All the moderates in our conference understand this is not a political decision,” he said. “This is a legal decision. This is a constitutional decision. And whether someone is for or against impeachment is of no import right now.”

He added, “We have to continue our legal responsibility and that is solely what this vote is about.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/house-vote-week-formalizing-biden-impeachment-inquiry-speaker-105392416
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 05, 2023, 02:51:12 PM
I would swear the House already voted to formalize the Biden impeachment inquiry. Guess not. Maybe they voted whether to vote. So many votes and no action. It is time for House Republicans to ‘shit or get off the pot.’ ;D
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on December 05, 2023, 02:56:43 PM
I would swear the House already voted to formalize the Biden impeachment inquiry. Guess not. Maybe they voted whether to vote. So many votes and no action. It is time for House Republicans to ‘shit or get off the pot.’ ;D

They’re actually doing it as it was intended
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: IroNat on December 05, 2023, 02:58:14 PM
More taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fruitless courtroom drama.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on December 05, 2023, 03:02:44 PM
More taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fruitless courtroom drama.

Then leftists shouldn’t have opened up a can of worms with fake impeachments of Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 05, 2023, 03:11:51 PM
More taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fruitless courtroom drama.

Isn't that the truth! Well, some of the public are dramatic entertainment junkies. Take away the Internet, the media and television and we can get back to thinking for ourselves... or not thinking at all.  ;)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: SOMEPARTS on December 05, 2023, 04:17:07 PM
More taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fruitless courtroom drama.


In a sane world Biden would take that last chopper ride like Nixon in shame - voluntarily. But he and the left have no shame. Lucky for him the GOP has no spine either.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 12, 2023, 09:37:05 AM
Scalise: Formal impeachment inquiry vote on House floor Wednesday
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer says the Biden administration is stonewalling their investigation into the Biden family's foreign business dealings.
By Nicholas Ballasy
Published: December 12, 2023
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/scalise-formal-impeachment-inquiry-vote-wednesday?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: deadz on December 13, 2023, 03:26:35 PM
Then leftists shouldn’t have opened up a can of worms with fake impeachments of Trump.
Indeed, Mr. Trump will be having a good time once he's back in the drivers seat. I cannot wait for the indictments to start flying against all the Libturd assholes that COULD NOT take him down. 2024!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: loco on December 13, 2023, 04:01:30 PM
Scalise: Formal impeachment inquiry vote on House floor Wednesday
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer says the Biden administration is stonewalling their investigation into the Biden family's foreign business dealings.
By Nicholas Ballasy
Published: December 12, 2023
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/scalise-formal-impeachment-inquiry-vote-wednesday?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home


House Republicans authorize Joe Biden impeachment investigation in major escalation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-republicans-authorize-joe-biden-225031220.html
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2023, 04:29:37 PM

House Republicans authorize Joe Biden impeachment investigation in major escalation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-republicans-authorize-joe-biden-225031220.html

This needed to happen.

Shouldn't be a partisan issue, but the Democrats set that standard with Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Coach is Back! on December 13, 2023, 05:44:13 PM
Wait….you mean they have evidence?? lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 10:57:49 AM
Wait….you mean they have evidence?? lol

According to the media, there is nothing to see here.

Nets Proclaim There’s ‘No Evidence of Wrongdoing’ to Back Biden Impeachment
Curtis Houck
December 13th, 2023
https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2023/12/13/nets-proclaim-theres-no-evidence-wrongdoing-back-biden-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 01:29:22 PM
They are just going to keep lying about it.  And most of the mainstream media--an extension of the Democrat party--is complicit.

Karine Jean-Pierre blows up when pressed on Biden connection to Hunter's business dealings: 'No evidence!'
Jean-Pierre said the impeachment inquiry against President Biden is 'a waste of time'
By Brandon Gillespie Fox News
Published December 14, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/karine-jean-pierre-blows-up-pressed-biden-connection-hunter-business-dealings
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 14, 2023, 01:48:58 PM
They are just going to keep lying about it.  And most of the mainstream media--an extension of the Democrat party--is complicit.

Karine Jean-Pierre blows up when pressed on Biden connection to Hunter's business dealings: 'No evidence!'
Jean-Pierre said the impeachment inquiry against President Biden is 'a waste of time'
By Brandon Gillespie Fox News
Published December 14, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/karine-jean-pierre-blows-up-pressed-biden-connection-hunter-business-dealings


They're all a bunch of scumbag Khvnts
& as for that Black Fanny Licking Lesbian Bitch is best not to mention her.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 14, 2023, 01:54:02 PM
Wait….you mean they have evidence?? lol

Wait... the House vote was to formalize the impeachment inquiry. Apparently you do not know what an inquiry is? A synonym for inquiry is investigation. You are jumping the gun, which is fine if it makes you feel any better.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: deadz on December 14, 2023, 01:57:09 PM
They are just going to keep lying about it.  And most of the mainstream media--an extension of the Democrat party--is complicit.

Karine Jean-Pierre blows up when pressed on Biden connection to Hunter's business dealings: 'No evidence!'
Jean-Pierre said the impeachment inquiry against President Biden is 'a waste of time'
By Brandon Gillespie Fox News
Published December 14, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/karine-jean-pierre-blows-up-pressed-biden-connection-hunter-business-dealings
Top 10 most despicable persons in the current Admin. Only wish horrible things to happen to her.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 02:47:53 PM
Top 10 most despicable persons in the current Admin. Only wish horrible things to happen to her.

Worst Press Secretary ever.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 02:48:53 PM
Wait... the House vote was to formalize the impeachment inquiry. Apparently you do not know what an inquiry is? A synonym for inquiry is investigation. You are jumping the gun, which is fine if it makes you feel any better.

Weren't you just complaining about them moving too slowly? 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 02:58:29 PM
Four Biden Impeachment Articles and What the House Will Need to Prove
October 2, 2023

Below is my column in The Hill on moving forward with the Biden impeachment inquiry. The column discusses four possible impeachment articles that could be brought by the House and what the House would need to prove.

Here is the column:

With the commencement of the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, three House committees will now pursue key linkages between the president and the massive influence peddling operation run by his son Hunter and brother James.

The impeachment inquiry should allow the House to finally acquire long-sought records of Hunter, James, and Joe Biden, as well as to pursue witnesses involved in their dealings.

I testified this week at the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry on the constitutional standards and practices in moving forward in the investigation. In my view, there is ample justification for an impeachment inquiry. If these allegations are established, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses. I listed ten of those facts in my testimony that alone were sufficient to move forward with this inquiry.

I was criticized by both the left and the right for the testimony. Steven Bannon and others were upset that I did not believe that the basis for impeachment had already been established in the first hearing of the inquiry. Others were angry that I supported the House efforts to resolve these questions of public corruption.

Without prejudging that evidence, there are four obvious potential articles of impeachment that have been raised in recent disclosures and sworn statements: bribery, conspiracy, obstruction, and abuse of power.

Bribery is the second impeachable act listed under Article II. The allegation that the President received a bribe worth millions was documented on a FD-1023 form by a trusted FBI source who was paid a significant amount of money by the government. There remain many details that would have to be confirmed in order to turn such an allegation into an article of impeachment.

Yet three facts are now unassailable. First, Biden has lied about key facts related to these foreign dealings, including false statements flagged by the Washington Post. Second, the president was indeed the focus of a corrupt multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme. Third, Biden may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct benefit to Joe and Jill Biden.

What must be established is the President’s knowledge of or participation in this corrupt scheme. The House now has confirmed over 20 calls made to meetings and dinners with these foreign clients. It has confirmation of visits to the White House and dinners and events attended by Joe Biden. It also has confirmation of trips on Air Force II by Hunter to facilitate these deals, as well as payments where the President’s Delaware home address was used as late as 2019 for transfers from China.

The most serious allegations concern reported Washington calls or meetings by Hunter at the behest of these foreign figures. At least one of those calls concerned the removal or isolation of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma, an energy company paying Hunter as a board member. A few days later, Biden withheld a billion dollars in an approved loan to Ukrainian in order to force the firing of the prosecutor.

The House will need to strengthen the nexus with the president in seeking firsthand accounts of these meetings, calls, and transfers.

However, there is one thing that the House does not have to do. While there are references to Joe Biden receiving money from Hunter and other benefits (including a proposed ten percent from one of these foreign deals), he has already been shown to have benefited from these transfers.

There is a false narrative being pushed by both politicians and pundits that there is no basis for an inquiry, let alone an impeachment, unless a direct payment or gift can be shown to Joe Biden. That would certainly strengthen the case politically, but it is not essential legally. Even in criminal cases subject to the highest standard, payments to family members can be treated as benefits to a principal actor. Direct benefits can further strengthen articles of impeachment, but they would not be a prerequisite for such an action.

For example, in Ryan v. United States, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of George Ryan, formerly Secretary of State and then governor of Illinois, partly on account of benefits paid to his family, including the hiring of a band at his daughter’s wedding and other “undisclosed financial benefits to him and his family and to his friends.” Criminal cases can indeed be built on a “stream of benefits” running to the politician in question, his family, or his friends.

That is also true of past impeachments. I served as lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment tried before the Senate. My client, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, had been impeached by the House for, among other things, benefits received by his children, including gifts related to a wedding.

One of the jurors in the trial was Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who voted to convict and remove Porteous. Menendez is now charged with accepting gifts of vastly greater value in the recent corruption indictment.

The similarities between the Menendez and Biden controversies are noteworthy, in everything from the types of gifts to the counsel representing the accused.  The Menendez indictment includes conspiracy charges for honest services fraud, the use of office to serve personal rather the public interests. It also includes extortion under color of official right under 18 U.S.C. 1951. (The Hobbs Act allows for a charge of extortion without a threat of violence but rather the use of official authority.)

Courts have held that conspiracy charges do not require the defendant to be involved in all (or even most) aspects of the planning for a bribe or denial of honest services. Thus, a conspirator does not have to participate “in every overt act or know all the details to be charged as a member of the conspiracy.”

Menendez’s case shows that the Biden Administration is prosecuting individuals under the same type of public corruption that this impeachment inquiry is supposed to prove. The U.S. has long declared influence peddling to be a form of public corruption and signed international conventions to combat precisely this type of corruption around the world.

This impeachment inquiry is going forward. The House just issued subpoenas on Friday for the financial records of both Hunter and James Biden. The public could soon have answers to some of these questions. Madison called impeachment “indispensable…for defending the community” against such corruption. The inquiry itself is an assurance that, wherever this evidence may lead, the House can now follow.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/10/02/four-biden-impeachment-articles-and-what-the-house-will-need-to-prove/
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: deadz on December 14, 2023, 03:08:21 PM
Worst Press Secretary ever.
Went from bad to worse first Sucki now that "thing".
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 14, 2023, 03:16:18 PM
Weren't you just complaining about them moving too slowly?

I was not complaining so much as just noticing this. Didn’t the House Oversight Committee begin the Biden family investigation in January of this year? But this wasn't the start of the Republican investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in his son Hunter’s foreign business affairs. The investigation was launched one day after Republicans were projected to win control of the House.

Even though a Republican-led Senate investigation in 2020 found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden involving the younger Biden’s work with Burisma Holdings, the House took it up and have been looking into this issue.

My observation was that for quite a while now Comer and the House Oversight committee leaked or stated that they had hard evidence regarding President Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s business dealings and yet they are just now getting around to formalizing this inquiry.

Is it not possible this is something of a ‘knee jerk’ response to Hunter Biden putting conditions on his willingness to be questioned by the House Oversight Committee. And possibly because the committee has issues with other folks’ unwillingness to testify before the Committee.

It will be interesting to see what shakes out now that the inquiry has been formalized with a vote.   


Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 03:28:26 PM
I was not complaining so much as just noticing this. Didn’t the House Oversight Committee begin the Biden family investigation in January of this year? But this wasn't the start of the Republican investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in his son Hunter’s foreign business affairs. The investigation was launched one day after Republicans were projected to win control of the House.

Even though a Republican-led Senate investigation in 2020 found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden involving the younger Biden’s work with Burisma Holdings, the House took it up and have been looking into this issue.

My observation was that for quite a while now Comer and the House Oversight committee leaked or stated that they had hard evidence regarding President Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s business dealings and yet they are just now getting around to formalizing this inquiry.

Is it not possible this is something of a ‘knee jerk’ response to Hunter Biden putting conditions on his willingness to be questioned by the House Oversight Committee. And possibly because the committee has issues with other folks’ unwillingness to testify before the Committee.

It will be interesting to see what shakes out now that the inquiry has been formalized with a vote.   

The reason it has taken so long is The Biden Crime Family has 20 LLCs with numerous banks and thousands of transactions.  You cannot unwind that kind of stuff overnight. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 14, 2023, 04:31:58 PM
The reason it has taken so long is The Biden Crime Family has 20 LLCs with numerous banks and thousands of transactions.  You cannot unwind that kind of stuff overnight.

You are right, one cannot decipher this much information overnight. Perhaps if Comer wouldn't jump to conclusions before they've been reached and keep saying they have President and Hunter Biden dead to rights when it turns out they don't, the timeline would make more sense. As it stands, Comer looks like he does a lot of 'crying wolf'. There is an inherent danger in doing this as far as Comer's credibility goes.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 14, 2023, 05:53:25 PM
You are right, one cannot decipher this much information overnight. Perhaps if Comer wouldn't jump to conclusions before they've been reached and keep saying they have President and Hunter Biden dead to rights when it turns out they don't, the timeline would make more sense. As it stands, Comer looks like he does a lot of 'crying wolf'. There is an inherent danger in doing this as far as Comer's credibility goes.

The agents investigating, one of whom is considered to be their finest (Democrat too) said explicitly today they had proof, then showed it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 14, 2023, 06:53:25 PM
The agents investigating, one of whom is considered to be their finest (Democrat too) said explicitly today they had proof, then showed it.

Who would that agent be?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 14, 2023, 09:22:34 PM
You are right, one cannot decipher this much information overnight. Perhaps if Comer wouldn't jump to conclusions before they've been reached and keep saying they have President and Hunter Biden dead to rights when it turns out they don't, the timeline would make more sense. As it stands, Comer looks like he does a lot of 'crying wolf'. There is an inherent danger in doing this as far as Comer's credibility goes.

Everything Comer has put out has been fact.  You and the rest of the left are not going to make the evidence disappear simply by repeatedly saying it doesn't exist. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 15, 2023, 10:20:41 AM
Who would that agent be?

https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=690001.msg10135263#msg10135263
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on December 15, 2023, 10:53:07 AM
https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=690001.msg10135263#msg10135263

Be careful not to cite any conservative or "right leaning" source or Prime will refuse to read it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 15, 2023, 11:48:52 AM
Be careful not to cite any conservative or "right leaning" source or Prime will refuse to read it.

I think that's what happened because this was right in the middle of that conversation about sources and addressed to him.  Or he just missed it.

But it's a perfect example of the problem (not blaming prime himself, but in general) - the fact that this is enormous news, and it's not on every news station so the people who are leftists or ignore politics have no idea about it.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 15, 2023, 03:13:04 PM
Be careful not to cite any conservative or "right leaning" source or Prime will refuse to read it.

Or I read it and recognize it for what it is which is total bullshit.

Most of these Getbig discussions are pointless because no matter what actually ends up happening, these sadly deluded folks on Getbig will spin it to fit their forgone conclusions.
 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 15, 2023, 05:09:36 PM
Or I read it and recognize it for what it is which is total bullshit.


You think the actual sworn testimony of IRS agents to congress, two of the best, is bullshit?

Please expand on that. They are not partisan, in fact one is a registered Democrat.  They are doing their jobs.

If it's bullshit, do you think they are lying?  What parts exactly are bullshit?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 15, 2023, 07:03:19 PM
You think the actual sworn testimony of IRS agents to congress, two of the best, is bullshit?

Please expand on that. They are not partisan, in fact one is a registered Democrat.  They are doing their jobs.

If it's bullshit, do you think they are lying?  What parts exactly are bullshit?

Whether it is ‘bullshit’ or not, Zeigler's testimony clearly demonstrates that he had an axe to grind. Do I think either of them is lying? Probably not. They are simply telling their version of what happened during the Hunter Biden IRS investigation and how the DOJ acted. Zeigler and probably Shapley put years of work into investigating Hunter Biden's failure to pay $300,000 in income taxes over the course of three years. The result was that Zeigler believes he was rebuffed by his boss and even more so by the FBI. If I were in his shoes, I would be unhappy too and want my side of the story to be heard. I have not read his Gary Shapley's testimony yet, but I will soon. If his experiences mirror Zeigler's, I imagine he too has reason to be upset.

Here is Zeigler's testimony before the Ways and Means Committee on December 5, 2023: 
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Ziegler_FINAL-Full-Statement-to-House-Ways-and-Means-v12.01.2023.pdf

And here is Shapley's testimony before the Oversight and Accountability Committee on July 19, 2023:

If you have not already,  objectively read these two testimonies and let me know what your take on them.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Shapley-Testimony.pdf

Zeigler’s testimony appears to focus on Hunter Biden and not on President Biden, which makes sense since it was Hunter Biden who was under investigation by the IRS.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 16, 2023, 06:40:40 AM
Whether it is ‘bullshit’ or not, Zeigler's testimony clearly demonstrates that he had an axe to grind. Do I think either of them is lying? Probably not. They are simply telling their version of what happened during the Hunter Biden IRS investigation and how the DOJ acted. Zeigler and probably Shapley put years of work into investigating Hunter Biden's failure to pay $300,000 in income taxes over the course of three years. The result was that Zeigler believes he was rebuffed by his boss and even more so by the FBI. If I were in his shoes, I would be unhappy too and want my side of the story to be heard. I have not read his Gary Shapley's testimony yet, but I will soon. If his experiences mirror Zeigler's, I imagine he too has reason to be upset.

Here is Zeigler's testimony before the Ways and Means Committee on December 5, 2023: 
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Ziegler_FINAL-Full-Statement-to-House-Ways-and-Means-v12.01.2023.pdf

And here is Shapley's testimony before the Oversight and Accountability Committee on July 19, 2023:

If you have not already,  objectively read these two testimonies and let me know what your take on them.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Shapley-Testimony.pdf

Zeigler’s testimony appears to focus on Hunter Biden and not on President Biden, which makes sense since it was Hunter Biden who was under investigation by the IRS.

This was not the testimony in the article I linked in the other thread.  What I posted was from just the other day, which the article states was different than the prior testimony you posted.  They have no explicitly stated under questioning that they have evidence.


Quote
Unfortunately for the Bidens, just hours before Hunter’s press conference, the transcript of the latest testimony of Ziegler and Shapley was published by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Here, more explicitly than in their previous testimony, they implicate Joe Biden in illegal conduct.

Ziegler is a registered Democrat and is regarded as the most talented criminal investigator in the IRS team described as the “SEAL Team 6” of international tax-fraud investigations.

His supervisor, Shapley, is a registered Republican and equally well-regarded, having managed some of the largest cases in IRS history, and recovered more than $3.5 billion for the US taxpayer.

Dems’ pathetic defense
Their testimony was in response to a barrage of hostile questioning by Democrats on the committee who insist that there is “nothing new,” “no evidence,” that the president did nothing wrong and, anyway, let’s talk about Donald Trump.

Ziegler and Shapley quickly disabused them of their delusions — and how.

Georgia Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ga.) stepped on the first landmine when she asked the knowledgeable pair to point to any evidence “that directly proves that Joe Biden has done something illegal, yes or no?”

Shapley replied: “There is evidence that exists.”

Sewell, flustered: “I just — it is yes or no.”

Shapley: “Yes, there is.”


Sewell, turned to Ziegler: “Please show me the direct evidence . . .  that actually proves that Joe Biden did something unlawful, illegal.”

Ziegler obliged: “So in exhibit 1I, Hunter Biden states in his email that his original agreement –”
Sewell cut him off, but soon enough Ziegler was allowed to complete his answer, citing three pieces of evidence.

An email to an executive of Chinese energy firm CEFC, on Aug. 2, 2017, in which Hunter states the deal “me and my family” had with CEFC was “for introductions alone [at] a rate of $10 million per year for three years [for a] guarantee[d] total of $30 million.”
A WhatsApp message three days earlier, July 30, 2017, in which Hunter demands a CEFC executive pay up or else: “I am sitting here with my father”.
An email two months earlier to Hunter from one of his partners in their joint venture with CEFC, suggesting an equity split between four partners of 20% each, with an extra 10% for Hunter’s uncle Jim Biden and 10% “held by H for the big guy.”
(H is Hunter and the “big guy” has been identified as Joe Biden.)


Quote
That’s another bombshell, especially when Comer found $240,000 that Jim Biden deposited, via a circuitous route, into his brother Joe’s bank account after receiving money from two deals: 10% for the Big Guy.

It was listed it as a “loan” repayment, but Ziegler testified: “there was nothing to verify that they were loans.”

At one point the whistleblowers were asked if there was evidence that Joe was “involved in any way with the Biden family business dealings with foreign governments or entities.”

Both Shapley and Ziegler answered: “There is evidence of involvement, yes.”

Shapley pointed to evidence that shows Joe attending meetings with Hunter’s business partners.


“You have to understand that someone who is a vice president [and] a senator for years . . . their involvement in a business is not going to be coming up with mission statements and working on Excel spreadsheets. Him coming across to a lunch and having a glass of water would have shown his support for his son Hunter Biden.”

Their testimony was a master class in facts over delusion. If only they had been allowed to follow the investigative avenues that led to the president, Hunter could stop making excuses for his father.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 17, 2023, 03:19:44 PM
This was not the testimony in the article I linked in the other thread.  What I posted was from just the other day, which the article states was different than the prior testimony you posted.  They have no explicitly stated under questioning that they have evidence.

Huh? What do you mean by they have no(t) explicitly stated under questioning that they have evidence. Doesn't it follow then that they do not have evidence? BTW, evidence of what do they not have?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 18, 2023, 05:57:07 AM
Huh? What do you mean by they have no(t) explicitly stated under questioning that they have evidence. Doesn't it follow then that they do not have evidence? BTW, evidence of what do they not have?

It was a typo.  "Now".  They have NOW explicitly stated they have evidence.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Primemuscle on December 18, 2023, 01:10:04 PM
It was a typo.  "Now".  They have NOW explicitly stated they have evidence.

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Exactly what do they have evidence of?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: illuminati on December 18, 2023, 01:22:53 PM
Dummycraps say

It'll take a lot more than eyewitness testimony,
Bank records , Audio,  Video, Complete confessions
For them to believe Pedo Joe did anything wrong Ever.

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on December 18, 2023, 07:05:02 PM
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Exactly what do they have evidence of?

Did you not read the post a few above where he lists it?
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on February 07, 2024, 10:42:09 AM
Former Hunter Biden associate Tony Bobulinski to testify behind closed doors as part of impeachment inquiry
Text messages indicate Joe Biden met with Bobulinski in May 2017
By Brooke Singman Fox News
Published February 7, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tony-bobulinski-testify-behind-closed-doors-biden-impeachment-inquiry
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on February 07, 2024, 05:50:56 PM
They should have this on live TV
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on February 07, 2024, 05:53:39 PM
They should have this on live TV

They've had congressional testimony on live TV by whistleblowers and most of the country didn't see that.

The dishonest media continues to haunt.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Agnostic007 on February 07, 2024, 07:00:06 PM
They've had congressional testimony on live TV by whistleblowers and most of the country didn't see that.

The dishonest media continues to haunt.

By now all of America SHOULD know much of MSM is biased. If they choose not to filter their news sources in at least an attempt to find out what is true, that is on them. MSM certainly should be held to the fire, but so should those consumers who only read or watch right wing news or left wing news. They are caught up in an echo chamber by their own choosing. 
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Grape Ape on February 08, 2024, 06:43:57 AM
By now all of America SHOULD know much of MSM is biased. If they choose not to filter their news sources in at least an attempt to find out what is true, that is on them. MSM certainly should be held to the fire, but so should those consumers who only read or watch right wing news or left wing news. They are caught up in an echo chamber by their own choosing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a large set of the population who are older and just don't know any better.  They've watched their mainstream sources and trusted them, so they have no reason to doubt.

This is how so many Biden voters had no idea about the Hunter laptop at election time.

I am fine with biased sources.  But not fine with biased sources sources that claim neutrality and journalism.  Fox has always been conservative, and I've found it easy to distinguish when they are making tangible points, and when they are just spouting partisan sensationalism.  The left leaning ones are the ones have given the illusion of being non partisan while actually being propaganda wings for the left.

But neither reported Trump's term fairly - the left attacked 24/7 and Fox/Conservative sites he could do no wrong 24/7, so neither side who fit your description above were able to get the true picture of him.

Saw a post the other day that said:

Quote
1% of the population controls the world
4% of the population are their puppets
90% of the population are zombies
5% are trying to wake up the zombies

The media outlets SHOULD be in the 5%, and driving the 90% number down.

But they're in the 4%.
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Gym Rat on February 08, 2024, 07:47:40 AM
Libturd media is bought and sold, "brought to you by Pfizer"!!  ???
Push the jab, get the kickbacks... Thats one tiny example... They actually think the zombie shitter is doing good... ::)
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: Dos Equis on March 20, 2024, 06:22:12 PM
AOC isn't the sharpest pencil. 

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tried to defend Joe Biden by asking Tony Bobulinski if he ever saw Biden committing a crime. She did not get the answer she was expecting."

Check out the clip:

https://twitter.com/ExposingBiden/status/1770497016679797017
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: jude2 on March 20, 2024, 09:21:16 PM
AOC is so dumb she don't even know how dumb she is. lol
Title: Re: Impeachment
Post by: deadz on March 26, 2024, 02:16:37 PM
AOC is so dumb she don't even know how dumb she is. lol
She needs to be erased. Vile creature!