Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SOMEPARTS on August 24, 2018, 01:27:30 PM

Title: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: SOMEPARTS on August 24, 2018, 01:27:30 PM
The whole of this "impeachment" process that the Dems and media are working on....it's just an extension of the desired chilling effect that they used on Romney. If you recall Harry Reid stated he had proof that Romney had tax evasion issues and never provided any proof.

All of this is to send a message to private sector outsiders from ever trying to run for high office again or be ruined.

Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: illuminati on August 24, 2018, 01:56:55 PM
The whole of this "impeachment" process that the Dems and media are working on....it's just an extension of the desired chilling effect that they used on Romney. If you recall Harry Reid stated he had proof that Romney had tax evasion issues and never provided any proof.

All of this is to send a message to private sector outsiders from ever trying to run for high office again or be ruined.


I find the whole situation strange
The American country & economy appear to be doing very well
By all indications.

Regardless of political leanings why would they wish to derail
This progress.

Perhaps this goes beyond just politics
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 02:14:54 PM
I find the whole situation strange
The American country & economy appear to be doing very well
By all indications.


Regardless of political leanings why would they wish to derail
This progress.

Perhaps this goes beyond just politics

what does that matter

The economy was doing great under Clinton and the Republican chose to impeach him over lying about consensual sex

Remember that started out 4 years earlier with investigating a real estate deal that Clinton was involved in BEFORE he became POTUS (so hard to argue that we can't look at potential Trump crimes before he became POTUS)

It's been fun this week to watch video's of the Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley talking about how they had to impeach Clinton to "cleanse the office" of the presidency and that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached

starts about ~ 2:30
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: IroNat on August 24, 2018, 02:26:37 PM
The Dems will waste taxpayer money with a continual courtroom drama (like the Repubs did with Clinton).

In the end nothing will happen.

Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 02:46:17 PM
The whole of this "impeachment" process that the Dems and media are working on....it's just an extension of the desired chilling effect that they used on Romney. If you recall Harry Reid stated he had proof that Romney had tax evasion issues and never provided any proof.

All of this is to send a message to private sector outsiders from ever trying to run for high office again or be ruined.



It's much broader than the impeachment talk.  It's the absolute savaging of people, their family, and friends who dare to have a different viewpoint.
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 02:59:14 PM
It's much broader than the impeachment talk.  It's the absolute savaging of people, their family, and friends who dare to have a different viewpoint.

excellent point

Trump should really stop doing that

makes him look like a crybaby douchebag
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Moontrane on August 24, 2018, 04:10:33 PM
what does that matter

The economy was doing great under Clinton and the Republican chose to impeach him over lying about consensual sex

Remember that started out 4 years earlier with investigating a real estate deal that Clinton was involved in BEFORE he became POTUS (so hard to argue that we can't look at potential Trump crimes before he became POTUS)

It's been fun this week to watch video's of the Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley talking about how they had to impeach Clinton to "cleanse the office" of the presidency and that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached

starts about ~ 2:30


And resulted in over 40 convictions of 15 people, as well as the ousting of a sitting governor.  There was "there" there, and Starr found it.  Clinton lied and obstructed the investigation.

Mueller's investigation is about Russian collusion.  Where is it?  Not finding it, he's going back in time to pursue an anti-Trump agenda.  It's not at all the same.
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 04:15:38 PM
And resulted in over 40 convictions of 15 people, as well as the ousting of a sitting governor.  There was "there" there, and Starr found it.  Clinton lied and obstructed the investigation.

Mueller's investigation is about Russian collusion.  Where is it?  Not finding it, he's going back in time to pursue an anti-Trump agenda.  It's not at all the same.

Not to mention indictments were actually drafted against Hillary Clinton.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-whitewater-indictment-drafts-229093
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 04:18:42 PM
And resulted in over 40 convictions of 15 people, as well as the ousting of a sitting governor.  There was "there" there, and Starr found it.  Clinton lied and obstructed the investigation.

Mueller's investigation is about Russian collusion.  Where is it?  Not finding it, he's going back in time to pursue an anti-Trump agenda.  It's not at all the same.

Muellers investigation is not about collusion just like Starrs wasn't about Clinton getting blowjobs

Here's Mueller's mandate

Let me know if you find anything about collusion

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: SOMEPARTS on August 24, 2018, 06:33:02 PM
Muellers investigation is not about collusion just like Starrs wasn't about Clinton getting blowjobs

Here's Mueller's mandate

Let me know if you find anything about collusion

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download


Finally an admission of such. The investigation was just to go out and finish what was already started as Trump was just a candidate. Swamp things gonna swamp.
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2018, 06:40:54 PM

Finally an admission of such. The investigation was just to go out and finish what was already started as Trump was just a candidate. Swamp things gonna swamp.

The only reason we talk about it is because Trump repeats is almost daily like a Mantra or more like a Tourette's tic

Did you check out the link to Rosensteins letter to Mueller

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
Title: Re: The chilling effect of "impeachment"
Post by: Moontrane on August 24, 2018, 08:38:54 PM
Muellers investigation is not about collusion just like Starrs wasn't about Clinton getting blowjobs

Here's Mueller's mandate

Let me know if you find anything about collusion

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

"Collusion" is not in that document, but "any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and" means collusion.  Had Hillary won, there would be no investigation, because the left's candidate would've won.