Impeachment

[illuminati]

Personally, I think it is money well spent. 

Why ?? It didn’t achieve anything useful

[chaos]

Why ?? It didn’t achieve anything useful

Because he's a brainwashed liberal with no thought on his own.

[illuminati]

Because he's a brainwashed liberal with no thought on his own.

Yes Correct 🤣

Let’s see what wonderful answer he gives ........................

[Irongrip400]

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.

[JustPlaneJane]

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 !!!

[loco]

Good News for Trump: Democrats Keep Changing Their Impeachment Accusations

https://www.yahoo.com/news/good-news-trump-democrats-keep-113000978.html

[loco]

[Soul Crusher]

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 

[illuminati]

Since I have several dollars invested and don't vote Trump, I'll  take "gay cuck" for the win.

Glad you said / Admitted That.

[Soul Crusher]

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 ?  

[illuminati]

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.

[illuminati]

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.

[SOMEPARTS]

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.

[illuminati]

I'm so glad you gave this some serious thought 

As Did You Mastermind With You’re Admittance - 

[JustPlaneJane]

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 !

[Dos Equis]

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?

[Moontrane]

Source imparts the validity of substance.

Nonsense.  You can't impeach the data so you attack the source.

[Grape Ape]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Moontrane]

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?  

[Dos Equis]

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).”


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/

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/