Donald Trump Impeachment Watch

[Blake]

:hungry:

"Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said "everybody would be very poor" and questioned how he could be impeached when he's made strides improving economic conditions in an interview aired Thursday.

"If I ever got impeached, I think the market would crash, I think everybody would be very poor," Trump said in response to a question from Fox News' Ainsley Earhardt, who asked if he believes Democrats would try to impeach him if they win back control of Congress. "You would see numbers that you wouldn't believe."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/trump-impeachment-democrats-congress/index.html

[djohn2oo8]

:lol

[baseline bum]

He is not getting impeached no matter what. Trump is the GOP.

[Blake]

Here's to hoping.

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/SarahFloresDOJ/status/1032674568849244160

:lmao

Beauregard growing some balls.

[CitizenDwayne]

Don’t see it happening unless Dems take over

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/SarahFloresDOJ/status/1032674568849244160

:lmao

Beauregard growing some balls.Keebler Deep State confirmed.

[hater]

:lmao not likely

[boutons_deux]

Of course, racist JeBo is fucking lying about his self-congratulating, vainglorious work as AG.

He's compromised by Pootin, "forgetting" 100 times before Congress, including forgetting his meetings from shit hole AL with the Russian enemy. He got the job because Trash KNEW Jebo was a Pootin tool.

[RandomGuy]

https://twitter.com/SarahFloresDOJ/status/1032674568849244160

:lmao

Beauregard growing some balls.

We'll see how that plays out. Interesting dynamic.

[RandomGuy]

Don’t see it happening unless Dems take over

Looking like about a 70% chance of that by the best estimates.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.

[CitizenDwayne]

Don’t underestimate the idiocy of these people. I live in the middle of Trump Country, and the Orange One has appealed to some deep dark part of them. If he’s impeached, chaos may ensue. His approval among Repubs is still sky high and I’m not really sure what could change that

[boutons_deux]

Looking like about a 70% chance of that by the best estimates.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.

actually the Repug fuckups 2001-2008 and their lost GWOT were great "anything but Repugs" and for ushering in Obama and the Dems, but the racist Repugs pushed racism hard and won back in 2010, and continued fucking up ever since, and worsened horribly with Trash and his kakistocracy.

[koriwhat]

Don’t underestimate the idiocy of these people. I live in the middle of Trump Country, and the Orange One has appealed to some deep dark part of them. If he’s impeached, chaos may ensue. His approval among Repubs is still sky high and I’m not really sure what could change that

the sky is falling! lmao drama queen

[Blake]

the sky is falling! lmao drama queen

Yes trump is a drama queen

[koriwhat]

Yes trump is a drama queen

:cry

nah, yall are the dramaqueens straight up.

[koriwhat]

fucking dumb trolls on ignore gonna stay on ignore.

[Blake]

:cry

nah, yall are the dramaqueens straight up.

Sure, druggy

[Pavlov]

:cry

nah, yall are the dramaqueens straight up.lol Trump said everyone would be poor if he were impeached.

That's a drama queen.

[BD24]

Speaking of one of the stupidest pieces of shit on this site. Here’s this cocksucker
:lol

[koriwhat]

Sure, druggy

that's all you got bitch blake... nothing. you got not a god damn thing and this is why you go the route you do with this "druggy" bs. you're a weak lame motherfucker indeed.

[Blake]

that's all you got bitch blake... nothing. you got not a god damn thing and this is why you go the route you do with this "druggy" bs. you're a weak lame motherfucker indeed.

Yeah no drama queen whining here ^

[FrostKing]

Looking like about a 70% chance of that by the best estimates.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.
Please keep pushing this narrative

Massive Blue Wave coming to a town near you

[Avante]

Being an adult, I won't talk trash bags this time.

I think most are wanting Trump to stay in office so he can watch as he gets totally destroyed in the next election.

And there goes ever electing another "just a business man".

[koriwhat]

Yeah no drama queen whining here ^

truth hurts buddy... sorry you want to label truth as whining because it hurts your little feelings bitch blake. you're a weak weak "man".

[BD24]

Kori is so sensitive and emotional :lol

[Avante]

that's all you got bitch blake... nothing. you got not a god damn thing and this is why you go the route you do with this "druggy" bs. you're a weak lame motherfucker indeed.

Nailed it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Avante]

Yeah no drama queen whining here ^

Blake....STICK TO THE TOPIC...ok bitch?

[Avante]

Speaking of trash bags..hmmm?

[FrostKing]

Being an adult, I won't talk trash bags this time.

I think most are wanting Trump to stay in office so he can watch as he gets totally destroyed in the next election.

And there goes ever electing another "just a business man".
And the economy is booming

Trump is getting reelected. Not because of his own brilliance but because Democrats are anti-White in a majority White nation. There are only so many self hating cuckolds on the left trying to sabotage

[Blake]

truth hurts buddy... sorry you want to label truth as whining because it hurts your little feelings bitch blake. you're a weak weak "man".

Sure, queen

[Blake]

Blake....STICK TO THE TOPIC...ok bitch?

Oh look who followed me to talk about me.

I'm not the topic here. Stick to the topic, pussy.

[Avante]

Oh look who followed me to talk about me.

I'm not the topic here. Stick to the topic, pussy.

Ok ok, so what is your favorite Trash Bag, well?

[Avante]

Sure, queen

STAY ON TOPIC....dude, talk...TRASH BAGS...ok?

[SnakeBoy]

Looking like about a 70% chance of that by the best estimates.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.

Trump as POTUS and the GOP in control of both houses is better than Obama in the WH and Dem super majorities in both houses?

[Avante]

Little shit can dish it out but the bitch can't take it,hahahahaha~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Avante]

And the economy is booming

Trump is getting reelected. Not because of his own brilliance but because Democrats are anti-White in a majority White nation. There are only so many self hating cuckolds on the left trying to sabotage

Dude....trash bags...talk....trash bags.

[Winehole23]

Keebler Deep State confirmed.:rollin

[florige]

Being an adult, I won't talk trash bags this time.

I think most are wanting Trump to stay in office so he can watch as he gets totally destroyed in the next election.

And there goes ever electing another "just a business man".


I would rather this outcome tbh. If he gets impeached and removed from office outside of him killing someone live on national television his loyal base will cry conspiracy and never stop crying about it. If the Dem's are smart they will just leave him alone and let him continue to put his foot in his mouth until 2020 and work on getting someone nominated not equally hated as Trump the next time around.

[Blake]

Ok ok, so what is your favorite Trash Bag, well?


STAY ON TOPIC....dude, talk...TRASH BAGS...ok?


Little shit can dish it out but the bitch can't take it,hahahahaha~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dude....trash bags...talk....trash bags.

Oh man this eruption is hilarious :lmao

Talk trash bags, old fart. Fire away.

[Avante]

Oh man this eruption is hilarious :lmao

Talk trash bags, old fart. Fire away.

translation

Yep, I'm too damn dumb to know if I shit on others threads they are going to shit on mine.

[Avante]

Getting back on topic....

With no further ado here are the top 10 best trash bags in 2018 reviews.


Kirkland Signature 10-Gallon Wastebasket Liners.
Hefty Ultimate Flex Tall Kitchen Trash Bags.
Hefty Odor Block Trash Bags.
Kirkland Signature Drawstring Trash Bags.
Glad Dual Defense Drawstring Large Trash Bags.
Hefty Drawstring Multipurpose Trash Bags.

More items... (https://www.alltoptenbest.com/home-kitchens/top-10-best-trash-bag-reviews/)

[Avante]

Blake

Unlike you just setting out to pester people bores me. Now the next time you enter a thread of mine to act retarded think it over first, ok little shit?

I'm leaving now,don't make me come back .....got it?

[Pavlov]

lol Avente meltdown

[Chris]

"The Manafort and Cohen trials are basically wrapped up...what do we talk about now?"

"IMPEACH!"

I'm guessing more Stormy Daniels stuff incoming or back to attacking diplomacy concerning NoKo and Russia.

OP actually thinks POTUS is going to get impeached. :lol

[koriwhat]

Sure, queen

:cry weak brittle no spine having blake

[Blake]

"The Manafort and Cohen trials are basically wrapped up...what do we talk about now?"

"IMPEACH!"

I'm guessing more Stormy Daniels stuff incoming or back to attacking diplomacy concerning NoKo and Russia.

OP actually thinks POTUS is going to get impeached. :lol


Here's to hoping.

Fox asked Trump. Trump talked about it.

[FrostKing]

Fox asked Trump. Trump talked about it.
Why do you hate America?

[LkrFan]

Keebler Deep State confirmed.

http://susiemadrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sessions-the-elf.jpg

:lol

[LkrFan]

1032816065477271552

:lol

[LkrFan]

He mad cause he hates himself. He knows he’s gay, we know he’s gay, he just hasn’t come to terms with it yet. When he gets out and openly sucks cock instead of at the adult book store in his shame. He will probably be a lot happier

:lol

[DJR210]

I think it's a long shot tbh, but who knows what revelations are still in store.. Is having a phony religious zealot like Pence in charge going to be any better?

If Trump gets impeached I believe we fast track ourselves into chaos. It would basically be large scale Charlottesville between the hardcore left and right for sure.

[Blake]

1032816065477271552

:lol

Lol putting the squeeze on Pecker

[Blake]

Blake

Unlike you just setting out to pester people bores me. Now the next time you enter a thread of mine to act retarded think it over first, ok little shit?

I'm leaving now,don't make me come back .....got it?

Lol old people and the Internet

[Blake]

"WASHINGTON — Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman says she is ready to testify to Congress “anytime, anyplace” about what she knows about Russian ties to President Trump’s campaign and offered to appear as a witness at a potential Senate impeachment trial.

“I have the truth on my side as well as a hundred emails and documents and other things,” said Newman in an interview with the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”...."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/omarosa-manigault-newman-says-shes-ready-testify-trumps-impeachment-trial-090004882.html

[LkrFan]

"WASHINGTON — Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman says she is ready to testify to Congress “anytime, anyplace” about what she knows about Russian ties to President Trump’s campaign and offered to appear as a witness at a potential Senate impeachment trial.

“I have the truth on my side as well as a hundred emails and documents and other things,” said Newman in an interview with the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”...."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/omarosa-manigault-newman-says-shes-ready-testify-trumps-impeachment-trial-090004882.html

When there's nothing you can do for him, he lashes out. Omarosa is a special case:

1) She's Black
2) She's a woman who didn't give him no pussy
3) She's an angry Black Woman with receipts

That's three strikes right thurrr :lol

[LkrFan]

Lol putting the squeeze on Pecker

:lmao

[LkrFan]

Breaking News:

1033003588736503813

:corn:

[Winehole23]

Why do you hate America?2003 wants its cliche back

[LkrFan]

1033017385777876992
1033014871565258752

:corn:

[RandomGuy]

2003 wants its cliche back

2003? or 1933?

It works the same in any country.

[RandomGuy]

Don’t underestimate the idiocy of these people. I live in the middle of Trump Country, and the Orange One has appealed to some deep dark part of them. If he’s impeached, chaos may ensue. His approval among Repubs is still sky high and I’m not really sure what could change that

Me neither.

What will surface will be evidence of straight up money laundering. Donny is a crook, and one who has almost certainly sold out his country for his own personal benefit.

The GOP will not soon live this down.

[boutons_deux]

2003 wants its cliche back

From the VN anti-war period, the incredibly stupid, ignorant, shit-fer-brains "Love Or Leave It", and "My Country, Right or Wrong".

That's when the American flag fetish really exploded, with little American flag patches, decals, pins got stuck on every fucking uniform, hard hat, lapel, car bumper, cubicle, front yard, etc, proving they were True Patriots (while 58K Americans and 3M VN were slaughtered as America The Wrong lost the war)

[Winehole23]

Me neither.

What will surface will be evidence of straight up money laundering. Donny is a crook, and one who has almost certainly sold out his country for his own personal benefit.

The GOP will not soon live this down.eh, I'm not so sure about the imminent demise of DJT and the GOP.

not only do DJT's supporters not mind that he's a crook, it's one of the things they admire and envy.

getting riches and power and getting away with it, what could be better?

[Blake]

eh, I'm not so sure about the imminent demise of DJT and the GOP.

not only do DJT's supporters not mind that he's a crook, it's one of the things they admire and envy.

getting riches and power and getting away with it, what could be better?

Ditto

[boutons_deux]

the dam is breaking

the ship is fatally holed and taking on sewer water.

[Blake]

the dam is breaking

the ship is fatally holed and taking on sewer water.

Rats have a way of surviving

[Winehole23]

removing DJT by other than electoral means will not end up well.

[Winehole23]

Dittothe anger, the petulance, the whining sense of grievance, the petty name calling, the philandering -- these all make DJT more relatable and human.

[boutons_deux]

removing DJT by other than electoral means will not end up well.

you sound like Trash's own FUD, that the economy will crater.

bull fucking shit

Trash will be gone, Pence will take over, the fucking Pres tweeting will stop, and the oligarchy/Repug fucking of America will continue, and more quietly, less distraction.

Trash's cult? fuck those stupid bastards. If they start shooting, the gene pool will be improved.

[Winehole23]

DJT's "apres moi, le deluge" bit is grandiose, but if he is impeached or is pressed to resign, he becomes a martyr and the political/legal recriminations will be endless.

[boutons_deux]

DJT's "apres moi, le deluge" bit is grandiose, but if he is impeached or is pressed to resign, he becomes a martyr and the political/legal recriminations will be endless.

If a Repug Senate convicts him, then maybe the cult will not vote, which is passively voting for Dems.

[FrostKing]

2003 wants its cliche back
I'm an Immigrant so I can still use it

[Winehole23]

that makes no sense, dude

[CitizenDwayne]

Me neither.

What will surface will be evidence of straight up money laundering. Donny is a crook, and one who has almost certainly sold out his country for his own personal benefit.

The GOP will not soon live this down.
Remember when Howard Dean’s campaign ended because he yelled like a weirdo, and people were freaked out for some reason?

Trump does something that should disqualify him from the presidency probably every single day, and it doesn’t matter. He has established that the “rules” of politics do not apply to him. As he said, he could shoot someone dead in Times Square, and he wouldn’t lose his supporters

[boutons_deux]

That the GOP is not standing up to Trash shows how corrupt the GOP is,

and in fact,

Trash represents the racist, corrupt GOP and its racist GOP base perfectly.

If Trash and his mafiya aren't taken down, they become an example for Americans to follow, how to win, how get ahead, how to cheat, how to lie, and it's all good.

As we see here on ST with Trash defenders, fellators, there are plenty of Americans ready to follow Trash's toxic example.

[Blake]

"By

Tom Steyer

Aug. 26, 2018 3:23 p.m. ET

As news spread that Michael Cohen’s plea deal had all but named President Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal crime, I thought back to a conversation I had earlier this summer in South Carolina.

A woman approached me at the end of our Need to Impeach Town Hall in Columbia, where I’d discussed the threat Donald Trump poses to our democracy. At 52, she was a lifelong Republican, but she couldn’t understand why her party’s elected leaders wouldn’t stand up to Mr. Trump.

“We’re under attack by our own president,” she told me.

She’s far from the only GOP supporter who feels this way. More than 500,000 people who have added their voices to our call to impeach Mr. Trump and ultimately remove him from office identify as Republicans. When I meet these voters at our Town Hall events, they often tell me how disgusted they feel watching Mr. Trump trample their party’s core beliefs as he erodes the foundations of our country.

The GOP, as they’ve told me, has always emphasized that America must be a nation of laws. At the 2016 Republican National Convention, party leaders agreed on a platform asserting that “the rule of law is the foundation of our Republic.” Yet Mr. Trump has been dismantling the rule of law to try to protect himself........."


https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-save-your-party-by-impeaching-the-president-1535311432

[boutons_deux]

"party leaders agreed on a platform asserting that “the rule of law is the foundation of our Republic.”

:lol

Another myth with which Americans narcotize, dumb down themselves and with which the leaders LIE to them about.

If you're white and/or have money (white being important as money),

you can buy the "rule of law" you can afford.

But if you're non-white, and/or not wealthy, you're fucked.

[FrostKing]

"party leaders agreed on a platform asserting that “the rule of law is the foundation of our Republic.”

:lol

Another myth with which Americans narcotize, dumb down themselves and with which the leaders LIE to them about.

If you're white and/or have money (white being important as money),

you can buy the "rule of law" you can afford.

But if you're non-white, and/or not wealthy, you're fucked.
My family and I are white. Why should I not support such a platform

If I dig deep enough in your belief system, we both know you will just have to outright admit you are against white babies being created because it extends a white privileged society

[Reck]

My family and I are white. Why should I not support such a platform

If I dig deep enough in your belief system, we both know you will just have to outright admit you are against white babies being created because it extends a white privileged society

Why are you even here then? Enjoy your white privilege where you came from. Stop leeching off us.

[FrostKing]

Why are you even here then? Enjoy your white privilege where you came from. Stop leeching off us.
Because I like Mexican food

I'm just having a simplistic discussion on logic with Boutans. What I noticed is many times people don't actually dissect what ramifications certain ideals they were programmed to support (I.e. Equality) actually mean.

How do YOU personally benefit from equality? Less crime committed by certain demographics - that would apply. Less race baiting in the media?

[Spurtacular]

:cry

Not a fan of white alphas? What was the race of the dude that banged your wife?

[Blake]

"Disapproval of Donald Trump is at a new high, support for the Mueller investigation is broad and half of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll favor Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.

Sixty percent in the national survey disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, numerically the highest of his presidency, albeit by a single point; that includes 53 percent who disapprove strongly, more than half for the first time. Thirty-six percent approve, matching his low."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trouble-trump-disapproval-high-63-back-mueller-half-112416277--abc-news-topstories.html

[CosmicCowboy]

"Disapproval of Donald Trump is at a new high, support for the Mueller investigation is broad and half of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll favor Congress initiating impeachment proceedings against the president.

Sixty percent in the national survey disapprove of Trump’s performance in office, numerically the highest of his presidency, albeit by a single point; that includes 53 percent who disapprove strongly, more than half for the first time. Thirty-six percent approve, matching his low."

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trouble-trump-disapproval-high-63-back-mueller-half-112416277--abc-news-topstories.html

Blake, do you know how impeachment works?

If the House goes blue in November and TRIES to impeach Trump it then goes to the Senate where SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT have to vote for removal.

Is the world so blue tinted through your cuckgoggles that you actually think that will happen?

[Spurminator]

Not sure why Dems would even want to impeach. On the slim chance they win Congress in November, it will have been on the strength of having Trump in the White House. They'd be better off obstructing his agenda and letting his hysterics help them in 2020 as well.

[Blake]

Blake, do you know how impeachment works?

If the House goes blue in November and TRIES to impeach Trump it then goes to the Senate where SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT have to vote for removal.

Is the world so blue tinted through your cuckgoggles that you actually think that will happen?


Here's to hoping.

[DMC]

Looking like about a 70% chance of that by the best estimates.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.

Yeah yall looked real good when Madcow was crying her dykish ass off on live TV.

[rmt]

If a Repug Senate convicts him, then maybe the cult will not vote, which is passively voting for Dems.

You wish, bou.

[boutons_deux]

"Senate where SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT have to vote for removal."

"The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#Two-thirds_vote) to convict a person being impeached[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-4)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-4

the Senate has never convicted a Pres, Trash can be first one, The Most Bestest UnPresidented President SlimeBall Ever.

[DarrinS]

I’m watching

[Darkwaters]

Fat chance this ever actually happens unless he actually perjures himself like Clinton. But it's great as election propaganda.

[pgardn]

I don’t think the Democrats actually want this.
Just take the House and pester him for the next 2 years. Tie up the Senate on all SCOTUS nominees. Go with 8 if more spots open, or even 7 with the lame duck excuse, seems to work. Then take 2020. Done. Horrible precedents set but Trump has cornered the market on bad behavior and lying so Republicans can always be blamed.

[boutons_deux]

Fat chance this ever actually happens unless he actually perjures himself like Clinton. But it's great as election propaganda.

Clinton wasn't convicted, because, as forever, the Senate couldn't get 2/3 for conviction.

[boutons_deux]

I don’t think the Democrats actually want this.
Just take the House and pester him for the next 2 years. Tie up the Senate on all SCOTUS nominees. Go with 8 if more spots open, or even 7 with the lame duck excuse, seems to work. Then take 2020. Done. Horrible precedents set but Trump has cornered the market on bad behavior and lying so Republicans can always be blamed.

Dems don't have the balls and craziness to out-nasty, or even equal-nasty the Repugs.

eg, Schumer just gave McBitch a bunch of federal judges for NOTHING in return.

Fuck the Dems.

They are, passively, fecklessly, as much a disaster for America as the Repugs, and just as compromised by BigDonor, BigFinance, who have placed a large number of their lobbyists on the DNC, which has told lefty Dems not even to run, as the DNC will destroy them.

If Fringies like Bernie, Warren, etc have any effect on government, on governing For The People, it will be temporary, and will be and has been reversed, destroyed ASAP by the oligarchy, eg, police consent decrees/DoJ, college loan relief, FCC, CFPB, DoE, EPA, DoI, etc.

With BOTH parties owned by the oligarchy, America is fucked and unfuckable.

[florige]

I don’t think the Democrats actually want this.
Just take the House and pester him for the next 2 years. Tie up the Senate on all SCOTUS nominees. Go with 8 if more spots open, or even 7 with the lame duck excuse, seems to work. Then take 2020. Done. Horrible precedents set but Trump has cornered the market on bad behavior and lying so Republicans can always be blamed.


This is what I want. The right will cry conspiracy if gets impeached on Dem watch. He is burying himself now with full GOP support. The Dems could be in a position to put the nail in the coffin for that clown if they do it right, and not totally poop the bed like 2016.
,

[Winehole23]

This is what I want. The right will cry conspiracy if gets impeached on Dem watch. He is burying himself now with full GOP support. The Dems could be in a position to put the nail in the coffin for that clown if they do it right, and not totally poop the bed like 2016.
,I'm less than convinced that Trump is an electoral dead duck just yet, but agree completely that he needs to be beaten at the polls. Impeachment portends unrestrained partisan lawfare.

[baseline bum]

Fat chance this ever actually happens unless he actually perjures himself like Clinton. But it's great as election propaganda.

What would it matter if he perjures himself? Paul Ryan or Mark Meadows would just argue he's new at this.

[florige]

I'm less than convinced that Trump is an electoral dead duck just yet, but agree completely that he needs to be beaten at the polls. Impeachment portends unrestrained partisan lawfare.

I agree. A lot depends on who the Dem's nominate this time around, and the "on the fence" Trump voters who voted for him in 2016. His hardcore base are going to be behind him no matter what. I'm with your line of thinking, I don't think it will just be a walk in the park like most people think it will be for whichever Dem he is facing. I'm just hoping that the Bernie factor (the Hillary haters that crossed the aisle to vote for Trump because they felt Bernie got robbed, and the ones who just stayed home) that clearly boost his numbers in 2016 reverses itself in 2020.

[boutons_deux]

"the aisle to vote for Trump because they felt Bernie got robbed"

evidence for that astonishing statement.

Bernie fans voting for Trash? IBWISI

[florige]

"the aisle to vote for Trump because they felt Bernie got robbed"

evidence for that astonishing statement.

Bernie fans voting for Trash? IBWISI





I know five hardcore Bernie supporters personally who hated Hillary so much they voted for Trump.

[boutons_deux]

I know five hardcore Bernie supporters personally who hated Hillary so much they voted for Trump.

Emotional voting, excellent, is why America is so fucked.

So those 5 Bernies are getting what the they wanted from Trash and his kakistocracy?

or are they satisfied enough emotionally by punishing Hillary, no matter what it costs them and America?

[florige]

Emotional voting, excellent, is why America is so fucked.

So those 5 Bernies are getting what the they wanted from Trash and his kakistocracy?

or are they satisfied enough emotionally by punishing Hillary, no matter what it costs them and America?



Oh I agree with you 100%. I was just stating I think that's one of the factors that helped that moron win ever so slightly.

[koriwhat]

Oh I agree with you 100%. I was just stating I think that's one of the factors that helped that moron win ever so slightly.

that moron is a billionaire... his pocket change is something you'll never sniff in your life. but he's the moron, right? lmao irrationally emotional sissy wannabe men.

[koriwhat]

or are they satisfied enough emotionally by punishing Hillary, no matter what it costs them and America?

them and those who didn't vote for djt or at all. fuck HRC!

[Spurs Homer]

that moron is a billionaire... his pocket change is something you'll never sniff in your life. but he's the moron, right? lmao irrationally emotional sissy wannabe men.


Serious question: If it turns out that Trump sold out his country and conspired with Russia to steal the election and other high crimes - will you still defend him? Will you somehow spin the result and say that - even treason is better for America? Why are you so willing to believe every word that comes out of the guy that lies 24/7?

Boggles the mind tbh. Hope you can answer without throwing a little tantrum like Trump does every single day things do not go his way.

[koriwhat]

Serious question: If it turns out that Trump sold out his country and conspired with Russia to steal the election and other high crimes - will you still defend him? Will you somehow spin the result and say that - even treason is better for America? Why are you so willing to believe every word that comes out of the guy that lies 24/7?

Boggles the mind tbh. Hope you can answer without throwing a little tantrum like Trump does every single day things do not go his way.

funny thing is yall all jump to conclusions about me when it comes to djt. i didn't vote for the dude and don't necessarily support him either. i just think there's too many losers in this country who are emotionally wrecked because their darling cunt HRC lost. these people cry foul because they didn't get the matriarch they sought for so long.

if trump if found to be a traitor to this great nation then fuck him too. i have no sympathy for traitors and no time for losers crying about an election that had HRC at 98% in the polls to win.

as well, what makes you think i even know 10% of what trump has said? you claim i'm here believing everything trump spouts and yet i don't watch his rallies or press conferences.

you're like the rest here who jump on me... you play make believe and try to pin that bs on me because you want to believe in your bs so bad.

[Spurs Homer]

funny thing is yall all jump to conclusions about me when it comes to djt. i didn't vote for the dude and don't necessarily support him either. i just think there's too many losers in this country who are emotionally wrecked because their darling cunt HRC lost. these people cry foul because they didn't get the matriarch they sought for so long.

if trump if found to be a traitor to this great nation then fuck him too. i have no sympathy for traitors and no time for losers crying about an election that had HRC at 98% in the polls to win.

as well, what makes you think i even know 10% of what trump has said? you claim i'm here believing everything trump spouts and yet i don't watch his rallies or press conferences.

you're like the rest here who jump on me... you play make believe and try to pin that bs on me because you want to believe in your bs so bad.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't jump on you - I just have read many, many posts of you defending him and attacking others who post anti-Trump msgs.
It has nothing to do with HRC - for me - I just think that it is shameful that after so much public evidence people still believe Trump and defend Trump - just boggles the mind. The guy is so transparently guilty that it is shocking at just how much his supporters will embarrass themselves in the face of clear cut evidence of criminality.

[koriwhat]

Thanks for the reply. I didn't jump on you - I just have read many, many posts of you defending him and attacking others who post anti-Trump msgs.
It has nothing to do with HRC - for me - I just think that it is shameful that after so much public evidence people still believe Trump and defend Trump - just boggles the mind. The guy is so transparently guilty that it is shocking at just how much his supporters will embarrass themselves in the face of clear cut evidence of criminality.

nothing to say about the criminality of those who have been in power for a few decades now? go figure.

[Spurs Homer]

nothing to say about the criminality of those who have been in power for a few decades now? go figure.

Well, that is called "whataboutism", or as CHRIS says , "whataboutery" lol
I know that there are many other corrupt politicians - no one denies that but the current president is the only thing that matters right now. Our country is currently being run by someone who has made other corrupt politicians look like amateurs!

[koriwhat]

Our country is currently being run by someone who has made other corrupt politicians look like amateurs!

you might not like the words he uses or the platform either but our past politicians have all been crooks and to say otherwise is blind cultish loyalty to the unloyal.

djt has done some great things actually that not many past presidents can lay claim too, especially those from the past 4 administrations.

[Spurs Homer]

you might not like the words he uses or the platform either but our past politicians have all been crooks and to say otherwise is blind cultish loyalty to the unloyal.

djt has done some great things actually that not many past presidents can lay claim too, especially those from the past 4 administrations.

I disagree with that statement, but most importantly, anything he accomplishes will be IMHO the result of a fraudulently attained presidency. History will show that all the damage he did and whatever good he did - was under the guise of a fraudulent presidency. In other words I believe his presidency was acquired illegally and then we have to grapple over what was done in the 2 years or so that he occupied the office illegally.

[koriwhat]

I disagree with that statement, but most importantly, anything he accomplishes will be IMHO the result of a fraudulently attained presidency. History will show that all the damage he did and whatever good he did - was under the guise of a fraudulent presidency. In other words I believe his presidency was acquired illegally and then we have to grapple over what was done in the 2 years or so that he occupied the office illegally.

what you're doing right now is what most on the left have done. yall have played right into the MSM narrative about the dude and yall believe without a doubt that he's guilty. why is that? will your world be crushed if he's found to be right this whole time about HRC, BHO, and the rest of the losers who have tried their darnedest to ruin this country and many others around the world?

[Spurs Homer]

what you're doing right now is what most on the left have done. yall have played right into the MSM narrative about the dude and yall believe without a doubt that he's guilty. why is that? will your world be crushed if he's found to be right this whole time about HRC, BHO, and the rest of the losers who have tried their darnedest to ruin this country and many others around the world?

You have to really, really look at all the public evidence. That is it. It is all there. There is no such thing as a MSM - all media is the same. All report what happens. Some spin it one way - some the opposite way - but it is all part of what reporting is. The idea of "MSM" is directly from Trumps playbook, and do you know where it came from? From Russia. Russia (and other countries with corrupt leadership) invented that. They had to find a label so they could pin on whoever reported their crimes - and pin a label on them to discredit them. Why? So that they could continue to commit crimes against their countries and get away with it.
When Trump (and FOX news) do this, they do it with the knowledge that there are citizens out there who will be aroused. Who will somehow swallow their labeling and use their own prejudices and false beliefs and make it their own beliefs. Some call it being brainwashed. Don't be one of them. Look at all the evidence and when you hear Hannity saying "msm this" and "msm/hate trump media that" - think to yourself: "hmm - Hannity makes a great living as a member of the media- in fact he makes millions - sounds like that is pretty main stream, huh?"

If Trump was found innocent - I would not be crushed - I would breathe a sigh of relief that we did not elect a Russian asset and that Putin did not succeed. I still would be disgusted at his (Trumps) behavior and his lying, but at least I would understand that he was duly elected and would just wait for the next election.
Would you be understanding if he was indicted/impeached/convicted/removed from office for high crimes?

[florige]

Oh I agree with you 100%. I was just stating I think that's one of the factors that helped that moron win ever so slightly.


that moron is a billionaire... his pocket change is something you'll never sniff in your life. but he's the moron, right? lmao irrationally emotional sissy wannabe men.


funny thing is yall all jump to conclusions about me when it comes to djt. i didn't vote for the dude and don't necessarily support him either. i just think there's too many losers in this country who are emotionally wrecked because their darling cunt HRC lost. these people cry foul because they didn't get the matriarch they sought for so long.

if trump if found to be a traitor to this great nation then fuck him too. i have no sympathy for traitors and no time for losers crying about an election that had HRC at 98% in the polls to win.

as well, what makes you think i even know 10% of what trump has said? you claim i'm here believing everything trump spouts and yet i don't watch his rallies or press conferences.

you're like the rest here who jump on me... you play make believe and try to pin that bs on me because you want to believe in your bs so bad.



The typical I didn't vote for Trump or support anything he does, but I will jump to his defense any chance I get. Also most people aren't "emotionally wrecked" because Clinton lost, they are wrecked because that idiot is now representing us. Stop acting like people who don't support Trump are HRC die hard supporters, I voted for her because she was the last line of defense to stop this imbecile from becoming President. I would had voted for Mickey Mouse if I thought he would had had a better shot a beating Trump.

[Winehole23]

there's no nuance or degrees with these people. they kick everyone who doesn't see things their way into the same rhetorical ditch, then gleefully piss on their heads.

the #resistance partakes liberally of this attitude too, so both sides feel justified doing it.

[Winehole23]

people who are neither here nor there are collateral damage

[boutons_deux]

the #resistance partakes liberally of this attitude too, so both sides feel justified doing it.

#resistance IS justified for kicking Trash supporters, Repugs in general, KKK, Nazis, xenophobes.

[Winehole23]

right on time, I was talking about you, boutons

[rmt]

You have to really, really look at all the public evidence. That is it. It is all there. There is no such thing as a MSM - all media is the same. All report what happens. Some spin it one way - some the opposite way - but it is all part of what reporting is. The idea of "MSM" is directly from Trumps playbook, and do you know where it came from? From Russia. Russia (and other countries with corrupt leadership) invented that. They had to find a label so they could pin on whoever reported their crimes - and pin a label on them to discredit them. Why? So that they could continue to commit crimes against their countries and get away with it.
When Trump (and FOX news) do this, they do it with the knowledge that there are citizens out there who will be aroused. Who will somehow swallow their labeling and use their own prejudices and false beliefs and make it their own beliefs. Some call it being brainwashed. Don't be one of them. Look at all the evidence and when you hear Hannity saying "msm this" and "msm/hate trump media that" - think to yourself: "hmm - Hannity makes a great living as a member of the media- in fact he makes millions - sounds like that is pretty main stream, huh?"

If Trump was found innocent - I would not be crushed - I would breathe a sigh of relief that we did not elect a Russian asset and that Putin did not succeed. I still would be disgusted at his (Trumps) behavior and his lying, but at least I would understand that he was duly elected and would just wait for the next election.
Would you be understanding if he was indicted/impeached/convicted/removed from office for high crimes?

Please state "all the public evidence" that is "all there." If there is so much "evidence", why hasn't Trump been charged or impeached? Please show your proof or else, who really is the one who's been brainwashed?

Whatever happened to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Whatever happened to the prosecution showing evidence beyond reasonable doubt (of guilt)?

[rmt]

BTW, Crazy Rich Asians is VERY good - love the maj jong double meaning at the end (I'll explain if anyone cares to know).

[Winehole23]

It's one thing to denounce avowed bigots, Nazis, white supremacists and so forth, these groups mostly do seem to identify strongly with Trump. No issues there. There have been six people (so far) in Trump's administration who've lost their jobs for schmoozing it up with white supremacists or bigoted bloviating on social media. There does seem to be an eerie symbiosis between Trump and the bigots that rhetorical distancing and strategic firings have been unable to dispel.

But conflating the GOP or GOP voters with Trump is not only a political mistake, it's almost surely factually wrong. Ever hear of Never Trumpers? They're erstwhile GOP voters. You might have more in common with them than you think.

People vote for a lot of irrational or sentimental reasons that have little to do with ideological underpinnings or policy. Calumniating them all as the functional equivalent of Nazis seems unjust and foolish to me, but of course that's just one of the many differences between myself and the Great Boutons.

[Winehole23]

Please state "all the public evidence" that is "all there." If there is so much "evidence", why hasn't Trump been charged or impeached? Please show your proof or else, who really is the one who's been brainwashed?

Whatever happened to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Whatever happened to the prosecution showing evidence beyond reasonable doubt (of guilt)?in the case of Trump, impeachment will come before prosecution if impeachment comes at all.

what's an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of US Reps say it is. there is no firm standard for removal in the Senate, Senators more or less vote their conscience according to whatever standard of proof seems fitting to them individually -- each Senator is both judge and juror. 67 votes are needed for removal.

if Trump is impeached (a non-trivial possibility) and removed (very remote chance), he will be liable to prosecution, in which case the presumption of innocence will apply.

[Winehole23]

because impeachment is an Article II (i.e, a political) process, the standards governing judicial procedure do not apply except where self-imposed.

[rmt]

It's one thing to denounce avowed bigots, Nazis, white supremacists and so forth, these groups mostly do seem to identify strongly with Trump. No issues there. There have been six people (so far) in Trump's administration who've lost their jobs for schmoozing it up with white supremacists or bigoted bloviating on social media. There does seem to be an eerie symbiosis between Trump and the bigots that rhetorical distancing and strategic firings have been unable to dispel.

But conflating the GOP or GOP voters with Trump is not only a political mistake, it's almost surely factually wrong. Ever hear of Never Trumpers? They're erstwhile GOP voters. You might have more in common with them than you think.

People vote for a lot of irrational or sentimental reasons that have little to do with ideological underpinnings or policy. Calumniating them all as the functional equivalent of Nazis seems unjust and foolish to me, but of course that's just one of the many differences between myself and the Great Boutons.

Most Never Trumpers want an Evangelical Christian with conservative beliefs - for all his faults, most of you guys have more in common (belief wise) with Trump than what Never Trumpers would consider a good candidate - be careful what you wish for (as in impeachment of Trump).

[Winehole23]

...

[Winehole23]

Most Never Trumpers want an Evangelical Christian with conservative beliefs - for all his faults, most of you guys have more in common (belief wise) with Trump than what Never Trumpers would consider a good candidate - be careful what you wish for (as in impeachment of Trump).I do not wish for the impeachment of Donald Trump. I also have no particular beef with Evangelical Christianity (which is not, contrary to prevailing wisdom, monolithic) or with conservative beliefs -- whatever that means now. It takes all kinds to make a world.

Most Trump fans seem to think you're not a real conservative, or even a real Republican, unless you kiss Trump's ring.

[rmt]

I do not wish for the impeachment of Donald Trump.

I know you don't, WH - it would be worse for your side than him losing in 2020. I should not have done my last post as a reply to your post. I wanna hear this evidence from Spurs Homer.

[Winehole23]

it's odd that you think you know what side I'm on. because I am against Donald Trump does not mean I am for the other side.

there can be more than two sides in politics.

[Winehole23]

fwiw, nothing would please me better than to see both major parties thoroughly discredited, defeated and reorganized.

[Winehole23]

I know you don't, WH - it would be worse for your side than him losing in 2020. I should not have done my last post as a reply to your post. I wanna hear this evidence from Spurs Homer.kind of hand wavy, I agree. what's evidence enough for a voter may not rise to a legally permissible level, but it needn't: that's it's enough to sway a voter this way or that is enough.

hand waving, bloviating and table-pounding, plus confirmation bias, are often enough to change people's minds. rational persuasion is a fool's errand but worth the candle, I think: what else creates the audience that would be receptive to it?

[Spurs Homer]

Please state "all the public evidence" that is "all there." If there is so much "evidence", why hasn't Trump been charged or impeached? Please show your proof or else, who really is the one who's been brainwashed?

Whatever happened to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty? Whatever happened to the prosecution showing evidence beyond reasonable doubt (of guilt)?

Instead of pointing out - and repeating - what the 1200 plus page Flynn thread has already laid out - I will instead post this link to explain all the charges, convictions and a decent summary of just how corrupt this administration is;

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/mueller-investigation-charges.html

That gives you all the public evidence you need right there - but of course for a Trump defender it is never enough. There will always be whataboutism, denials, silly deflections ("how is any of this connected to Trump?") etc.

Why do Trump defenders say these things? Because Trump administration officials who are complicit in these crimes parrot these same things. They have the gall to say that the Campaign Manager's crimes are not related to Trump. The convicted criminal who ran Trumps campaign - is not connected to Trump. That is absurd.

This entire administration from top to bottom is corrupt and the evidence is there in all the criminal charges and guilty pleas and all you Trump supporters have is - what? The word of the biggest liar on the planet and you are willing to die on that hill? All your denials hinge on the word and denials of a man who has never once told the truth? Seriously?

Read the article in the link and see all the results of this investigation - so far - and ask yourself why you can so easily discard these facts and instead blindly believe the denials and lies of an evil small man.

[SnakeBoy]

fwiw, nothing would please me better than to see both major parties thoroughly discredited, defeated and reorganized.

You're watching it happen in real time imo. It's a slow messy process and the outcome is completely unpredictable but I don't understand why you're not enjoying the show, I am.

[rmt]

Instead of pointing out - and repeating - what the 1200 plus page Flynn thread has already laid out - I will instead post this link to explain all the charges, convictions and a decent summary of just how corrupt this administration is;

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/mueller-investigation-charges.html

That gives you all the public evidence you need right there - but of course for a Trump defender it is never enough. There will always be whataboutism, denials, silly deflections ("how is any of this connected to Trump?") etc.

Why do Trump defenders say these things? Because Trump administration officials who are complicit in these crimes parrot these same things. They have the gall to say that the Campaign Manager's crimes are not related to Trump. The convicted criminal who ran Trumps campaign - is not connected to Trump. That is absurd.

This entire administration from top to bottom is corrupt and the evidence is there in all the criminal charges and guilty pleas and all you Trump supporters have is - what? The word of the biggest liar on the planet and you are willing to die on that hill? All your denials hinge on the word and denials of a man who has never once told the truth? Seriously?

Read the article in the link and see all the results of this investigation - so far - and ask yourself why you can so easily discard these facts and instead blindly believe the denials and lies of an evil small man.

Here I was - enjoying my long weekend - bowling, watching Federer, movie - just what I didn't need - a link to a NYT article that links to many other NYT articles.

Is there any other source that I can look at? I've reached my limit of free NYT articles and it's only the 2nd of the month.

[Spurs Homer]

Here I was - enjoying my long weekend - bowling, watching Federer, movie - just what I didn't need - a link to a NYT article that links to many other NYT articles.

Is there any other source that I can look at? I've reached my limit of free NYT articles and it's only the 2nd of the month.

https://investigaterussia.org/

everything is also here - but not in one neat article like in the ny times article

[Winehole23]

In fairness to rmt, the information disclosed in the NYT article does not yet inculpate DJT. If Trump hired criminals that does not necessarily make him legally responsible for their crimes, though it is certainly enough to vote against him or to lobby for his removal from office.

Personally, I agree with Spurs Homer that DJT is corrupt, I think that was clear well before he got elected. Housing discrimination, six bankruptcies, stiffing contractors, Trump University, shady business partners, exploiting foreign workers, not disclosing his taxes, failing to divest his holdings upon assuming office, appointing family members to high positions in government, it all stinks to high heaven -- but the evidence isn't yet legally conclusive. Pretending it is, well, just pretending.

As for what the direct evidence of wrongdoing would be, isn't that what the special counsel's investigation is for? It's sort of up to Rod Rosenstein whether anyone else will see it, but in all likelihood it will get out there.

We'll see, right? And if we don't there'll be a chance to rearrange things in 2020.

[Winehole23]

You're watching it happen in real time imo. It's a slow messy process and the outcome is completely unpredictable but I don't understand why you're not enjoying the show, I am.hmm, what's the enjoyable part for you?

[rmt]

In fairness to rmt, the information disclosed in the NYT article does not yet inculpate DJT. If Trump hired criminals that does not necessarily make him legally responsible for their crimes, though it is certainly enough to vote against him or to lobby for his removal from office.

Personally, I agree with Spurs Homer that DJT is corrupt, I think that was clear well before he got elected. Housing discrimination, six bankruptcies, stiffing contractors, Trump University, shady business partners, exploiting foreign workers, not disclosing his taxes, failing to divest his holdings upon assuming office, appointing family members to high positions in government, it all stinks to high heaven -- but the evidence isn't yet legally conclusive. Pretending it is, well, just pretending.

As for what the direct evidence of wrongdoing would be, isn't that what the special counsel's investigation is for? It's sort of up to Rod Rosenstein whether anyone else will see it, but in all likelihood it will get out there.

We'll see, right? And if we don't there'll be a chance to rearrange things in 2020.

You're too kind - softly letting him off the hook. And if it weren't almost 2 am and waaay past my normal bedtime, I'd pursue it.

[Winehole23]

https://investigaterussia.org/

everything is also here - but not in one neat article like in the ny times articlewhere's the direct evidence of wrongdoing by Trump @ that link? you posted it, so I presume you're familiar with its contents.

is evidence Trump committed crimes there? please be as specific as you can -- you're the one who said it was overwhelming. surely you can share a tidbit or two.

[Winehole23]

or not

[Spurs Homer]

where's the direct evidence of wrongdoing by Trump @ that link? you posted it, so I presume you're familiar with its contents.

is evidence Trump committed crimes there? please be as specific as you can -- you're the one who said it was overwhelming. surely you can share a tidbit or two.

I agree also with you that what is out there is enough to remove him from office. Isn't that enough?
With any other president- yes. With this one, apparently not because the entire country- for some crazy reason - treats him as if he were an infant. Incapable of being responsible for anything. Trump says inappropriate things, insulting or improper or outlandish things - everyone scrambles to find a logical explanation while giving him every benefit of the doubt and every benefit that no other president would have received.

All those charges & pleas and convictions and here you are asking for "more proof" or "direct evidence."
The infant in office surely could not have been complicit in any of those crimes. Obama would have been hanging from the tree on the white house lawn lol.

1) The Trump tower mtg is part of the collusion/conspiracy crime. Trump denies he knew anything yet he composes the letter explaining about adoptions. This is a crime - but wait - he is an infant, right? So let us enable him and say, "lying to the press is not illegal!" Wrong. This is conspiracy against the USA when Trump and his top advisors/son agreed to a mtg to accept stolen material. A felony or two and Trump is directly involved. Mueller will make it official with tons of corroborating evidence when he is ready to enter it officially.

2) "Russia if you are listening..." Trump directly conspiring/colluding with an enemy government to let them know it is ok to commit a felony (hacked emails) against an American citizen. Wait- he is an infant - so let us say, "no one would openly commit a crime ok? let us say he was just joking!" Wrong. It was part of the crime of conspiring to defraud the USA. (that same day July 27, 2016 - Russia hacks into the Clinton campaign servers)

3) Firing Comey to stop an investigation (Obstruction of Justice) and confirming it on a national tv broadcast.

I could go on but will instead leave you with this;

Two weeks prior to his inauguration, Trump was given a classified briefing alerting him to Russia cyber-attacking the USA to influence an election. Trump was given as much info as possible - without - the Intelligence Agencies spilling the beans on any incriminating evidence on Trump himself (or his staff). Trump was properly advised on where we stood as a nation and given the courtesy as Commander in Chief that the entire Intelligence Community was unanimous in their preliminary findings.

Think of that for a minute.

You are the incoming president and you are given this info - what do you do?
It is your duty to take action. To protect America. Your duty to serve this country and coordinate with the IA's and do the same thing that Obama/Bush/Clinton - anyone - would have done.

So what did Trump do? What did he do when briefed on an attack by a foreign adversary?

He immediately gave aid and comfort and cover - to the attackers.
He went on the attack. Against the IA's. Against America. Against truth. Against law enforcement. Against the public servants that are faithfully serving this country.
He called it a hoax, a witch hunt.

Did Trump immediately set up a cyber force to protect against further attacks? Or any other number of steps that any other president would have followed up on.

Trump started conspiring with Russia on his first day in office. His National Security advisor was on the phone - during his inauguration - assuring the Russians that the sanctions were going to be lifted - "do not worry"
(The lifting of sanctions were the reward the Russians were to receive for their hacking/cyber-crimes/fake ads/vote suppressing,etc) (There is public evidence that Trump team tried to lift sanctions and return the Compounds that Obama took away from the Russians)
Trump actively began his campaign of conspiring with Russia by attacking American institutions like the press, the Intelligence community, the public servants - and this is exactly what Russia would have been extremely happy about.

Every single time that Trump called the investigation a hoax or witch hunt - was an act against the USA. Every time he did this was more proof of colluding and conspiring with the enemy and begging for approval from Russia/Putin.
Imagine Obama in the Oval office inviting the Russians and making sure that no American press was allowed? Imagine Obama bragging to the Russians that he had just fired the Director of the FBI because he was having issues with an investigation - but now that pressure was gone? (White house Tree-git a rope!) Not to mention spilling classified info to the Russians given in good faith to us by an ally.

Wait- he is an infant - so this cannot possibly be true. It is the MSM! It is a left wing conspiracy! Trump tweeted that there is absolutely no evidence! No collusion!

"Mr Trump - who do you believe - the USA intelligence agencies or Russia and Putin?"
Trump: "President Putin was strong and powerful in his denial. I see no reason why it would be Russia! I think the stupidity of the USA is responsible for our bad relationship!"


Go back and listen to Brennan's statements. Brennan has seen far more than the American public has and he has called Trumps acts - "nothing short of Treason."
Listen to these life long public servants who were watching/listening/surveilling the Russians for years prior to the election - and anyone who might be in bed with the Russians.

Listen to those professionals who are sounding the alarm. They are on their horse shouting "the Russians are coming!" Listen to them and think of the evidence they have seen and tell yourself - do I heed the warning or do I believe a con man who was planted as President by a foreign government?

Lastly, what if an innocent man were the incoming president who had just been briefed by the IA's - what would an innocent man do, aside from taking steps to protect the country? How would an innocent man act if he were given the info about the cyber-attack?

Imagine Trump had immediately condemned Russia. Imagine he had immediately called his entire staff and announced to the press that he has just ordered all his staff to assist - in any way - with this investigation. Imagine he had said - an attack on America is an attack on everyone - and we will get through this.
Imagine he had said to Putin- this will not stand - and our Intelligence professionals will get to the bottom of this and they have my support 100%.

Imagine if he was innocent of all crimes - of all misconduct? He has not acted in this way at all, has he?

[boutons_deux]

"He has not acted in this way at all, has he?"

no, nor has any of his mafiya.

repeated, non-stop LYING, and forgetting, recusing, obstructing.

If there's nothing there, then why are all of them acting so fucking guilty, acting like they have some very bad stuff to hide?

[Spurs Homer]

"He has not acted in this way at all, has he?"

no, nor has any of his mafiay.

repeated, non-stop LYING, and forgetting, recusing, obstructing.

If there's nothing there, then why are all of them acting so fucking guilty, acting like they have some very bad stuff to hide?




Hear Hear!

[Winehole23]

I agree also with you that what is out there is enough to remove him from office. Isn't that enough?Nope.

You need 67 votes in the Senate to do that.

[Winehole23]

1) The Trump tower mtg is part of the collusion/conspiracy crime. Trump denies he knew anything yet he composes the letter explaining about adoptions. This is a crime - but wait - he is an infant, right? So let us enable him and say, "lying to the press is not illegal!" Wrong. This is conspiracy against the USA when Trump and his top advisors/son agreed to a mtg to accept stolen material. A felony or two and Trump is directly involved. Mueller will make it official with tons of corroborating evidence when he is ready to enter it officially.

2) "Russia if you are listening..." Trump directly conspiring/colluding with an enemy government to let them know it is ok to commit a felony (hacked emails) against an American citizen. Wait- he is an infant - so let us say, "no one would openly commit a crime ok? let us say he was just joking!" Wrong. It was part of the crime of conspiring to defraud the USA. (that same day July 27, 2016 - Russia hacks into the Clinton campaign servers)

3) Firing Comey to stop an investigation (Obstruction of Justice) and confirming it on a national tv broadcast.

I could go on but will instead leave you with this;

Two weeks prior to his inauguration, Trump was given a classified briefing alerting him to Russia cyber-attacking the USA to influence an election. Trump was given as much info as possible - without - the Intelligence Agencies spilling the beans on any incriminating evidence on Trump himself (or his staff). Trump was properly advised on where we stood as a nation and given the courtesy as Commander in Chief that the entire Intelligence Community was unanimous in their preliminary findings.

Think of that for a minute.

You are the incoming president and you are given this info - what do you do?
It is your duty to take action. To protect America. Your duty to serve this country and coordinate with the IA's and do the same thing that Obama/Bush/Clinton - anyone - would have done.

So what did Trump do? What did he do when briefed on an attack by a foreign adversary?

He immediately gave aid and comfort and cover - to the attackers.
He went on the attack. Against the IA's. Against America. Against truth. Against law enforcement. Against the public servants that are faithfully serving this country.
He called it a hoax, a witch hunt.

Did Trump immediately set up a cyber force to protect against further attacks? Or any other number of steps that any other president would have followed up on.

Trump started conspiring with Russia on his first day in office. His National Security advisor was on the phone - during his inauguration - assuring the Russians that the sanctions were going to be lifted - "do not worry"
(The lifting of sanctions were the reward the Russians were to receive for their hacking/cyber-crimes/fake ads/vote suppressing,etc) (There is public evidence that Trump team tried to lift sanctions and return the Compounds that Obama took away from the Russians)
Trump actively began his campaign of conspiring with Russia by attacking American institutions like the press, the Intelligence community, the public servants - and this is exactly what Russia would have been extremely happy about.

Every single time that Trump called the investigation a hoax or witch hunt - was an act against the USA. Every time he did this was more proof of colluding and conspiring with the enemy and begging for approval from Russia/Putin.
Imagine Obama in the Oval office inviting the Russians and making sure that no American press was allowed? Imagine Obama bragging to the Russians that he had just fired the Director of the FBI because he was having issues with an investigation - but now that pressure was gone? (White house Tree-git a rope!) Not to mention spilling classified info to the Russians given in good faith to us by an ally. DOJ won't touch DJT until he leaves office or is removed.

At that point, he can be prosecuted and a court can decide whether the things you mentioned are crimes and whether DJT is guilty or not guilty.

The Mueller probe isn't a deus ex machina that will get rid of Trump. He's a career LE guy who plays by the rules, and those (DOJ) rules say POTUS is ineligible for prosecution.

If he finds presidential wrongdoing, he'll put it in a report for Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein will then forward it to the House of Representatives, which, if Democrats take the majority, will likely impeach.

If the House does impeach, the whole thing will die in the Senate for lack of votes.

[Winehole23]

The next opportunity after that to hold DJT to account for alleged crimes will be whenever he leaves office.

[boutons_deux]

Mueller must at least subpoena Trash before a Grand Jury, and let him hang himself.

SCOTUS said Clinton had to testify, so that's "settled Constitutional law"

[Spurs Homer]

The next opportunity after that to hold DJT to account for alleged crimes will be whenever he leaves office.

I see your reasoning and understand where you are going - but it may not be that simple.
Mueller may also surprise people , nothing is written in stone. Some of the things thrown out in public are not clear cut.
Saying that a president cannot be indicted is not 100% accurate - that has yet to be tested.
I somewhat agree with your comments but I do not discount that Mueller and/or the SDNY or the NY AG might throw something else in the mix.

I also get the 67 Senate count but again that is just where we are today - and tomorrow - there could be something that weighs differently for those Senators having to vote to impeach or not impeach.

Trump could very easily do something that hurts his case even more so those comments you made may be proven inaccurate.

[Spurs Homer]

...oh and of course, other charges/indictments may add to the mix. Say - direct Russia conspiracy indictments that everyone seems to dismiss (on trump team -that is) could also end up being revealed before too long.

[Winehole23]

I see your reasoning and understand where you are going - but it may not be that simple.
Mueller may also surprise people , nothing is written in stone. Some of the things thrown out in public are not clear cut.
Saying that a president cannot be indicted is not 100% accurate - that has yet to be tested.
I somewhat agree with your comments but I do not discount that Mueller and/or the SDNY or the NY AG might throw something else in the mix.

I also get the 67 Senate count but again that is just where we are today - and tomorrow - there could be something that weighs differently for those Senators having to vote to impeach or not impeach.

Trump could very easily do something that hurts his case even more so those comments you made may be proven inaccurate.all true enough. we'll see.

[Winehole23]

...oh and of course, other charges/indictments may add to the mix. Say - direct Russia conspiracy indictments that everyone seems to dismiss (on trump team -that is) could also end up being revealed before too long.it's possible that the accumulation of indictments/verdicts could do enough reputational damage to DJT to undermine his support in the US Senate.

if things aren't bad enough already to have done so, one wonders how bad things would have to get. the GOP to all appearances is the Trump party. if the Senate removed Trump, a lot of Senators would have to piss backwards on their own voters.

[rmt]

Two weeks prior to his inauguration, Trump was given a classified briefing alerting him to Russia cyber-attacking the USA to influence an election. Trump was given as much info as possible - without - the Intelligence Agencies spilling the beans on any incriminating evidence on Trump himself (or his staff). Trump was properly advised on where we stood as a nation and given the courtesy as Commander in Chief that the entire Intelligence Community was unanimous in their preliminary findings.

Think of that for a minute.

You are the incoming president and you are given this info - what do you do?
It is your duty to take action. To protect America. Your duty to serve this country and coordinate with the IA's and do the same thing that Obama/Bush/Clinton - anyone - would have done.

So what did Trump do? What did he do when briefed on an attack by a foreign adversary?

He immediately gave aid and comfort and cover - to the attackers.
He went on the attack. Against the IA's. Against America. Against truth. Against law enforcement. Against the public servants that are faithfully serving this country.
He called it a hoax, a witch hunt.

Did Trump immediately set up a cyber force to protect against further attacks? Or any other number of steps that any other president would have followed up on.

....

Lastly, what if an innocent man were the incoming president who had just been briefed by the IA's - what would an innocent man do, aside from taking steps to protect the country? How would an innocent man act if he were given the info about the cyber-attack?

Imagine Trump had immediately condemned Russia. Imagine he had immediately called his entire staff and announced to the press that he has just ordered all his staff to assist - in any way - with this investigation. Imagine he had said - an attack on America is an attack on everyone - and we will get through this.
Imagine he had said to Putin- this will not stand - and our Intelligence professionals will get to the bottom of this and they have my support 100%.


So do you think that President-elect Trump had more info than sitting President Obama? All these things you say Trump knew about and did/didn't do - what did Obama do with the information he had? That's right - NOTHING. Did you hear a peep out of him? Did he sound any alarms/take any steps? Yet he's on video saying many times that elections are local/not centralized and no foreign actor can change a single vote. Kindly substitute Obama for Trump in your above post and see how that sounds. Maybe you just can't accept the fact that Donald Trump, the moron, was duly elected President of the United States.

Except for WH, all you posters out there who claim to be in middle/not on either side, where are the questions for Spurs Homer? If a conservative ever posted such information (from the other view), you'd be all over him. Just goes to show that there really isn't anyone in the middle - you'all lean one way or the other.

[boutons_deux]

"what did Obama do with the information he had? That's right - NOTHING"

You're (always) full of shit.

Obama had the Congressional leaders to the WH to discuss Russian meddling, and maybe even FBI's investigation of Trash, etc.

He wanted bi-partisan agreement to go public.

Bitch McC said no.

[rmt]

"what did Obama do with the information he had? That's right - NOTHING"

You're (always) full of shit.

Obama had the Congressional leaders to the WH to discuss Russian meddling, and maybe even FBI's investigation of Trash, etc.

He wanted bi-partisan agreement to go public.

Bitch McC said no.




Like the President can't override the Senate Majority Leader - must be McC who is the leader, who is responsible for our safety, who is responsible for foreign affairs, ... - give me a break - he didn't say anything because he (like everyone else) thought that Hillary would win and it wouldn't matter in the end and didn't want to give the appearance of "tipping the scale" - so he kept silent.

[Winehole23]

what did Obama do with the information he had? That's right - NOTHING. Did you hear a peep out of him? Did he sound any alarms/take any steps?allegedly, he tried, but failing to get support from Mitch McConnell, refrained. without bipartisan cover it might have looked liked electoral interference.


Former Vice President Joe Biden says he and President Barack Obama decided not to speak out publicly on Russian interference during the 2016 campaign after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan statement condemning the Kremlin's role.


McConnell's office disputed Biden's account, as reported by Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531), "pointing to a letter signed by all four congressional leaders in September 2016 and sent to the president of the National Association of State Election Directors, urging cybersecurity precautions in light of reports of attempted hacking."

"That missive, however, did not address Russia specifically, or the larger topic of influence beyond voting systems," Politico writes.

The former vice president's account echoes reporting that first appeared in The Washington Post in June (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.860ae2429729) describing a meeting that occurred the same month between Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, then-FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco and 12 key members of Congress.

In the meeting, the Post reports:


"The Dems were, 'Hey, we have to tell the public,' " recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia's aim of sapping confidence in the system.
... McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House's claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference

[Winehole23]

Like the President can't override the Senate Majority Leader - must be McC who is the leader, who is responsible for our safety, who is responsible for foreign affairs, ... - give me a break - he didn't say anything because he (like everyone else) thought that Hillary would win and it wouldn't matter in the end and didn't want to give the appearance of "tipping the scale" - so he kept silent.shouldn't the president be concerned to avoid even the appearance of tipping the scale?

[Pavlov]

Like the President can't override the Senate Majority Leader - must be McC who is the leader, who is responsible for our safety, who is responsible for foreign affairs, ... - give me a break - he didn't say anything because he (like everyone else) thought that Hillary would win and it wouldn't matter in the end and didn't want to give the appearance of "tipping the scale" - so he kept silent.Only the latter reason matters. Too bad the Republicans played politics with the integrity of the elections -- but your guy won so you'll never care about that.

[Spurminator]

he didn't say anything because he (like everyone else) thought that Hillary would win and it wouldn't matter in the end and didn't want to give the appearance of "tipping the scale" - so he kept silent.

Yep, and your hyperpartisan dumb ass would have been right there screaming about it if he had said something.

[boutons_deux]

Like the President can't override the Senate Majority Leader - must be McC who is the leader, who is responsible for our safety, who is responsible for foreign affairs, ... - give me a break - he didn't say anything because he (like everyone else) thought that Hillary would win and it wouldn't matter in the end and didn't want to give the appearance of "tipping the scale" - so he kept silent.

Obama and his team were a lot more astute politically than you.

What the would Repugs, and Trash, do with

Dem Obama announcing, unilaterally, against Bitch McC's position, that Repug Trash was being investigated for his Russian connections and that the Russians were intervening to damage Dem Hillary?

[Winehole23]

It's not reasonable to presume that just because no public statement other than the bipartisan letter to state election boards in September was made, that Obama did nothing. Had any counter-intelligence effort been mounted at the time, we would not have heard of it.

[florige]

it's odd that you think you know what side I'm on. because I am against Donald Trump does not mean I am for the other side.

there can be more than two sides in politics.


That is what pisses me off. They assume anyone not bowing to Trump was all out HRC or something. I really didn't care who the Dem's nominated in 2016. I thought that Bernie followers were more hard core than HRC supporters and there might be a problem with his followers voting for her in the General. I felt that had Bernie won the nomination he would had had no problem securing her followers to vote for him. Hillary had the Obama's and anyone else you could think of trying to get their support.

[Spurs Homer]

So do you think that President-elect Trump had more info than sitting President Obama? All these things you say Trump knew about and did/didn't do - what did Obama do with the information he had? That's right - NOTHING. Did you hear a peep out of him? Did he sound any alarms/take any steps? Yet he's on video saying many times that elections are local/not centralized and no foreign actor can change a single vote. Kindly substitute Obama for Trump in your above post and see how that sounds. Maybe you just can't accept the fact that Donald Trump, the moron, was duly elected President of the United States.

Except for WH, all you posters out there who claim to be in middle/not on either side, where are the questions for Spurs Homer? If a conservative ever posted such information (from the other view), you'd be all over him. Just goes to show that there really isn't anyone in the middle - you'all lean one way or the other.

So much wrong here. Obama. Whataboutism.
I'll humor you.

Think back to 2016-pre election: Obama is alerted that the IC (unanimously) has information on the Russian cyber-attack and a lot of smoke (some corroborated/some still uncorroborated) surrounding the Trump campaign being possibly involved. Possibly wittingly? Possibly unwittingly? The intel was alarming and Trump himself might be implicated - might be compromised. Obama had to weigh everything carefully. He instructed the heads of the IC to "do everything by the book."
Obama knew the gravity and knew how any move he would/would not make would be heavily scrutinized.
He stayed out of the way of the actual investigation - other than his "by the book" order - as he should have. He had faith that the IC would conduct a proper investigation and if it turned out that Trump was compromised - then the rule of law would prevail.

Obama decided to approach the leaders of Congress as has been reported and has been posted here by others - and ask them to present a united front. Not as Republicans or Democrats - but as Americans. Mitch McConnell refused and even stated he would accuse Obama of helping Hillary and refused to go along with a statement to the public that the Russians had attacked the election and that Americans might be implicated.

Remember Trump and his "rigged election" threats? Remember the nazi rallies and chants? Do you honestly think that if Obama had announced this without the Republican leaders on board that white America would not have lost their mind? Do you?

Do you think that after Trump had howled "rigged election" and Mitch McConnell had stayed silent that the narrative would have been "Obama rigs election to help HRC?"

Stop repeating this lie that Obama did nothing and ask yourself what if Trump were sitting president and Obama and Russia were the ones in bed? What then? You would not even bother to ask "what did Trump do? Trump did nothing!"

At least give your country and the Intelligence professionals the common courtesy of the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically giving every benefit of the doubt to a lying corrupt untrustworthy scumbag - only because of the color of his skin (orange - lol).

[rmt]

So much wrong here. Obama. Whataboutism.
I'll humor you.

Think back to 2016-pre election: Obama is alerted that the IC (unanimously) has information on the Russian cyber-attack and a lot of smoke (some corroborated/some still uncorroborated) surrounding the Trump campaign being possibly involved. Possibly wittingly? Possibly unwittingly? The intel was alarming and Trump himself might be implicated - might be compromised. Obama had to weigh everything carefully. He instructed the heads of the IC to "do everything by the book."
Obama knew the gravity and knew how any move he would/would not make would be heavily scrutinized.
He stayed out of the way of the actual investigation - other than his "by the book" order - as he should have. He had faith that the IC would conduct a proper investigation and if it turned out that Trump was compromised - then the rule of law would prevail.

Obama decided to approach the leaders of Congress as has been reported and has been posted here by others - and ask them to present a united front. Not as Republicans or Democrats - but as Americans. Mitch McConnell refused and even stated he would accuse Obama of helping Hillary and refused to go along with a statement to the public that the Russians had attacked the election and that Americans might be implicated.

Remember Trump and his "rigged election" threats? Remember the nazi rallies and chants? Do you honestly think that if Obama had announced this without the Republican leaders on board that white America would not have lost their mind? Do you?

Do you think that after Trump had howled "rigged election" and Mitch McConnell had stayed silent that the narrative would have been "Obama rigs election to help HRC?"

Stop repeating this lie that Obama did nothing and ask yourself what if Trump were sitting president and Obama and Russia were the ones in bed? What then? You would not even bother to ask "what did Trump do? Trump did nothing!"

At least give your country and the Intelligence professionals the common courtesy of the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically giving every benefit of the doubt to a lying corrupt untrustworthy scumbag - only because of the color of his skin (orange - lol).

Please, spare me your humor - I don't need it.

I am not the one who brought up the subject of a president (or president-elect) for their lack of action - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of you criticizing one but not the other - the same as with posters who claim to be independent/unbiased/in the middle not jumping all over you when they would over a conservative opinion.

[Winehole23]

odd that you feel SH went unquestioned in this thread, it's not the case.

[Winehole23]

Once a stupid racist cunt, always a stupid racist cunt.

Just diewhy don't you sit on a fork and spin?

you add nothing to the conversation.

[boutons_deux]

Obama invited the Congressional leaders about the Russian meddling.

"deep state" Comey wrote a private letter to Nunes 11 days before the election about Huma's laptop/emails, that Nunes took public (unlike Obama and the Congressional leaders) that Nate Silver caused significant movement away from Hillary in PA, WI, MI to give Trash the EC by 80K votes.

So it was Comey and Nunes who elected Trash, illegitimately, after Pootin/Assange/Russian cyberarmy damaged Hillary's campaign all year.

And, also, Comey had already trashed Hillary in a heavily advertised national TV appearance, violating FBI protocol to keep his mouth shut if there were no indictment.

Trash's Presidency should be annulled and all the shit he has done annulled, as Robert Reich says. I fully agree.

[Spurs Homer]

The only issue with any of this, is the decades long mantra from the people that think for these ignorant racist fucks.

There is a large segment of the population that has bought all of the narrative they’ve created. It’s going to take a lot of will to overcome the propaganda

Yes, and FOX news is huge in delivering propaganda. I honestly will not be surprised if Hannity is implicated in crimes. Anyone who sees the volume of false propaganda that he generates leads any reasonable person to suspect that he has his hands pretty dirty in Trumps crimes.

A lot riding on Mueller's investigation. A whole lot.

[Winehole23]

Considering you have never answered one simple question, even though it’s been asked multiple times, you can spare any idea of your own insight.


When have the Dems ever governed in a manner the pubs have the last 8 years?During the presidency of Barack Obama.

Immigration, war and tax cuts are three notable similarities.

[Winehole23]

Amazing when one’s world view is shattered by one simple question they go silent.lol some people have real lives.

see you later, I'm off to hang with the grandkid.

[koriwhat]

When Trump (and FOX news) do this, they do it with the knowledge that there are citizens out there who will be aroused. Who will somehow swallow their labeling and use their own prejudices and false beliefs and make it their own beliefs. Some call it being brainwashed. Don't be one of them. Look at all the evidence and when you hear Hannity saying "msm this" and "msm/hate trump media that" - think to yourself: "hmm - Hannity makes a great living as a member of the media- in fact he makes millions - sounds like that is pretty main stream, huh?"

this is assuming i watch fox news or hannity for that matter. i don't.


Would you be understanding if he was indicted/impeached/convicted/removed from office for high crimes?

already answered this previously.


The typical I didn't vote for Trump or support anything he does, but I will jump to his defense any chance I get. Also most people aren't "emotionally wrecked" because Clinton lost, they are wrecked because that idiot is now representing us. Stop acting like people who don't support Trump are HRC die hard supporters, I voted for her because she was the last line of defense to stop this imbecile from becoming President. I would had voted for Mickey Mouse if I thought he would had had a better shot a beating Trump.

funny because you voted for HRC. you might not want to admit it but i'm pretty sure a vote for HRC is an admission of being a die hard supporter. you can't say the same about trump and i though. lol

[koriwhat]

Remember the nazi rallies and chants?

this is where you lose me completely and i simply see you as another sheep.

[Blake]

this is where you lose me completely and i simply see you as another sheep.

Nobody cares about your opinion of others, druggy

[koriwhat]

Nobody cares about your opinion of others, druggy

and no one cares that you're a faggot, faggot.

[koriwhat]

blake you're going on ignore from here on out... no need to waste time with sissy fucks like you anymore.

[pgardn]

shouldn't the president be concerned to avoid even the appearance of tipping the scale?

Not this president.
His base wants payback for 8 years of Obama anyway they can get it.
Vengeance does not follow agreed upon behavior. The (R) backing Trump are not concerned with lies, rules, and certainly not any sort of past accepted presidential behavior.

[Winehole23]

context was Obama in 2016, but yeah

[boutons_deux]

I think the Repugs would be happy convicting Trash to stop the distractions, and get compliant, quietly Useful Idiot Pence, but Mueller will have to cooperate with lots of really bad stuff, since Repugs are terrified of Trash's base.

One problem could be that Trash-fellator Nunes will mishandle Mueller's report, no matter how much hard evidence it has, and say it's all political bullshit.

Pres Pence running in 2020 would be sure loss.

[Blake]

and no one cares that you're a faggot, faggot.

Oh noes not the ignore button

[Blake]

blake you're going on ignore from here on out... no need to waste time with sissy fucks like you anymore.

Because telling the board how glad you are that someone in dead is a great use of time.

[AaronY]

Don’t see it happening unless Dems take over
even then you need like 67 votes in the senate. only possible if theres a massive economic collapse tbh. like something much worse than 2008. its a pipe dream of pipe dreams

[Winehole23]

During the presidency of Barack Obama.

Immigration, war and tax cuts are three notable similarities.

what the fuck?

That you would type that shows your true character, and complete lack of intellectual honesty is your defining characteristic.Obama signed the extension of the GWB tax cuts. That was optional.

Obama ramped up the drone wars in half a dozen countries, the war in Afghanistan and never fully withdrew from Iraq. The coup in Libya happened under Obama as well as the support of Al-Sisi in Egypt after the Arab spring.

Obama voted to immunize the telecom companies when they should have been caught dead to rights violating everyones's rights in the USA.

Obama raised immigration enforcement to to level it is today and gave DJT all the tools and facilities and policies he's using now, including family separations and family detentions.

Obama coddled the the fraudsters and banksters who pitched the world into recession; DJT does much the same.

Obama intensified domestic surveillance; DJT reaps the reward and the power.

Gitmo is still open, torturing people and detaining them indefinitely after Obama promised to close it; DJT will send more people there.

Given the chance to establish universal health care in the USA, Obama established universal insurance coverage instead, and in the process gave big wet kisses to pharma and the insurance sectors instead of controlling runaway costs.

There are numerous similarities between Obama and Trump. The differences are mainly rhetorical. Ignoring the similarities is intellectually dishonest.

[AaronY]

Obama signed the extension of the GWB tax cuts. That was optional.

Obama ramped up the drone wars in half a dozen countries, the war in Afghanistan and never fully withdrew from Iraq. The coup in Libya happened under Obama as well as the support of Al-Sisi in Egypt after the Arab spring.

Obama voted to immunize the telecom companies when they should have been caught dead to rights violating everyones's rights in the USA.

Obama raised immigration enforcement to to level it is today and gave DJT all the tools and facilities and policies he's using now, including family separations and family detentions.

Obama coddled the the fraudsters and banksters who pitched the world into recession; DJT does much the same.

Obama intensified domestic surveillance; DJT reaps the reward and the power.

Gitmo is still open, torturing people and detaining them indefinitely after Obama promised to close it; DJT will send more people there.

Given the chance to establish universal health care in the USA, Obama established universal insurance coverage instead, and in the process gave big wet kisses to pharma and the insurance sectors instead of controlling runaway costs.

There are numerous similarities between Obama and Trump. The differences are mainly rhetorical. Ignoring the similarities is intellectually dishonest.
lmao!!

Obama=Trump!

[Winehole23]

more substantive similarities than differences, tbh

[Winehole23]

continuity, not change

[Winehole23]

tell me, Aaron Y, what do you disagree with?

did I say something you think is wrong? did I misrepresent Obama or Trump?

[ElNono]

I mentioned when Trump was elected that I didn't expect the status quo from the power brokers to change, and it's difficult to discern that it has.

His biggest domestic political achievement so far is likely the unpaid for tax cuts, his biggest domestic political failure so far is repealing/replacing barrycare (despite torpedoing as much as he can).

In the international stage, outside giving a handjob to Israel with the embassy, there's more questions than answers: North Korea, Syria, Russia, tariffs...

Policy-wise, he hasn't been much different of what was expected out of a Republican administration: kill anything related to climate change, undo net-neutrality, etc... stuff that don't really need Congressional votes.

[boutons_deux]

Obama raised immigration enforcement to to level it is today and gave DJT all the tools and facilities and policies he's using now, including family separations and family detentions.

Gitmo is still open, torturing people and detaining them indefinitely after Obama promised to close it; DJT will send more people there.

Given the chance to establish universal health care in the USA, Obama established universal insurance coverage instead, and in the process gave big wet kisses to pharma and the insurance sectors instead of controlling runaway costs.


Repugs refused to fund closing GITMO, were falsely terrified that those prisoners in US prisons would attract terrorists.

Obama deported a lot but it mostly bad people. What evidence that he orphaned kids? He also implemented the DACA program.

Obama never had a prayer, nevermind a chance. of universal health care. He didn't have 60 in the Senate to override Repugs, and BigInsurance makes govt health policy and wasn't / isn't going to let anybody decrease their profits.

[ElNono]

tbh, if you think Winehole is a trumper or partisan in general, you're probably new around these here places.

He dishes out to both sides pretty evenly, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Blake, do you know how impeachment works?

If the House goes blue in November and TRIES to impeach Trump it then goes to the Senate where SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT have to vote for removal.

Is the world so blue tinted through your cuckgoggles that you actually think that will happen?

You do understand the difference between successful and unsuccessful impeachment, right?

Clinton was impeached.

[boutons_deux]

‘You Want A Revolution?’

Josh Bernstein Promises Bloodshed If Democrats Try To Impeach Trump

Right-wing commentator Josh Bernstein posted a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqlPvD1pqzs) yesterday in which he warned that

if Democrats gain control of Congress in the midterm elections and try to impeach President Trump,

it will lead to “the most violent, bloodiest revolution in the history in the history of the United States.”

After declaring that liberals “hate” those who voted for Trump and will use the power of government to systemically punish them,

Bernstein called on Republicans and conservatives to “do whatever you can”

to prevent Democrats from winning control of Congress in the midterms or else this country is going to be torn apart.

“We have a situation that is so desperate, so dangerous,” he warned.

“If these people,

God forbid, :lol

take over, it’s just going to be a disaster.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/you-want-a-revolution-josh-bernstein-promises-bloodshed-if-democrats-try-to-impeach-trump/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rww&utm_campaign=bestof

Trash isn't only one unhinged.

[RandomGuy]

‘You Want A Revolution?’

Josh Bernstein Promises Bloodshed If Democrats Try To Impeach Trump

Right-wing commentator Josh Bernstein posted a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqlPvD1pqzs) yesterday in which he warned that

if Democrats gain control of Congress in the midterm elections and try to impeach President Trump,

it will lead to “the most violent, bloodiest revolution in the history in the history of the United States.”

After declaring that liberals “hate” those who voted for Trump and will use the power of government to systemically punish them,

Bernstein called on Republicans and conservatives to “do whatever you can”

to prevent Democrats from winning control of Congress in the midterms or else this country is going to be torn apart.

“We have a situation that is so desperate, so dangerous,” he warned.

“If these people,

God forbid, :lol

take over, it’s just going to be a disaster.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/you-want-a-revolution-josh-bernstein-promises-bloodshed-if-democrats-try-to-impeach-trump/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rww&utm_campaign=bestof

Trash isn't only one unhinged.




We will get to see what happens.

[RandomGuy]

even then you need like 67 votes in the senate. only possible if theres a massive economic collapse tbh. like something much worse than 2008. its a pipe dream of pipe dreams

Mueller report lays out a VERY clear case, and more so than anything Nixon or Clinton was accused of. Multiple instances.

Trump continues to thumb his nose at Congress, so either the GOP will have to go along with it, and allow the president to ignore Congress' oversight at will, meaning that the next Democrat who takes office gets the same ability, or they have to do something.

At this point I would guess that impeachment will pass the house, but be delayed well into the election cycle. The spectacle of a trial, with the House going over every single change, laboriously, methodically, will keep Trump on the back foot for the entire campaign.

At some point late this year, early next, that vote will take place, and then the Senate will be forced to consider it. I would normally consider that a sure fire fail, but am not quite so sure, given how much evidence there is of Trump doing exactly the kinds of things that the impeachment process was supposed to take care of.

Passage will be up to Republicans of some moral courage, a quality that is very short supply for the Trump party these days. Impeachment will therefore, be more likely to fail than not, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

The Repug Senate is a lost cause for conviction, even without DINO Senators

But impeachment articles listing EVERYTHING both in Mueller and for the last two years suffices for me.

[Spurs Homer]

The Repug Senate is a lost cause, even without DINO Senators

But impeachment articles listing EVERYTHING both in Mueller and for the last two years suffices for me.

Muellers report explains all of the requirements for the crime of obstruction of justice -

and what Trump is doing now "stonewalling" Congress -

meets all of the criteria for obstruction of justice - it even mentions "judicial proceeding" and says that - that includes

Congressional proceedings and oversight -

So Trump is currently committing Obstruction of Justice in an Official proceeding -all over again.

[RandomGuy]

Muellers report explains all of the requirements for the crime of obstruction of justice -

and what Trump is doing now "stonewalling" Congress -

meets all of the criteria for obstruction of justice - it even mentions "judicial proceeding" and says that - that includes

Congressional proceedings and oversight -

So Trump is currently committing Obstruction of Justice in an Official proceeding -all over again.

Pretty much.

The case of the tax returns puts Mnuchin in direct legal jeopardy though.

[boutons_deux]

Pretty much.

The case of the tax returns puts Mnuchin in direct legal jeopardy though.

spineless prick Mnuchin has punted the Trash tax decision to Barr who will clearly block the release.

The 1924 Anti-Corruption law giving Congress access to anybody's tax returns passed after the Harding / Repug Teapot Dome Scandal, etc.

[RandomGuy]

spineless prick Mnuchin has punted the Trash tax decision to Barr who will clearly block the release.

The 1924 Anti-Corruption law giving Congress access to anybody's tax returns passed after the Harding / Repug Teapot Dome Scandal, etc.

Mnuchin is courting actually breaking the law, and may find himself criminally charged.

[RandomGuy]

Trump would face obstruction charges if he wasn't president, prosecutors say


Hundreds of former federal prosecutors – and counting – signed an open letter published on Monday expressing their belief that Donald Trump would have faced “multiple felony charges of obstruction of justice” if he were not president.

Multiple aspects of Trump’s conduct described in a report of the Trump-Russia investigation submitted in March by special counsel Robert Mueller were probably criminal, the prosecutors write. Mueller had declined to weigh whether to charge Trump, citing justice department guidelines prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/06/trump-obstruction-of-justice-charges-prosecutors-letter

... and we inch closer.

[RandomGuy]

Obama signed the extension of the GWB tax cuts. That was optional.

Obama ramped up the drone wars in half a dozen countries, the war in Afghanistan and never fully withdrew from Iraq. The coup in Libya happened under Obama as well as the support of Al-Sisi in Egypt after the Arab spring.

Obama voted to immunize the telecom companies when they should have been caught dead to rights violating everyones's rights in the USA.

Obama raised immigration enforcement to to level it is today and gave DJT all the tools and facilities and policies he's using now, including family separations and family detentions.

Obama coddled the the fraudsters and banksters who pitched the world into recession; DJT does much the same.

Obama intensified domestic surveillance; DJT reaps the reward and the power.

Gitmo is still open, torturing people and detaining them indefinitely after Obama promised to close it; DJT will send more people there.

Given the chance to establish universal health care in the USA, Obama established universal insurance coverage instead, and in the process gave big wet kisses to pharma and the insurance sectors instead of controlling runaway costs.

There are numerous similarities between Obama and Trump. The differences are mainly rhetorical. Ignoring the similarities is intellectually dishonest.

Have to agree on almost all the points.

That said, Trump is orders of magnitude worse on just about all fronts.

[djohn2oo8]

Barr in contempt

[RandomGuy]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/wsfsmDNZ9WmmvvWRTKfuq4VJ1Orc8oyCdiMk-pHiTk_C7jq4K4QhkVFyso-xxtG3JnPX_qRAU6fAlK3h97cXb1AYjGs-2paP6BCjt3s1aySbPDeG87CD8r50QM9I5IZC9oZRBeZ5


E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]"
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

[Blake]

Trump would face obstruction charges if he wasn't president, prosecutors say


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/06/trump-obstruction-of-justice-charges-prosecutors-letter

... and we inch closer.

Even with all of this it seems like nothing will ever happen to him

[TSA]

Barr in contempt

for following the law :rollin

[rjv]

Obama signed the extension of the GWB tax cuts. That was optional.

Obama ramped up the drone wars in half a dozen countries, the war in Afghanistan and never fully withdrew from Iraq. The coup in Libya happened under Obama as well as the support of Al-Sisi in Egypt after the Arab spring.

Obama voted to immunize the telecom companies when they should have been caught dead to rights violating everyones's rights in the USA.

Obama raised immigration enforcement to to level it is today and gave DJT all the tools and facilities and policies he's using now, including family separations and family detentions.

Obama coddled the the fraudsters and banksters who pitched the world into recession; DJT does much the same.

Obama intensified domestic surveillance; DJT reaps the reward and the power.

Gitmo is still open, torturing people and detaining them indefinitely after Obama promised to close it; DJT will send more people there.

Given the chance to establish universal health care in the USA, Obama established universal insurance coverage instead, and in the process gave big wet kisses to pharma and the insurance sectors instead of controlling runaway costs.

There are numerous similarities between Obama and Trump. The differences are mainly rhetorical. Ignoring the similarities is intellectually dishonest.

in today's world, if you named all of these offensive and harmful policy choices but did not name the person behind them, one would likely tell you how horrible these actions were. then, if you told them it was obama, they'd find some reason to justify the actions (the same would apply in a similar trumper scenario, of course).

oh, and just to add, obama also turned his back on president zelaya in honduras and did nothing to curb the harmful effects of CAFTA (leading to the mass exodus from the Northern Triangle that we see today), ordered sanctions on venezuela (helping to speed up its hyperinflation and debt), initiated the asian pivot (continuing the ongoing history of U.S. aggression towards N. Korea) and continued to allow the U.S. to lead NATO in its decades old encroachment on the Russian borders and violations of the agreements made between the end of the Cold War.

[LkrFan]

1126223496047136768

[boutons_deux]

Pelosi says Trump is ‘becoming self-impeachable’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that President Trump is “becoming self-impeachable,”
pointing to his efforts

to fight all subpoenas from congressional investigations and prevent key aides from testifying before Congress.

“The point is that every single day, whether

it’s obstruction, obstruction, obstruction —

obstruction of having people come to the table with facts, ignoring subpoenas . . .

every single day, the president is making a case —

he’s becoming self-impeachable,

in terms of some of the things that he is doing,” :lol what terms, what things? :lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-says-trump-is-becoming-self-impeachable/2019/05/08/87464a68-718c-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7f80cd945d1e

Feckless Pelosi waiting for Trash to impeach himself. (she speaks American gibberish usage)

Trash pardoned a convicted murderer, pandering to the hate-driven Christian who want Muslim killed.

Is that what the FFs meant when they gave the Pres unlimited pardon power?

Impeach Trash for that pardon alone, as yet again being not fit for the office.

[baseline bum]

At this point I would guess that impeachment will pass the house, but be delayed well into the election cycle. The spectacle of a trial, with the House going over every single change, laboriously, methodically, will keep Trump on the back foot for the entire campaign.

At some point late this year, early next, that vote will take place, and then the Senate will be forced to consider it. I would normally consider that a sure fire fail, but am not quite so sure, given how much evidence there is of Trump doing exactly the kinds of things that the impeachment process was supposed to take care of.

This is exactly what I do not want. Next year's election needs to be about going after the robber barons jacking up the price of insulin, getting us addicted to and killing us off with opiates, and in general making our healthcare system the laughingstock of the developed world. It needs to be about the ridiculous wealth gap and how wages have stayed flat for the people over decades while the rich have reaped every reward of this nation's economy. But durr Trump is a piece of shit is exactly what the Democratic party wants the next election to be about. We'll get a "hang the criminal" sideshow because the American Tory party seems to love the way this nation has descended into an oligarchy just like the GOP does. If this election ends up being about impeachment and obstruction of justice better get ready for another four years of Trump, because voters on the left are going to see through it the same way they did when Clinton was the nominee and not show up in sufficient numbers to take the fascist president down.

[rjv]

This is exactly what I do not want. Next year's election needs to be about going after the robber barons jacking up the price of insulin, getting us addicted to and killing us off with opiates, and in general making our healthcare system the laughingstock of the developed world. It needs to be about the ridiculous wealth gap and how wages have stayed flat for the people over decades while the rich have reaped every reward of this nation's economy. But durr Trump is a piece of shit is exactly what the Democratic party wants the next election to be about. We'll get a "hang the criminal" sideshow because the American Tory party seems to love the way this nation has descended into an oligarchy just like the GOP does. If this election ends up being about impeachment and obstruction of justice better get ready for another four years of Trump, because voters on the left are going to see through it the same way they did when Clinton was the nominee and not show up in sufficient numbers to take the fascist president down.

stop making sense!!

[boutons_deux]

"Next year's election needs to be about going after the robber barons jacking up the price of insulin,"

Dem can do that AFTER the election, but first

" The spectacle of a trial, (he means impeachment, not trial) with the House going over every single change, laboriously, methodically, will keep Trump on the back foot for the entire campaign."

.. is my preference.

Then let the Repugs in the Senate against conviction which will hurt them, too.

[Winehole23]

in today's world, if you named all of these offensive and harmful policy choices but did not name the person behind them, one would likely tell you how horrible these actions were. then, if you told them it was obama, they'd find some reason to justify the actions (the same would apply in a similar trumper scenario, of course).

oh, and just to add, obama also turned his back on president zelaya in honduras and did nothing to curb the harmful effects of CAFTA (leading to the mass exodus from the Northern Triangle that we see today), ordered sanctions on venezuela (helping to speed up its hyperinflation and debt), initiated the asian pivot (continuing the ongoing history of U.S. aggression towards N. Korea) and continued to allow the U.S. to lead NATO in its decades old encroachment on the Russian borders and violations of the agreements made between the end of the Cold War.all good points.

the extent to which the GOP promulgates straight up white nationalism is striking; so is the other side's deadly serious insistence on incremental relief.

[Winehole23]

for the conflagration of leftist passion, the Democratic Party carries a large, wet blanket.

Joe Biden.

[boutons_deux]

for the conflagration of leftist passion, the Democratic Party carries a large, wet blanket.

Joe Biden.

Dem establishment, eternally feckless, standing by, passively complicit, for decades as Repugs fuckup America

[Spurs Homer]

1126223496047136768


I saw that. Every word was true.


Swallwell also destroyed the traitors in the GOP for supporting a "pathetic con man" -

it was a great speech also.

[Spurs Homer]

This is exactly what I do not want. Next year's election needs to be about going after the robber barons jacking up the price of insulin, getting us addicted to and killing us off with opiates, and in general making our healthcare system the laughingstock of the developed world. It needs to be about the ridiculous wealth gap and how wages have stayed flat for the people over decades while the rich have reaped every reward of this nation's economy. But durr Trump is a piece of shit is exactly what the Democratic party wants the next election to be about. We'll get a "hang the criminal" sideshow because the American Tory party seems to love the way this nation has descended into an oligarchy just like the GOP does. If this election ends up being about impeachment and obstruction of justice better get ready for another four years of Trump, because voters on the left are going to see through it the same way they did when Clinton was the nominee and not show up in sufficient numbers to take the fascist president down.


All good points -


if this was 20 years ago.


This is different. People are actually getting pissed at Democrats for being so fair - so nice - so weak -


that when they begin to put all of these crimes from this criminal traitor on display - the country will cheer the taking down of this piece of shit and there will actually be another "faux patriotism" surge just like after 9-11.


The Repukes in the Senate will sign their names to an acquittal at their own political peril and that vote will be their downfall and they will carry that stigma the rest of their political lives.


Americans want to see the traitors taken down and want to feel that someone in D.C. fought to preserve our democracy.

Dems will ride that wave to take over the 3 branches and then get healthcare for all - pretty much a nightmare for the right wing traitors.

[CosmicCowboy]

At this point, I want random guy to get his dream and have Congress impeach Trump. There is still time for another sane Republican to challenge him in the primary. Let the Democrats destroy Trump and then run one of their whacko socialists against a republican moderate like Nicki Haley. Perfect storm.

[boutons_deux]

"sane Republican"

:lol

nicki haley moderate, from fucking SC? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Here Are Ten of the Real Reasons We Are In a ‘Constitutional Crisis’

the American experiment was set up with numerous failsafe mechanisms in place as way to prevent something like the situation we are currently in the process of facing from ever fully coming to fruition.

Here is a, surely incomplete, list of where and how that machinery failed thanks to what might be called a perfect storm of circumstances.



No one possessing the lack of character of Donald Trump was ever intended to become a major party’s presidential nominee, and then also to have the benefit of running against someone as unpopular as Hillary Clinton, mostly because no one ever anticipated celebrity being by far the most important characteristic that a presidential candidate could ever possess.
An adversarial foreign power was never supposed to be allowed to try to influence our presidential election on one candidate’s behalf, and if they did, surely that candidate would never accept their help and not even inform our intelligence agencies about what was happening. The prospect of that candidate actually winning, while not even getting the most votes, was surely never even contemplated.
Our news media was never supposed to completely abdicate their responsibility to properly vet candidates because it wasn’t in their financial self-interest to do so. They also were never expected to have blown all their credibility with huge portions of the population because of years of extreme bias and the craven pursuit of ratings over substance, so that when they really needed to be trusted, none of the right people still took them seriously.
It was never expected that an elected president could be so craven as to be willing to blow up the entire system to protect themselves from being held accountable for their own wrong doing.
If such a presidency somehow transpired, it was assumed that members of their own party, if not out of principle, at least out of electoral survival, would not go blindly along with such a scam. It was not anticipated, however, that our electorate would be so polarized that not even one member of such a president’s party would have either the political incentive, or the courage, to seriously buck them.
It was presumed that, if such a circumstance somehow transpired, the opposition party, riding a wave of public support via a negative reaction to such a development, would quickly take over congressional power as a firm check on such an out-of-control executive branch. However, it was never thought that “red” states and “blue” states would be so radically different that a party enduring the burden of such a presidency would actually pick up a couple of Senate seats, while maintaining control of that chamber.
When our system was set up, it was not premised on the idea that the voting population would be very poorly educated regarding civics, have astonishingly tiny attention spans, and that the vast majority would never bother to read even one word of a report detailing serious possible crimes by the president.
Nor was it anticipated that our sources of news would be so fragmented that every citizen would be able to instantly tailor the information they receive to conform almost exclusively to what it was they wanted to believe in the first place, easily blocking out any data which does not conform to those preconceived notions.
It was never projected that when the party in opposition to this tyrannical president took over the House that, even if they all pretty much agreed that this person should be impeached, they would be extremely hesitant to do so because the other party was so entrenched that there no hope of any of them going along with it, no matter what the evidence is. It was also not accounted for that the party in charge of the House would be so willing to let the party protecting their president so easily off the hook by not even forcing them to publicly defend their anti-impeachment position.
Finally, it was not accounted for that the final stopgap in a circumstance like this, the judiciary, would become so overtly politicized that even members of the Supreme Court would be routinely referred to as representing political parties. It was also probably never expected that the president in question would have appointed himself a majority on the court, with the likely deciding vote in any controversial matter coming from a justice whose entire career that president personally saved by backing him during an unprecedentedly contentious confirmation battle.


https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/here-are-ten-of-the-real-reasons-we-are-in-a-constitutional-crisis/ (https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/here-are-ten-of-the-real-reasons-we-are-in-a-constitutional-crisis/)

iow, America is fucked and unfuckable.

Thanks, oligarchy.

You own and operate and fuck up the government and country for amassing more of your unchallengeable wealth.

[RandomGuy]

At this point, I want random guy to get his dream and have Congress impeach Trump. There is still time for another sane Republican to challenge him in the primary. Let the Democrats destroy Trump and then run one of their whacko socialists against a republican moderate like Nicki Haley. Perfect storm.

Thanks man.

It won't work out the way you think it will, given the proven polling numbers of the scary socialist agenda. Polls show that once your conservative scaremongering about "socialism booga booga booga" is set aside, and people are asked what kinds of specific policies they like, they tend to vastly approve of them on an individual basis.

Whacko ideas like universal health insurance that every other industrialized country has tend to be pretty popular outside your groupthink elitist clique.

[RandomGuy]

sane Republican to challenge him in the primary

LOL... sane Republicans getting through modern Republican primaries.

You're cute. I do seem to remember I owe you a six pack of beer though (bet on interest rate hikes if memory serves). Be fun to go double or nuthin on a "sane" Republican. :D

[RandomGuy]

At this point, I want random guy to get his dream and have Congress impeach Trump. There is still time for another sane Republican to challenge him in the primary. Let the Democrats destroy Trump and then run one of their whacko socialists against a republican moderate like Nicki Haley. Perfect storm.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

even then you need like 67 votes in the senate. only possible if theres a massive economic collapse tbh. like something much worse than 2008. its a pipe dream of pipe dreams

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

You're watching it happen in real time imo. It's a slow messy process and the outcome is completely unpredictable but I don't understand why you're not enjoying the show, I am.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

Looking like about a 70% chance of that by the best estimates.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in decades.


Please keep pushing this narrative

Massive Blue Wave coming to a town near you

:lmao


The Democratic Party won control of the U.S. House from the Republican Party on November 6, 2018. Democrats gained a net total of 40 seats, 17 more than the 23 seats they needed to win control of the House.
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_ 2018

[RandomGuy]

Trump is getting reelected.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

I think it's a long shot tbh, but who knows what revelations are still in store.. Is having a phony religious zealot like Pence in charge going to be any better?

If Trump gets impeached I believe we fast track ourselves into chaos. It would basically be large scale Charlottesville between the hardcore left and right for sure.

No, it will simply be the hardcore right conducting the kinds of terror attacks that more than one of them appear to be planning, ala MAGA bomber. One of them will be bound to be competant enough to pull off a fatality or two, even considering the lower IQ nature of his most fervent supporters.

[RandomGuy]

Not sure why Dems would even want to impeach. On the slim chance they win Congress in November, it will have been on the strength of having Trump in the White House. They'd be better off obstructing his agenda and letting his hysterics help them in 2020 as well.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

I’m watching

No, you aren't.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

I know you don't, WH - it would be worse for your side than him losing in 2020. I should not have done my last post as a reply to your post. I wanna hear this evidence from Spurs Homer.

How about from Mueller?

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[boutons_deux]

If Nancy says no, it's no, to a House vote on articles of impeachment.

[RandomGuy]

I've given y'all four clear cases of felonies that easily meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard set forth in the constitution as the standard for impeachment.

Whether the Republican party in the Senate has the integrity to be honest with the American people about it, not really my concern. Impeachment seems to be the right thing to do at this point.

[RandomGuy]

If Nancy says no, it's no, to a House vote on articles of impeachment.

I guess. She can defer for a while, but the constitutional showdown doesn't look like it is going away. The executive branch stonewalling the legislative branch is not something the Republicans can let stand, because the next Democratic president will get to have the precedent to use.

I guess we will all get to see, won't we?

[Spurminator]

RG, please stop spam quoting. Thanks.

[Winehole23]

Nikki Haley is a moderate Republican compared to who?

[DarrinS]

For RG


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyNRejUS5yE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Pelosi's delay in bringing Barr's contempt vote to the House floor isn't weakness—it's a plan (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/9/1856472/-Pelosi-s-delay-in-bringing-Barr-s-contempt-vote-to-the-House-floor-isn-t-weakness-it-s-a-plan)

The House Judiciary Committee voted on a resolution to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, but Barr is not in contempt.

He won’t be until that resolution is brought to the floor and a citation of contempt is issued by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

And, according to Roll Call (https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/pelosi-suggests-floor-vote-barr-contempt-not-imminent), that may not happen anytime soon.

On Thursday, Pelosi suggested that there may be a delay before any vote is held on Barr.

her actions seem to be part of a plan (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/9/1856454/-Donald-Trump-is-building-the-case-for-the-inevitable-impeachment-of-Donald-Trump) that Democrats have been discussing over the last few days,

one that involves bringing multiple instances of Donald Trump blocking access to information to the courts at the same time.

Pelosi mentioned the efforts to secure testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn that would speak directly to Trump’s efforts to end the Russia investigation.

Efforts are apparently underway to create a “package” that would include

contempt citations against both Barr and McGahn,

as well as statements related to Trump’s massive expansion of privilege and

possible attempts to prevent Robert Mueller from testifying.

All of this could be taken to the Federal District court in a form that is deliberately

tailored to match Article 3 of the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon.

it appears that everyone is cooperating, with Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, and members of the Progressive Caucus all pushing toward the same objectives.

Democrats haven’t moved to begin impeachment hearings.

But everyone, including Democratic leadership, seems to have gotten the message that impeachment may not just be proper, but necessary.

the goal is to build a case that’s strong, informed, and persuasive not just for the House, but the public.

contempt votes could come sooner if it becomes absolutely clear that there is no intention of either man appearing.

If Mueller is stopped from testifying, that clear obstruction will be added to Barr’s and McGahn’s in reporting a pattern of behavior.

She’s making the point that, no matter what’s in the Mueller report,

Trump’s actions in shielding that information, and

his taxes, and

his financial information,

Trump’s stonewalling of Congress

are creating grounds for impeachment that are indisputable.

has made both of them realize that

impeachment may not just be the right move politically, but the only move remaining to protect the Constitution.

Don’t look for Barr’s contempt citation to emerge from the House today.

But when it comes, it’s going to be part of a bundle.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1856472

[pgardn]

For RG


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyNRejUS5yE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48

Dont matter.

The orange liar is going down in a heap.
With or without this, He's an idiot.

[boutons_deux]

Support For Trump Impeachment Rises 5% In Less Than A Month


https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/09/support-for-trump-impeachment-rises-5-in-less-than-a-month.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[RandomGuy]

[ignores substance, changes subject with a little effort as possible]

Can't dispute the facts, lazy-boy.


FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

RG, please stop spam quoting. Thanks.

I guess. What do you make of the multiple felonies, each easily qualifying as a High Crime or Misdemeanor that the president committed?

[boutons_deux]

Probably the best article so far.

Will the feckless Dems suit up and play hard ball? I really doubt it. America is fucked and unfuckable


If This Is a Constitutional Crisis, Act Like It

Democrats in Congress need to deploy all their powers, including impeachment.

2018 book “How Democracies Die,” the Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote about

the concept of “constitutional hardball,” in which

politicians “deploy their institutional powers as broadly as they can get away with.”

however you define constitutional crisis, there’s no question

we’re in a moment of constitutional hardball.

So far, however, only Republicans really seem to be playing.

Democratic fear of divisiveness — even as Republicans gleefully embrace it — is leading to unilateral political disarmament.

contempt votes are a fine first step, but they’re mostly symbolic unless Democrats find a way to enforce them.

A criminal contempt charge would have to be prosecuted by Barr’s own Justice Department, which it will almost certainly not do.

A civil citation could take months or even years to move through the courts.

In the face of an administration that is trying to amass dictatorial powers,

Democrats need to bring to bear all the powers of their own.

Trump’s outright rejection of congressional authority makes impeachment proceedings necessary,

but even impeachment alone is not sufficient.

Congress has the power of “inherent contempt.”

That’s a provision, last used in the 1930s, that allows the body to enforce its own orders, including by sending out the House’s sergeant-at-arms to arrest people.

“People keep saying to me, ‘Well, isn’t that an old law?’ ” he said, but

it’s not a law with an expiration date.

In fact, he argues, “the older it is, the more venerable it is.”

“We are going to dust off some old powers of Congress, and

we are going to exercise all of the powers we have to vindicate the powers of the people,”

There are dangers in increased Democratic combativeness,

but even greater dangers in timidity. (Dems do timidity with excellence)

“Fighting constitutional hardball with constitutional hardball is a high- risk and potentially very treacherous path,”

When an autocrat is in power, he said,

“either the opposition continues to play by the old rules and potentially gets steamrolled, and democratic institutions themselves may be left vulnerable,

or

the opposition fights back with constitutional hardball and risks escalation into an even worse constitutional crisis.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/constitutional-crisis-trump-pelosi.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&save=nyt-gateway-stories

[Winehole23]

I guess. What do you make of the multiple felonies, each easily qualifying as a High Crime or Misdemeanor that the president committed?Mueller gave Congress a roadmap to impeachment. Why do you think the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives hesitates to do its job?

[boutons_deux]

A Constitutional Scholar on the Purpose of Impeachment

According to the professor Michael Gerhardt, Congress has the power to frame Trump’s impeachment on the basis not only of criminal acts but of broader abuses of power.

One of the essential things about impeachment is that

it does not have to be based on an actual criminal violation, and

it does not have to track the elements in a federal criminal statute or state criminal statute.

It’s perfectly well within the power of Congress, in particular the House,

to frame impeachment on the basis of things that are not themselves criminal.

A President lying to the public—that could be a basis for impeachment.

Or a President trying to interfere with an investigation.

Those things could be understood as abuse of power, and

they don’t have to be criminal.

at the Constitutional Convention, and the debate over the impeachment clause, the things that are mentioned are not technically criminal offenses.

with respect to Trump and Putin, all of the ways in which the

President has misled people, or

not disclosed things, or

abused power—

any of those things could be basis for impeachment.

Impeachment is a political proceeding, and

the framers vested this power in political authority, and

therefore it’s consistent with the design of the process for political leaders to make political calculations on whether or not to impeach.

Congress is fully entitled, whichever party controls it, to investigate the person in the White House, for abuses of power, lying, or breaking laws.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-constitutional-scholar-on-the-purpose-of-impeachment?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_051019&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c1048022fcc&cndid=43758549&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Daily (https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-constitutional-scholar-on-the-purpose-of-impeachment?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_051019&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c1048022fcc&cndid=43758549&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Daily)

Dems have so much non-criminal turd to throw at Trump, but will they?

I'd certainly list Trash holding publicized but SECRET talks with American adversary, cyberwarring Pootin, and denying all access to contents of the meeting to anybody else in govt as 100% impeachable.

Agreeing with Pootin that Russia didn't meddle, while saying US IC saying the opposite, now proven more by Mueller, was a hoax.

[Spurtacular]

For RG


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyNRejUS5yE

:lmao

:rollin

CNN not smart enough to not shit on itself.

[boutons_deux]

The Impeachment Process Itself Can Thwart Trump’s Obstruction

In the context of an officially declared impeachment process,

House Democrats would have every legislative purpose for

reviewing the tax returns,

the unredacted Mueller report,

as well as any other area where Trump’s behavior appears to rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

There is even an argument (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/nightmare-scenario-democrats-trumps-corruption/?utm_term=.984aaf184832) that says Democrats need only claim they are contemplating impeachment for the “purpose” threshold to be reached.

The moral (https://truthout.org/articles/without-impeachment-were-lowering-standards-for-all-future-presidents/) and constitutional (https://truthout.org/articles/no-more-excuses-donald-trump-must-be-impeached/) arguments for impeachment are self-evident

this president cannot be allowed to slap down lawfully issued subpoenas, and

Congress must defend itself from the irrelevance his administration would foist upon it.

Impeaching Trump to thwart his obstructionism, therefore,

is a simple and clever solution, and a delicious one to boot:

Stop his obstruction with impeachment, and

then impeach him for obstruction.

It seldom gets more perfect than that.

https://truthout.org/articles/the-impeachment-process-itself-can-thwart-trumps-obstruction/ (https://truthout.org/articles/the-impeachment-process-itself-can-thwart-trumps-obstruction/)

[RandomGuy]

Mueller gave Congress a roadmap to impeachment. Why do you think the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives hesitates to do its job?

The presumption is that impeachment is damaging to the party that brings charges, and Trump is an easy target in the general.

Any slow-walking gets it close to the general election though.

After having read the Mueller report, it seems like anyone of good conscience should be pushing for it.



Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I think the cracks are there.

Trump is a clear and present danger to the office and Democracy itself. We are lurching towards Russian-style fascism, ala Putin. (oddly enough styled on Mussolini)

[RandomGuy]

:rollin

CNN not smart enough to not shit on itself.

Haven't read the Mueller report yet, have you?

[boutons_deux]

Democrats have nothing to lose and everything to gain from Trump impeachment: ex-Watergate prosecutor

fears of many House Democrats who are resistant to opening impeachment proceedings into President Donald Trump is that

the public will turn on them, and that the ensuing backlash will carry Trump to a second term in office.

data from former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal show that political harm to them is unlikely.

“His data decimate the major impediment to holding Trump accountable –

the fear that this president would be strengthened by a House vote for impeachment with no conviction by the Senate,” writes Wine-Banks.

“Contrary to popular belief,

Blumenthal lays out a clear case that

President Clinton did not benefit from impeachment and that comparisons to Clinton are highly misplaced.

Clinton was at 66% approval before and after impeachment. Impeachment neither improved nor diminished his standing.”

“He was popular before impeachment and just as popular afterward, whereas

Trump’s approval ratings are at a stunningly low 39 percent and dropping,”

Trump has never achieved even a 50 percent approval.

This means that fears of holding Trump accountable via an impeachment inquiry are unfounded,

the question of whether the evidence supports proceeding. The answer to that is a resounding, almost deafening, yes.”

“This systematic contempt of Congress combined with

the well-established election interference of the Russians and

Trump’s failure to take action to prevent its recurrence – or even to acknowledge it happened –

is a deadly combination that threatens the role of the first branch of government as a foundational part of our democracy.”

“With the testimony of witnesses who can be evaluated by all Americans, I fully anticipate Trump’s support will further erode.

Public hearings made a difference in the case of Nixon,” she says.

“As Blumenthal says,

‘the more the public knew of Nixon’s crimes through public televised hearings, the more rapidly Nixon’s poll numbers crumbled.’

the more bipartisan support for impeachment grew.”

it is essential to preserving Congress as a co-equal branch of government as our Founders intended and

is essential to Congress fulfilling its constitutional and moral obligations,”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/democrats-have-nothing-to-lose-and-everything-to-gain-from-trump-impeachment-ex-watergate-prosecutor/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/democrats-have-nothing-to-lose-and-everything-to-gain-from-trump-impeachment-ex-watergate-prosecutor/)

[Spurtacular]

Haven't read the Mueller report yet, have you?

A sleeping pill would be more effective.

[Pavlov]

A sleeping pill would be more effective.derp always proud of his ignorance.

[MultiTroll]

I guess. What do you make of the multiple felonies, each easily qualifying as a High Crime or Misdemeanor that the president committed?
I make that every president from George Washington on committed felonies and nothing Joe Sixpack US Citizen can do about it.
Move on.

[Pavlov]

I make that every president from George Washington on committed feloniesOh?

List them.