Impeaching Donald Trump

[James Clark]

What? 

 

Let me get this straight, you actually take seriously a man under federal indictment, out on bail, for lying and falsifying documents, and who's ground breaking documents sent to the dems are handwritten notes on hotel stationary?  Even after everyone in Ukraine said this guy cant be trusted or taken seriously?  This is your new savior? 

And the Mooch, who only lasted two weeks, was ridiculed by the media the entire time, finally fired for being a wacko (like seriously he was one of the craziest personalities we have seen in politics ever), but now he is what you are holding onto. 

LOL, you guys really are getting desperate. 

I guess if my idols were saying that it was inevitably that we would be loosing, I would too.   

“They will mark this day ... as the day Donald Trump was reelected because once again the Democrats, the liberals, the left couldn’t get it together,” Micheal Moore predicted last week.  (Just in case you forgot, Moore called the election in 2016.) 

Another, “I didn’t see anybody ... that really said ‘I’m taking charge, I can be president,’” Sharpton.

Another, “There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out,” Van Jones.

On top of that, you have AOC and her squad supporting radical progressives in moderate districts, pretty much telling all of America that if you are not a far left wing Marxist, we don't want you in the party.  And yes, AOC is the voice of the party now whether you like it or not.  Pelosi capitulated that to her last year when she failed to get her caucus to condemn anti-semitism in the Democratic party, which has only increased since then btw.

I’m not sure what your problem is.  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

[JoeKitchen]

I’m not sure what your problem is.  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what dies it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

Sure, it is a pretty ridiculous statement to say "I only hire the best people," especially considering there are plenty of counter-examples.  But to hold onto hope with Parnes, a known corrupt individually who is being prosecuted for lying and falsifying documents. 

Yeah, good luck with that. 

Insofar as what it says about the man who hires him, well we have to look at the bigger picture. 

Your party whats to either send an unapologetic communist who has supported some of the worse regimes in history, even at the expense of his own country, and has never recanted his views or ...

A walking zombie who cant string together a coherent sentence on his own, looks like he could fall over dead at any moment (especially during those late night debates) that will more then likely be forced to pick a far left commie as a running mate that has a serious chance of becoming president. 

Yeah, it's a pretty easy decision. 

I was listening to a commentator yesterday, who is on the left, talk about how all of the independents she talks pretty much say, if a communists has the chance to become president, they are voting for Trump.  Your party is currently broken.  The liberal soft underbelly of being kind have let in the communist & totalitarian wolves, and I see no one there with the balls to stand up to them.  It is going to cause your party to implode whether you like it or not. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It's interesting that quite a few of the former Trump associates and fans turned later against him.
For example, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, Lev Parnas and others. These are people who knew Trump quite well, up close and personal.

It's called opportunism. As long as these folks delude themselves that they can benefit from a situation, they will sell their souls to the devil. When they have outlived their use for him, he dumps them, and they try to claim to have seen the light (as if anybody's fooled).

Take Lev Parnas as a recent enlightended one, he had a shrine at home to worship Trump. Now he's coming clean by telling the/his truth of the story:
Lev Parnas describes multiple Ukraine quid pro quos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKM4T0XGtEk

Got to hand it to Nancy Pelosi, adding that written confession/testimony from Lev Parnas to the Impeachment evidence at the last moment just as Mitch McConnell changed his formal position from "I'm not an impartial juror" to "I'm going to weigh all the evidence", looks like a shewd well timed move.

[Alan Klein]

The Parnas "evidence" reminds me of the last minute Democrat smear campaign against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.   It didn't work then.  But that doesn;t stop them. They're known for their desperate and underhanded "October" surprises.

[LesPalenik]

The Parnas "evidence" reminds me of the last minute Democrat smear campaign against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.   It didn't work then.  But that doesn;t stop them. They're known for their desperate and underhanded "October" surprises.

These guys knew Trump better than you and me.

[PeterAit]

I’m not sure what your problem is.  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

There was a tremendously ironic story just the other day about this. Trump hires a bunch of low-life, lying, sleazeballs to do his dirty work, and then when they testify against him it's "You can't believe them because they are low-life, lying, sleazeballs."

[James Clark]

There was a tremendously ironic story just the other day about this. Trump hires a bunch of low-life, lying, sleazeballs to do his dirty work, and then when they testify against him it's "You can't believe them because they are low-life, lying, sleazeballs."

Right?   It's mind-boggling.

[Alan Klein]

Hiring sleazeballs is not an impeachable offense.  In any case, Trump has hired some outstanding people as well.  Defense Chief Mattis, Secr of State Pompeo, his business and finance team, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.  He has no trouble firing people, friends or not.  If you hurt him or are disloyal, you're gone.  That's how he operates.  Don;t like it?  Don;'t vote for him in 2020. 

The problem is the Democrats want to get rid of him just because he won in 2016.  How dare he?  Hillary was supposed to win. Didn't he know?  So now the country has for three years and counting had to put up with impeachment charges.  First collusion, then obstruction of justice, paying off bimbos, tax issues, real estate issues, and now improper use of presidential power.  Like presidents haven't used their office for power.  Give me a break.  Don't vote for him.  You'll have that chance.  Well, some of you will anyway.  The rest can watch the returns come over the BBC. 

[JoeKitchen]

Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

[faberryman]

Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

So Trump committed a crime, but should not be impeached because the opposite party has a majority in the House.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  Trump assures is that he only hires “the best people.”   If we are to be mocked for their character now what does it say about the man that chose these people to work for him?

That’s a fair question, James.

[JoeKitchen]

So Trump committed a crime, but should not be impeached because the opposite party has a majority in the House.

I knew someone would completely misconstrue this quote and not bother to even try and understand it.  Congrats on being the one.   

So should prosecutors pick a person whom they dont like and just non-stop, for more then 3 years, search the law books until they can find something to pin on that person?  Because that is exactly what has been done hear.  Literally, non-stop, for over three years, the Dems have been looking for something, anything, to pin on Trump merely because they dont like him. 

But, at the end of the day, they could not even do it.  They could not find a single crime to pin on Trump and instead are trying to convince Americans that Obstruction of Congress is a crime (it isn't). 

And don't give me the Impoundment Control Act.  Even Obama, according to the GAO, was guilty of violating it with the Bo Bergdahl deal.  Plus, the Act specifically states the exact remedy, for Congress to sue the executive branch, which they refused to do and therefore are derelict in their duty.  Plus, it is not even certain that with foreign affairs, the Act applies.  If challenged in the Courts, since foreign policy is of the purvey of the executive branch, the Supreme Court could rule in favor of the president. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Below is a great quote from Supreme Court Justice Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, that pretty much sums up what every republican and many independents think of the current impeachment:

“With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

That’s a great quote, Joe.

Reminds me of a similar one, attributed to Cardinal Richelieu, who said (paraphrasing): “Give me two sentences a man wrote and I will find a reason to hang him.”

[James Clark]

That’s a fair question, James.

Thanks - I appreciate that. 

[James Clark]

So should prosecutors pick a person whom they dont like and just non-stop, for more then 3 years, search the law books until they can find something to pin on that person?  Because that is exactly what has been done hear.  Literally, non-stop, for over three years, the Dems have been looking for something, anything, to pin on Trump merely because they dont like him.   

Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off. 

[Alan Klein]

Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off. 

Exactly.  It was politics then. It's politics now.  Now one gives a crap about the constitution.  It's all about power - getting it and holding it.  However, in the past, Americans mainly relied on elections.  Now we've created a situation where going forward, impeachment will become too commonplace.  Whenever the House and the presidency are from different parties, there will be pushes for impeachment.  A lousy way to run a constitutional democratic republic.  WE fight about who's in power rather than how government can do its job for the people.  Maybe it's good that nothing much get done.  Less chance for mischief by the government. 

[JoeKitchen]

Somewhere this very moment, Hillary Clinton is rolling her eyes at you so hard that her head's about to pop off.

Could be a better look for her.   

I did not like Hillary for political reasons; not the corruption that was thrown on her. 

Her whole "basket of deplorables" comment is what did it in for me and many others.  With out a doubt, there is not a single conservative, and, now, not many independents, that have not had a difference of opinion with a liberal on some innocent political topic without eventually being called a "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic," etc., pick your poison. 

That is why it was so damaging and personal; your party grossly overplayed the race card. 

I had a conversation about school choice and charter schools once with a liberal, and when he found out I supported them he called me a racist.  For no other reason then supporting charter schools, I was called a racist.  Then, after explaining to him that the majority of minorities support them too, he doubled down on the insult. 

That is why so many were against Hillary, and it does not seem like the Dems have learned their mistake here.  This is why I want to see the Dems implode.  They wont be able to get past this and become a viable party again until after they realize the extremely loud but extremely small minority does not represent the country. 


“Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.”  Edmund Burke

[Alan Klein]

 Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEFdkO1kKo5AZ6fJzsSXs7JYqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvIaCCzDnxf4CMP2F8gU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Biden campaign warns media over impeachment disinformation...

Hahaha... so much for Democrats being “defenders of the free press.” This is sooooo Soviet-like 

[Alan Klein]

Of course the press will defend him.   The question is will the trial hurt him so he loses the nomination?  That's been my theory all along and the longer it goes on,  there will be more people who are  going to ask if the Biden's were acting corrupt enough to attract government investigation and that he doesn't deserve to be president.