I Take It Back

3,358 Views | 54 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Sam Lowry
Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have previously expressed concern about whether what Trump did, although obviously in poor form, constituted a crime so as to be impeachable.

Looks like it was:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464363-fec-chairwoman-confirms-accepting-opposition-research-from-foreign-national?fbclid=IwAR3IEL-ci0a23R7mJ48ub_wKmWwHodYHfJxUelH8WunZ1KWY96wrEpbqmug
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Like hell it was.

At most, FEC violations have led to fines.

This does not even rise to that level.

Of all the crap to build your house on, this is by far the worst foundation you could choose.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hopefully this go round, Hillary will learn from the past.

I am selling "RUN, HILLARY, RUN" bumper stickers. Both Democrats and Republicans are buying them.
The Democrats put them on the back bumper and the Republicans put them on the front bumper.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The FEC is doing what it always does, which is quote the law. They aren't explaining anything because they don't know.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

The FEC is doing what it always does, which is quote the law. They aren't explaining anything because they don't know.
And if the law is as the FEC quoted it, then Trump openly violated the law in a press conference when he called for assistance from China in investigating Biden.
Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense."

Yep, yep, yep. A thousand times yep.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
cms186
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?
How much of this is incontrovertibly provable without any doubt? because Trump up and went and did his thing on live TV
I'm the English Guy
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He didn't ask for help in an election. You are making a bridge that doesn't exist. He IS asking two countries to investigate possible law breaking of someone who held the second most powerful position in our country and how that impacted certain countries.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cms186 said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?
How much of this is incontrovertibly provable without any doubt? because Trump up and went and did his thing on live TV
Well, Biden bragged about personally denying Ukraine a billion dollars until he got a prosecutor fired, and no one seems to mind that, so that's the standard for OK, I guess.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
"high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art when the Constitution was written. The "high" in the phrase referred to crimes committed by those in high office, meaning that the conduct that the founders was concerned about was abuse of the office. The weight of the scholarship is that any abuse of office is impeachable regardless of whether there is a statutory violation.

But it would be over broad to say it is whatever the Congress thinks it is. I would imagine that if Donald Trump was arrested for the misdemeanor crime of jaywalking, the House impeached him for it and Senate convicted him of it and removed him from office, we would have a constitutional crisis the Supreme Court would try to resolve.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
Try it, see how it works out.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cms186 said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?
How much of this is incontrovertibly provable without any doubt? because Trump up and went and did his thing on live TV
He asked foreign countries to investigate corruption...not fabricate it.

And all of this is provable without any doubt. The hammer is about to drop.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wish the Dems in the House would quit screwing around and just go ahead and formally vote to proceed with impeachment. Put every single member on record. DO IT!
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
Spoken like a true Dem.

The rules are whatever we say they are!
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

Sam Lowry said:

The FEC is doing what it always does, which is quote the law. They aren't explaining anything because they don't know.
And if the law is as the FEC quoted it, then Trump openly violated the law in a press conference when he called for assistance from China in investigating Biden.
so???

Presidents ask foreign countries for help, investigating, etc ALL the time.
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
"high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art when the Constitution was written. The "high" in the phrase referred to crimes committed by those in high office, meaning that the conduct that the founders was concerned about was abuse of the office. The weight of the scholarship is that any abuse of office is impeachable regardless of whether there is a statutory violation.

But it would be over broad to say it is whatever the Congress thinks it is. I would imagine that if Donald Trump was arrested for the misdemeanor crime of jaywalking, the House impeached him for it and Senate convicted him of it and removed him from office, we would have a constitutional crisis the Supreme Court would try to resolve.
The strange thing about Impeachment of a President is there is no stated appeal to the Supreme Court. It would be hard to think of any circumstance where the Court --likely minus the Chief Justice who presides over Impeachment-- would find ground to interfere with the decisions of the US Senate. In the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, who was impeached for violating a law that was clearly unconstitutional and was declared unconstitutional a few months after the Impeachment proceedings. Had the Senate removed him from office, it would be beyond the power of the Court to vacate the ruling of the Senate, even though the legal reasoning for the removal was moot.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twd74: "The strange thing about Impeachment of a President is there is no stated appeal to the Supreme Court"

I think the fact that the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial, is a nod to the idea that the Supreme Court might step in if/when one side or the other got out of line.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
"high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art when the Constitution was written. The "high" in the phrase referred to crimes committed by those in high office, meaning that the conduct that the founders was concerned about was abuse of the office. The weight of the scholarship is that any abuse of office is impeachable regardless of whether there is a statutory violation.

But it would be over broad to say it is whatever the Congress thinks it is. I would imagine that if Donald Trump was arrested for the misdemeanor crime of jaywalking, the House impeached him for it and Senate convicted him of it and removed him from office, we would have a constitutional crisis the Supreme Court would try to resolve.


Impeachment and removal are different things. Jaywalking would be a feeble reason to impeach but, in this current climate, if he jaywalked While wearing a tan suit?

They'd try to sell it.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.
Spoken like a true Dem.

The rules are whatever we say they are!


Didn't we have Republicans impeach a president for a consensual affair lead by guys having affairs?

Refuse to allow the properly nominated SC justice a hearing?

They're quiet today with more serious constitutional issues in play.
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

twd74: "The strange thing about Impeachment of a President is there is no stated appeal to the Supreme Court"

I think the fact that the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial, is a nod to the idea that the Supreme Court might step in if/when one side or the other got out of line.
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

A pretty good article above. The answer is murky. We are in uncharted waters here.
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The dems are lacking 2 things.....1)balls. 2)enough votes to remove
GoneGirl
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Midnight Rider said:

Sam Lowry said:

The FEC is doing what it always does, which is quote the law. They aren't explaining anything because they don't know.
And if the law is as the FEC quoted it, then Trump openly violated the law in a press conference when he called for assistance from China in investigating Biden.
so???

Presidents ask foreign countries for help, investigating, etc ALL the time.
https://newrepublic.com/article/155221/dereliction-william-barr

There's nothing wrong with the attorney general asking foreign governments for help with an investigation, of course. What's concerning is the nature of Barr's inquiry itself. The Russia investigation's origins are already well-documented, both by the Justice Department and by the voluminous reporting on it. It's reasonable to wonder if the goal here isn't to produce an honest public record of what happened, but rather to validate President Donald Trump's conspiratorial claims that he was set up by a "deep state" of national-security officials.

It's hard to think about Barr's role in all of this without thinking about his predecessor. Jeff Sessions had been one of President Donald Trump's earliest political allies and an unstinting champion of his policies in office. When his departure became public last November, I wrote that the former Alabama senator had "spent the last two years reshaping federal law enforcement into a blunter and more punitive instrument, squeezing legal and undocumented immigrants alike, and tilting the scales of justice away from disadvantaged communities."

Sessions deserved the lion's share of criticism he received, especially for his role in separating migrant children from their families at the border. The only exception was the criticism that came from Trump. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in early 2017 out of ethical and legal obligations, and the president never forgave him for doing so. The Mueller report is essentially a catalogue of Trump's campaign to pressure Sessions into shutting down the inquiry. When Sessions refused to un-recuse himself or sabotage Mueller, Trump unceremoniously ousted him last November.

Barr, by comparison, seems to have no such scruples about carrying out Trump's whims. He hasn't really deviated from Sessions's overall policy agenda since taking over DOJ. In some aspects of immigration and criminal-justice matters, he's even gone further than Sessions ever did. But his greatest achievement so far is doing what his predecessor spent almost two years resisting: transforming the Justice Department from a semi-independent actor into an instrument of Trump's political interests.

Trump never masked his views on how his attorneys general should act. He believes that the Justice Department should protect him and his friends from legal troubles while inflicting them on his enemies. Multiple White House aides told Mueller that Trump would describe Robert F. Kennedy and Eric Holder as attorneys general who shielded their presidents from political harm, and how he needed to find one like them. To Trump, the attorney general is just another lawyer who should be aggressively advancing his personal interestsanother Roy Cohn, or Michael Cohen, or Rudy Giuliani.

It would be a mistake to think of Barr as one of the supine flunkies with whom the president usually surrounds himself. Barr simply happens to agree with Trump's views on executive power, the Russia investigation, and the attorney general's role in American democracy. He made those views clear well before his appointment, drafting an unsolicited 19-page memo in June 2017 that argued Mueller couldn't lawfully investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr also told a New York Times reporter in November that he had "long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the [Clinton] foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called 'collusion.'" Sessions, for his part, resisted GOP demands to appoint a second special counsel to investigate the Clintons by referring the matter to career federal prosecutors, where it promptly died.

In a CBS News interview in May, Barr said he was concerned about foreign election interference and had taken steps to prevent it ahead of the 2020 election. Then he said he was equally worried that some sort of federal bureaucratic cadrea deep state, perhaps?could undermine American democracy. "I mean, republics have fallen because of praetorian guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state," Barr explained. "And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they're there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official."

The irony is that Barr, more than any of his predecessors since the Watergate era, seems to think that his job is to help discredit his boss' political opponents. He prefaced the Mueller report's public release with an unabashed defense of Trump's misdeeds, saying the president was "frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks." (Being mad is not a statutory exemption to obstruction of justice.) While testifying before Congress in April, he also asserted that U.S. intelligence agencies had spied on the Trump campaign, validating one of the president's favorite complaints. FBI Director Christopher Wray and other U.S. intelligence officials have strenuously denied that any spying took place.

On other DOJ fronts, Barr is staying the course. He seems to lack Sessions's personal zeal for harsher immigration policies. At the same time, he hasn't abandoned his predecessor's cruelty. Earlier this year, the Justice Department tried to convince federal judges that they weren't legally obligated to provide migrant children in their custody with toothbrushes, soap, or other basic hygiene supplies. An incredulous three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in August. Barr is also following Sessions's draconian footsteps on criminal justice. He announced in July that the federal government would resume executions after a 16-year de facto moratorium.

It's worth noting that Jeff Sessions was no Elliot Richardson. It took a combination of public pressure and damaging revelations to force his eventual recusal from the Russia investigation in the spring of 2017. The trauma experienced by migrant families at the border during his tenure should also haunt Sessions for the rest of his life. If it does, he can at least take a small modicum of comfort in knowing that he was only the second-worst attorney general to ever serve under President Donald Trump.

cms186
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

cms186 said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?
How much of this is incontrovertibly provable without any doubt? because Trump up and went and did his thing on live TV
He asked foreign countries to investigate corruption...not fabricate it.

And all of this is provable without any doubt. The hammer is about to drop.
Republicans have been saying that ever since Trump got elected
I'm the English Guy
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.


Bring on that impeachment Tommie....invalidate a national election over this ' big deal '.

Then tell me how you find the 67 votes needed to CONVICT Trump in the senate .

Otherwise all of this is just another installment of the Democratic Dog and Pony Show that started 60 minutes after Hillary ( finally ) conceded.


cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

He didn't ask for help in an election. You are making a bridge that doesn't exist. He IS asking two countries to investigate possible law breaking of someone who held the second most powerful position in our country and how that impacted certain countries.
It's a fishing expedition based on nothing and to suggest that it is appropriate for the POTUS to invite foreign countries to dig up dirt on HIS POLITICAL RIVALS is being intentionally dishonest.
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cinque, if its wrong and u have the balls....hold the vote. Vote him out. 1 problem.....the libtards lack both.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.


Bring on that impeachment Tommie....invalidate a national election over this ' big deal '.

Then tell me how you find the 67 votes needed to CONVICT Trump in the senate .

Otherwise all of this is just another installment of the Democratic Dog and Pony Show that started 60 minutes after Hillary ( finally ) conceded.





Trump could kill someone in downtown and won't get 67 to remove.

That's not my point. My point is that the "reason" is rather undefined. Our system works because you until now, we generally do the right thing.

It's impossible to remove a president. Charging him, not so much.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

Canada2017 said:

tommie said:

Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

Doc Holliday said:

You mean how like Hillary Clinton paid millions for a fake story about Trump getting peed on and our FBI leaked it to the media so they could "prove" to the courts it was serious? All while sending in spies from several countries to Trump's campaign members that our FBI told the courts were real Russian spies when they're actually state department contacts. All to preserve and enhance the appearance of collusion where they were afforded a special counsel and kept the Trump administration from being effective, smeared him and won mid terms as a result

Is this how bad it is?


This is t about Hillary. If If and If (it were true and she was president) we can have the conversation about her breaking the law and it being an impeachable crime.

The law doesn't allow for a "they did it, too" defense.
And the law does not have two versions, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, even annoying ones.

This FEC stuff is not impeachable, nowhere close.


It absolutely is. Impeachable is whatever the House decides. A better translation "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever we say it is.


Bring on that impeachment Tommie....invalidate a national election over this ' big deal '.

Then tell me how you find the 67 votes needed to CONVICT Trump in the senate .

Otherwise all of this is just another installment of the Democratic Dog and Pony Show that started 60 minutes after Hillary ( finally ) conceded.





Trump could kill someone in downtown and won't get 67 to remove.

That's not my point. My point is that the "reason" is rather undefined. Our system works because you until now, we generally do the right thing.

It's impossible to remove a president.


Doing the 'right thing' politically has usually been a flexible objective and always determined by which side of the aisle one sits on .

Regardless I hope the Dems follow though with their stupidity.

Please bring it .
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Wish the Dems in the House would quit screwing around and just go ahead and formally vote to proceed with impeachment. Put every single member on record. DO IT!
They are doing the prudent thing by having an inquiry first. Doing it right takes time. Not everything proceeds at the speed of presidential tweets.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If I'm ever in deep with corruption, I'm going to run for office so I can't be legally investigated by anyone in an opposing political party.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

Sam Lowry said:

The FEC is doing what it always does, which is quote the law. They aren't explaining anything because they don't know.
And if the law is as the FEC quoted it, then Trump openly violated the law in a press conference when he called for assistance from China in investigating Biden.
No, that's not the law. That's your interpretation of the law.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.