Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Impeach Trump

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If citizens impeached representatives (rather than leaving the process up to other politicians) - this country would be a lot better off.

I disagree. Especially in a highly partisan, divided atmosphere like we have today, anything the President does will put him below 50% approval—the 47% who hate him will always vote against him, so a small fraction of the rest puts his impeachment over the top. The president needs room to make unpopular moves and see them through. If he were in constant danger of a recall vote*, we would have a European parliamentary democracy instead of the robust republic we have.

*I realize that impeachment is not a recall vote, but it is essentially what the UK would call "a vote of no confidence". It would greatly hobble the presidency. I think the president has become too powerful, but that's Congress' fault for ceding their power to him, and of course the judiciary's fault for succumbing to smoking the crack cocaine of legislating from the bench, which will be the death of the republic if not firmly corrected in short order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Romney is an east coast Republican.  He may have attended BYU but his politics are deeply embedded in the east coast mentality.   But I do agree with him that Trump should be impeached.   I know that @anatess2 likes Trump though he is a obvious narcissus that is worse than me (among other things that should not require saying about a man that cannot be trusted by his wife).  Impeaching does not mean removed from office - it is an official reprimand.  

It may be okay for a president to ask the justice department to look into things (including suspicious conduct by any citizen).  That is not the same as "Find me some dirt!!!!" which the #1 effort by liberal Democrats for defeating opponents.   But do not kid yourself - Republicans are great at this as well - but are a bit more subtle with what they do with the information.  The president should not have to say a thing - but looking into dealings of public officials should not require a presidential request.

Every once in awhile some research will show up that indicates that politicians are the least trusted of any profession.  But when was the last time anyone heard about someone being removed for lying to or failure to represent their constituents.  This is because the US citizens are too lazy to care about their representation unless it goes completely off the rails (as per Karen Shepherd) and then will not remove a person until the next election.  If citizens impeached representatives (rather than leaving the process up to other politicians) - this country would be a lot better off.

The current problem is the each party is only interested in criticizing the other party and thinking it is a political sin to make sure your own serve their constituents.  In forcing the law is more about what is popular at the moment than it is what is the law.

 

The Traveler

Really?  Impeach the President as a Reprimand?  For being a "narcissist"?  You lost your copy of the Constitution?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vort said:

I disagree. Especially in a highly partisan, divided atmosphere like we have today, anything the President does will put him below 50% approval—the 47% who hate him will always vote against him, so a small fraction of the rest puts his impeachment over the top. The president needs room to make unpopular moves and see them through. If he were in constant danger of a recall vote*, we would have a European parliamentary democracy instead of the robust republic we have.

*I realize that impeachment is not a recall vote, but it is essentially what the UK would call "a vote of no confidence". It would greatly hobble the presidency. I think the president has become too powerful, but that's Congress' fault for ceding their power to him, and of course the judiciary's fault for succumbing to smoking the crack cocaine of legislating from the bench, which will be the death of the republic if not firmly corrected in short order.

 

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Really?  Impeach the President as a Reprimand?  For being a "narcissist"?  You lost your copy of the Constitution?

 

Impeachment means something different in the USA than it does in the UK.  @Vort brushed into that in his second paragraph.  Impeachment in the USA means to charge an office holder with misconduct.   As citizens (more often as news commentators) public office holders are being vocally charged with misconduct quite often.  But to @anatess2 point - a president can be impeached for anything the congress (house and senate) wants but to be removed from office requires a high crime (whatever that is).

As a side note - I would love it if Trump was impeached for calling Elizabeth Warren, Pocahontas - not because I believe it is demeaning to Elizabeth Warren (that deserves to be demeaned for the fraud she is) but it is demeaning to native peoples and to a particular person who's real name was Matoaka and was a peaceful compassionate bridge between two very different cultures - not at all anything Trump intended to portray.  

I honestly think our government would be much better off if the free people that love liberty were able to voice their concerns with elected officials - without the all or nothing mentality of parties that would remove political rivals for anything while excusing everything for their own.  Good grief - children require discipline of both positive and negative feedback.  Why can't we discipline our politicians?  No wonder so many are narcissists and worse.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

a president can be impeached for anything the congress (house and senate) wants but to be removed from office requires a high crime (whatever that is).

I believe this is incorrect. Impeachment is done solely by the House of Representatives. If the House impeaches, the matter is referred to the Senate, which decides whether to instigate formal proceedings to remove the president from office. The term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is apparently not legal or judicial language at all, but means only and exactly what Congress chooses to interpret it to mean. In other words, the President of the United States can be impeached and even removed from office for blowing his nose in public, if Congress hates him badly enough to do so, and there is nothing that he or the judiciary can do about it*.

*Assuming the Supreme Court doesn't decide to go back and reinterpret the Constitution to mean something else. Yeah, we're in a world of hurt with an activist Supreme Court which has many members—including the non-Honorable RedBlueGreen, Hero of the Leftists—who openly discount the very idea of original intent. They could very literally reinterpret "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to mean "Republican". I'm sure a majority of this nation's "progressives" would love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

*Assuming the Supreme Court doesn't decide to go back and reinterpret the Constitution to mean something else. Yeah, we're in a world of hurt with an activist Supreme Court which has many members—including the non-Honorable RedBlueGreen, Hero of the Leftists—who openly discount the very idea of original intent. They could very literally reinterpret "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to mean "Republican". I'm sure a majority of this nation's "progressives" would love that.

Well, that's exactly what @Traveler is proposing with his support for impeachment - "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "not politically correct according to Traveler's politically correct rules".  Chilling, isn't it?

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Vort said:

I believe this is incorrect.

Traveler is talking about a legal loophole that only exists on the skin of its teeth.

Originally, impeachment and conviction would be a single step process.  There was no separate impeachment-then-conviction.  Hence we have the phrase:

Quote

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 2, Section 4

It was declared during debate that this gave too much power to Congress over the President.  He wouldn't have the necessary independence to actually run the executive.  So, they then divided the power of impeachment (formally charging) from the conviction (resulting in the removal from office).  And it is so written in the Constitution today.

Since that separation, there was no effort to make any clarification that the "Treason, ....misdemeanors" would refer to each and individually the impeachment AND conviction of the President.  This is the legal loophole that Traveler is trying to emphasize.

What he's missing is that there was no need for such clarification.  We have all the legal precedent in the world that affixes a punishment with a crime.  And we only formally charge someone of a crime if they did indeed commit a crime worthy of such punishment.  What AG or DA goes around formally charging someone for a great crime when they only committed a small crime just so they "learn a lesson" without having any intent on actually convicting for said crime?

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

The term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is apparently not legal or judicial language at all, but means only and exactly what Congress chooses to interpret it to mean.

It actually does have a meaning in English Commonlaw which was the basis for this language in the Constitution.  "High Crime" was a type of crime that could only be done by a person of position and power by virtue of the power that they hold.  The most obvious example of this would be some form of abuse of power.  The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to any crimes or misdemeanors that were a result of the person having power.  It does not exclude any crime that are able to be committed by a common citizen.  Its purpose is to ALSO include those crimes that are specific to those in power.  But such minor crimes and misdemeanors need to be severe enough to warrant the punishment.

So, if the House truly believes that Trump abused his power here, they are justified in making the charge (impeachment).  Then the Senate has to agree that they also believe he abused his power (convict).

As of what we know today, there is zero chance of that happening. 

The President of the United States is an executive.  He is the enforcer of laws.  If he comes across someone who appears to have committed a federal crime, it is his job to investigate and even seek out help in the investigation to determine what actually happened.  IOW, he was doing his job.

So, Pelosi et. al. wish to impeach the President for doing his job.  Well, that's pretty much what they've been doing all along.  He's been doing it too well.

How dare Trump stimulate the economy!
How DARE he open up roadblock to businesses that want to expand!
How DARE he lower taxes so that the average consumer has more money to pump back into the economy!
How DARE he get the Black unemployment rate to the lowest it has ever been!  And it hasn't been too shabby for the rest of the country either.
How DARE he negotiate treaties for both economic and military terms so that they are favorable to our country!
How DARE he try to keep tax payer dollars in the US instead of just giving it away to other countries!
How DARE he get companies to reduce emissions on both real pollutants AND CO2!
How DARE he win victories for religious liberty?
How DARE he actually make sense when putting REASONABLE limits on LGBT interaction with others!
How DARE he win some victories for life rather than infanticide.
How DARE he win some battles for free speech!
How DARE he defend the first and second amendment rights for all citizens!

How DARE he actually Make America Great Again!

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Well, that's exactly what @Traveler is proposing with his support for impeachment - "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" means "not politically correct according to Traveler's politically correct rules".  Chilling, isn't it?

According to the constitution a president can be impeached for not tying his shoes correctly.  Impeachment does not mean remove from office.  President Clinton was impeached.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I’ve been semi-deliberately not digging into the details of the Ukraine thing; but I just read the transcript and “whistleblower complaint” this evening.  Reactions:

1). As I understand it, there’s decent evidence suggesting that the phony allegations involving Trump’s purported Russia connections had some origin in Ukrainian actors.  If the left can investigate Russian attempts to influence American elections and claim it’s acting out of concern for “national security”, then surely the White House can investigate Ukrainian attempts to impugn the results of those same elections and again, claim it’s acting for the sake of national security.  (Procedurally, I’d rather see that done by the DOJ than by Trump’s personal lawyers or even the White House Counsel’s Office.  I think involving Giuliani was unwise.  But, not impeachable.)

2). I can see the White House legitimately believing that making the transcript public would tip off certain actors off to the fact that they were about to be investigated again, so I’m not particularly upset about the recording being stored on a secure database in the name of national security.

3). IF the White House deliberately slow-walked security finding to the Ukraine this summer in order to get them to play ball on the investigation issue—eww.  Yuck.  Those guys are fighting for their lives in the face of Russian aggression, and we ought to be firmly in their corner—not using their desperation to squeeze out concessions to help us solve our first-world problems.

BUT . . .

Let’s keep some perspective here.  We didn’t impeach Obama for abandoning our moderate Iraqi friends to radical Islamists (or for his abandoning Ukrainians in the Crimea to Putin’ goons).  We didn’t impeach either Bush for not giving the Kurds an independent state, or Carter for not standing by the Shah, or Ford for letting Saigon fall; we didn’t impeach Nixon for selling out on the Republic of China; we didn’t impeach Kennedy for not bringing the full weight of American might against Castro; we didn’t impeach Truman for letting the Soviets swallow up most of Eastern Europe.  America has a long and unfortunate tradition of shanking her allies, and if Trump is now doing the same thing to Ukraine—it is indeed a hideous, shameful, even thuggish act thoroughly worthy of our hideous, shameful, even thuggish President.  We can, and should, do better.  But having said all that:  viewed through the lens of history, what Trump (allegedly) did to the Ukraine just isn’t an impeachable act.  It’s not even in the same ballpark.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Traveler said:

According to the constitution a president can be impeached for not tying his shoes correctly.  Impeachment does not mean remove from office.  President Clinton was impeached.

 

The Traveler

The fact that you interpret Impeachment as - "you can impeach the president for not tying his shoes correctly" because the Constitution does not specify what high crimes and misdemeanors mean IS CHILLING.

President Clinton was impeached for lying to the judge under oath - not tying his shoes incorrectly.  The fact that the Senate refused to hold hearings to remove him from office does not change the fact that Clinton is under record as an impeached President.  Your desire to impeach Trump for any reason including tying his shoes because you do not like him IS AN ABUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mores said:

So, Pelosi et. al. wish to impeach the President for doing his job.  Well, that's pretty much what they've been doing all along.  He's been doing it too well.

Pelosi et. al. is not just wishing but WORKING TOWARDS impeaching a President - charging him for an act he didn't do but their #1 candidate for the Presidency is on record for doing.  Let that sink in.

 

15 hours ago, Mores said:

How DARE he actually Make America Great Again!

And THIS is the President @Traveler wants to impeach:

Excerpt:

Pres Trump:  "United States is founded in the principle that our rights do not come from government.  It comes from God.  This immortal truth is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution's Bill of Rights.  Our founders understood that no Right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one's religious convictions."

"Today with one clear voice, the United States of America calls on all the leaders in the world to end religious persecution."

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the state of the news in 2019:

President Trump had a press conference to respond to Pelosi's allegation and MSNBC MUTED OUT HIS SPEECH and declared he was lying so they proceeded to give their narrative on the Biden-Ukraine issue while the President was speaking in the background.

You think this is just MSNBC?  Of course not.  So, if your impressions of Trump comes from the news... you are only getting what anti-Trumpers want you to get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INSANITY:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/trump-impeachment.html

Quote

The Constitution is clear that the standard for an impeachable offense is political, not criminal.

-- Header of the article

Really?  

Quote

...High crimes and misdemeanors...

Since when does this mean "political, not criminal"?

Quote

Our founders deliberately drafted the Constitution’s impeachment clause to ensure the potential grounds for impeachment would cover more than criminal activity.

Really?  Where? 

--The impeachment clause.

It specifically says "high crimes".  So, where is the "impeachable offense that isn't criminal"?

--Dereliction of duty.

Where did he fail to do anything that was in his job description?

--Abuse of public trust.

He said he wanted to decrease taxpayer funds aiding a foreign government where other (European) governments should be expected to contribute more of said aid.

-- Blah blah blah...

Ok.  So, nothingburger.  Again.  What a surprise.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any issue with opening an impeachment inquiry here. Whether or not it leads to impeachment is unclear to me. That it could lead to conviction seem beyond improbable.

But here are the reasons why I don't object to an impeachment inquiry:

First, this complaint over Ukraine came about via a whistle blowers complaint that was filed from within the intelligence community. The whistle blowers structure was designed specifically to give an avenue for intelligence workers to raise attention to misconduct without disclosing classified information to the public. The law requires the Inspector General to review the complaint, and if deemed credible, to forward it to the Director of National Intelligence. Once the DNI receives it, there is a period for review at the end of which the law states that he "shall" turn it over to a congressional committee. 

That word "shall" is as strong as it gets in government documents. It means it isn't optional; it must be done. When Congress asked where it was, however, the DNI said that he wasn't releasing it under direction from higher authorities. That suggests that the release of the complaint was being inhibited by the administration that was the subject of the complaint. When that happens, the administration appears to be evading oversight, and is doing so in violation of the law. 

And to drive that point home, the Senate voted unanimously that the complaint should be released. That's a lot of Republican senators saying that this wasn't happening as it should.

What does this have to do with an impeachment inquiry? Straight up, I don't believe this administration acts in good faith with respect to investigations. There appears to be an attitude and tendency to rely on executive privilege to evade oversight. (I think that all recent administrations have abused executive privilege, but this one seems to take a peculiar delight in it). Add to that Corey Lewandowski's recent testimony to Congress where he openly declares that he has no obligation to be truthful with the press, and I have a feeling that is shared among many in this administration.

An impeachment inquiry is an important tool, now, because executive privilege doesn't apply. If the House wants documents as part of its inquiry, it gets documents. So I do think that the House should open a formal impeachment inquiry and look into just how much oversight the executive branch is evading. I'd also like to see it produce more laws to prevent this kind of evasion for future presidencies, regardless of party. 

And if that means more information and investigation has to be done into Biden,  so be it. 

Long story short, the administration is acting in a manner that suggests it is hiding something. It deserves to be investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I don't have any issue with opening an impeachment inquiry here. Whether or not it leads to impeachment is unclear to me. That it could lead to conviction seem beyond improbable.

But here are the reasons why I don't object to an impeachment inquiry:

First, this complaint over Ukraine came about via a whistle blowers complaint that was filed from within the intelligence community. The whistle blowers structure was designed specifically to give an avenue for intelligence workers to raise attention to misconduct without disclosing classified information to the public. The law requires the Inspector General to review the complaint, and if deemed credible, to forward it to the Director of National Intelligence. Once the DNI receives it, there is a period for review at the end of which the law states that he "shall" turn it over to a congressional committee. 

That word "shall" is as strong as it gets in government documents. It means it isn't optional; it must be done. When Congress asked where it was, however, the DNI said that he wasn't releasing it under direction from higher authorities. That suggests that the release of the complaint was being inhibited by the administration that was the subject of the complaint. When that happens, the administration appears to be evading oversight, and is doing so in violation of the law. 

And to drive that point home, the Senate voted unanimously that the complaint should be released. That's a lot of Republican senators saying that this wasn't happening as it should.

What does this have to do with an impeachment inquiry? Straight up, I don't believe this administration acts in good faith with respect to investigations. There appears to be an attitude and tendency to rely on executive privilege to evade oversight. (I think that all recent administrations have abused executive privilege, but this one seems to take a peculiar delight in it). Add to that Corey Lewandowski's recent testimony to Congress where he openly declares that he has no obligation to be truthful with the press, and I have a feeling that is shared among many in this administration.

An impeachment inquiry is an important tool, now, because executive privilege doesn't apply. If the House wants documents as part of its inquiry, it gets documents. So I do think that the House should open a formal impeachment inquiry and look into just how much oversight the executive branch is evading. I'd also like to see it produce more laws to prevent this kind of evasion for future presidencies, regardless of party. 

And if that means more information and investigation has to be done into Biden,  so be it. 

Long story short, the administration is acting in a manner that suggests it is hiding something. It deserves to be investigated.

I’ve seen a couple of folks on both sides of the aisle suggest that executive privilege doesn’t apply in impeachment proceedings.  I’m not sure there’s case law supporting this proposition.  Even if there is, I doubt the mere existence of an impeachment proceeding would be the pass key to all White House archives that some folks seem to think that it is.  Document requests would still have to be reasonably related to the basis of the proceedings.  Any subpoena that smacks of fishing or of “we just wantz ALL TEH DOCUMENTZ dat makes u luk baads” will get gummed up in court and appellate purgatory, where they will likely stay until after the election.  (I don’t see being under impeachment threat in an election year as being necessarily bad for the Trump admin if they keep playing it the way Lewandowski did—he’s a jerk, but the proceedings were a patent setup/perjury trap; and it was a marvelous thing to watch him sit there and scream that the congressional would-be emperors have no clothes.  Almost made ME want to vote for Trump.  Those antics likely don’t change anyone’s mind, but they’ll keep the base fired up.)

As for the purported deliberate concealment of the IG complaint:  the CIA IG exists to handle complaints by spooks about spooks.  It is highly irregular for the CIA to allege that a President’s conversation with a foreign leader (the sort of thing often well within the realm of executive privilege) constitutes a threat to national security warranting a whistleblower complaint (should a CIA grunt have complained to the IG that Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq threatened national security, and added hearsay about Obama’s conversations with Putin and Assad and whatever Iranian poohbah was representing the Ayatollah in order to nullify executive privilege and trigger impeachment proceedings?)  For the White House to immediately roll over and waive executive privilege this—and, as a matter of precedent, every time the CIA asks them to—is not necessarily a good idea.  That seems particularly so when the substance of the complaint boils down to “Trump asked the Ukrainian president to a)  investigate potential Ukrainian origins of a cyber attack on a DNC server that may have compromised the 2016 election and b) investigate an American (Hunter Biden) who publicly boasted of having used his political clout to shut down a Ukrainian investigation of the American’s corporate cronies; and Trump *may* have threatened Ukrainian foreign aid if they didn’t handle “corruption” the way Trump thought it should be handled (just as Biden’s own father and a handful of Democratic senators had recently done).”

I do agree that Trump wouldn’t be in anything like the mess he’s in if he had cultivated a reputation for honesty and fair dealing and a general lack of vindictiveness all along.  But, I’ve been told that there’s no political advantage to electing leaders with the qualities outlined in D&C 98 . . . 

Ultimately, it’s irrelevant.  The House is run by Dems who want him gone; they’ll vote to impeach (unless Trump can push the process out past the election).  The Senate is run by GOPers who don’t like Trump, but aren’t going to vote to convict in the numbers it’ll take for a 2/3 majority.  

This is an awful lot of sound and fury just for the sake of reminding us, in the run-up to an election, that a known bad guy has kept on being a bad guy.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 4:20 PM, MarginOfError said:

I don't have any issue with opening an impeachment inquiry here. Whether or not it leads to impeachment is unclear to me. That it could lead to conviction seem beyond improbable.

But here are the reasons why I don't object to an impeachment inquiry:

First, this complaint over Ukraine came about via a whistle blowers complaint that was filed from within the intelligence community. The whistle blowers structure was designed specifically to give an avenue for intelligence workers to raise attention to misconduct without disclosing classified information to the public. The law requires the Inspector General to review the complaint, and if deemed credible, to forward it to the Director of National Intelligence. Once the DNI receives it, there is a period for review at the end of which the law states that he "shall" turn it over to a congressional committee. 

That word "shall" is as strong as it gets in government documents. It means it isn't optional; it must be done. When Congress asked where it was, however, the DNI said that he wasn't releasing it under direction from higher authorities. That suggests that the release of the complaint was being inhibited by the administration that was the subject of the complaint. When that happens, the administration appears to be evading oversight, and is doing so in violation of the law. 

And to drive that point home, the Senate voted unanimously that the complaint should be released. That's a lot of Republican senators saying that this wasn't happening as it should.

What does this have to do with an impeachment inquiry? Straight up, I don't believe this administration acts in good faith with respect to investigations. There appears to be an attitude and tendency to rely on executive privilege to evade oversight. (I think that all recent administrations have abused executive privilege, but this one seems to take a peculiar delight in it). Add to that Corey Lewandowski's recent testimony to Congress where he openly declares that he has no obligation to be truthful with the press, and I have a feeling that is shared among many in this administration.

An impeachment inquiry is an important tool, now, because executive privilege doesn't apply. If the House wants documents as part of its inquiry, it gets documents. So I do think that the House should open a formal impeachment inquiry and look into just how much oversight the executive branch is evading. I'd also like to see it produce more laws to prevent this kind of evasion for future presidencies, regardless of party. 

And if that means more information and investigation has to be done into Biden,  so be it. 

Long story short, the administration is acting in a manner that suggests it is hiding something. It deserves to be investigated.

Would you still think so if you knew before you wrote this spiel that Schiff mentioned the exact contents of the whistleblower’s report BEFORE the whistleblower filed the docs?

How about if you knew the whistleblower is a Brennan lackey?

How about if you knew the whistleblower’s report was not written by the whistleblower but by a bunch of lawyers that work for the DNC?

How about that Pelosi herself still did not put the impeachment inquiry for the House to vote on?

How about that the whistleblower’s report did not at all match the released memos of the President’s call to Ukraine?

How about Schiff, after the release of the call memos to the public going on the Congress floor and giving a completely made up narrative of what the memos say?

You still think this President has to subject his administration to the constant harassment of the opposing party and the Never Trumpers in his own party without a fight?

How do you propose Spygate can finally be investigated properly when everytime the President gets close the opposition comes up with another fake “Peachmints!!!” narrative?  Do you believe there is a Swamp and it needs to be Drained?

Do you remember the Intelligence guys telling Trump there are many ways they can get back at him if he messes with them?

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For @MarginOfError‘s perusal:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/daj5zw/biden_kerry_heinz_and_archer_timeline/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

This is possibly why they want Trump impeached as he has been talking to Ukraine about cleaning up both their swamps.  By the  way, the US and Ukraine has an agreement to cooperate with each other in investigating crimes signed by... I believe Bill Clinton.  This was when Ukraine was embroiled in deep corruption following the dissolution of the USSR.  This agreement was a double-edged sword... it allows the US to either investigate US/Ukraine corruption or... bury it.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 8:55 PM, Fether said:

The latest season on Everyone’s favorite TV show was released a few hours ago. Just a Recap from past seasons. The dems failed to prevent Trump from gathering all the electoral college stones, completing the Presidency gauntlet, then he snapped away his competition as well as the dem majority in the Supreme Court. Later, they failed to beat him with their own “Russian Collusion” gauntlet. Well now Trump slipped up and now the dems are uniting for one last attack to right the wrongs that have been done. An official impeachment inquiry has been launched.

what do you predict future episodes will hold?

on a serious note. I haven’t done much research into the claims and so far only liberal media (redundant?) has picked up on it so obviously it all sounds terrible.

No one truly believes there is any presidential wrong doing at all in the so called Ukrainian phone call. But it’s good press and another reason to keep after the president. Just like supposed Russian conspiracy. 

 

Behind closed doors, the Dems all laugh at the joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

How do you propose Spygate can finally be investigated properly when everytime the President gets close the opposition comes up with another fake “Peachmints!!!” narrative? 

I’m not worried.  I was told all throughout 2016 that we didn’t need to worry about Trump’s escalation of the partisan warfare, because the Dems couldn’t possibly be worse than they were being and our miracle-boy New York streetfighting wunderkind would surely be able to handle whatever the left threw at him—with or without the support of GOPE “cucks” like me.

 :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not worried.  I was told all throughout 2016 that we didn’t need to worry about Trump’s escalation of the partisan warfare, because the Dems couldn’t possibly be worse than they were being and our miracle-boy New York streetfighting wunderkind would surely be able to handle whatever the left threw at him—with or without the support of GOPE “cucks” like me.

 :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Well, the way this sounds, you seem to hold zero care at all that your IC has been running your country since at the very least, Kennedy.  You simply think it’s “partisan politics”.  Cucks will be cucks I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Cucks will be cucks I guess.

anatess—do you really want to say this to JAG? Do you know what a "cuckold" is? JAG was using the term somewhat ironically, as a malicious description placed upon him and others for not sufficiently toeing the Trump line. Your repetition of this description suggests that you agree with it, a thing which I believe and fervently hope is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vort said:

anatess—do you really want to say this to JAG? Do you know what a "cuckold" is? JAG was using the term somewhat ironically, as a malicious description placed upon him and others for not sufficiently toeing the Trump line. Your repetition of this description suggests that you agree with it, a thing which I believe and fervently hope is not true.

We’ve been through this since before election day 2016.  He knows the context of the word in our discussions hence his use of it in his post.

By the way, “not toeing the Trump line” is not a “cuck”.  Tim Pool, for example, Democrat, will probably never vote Trump.  He’s not a cuck.  George Soros is probably the greatest anti-Trump on the planet.  He’s not a cuck.  Marco Rubio, Republican Trump supporter after the 2016 elections - cuck.  Pelosi, Democrat - cuck.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Well, the way this sounds, you seem to hold zero care at all that your IC has been running your country since at the very least, Kennedy.  You simply think it’s “partisan politics”.  Cucks will be cucks I guess.

See, Anatess, this is exactly what I was worried would happen.  I warned you guys from the get-go that if you threw away the rulebook as Trump suggested, the Dems would do likewise; and that you might find you’d bitten off more than you could chew and would come sniveling to us for help.

It is happening as I have foreseen.  You should really read the story of Jeremiah and Johanon; because Trump’s supporters are acting like latter-day Johanons at this point.  You understand (but will NEVER admit) that the horse you backed can’t do all the things you told me he could; and now you want to shame me into coming in and taking your hits for you in a fight we have no divine guarantee of even winning, (and somewhat solid indications that we will, in fact, lose).

To which I say:  “no”.  The contest with progressivism may have already been under way, but you converted it from a boxing match into a cage fight.  Run away from it now, if you must; but don’t drag me into it.  I was at least smart enough to know all along that I’m not a cage fighter.  

Trump’s true believers have chosen their master (D&C 98:9-10; Isaiah 8:9-10) and I have chosen mine (1 Kings 19:18; Isaiah 8:13, 17; Romans 8:31).  But if you want to switch sides—my Guy hasn’t stopped recruiting yet; His yoke is easy and His burden light; He never reneges on a contract; lying is contrary to His nature; He won’t fire me within eighteen months for doing the job He asked me to do—and He’s never committed sexual assault.

Think it over.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

anatess—do you really want to say this to JAG? Do you know what a "cuckold" is? JAG was using the term somewhat ironically, as a malicious description placed upon him and others for not sufficiently toeing the Trump line. Your repetition of this description suggests that you agree with it, a thing which I believe and fervently hope is not true.

In Anatess’ defense, she was riffing off of my own (ironic) statement.  At least, that’s how I choose to interpret it.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 3:08 PM, anatess2 said:

Really?  Impeach the President as a Reprimand?  For being a "narcissist"?  You lost your copy of the Constitution?

 

How do you feel about Romney's stand in this matter?  Do you think he has left behind his spiritual roots for political reasons?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this