The Impeachment Thread

[BowlBrother85]

Did you come up with that crap story all by yourself?

It's common sense.

 

[volfanjustin]

In a few days, the “no quid pro quo” argument will be largely abandoned.

I will say it today, I will day it tomorrow and I will say it 6 months from now: no quid pro quo

 

[volfanjustin]

Which is convenient, because there wouldn’t be any work.

That’s the plan

 

[Weezer]

We should always go after the biggest liars. Everyone lies, not just politicians. Everyone does not lie equally.
None of the other 16 repub. candidates were anywhere near the degree of Trump's level of chronic and habitual lying.

Hillary was though. The Dems ran a chronic and habitual liar against a chronic and habitual liar. And now they're mad because their chronic and habitual liar lost. You have it in your head that Hillary wasn't as bad as Trump. IMO, she was worth. At the very least, the truth rests somewhere in the area of her being of equal morality to Trump. Two bad candidates, and one had to win. So we were screwed no matter what.

 

[volfanjustin]

It's common sense.

Idiotic response so I will take it as a yes

 

[Stew Cook]

Hillary was though. The Dems ran a chronic and habitual liar against a chronic and habitual liar. And now they're mad because their chronic and habitual liar lost. You have it in your head that Hillary wasn't as bad as Trump. IMO, she was worth. At the very least, the truth rests somewhere in the area of her being of equal morality to Trump. Two bad candidates, and one had to win. So we were screwed no matter what.

And there's a good chance we'll not have either of them as president, sooner than later.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

Yet our WB cult hangs on their every framed word from Schiff as truth lol.

 

[Weezer]

Carrying water? Because I’m telling you that your understanding of the nature impeachment is wrong?

I told you less than a week ago that I would have voted to remove Clinton. That hasn’t changed in 21 years, it didn’t change this week.

As I said, it’s a subjective assessment of acceptable conduct. The intent to establish this structure is clear from the nature of the established process and the contemporaneous writings. The reason for it is equally clear.

In determining what is acceptable conduct to you, you are (or rather your Senator is), free to substitute a legal standard in place of your own morals, as you have done. You can absolutely say that you personally require that the president commit a crime in order to be removed, as you have said. You can even be selective in the application of this criteria and say that crimes committed by some presidents warrant removal but similar crimes committed by other presidents don’t, as you have done.

But you are also saying that the constitution requires this standard. It doesn’t. It wasn’t intended to. And this is all clear from the contemporaneous writings of the framers.

Okay, I can accept that explanation, but for one thing. I wasn't being selective in criteria. If Congress had done the right thing with Clinton, I would say obstruction charges against Trump would be fair game. I'm not saying one President should receive benefits another President did not. I'm saying there should be consistency in how this is dealt with and should not rely upon partisan bias. I'm not looking to favor one side or the other. I don't think that government should conduct itself by favoring one side over the other. I'm a believer in justice is blind, but in politics, it rarely is. I'm not okay with that.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Yet our WB cult hangs on their every framed word from Schiff as truth lol.

What does any of that have to do with the thread topic? LOL.

 

[Stew Cook]

What does any of that have to do with the thread topic? LOL.

They got nothing... Holding pattern until Hannity.

Well, except for Justin, who has resorted to mixing up Dr Seuss poems.

 

[Obsessed]

Hillary was though. The Dems ran a chronic and habitual liar against a chronic and habitual liar. And now they're mad because their chronic and habitual liar lost. You have it in your head that Hillary wasn't as bad as Trump. IMO, she was worth. At the very least, the truth rests somewhere in the area of her being of equal morality to Trump. Two bad candidates, and one had to win. So we were screwed no matter what.

I think, scratch that, I know the out come with Trump was much much better than with her. The economy and unemployment would be no where close to as great as it is with Trump

 

[hjeagle1vol]

What does any of that have to do with the thread topic? LOL.

Media corruption which you WB cultists fall for daily in this thread.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

 

[UT_VOLS13]

They got nothing... Holding pattern until Hannity.

Well, except for Justin, who has resorted to mixing up Dr Seuss poems.

So, you totally believe Adam Schiff ?

 

[1972 Grad]

I know. I am so depressed living in squalor here on skid row with no money. Can you please help me out and give me a toothbrush and some food?

It could be worse. I live in squalor on 3 skid rows in 3 different states.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

Another crooked Schiff Trump hater and America apologists exposed. Who could've guessed that?

 

[Stew Cook]

So, you totally believe Adam Schiff ?

Unless you are talking about his creative account of the Trump call, there isn't much to take issue with. I mean, he's a politician, and that alone might suggest he's at least as shifty as the rest. But I don't think he's nearly as schitty, as most of his critics make him out to be.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That is talking about the meeting at the White House which frankly, really isn't that important. What about the freeze on the military aid? That is what Sondlund said.

 

[1972 Grad]

Who do you have this time around?

He looks like a Yang guy to me, or Mary Ann Williamson, or whatever her name is.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Unless you are talking about his creative account of the Trump call, there isn't much to take issue with. I mean, he's a politician, and that alone might suggest he's at least as shifty as the rest. But I don't think he's nearly as schitty, as most of his critics make him out to be.

Thanks for an honest answer.

 

[1972 Grad]

uh, what was the first?

Excellent question.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

That is talking about the meeting at the White House which frankly, really isn't that important. What about the freeze on the military aid? That is what Sondlund said.

You mean Suddenly remembered? Yea that's credible.

 

[1972 Grad]

Par for the course for Trumpettes. These sad republicans and Trump fans are in for a reality bltch slap.

IAON! It's all over now.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Another crooked Schiff Trump hater and America apologists exposed. Who could've guessed that?

Trendingpolitics.com is a Republican propaganda site. I'm sure you are aware of that. For everyone else, go to their front page right now and tell me if that looks like a legitimate news reporting platform. Let me know when anyone else reports that... even if it's Fox News. These attempts to smear the name of an Iraq War veteran with a Purple Heart, simply because he testified to information damaging to Trump are pathetic.

 

[carlos86]

I forgot, under Obama it was MRE's, comic books and bathing suits.

More like M-4s, TOW missiles, MRAPs and direct training.