Impeach Trump!

[Skjellyfetti]

And, thinking anyone in the executive branch needs to go through a proper security clearance process. How quaint.

[AZGrizFan]

Um... ok

Like I said before - it is possible that Biden’s activities with the Kievan Rus were perfectly free of any shady stuff

It is also possible that Trump’s call was legit and there was no quid pro quo, although my confidence on that is lower than with Biden

But before we go beatifying Saint Joe and his son ... the Bidens have been known for influence peddling. And anyone who knows anything about Ukrainian businesspeople know that Biden’s son was hired and paid 50,000 dollars PER MONTH because of who his father was. It was a blatant conflict of interest- one that would affect my security clearance as well as my ability to deal with Ukraine in any capacity at work if I had a family member in a similar situation.

My point is that we do nit have to clear Biden to condemn Trump. The Biden thing stinks to high hell.

Hasn't this entire presidency been an exercise in testing the boundaries of conflict of interest ?
We're now way past "regular old" conflict of interest...
and deep into "what constitutes treason" almost weekly



anything shy of full blown is now disregarded

Donks would threaten impeachment if Trump looked at them crossways...

[Ivytalk]

Tulsi Gabbard is off the Donk reservation on impeachment.

[AZGrizFan]

Tulsi Gabbard is off the Donk reservation on impeachment.

[CID1990]

Um... ok

Like I said before - it is possible that Biden’s activities with the Kievan Rus were perfectly free of any shady stuff

It is also possible that Trump’s call was legit and there was no quid pro quo, although my confidence on that is lower than with Biden

But before we go beatifying Saint Joe and his son ... the Bidens have been known for influence peddling. And anyone who knows anything about Ukrainian businesspeople know that Biden’s son was hired and paid 50,000 dollars PER MONTH because of who his father was. It was a blatant conflict of interest- one that would affect my security clearance as well as my ability to deal with Ukraine in any capacity at work if I had a family member in a similar situation.

My point is that we do nit have to clear Biden to condemn Trump. The Biden thing stinks to high hell.

Hasn't this entire presidency been an exercise in testing the boundaries of conflict of interest ?
We're now way past "regular old" conflict of interest...
and deep into "what constitutes treason" almost weekly



anything shy of full blown is now disregarded

Of course it has

I’m just trying to head off six pages of JSO posts explaining how Biden is pure as the wind driven snow just to make his point about Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

And, thinking anyone in the executive branch needs to go through a proper security clearance process. How quaint.

Really, Reek?

I’m in the executive branch.

93 is in the executive branch

Every single person in the military is executive branch

Obviously my point went right over your head


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Tulsi Gabbard is off the Donk reservation on impeachment.

And now she's back ON the reservation....

[Skjellyfetti]

And, thinking anyone in the executive branch needs to go through a proper security clearance process. How quaint.

Really, Reek?

I’m in the executive branch.

93 is in the executive branch

Every single person in the military is executive branch

Obviously my point went right over your head

Yes, I should have said the White House is where security clearances are optional.

[kalm]

Tulsi Gabbard is off the Donk reservation on impeachment.

And now she's back ON the reservation....

Why so sad? Presidents can’t be prosecuted like normal people and there are serious allegations. He could be exonerated too.

[AZGrizFan]

And now she's back ON the reservation....

Why so sad? Presidents can’t be prosecuted like normal people and there are serious allegations. He could be exonerated too.

Just was happy to see one not toe the party line....but she must have been bitch-slapped back into submission.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why so sad? Presidents can’t be prosecuted like normal people and there are serious allegations. He could be exonerated too.

Just was happy to see one not toe the party line....but she must have been bitch-slapped back into submission.

Weren't you bitching about Amash going off the Donk reservation on impeachment?

[kalm]

Just was happy to see one not toe the party line....but she must have been bitch-slapped back into submission.

Weren't you bitching about Amash going off the Donk reservation on impeachment?

No way! Z values doing the right thing over party loyalty!

[css75]

And, thinking anyone in the executive branch needs to go through a proper security clearance process. How quaint.

Keep digging that hole.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

And now she's back ON the reservation....

Why so sad? Presidents can’t be prosecuted like normal people and there are serious allegations. He could be exonerated too.

I think that thing about them not being prosecuted like normal people is a crock. That's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere. It's another one of those things where we've developed this cultural tradition where the President is just SO important. Shit doesn't stink.

In reality the President isn't that important at all in terms of whether or not we can do without any particular person in the office. It's just a guy (or someday possibly a woman) doing a job. They're not uniquely qualified for it. In fact the way in which Presidents are selected nowadays pretty much guaranteed we're not getting people highly qualified for the job. If one of them croaks in office it's really not a big deal. Things go on fine.

There is no real basis for this thing of saying a President, out of ALL the hundreds of millions of the people in the country, can't be prosecuted if he (or she) breaks the law. If it happened government would continue to function.

Seriously. So let's say that some President gets caught with child pornography. We're going to say authorities can't prosecute him for that when anybody else would be prosecuted? That's friggin' nonsense. And so is that stuff about the President is just TOO important to be distracted by being prosecuted.

That's all totally independent of Trump. Doesn't matter who the President is. This stuff of making the President into some kind of royalty that is uniquely insulated from the accountability everybody else is subject to is bullshit.

[AZGrizFan]

Just was happy to see one not toe the party line....but she must have been bitch-slapped back into submission.

Weren't you bitching about Amash going off the Donk reservation on impeachment?

Pretty sure I wasn’t. And pretty sure Amash was a conk.

[JohnStOnge]

Weren't you bitching about Amash going off the Donk reservation on impeachment?

Pretty sure I wasn’t. And pretty sure Amash was a conk.

Amash is a conservative. A minority of 1 among conservatives in Congress right now in terms of being somebody with integrity. Romney's and a few others have flirted with it. But Amash is the only conservative in Congress so far to call a spade a spade and declare his intention to do the right thing.

If somebody were writing a "Profiles in Courage" book about the current situation former Republican Amash would be in it. No current Republican in Congress would.

[BDKJMU]

Why so sad? Presidents can’t be prosecuted like normal people and there are serious allegations. He could be exonerated too.

I think that thing about them not being prosecuted like normal people is a crock. That's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere. It's another one of those things where we've developed this cultural tradition where the President is just SO important. Shit doesn't stink.

In reality the President isn't that important at all in terms of whether or not we can do without any particular person in the office. It's just a guy (or someday possibly a woman) doing a job. They're not uniquely qualified for it. In fact the way in which Presidents are selected nowadays pretty much guaranteed we're not getting people highly qualified for the job. If one of them croaks in office it's really not a big deal. Things go on fine.

There is no real basis for this thing of saying a President, out of ALL the hundreds of millions of the people in the country, can't be prosecuted if he (or she) breaks the law. If it happened government would continue to function.

Seriously. So let's say that some President gets caught with child pornography. We're going to say authorities can't prosecute him for that when anybody else would be prosecuted? That's friggin' nonsense. And so is that stuff about the President is just TOO important to be distracted by being prosecuted.

That's all totally independent of Trump. Doesn't matter who the President is. This stuff of making the President into some kind of royalty that is uniquely insulated from the accountability everybody else is subject to is bullshit.

We’ve been over this before, but obviously you didn’t get it the 1st time. If a POTUS could be indicted in office, then rogue, grandstanding prosecutor/DAs from the opposite party, including state/local, could indict the POTUS over BS reasons in order to try to make a name for themselves. Ever heard the expression indict a ham sandwich? A POTUS could literally be facing indictments right and left over BS stuff his entire time in office. Doesn’t matter if 99% never went anywhere it court. It would be completely paralyzing.

[css75]

Pretty sure I wasn’t. And pretty sure Amash was a conk.

Amash is a conservative. A minority of 1 among conservatives in Congress right now in terms of being somebody with integrity. Romney's and a few others have flirted with it. But Amash is the only conservative in Congress so far to call a spade a spade and declare his intention to do the right thing.

If somebody were writing a "Profiles in Courage" book about the current situation former Republican Amash would be in it. No current Republican in Congress would.

Romney is the biggest douche in the Senate. I prefer Schumer and the other loons over him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I think that thing about them not being prosecuted like normal people is a crock. That's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere. It's another one of those things where we've developed this cultural tradition where the President is just SO important. Shit doesn't stink.

In reality the President isn't that important at all in terms of whether or not we can do without any particular person in the office. It's just a guy (or someday possibly a woman) doing a job. They're not uniquely qualified for it. In fact the way in which Presidents are selected nowadays pretty much guaranteed we're not getting people highly qualified for the job. If one of them croaks in office it's really not a big deal. Things go on fine.

There is no real basis for this thing of saying a President, out of ALL the hundreds of millions of the people in the country, can't be prosecuted if he (or she) breaks the law. If it happened government would continue to function.

Seriously. So let's say that some President gets caught with child pornography. We're going to say authorities can't prosecute him for that when anybody else would be prosecuted? That's friggin' nonsense. And so is that stuff about the President is just TOO important to be distracted by being prosecuted.

That's all totally independent of Trump. Doesn't matter who the President is. This stuff of making the President into some kind of royalty that is uniquely insulated from the accountability everybody else is subject to is bullshit.

We’ve been over this before, but obviously you didn’t get it the 1st time. If a POTUS could be indicted in office, then rogue, grandstanding prosecutor/DAs from the opposite party, including state/local, could indict the POTUS over BS reasons in order to try to make a name for themselves. Ever heard the expression indict a ham sandwich? A POTUS could literally be facing indictments right and left over BS stuff his entire time in office. Doesn’t matter if 99% never went anywhere it court. It would be completely paralyzing.

Oh. so let's say a President of the United States is in Alabama with his wife. He gets pissed of at his wife and strangles her to death. It's obvious he did it and no one disputes it. So you're saying the State of Alabama can't prosecute him for homicide?

And it's not paralyzing. The government of the United States can function fine without input from the President.

PLUS: There is nothing in the Constitution that says a President is not accountable for violations of the law just like any other person in the United States is.

[css75]

We’ve been over this before, but obviously you didn’t get it the 1st time. If a POTUS could be indicted in office, then rogue, grandstanding prosecutor/DAs from the opposite party, including state/local, could indict the POTUS over BS reasons in order to try to make a name for themselves. Ever heard the expression indict a ham sandwich? A POTUS could literally be facing indictments right and left over BS stuff his entire time in office. Doesn’t matter if 99% never went anywhere it court. It would be completely paralyzing.

Oh. so let's say a President of the United States is in Alabama with his wife. He gets pissed of at his wife and strangles her to death. It's obvious he did it and no one disputes it. So you're saying the State of Alabama can't prosecute him for homicide?

And it's not paralyzing. The government of the United States can function fine without input from the President.

PLUS: There is nothing in the Constitution that says a President is not accountable for violations of the law just like any other person in the United States is.

That is in effect to protect the president from fake charges like this so called whistleblower and Steele Dossier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

She's senile..?
(she is senile btw)

And she’s also simultaneously one of the smartest

the fact that she is willing to move forward, if she has to, says she has more cards to play. So far she's played it perfectly being the voice of reason and making them drag her reluctantly towards impeachment.

[kalm]

I think that thing about them not being prosecuted like normal people is a crock. That's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere. It's another one of those things where we've developed this cultural tradition where the President is just SO important. Shit doesn't stink.

In reality the President isn't that important at all in terms of whether or not we can do without any particular person in the office. It's just a guy (or someday possibly a woman) doing a job. They're not uniquely qualified for it. In fact the way in which Presidents are selected nowadays pretty much guaranteed we're not getting people highly qualified for the job. If one of them croaks in office it's really not a big deal. Things go on fine.

There is no real basis for this thing of saying a President, out of ALL the hundreds of millions of the people in the country, can't be prosecuted if he (or she) breaks the law. If it happened government would continue to function.

Seriously. So let's say that some President gets caught with child pornography. We're going to say authorities can't prosecute him for that when anybody else would be prosecuted? That's friggin' nonsense. And so is that stuff about the President is just TOO important to be distracted by being prosecuted.

That's all totally independent of Trump. Doesn't matter who the President is. This stuff of making the President into some kind of royalty that is uniquely insulated from the accountability everybody else is subject to is bullshit.

We’ve been over this before, but obviously you didn’t get it the 1st time. If a POTUS could be indicted in office, then rogue, grandstanding prosecutor/DAs from the opposite party, including state/local, could indict the POTUS over BS reasons in order to try to make a name for themselves. Ever heard the expression indict a ham sandwich? A POTUS could literally be facing indictments right and left over BS stuff his entire time in office. Doesn’t matter if 99% never went anywhere it court. It would be completely paralyzing.

After awhile, both sides would either grow weary of the tactic and/or get voted out of office for a lack of governance. They’d have to eventually, you know, be adults and compromise or nothing gets done (which isn’t always a bad thing).

[CAA Flagship]

In reality the President isn't that important at all in terms of whether or not we can do without any particular person in the office. It's just a guy (or someday possibly a woman) doing a job.

But, they sometimes create a situation that is unique to them that needs time to complete (at the speed of DC or other countries). Trump is a perfect example of this with his trade policies.

This was not a comment on whether a POTUS should be indicted or not. Just a response to your "isn't that important". A presidency is unique to the person elected, the slant of Congress, economic challenges and world events

[CID1990]

And she’s also simultaneously one of the smartest

the fact that she is willing to move forward, if she has to, says she has more cards to play. So far she's played it perfectly being the voice of reason and making them drag her reluctantly towards impeachment.

That wasn’t bait I was laying

All I was saying is that she’s one of the smartest people in Congress

I put her somewhere between Trump and the Cookie Monster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aho Old Guy]

I'll give her credit for treading water, which is a lot to be said these days.

After **Boner** and Lyin' Ryan, we will see how well Fancy Nancy keeps her caucus together. The Neander-Cons failed with the Free-Dumb Caucus -- it remains to be seen if the Dims will manage those Commie-Socialist-Leftist agitators Hell-bent on destroying Amuricah ...

the fact that she is willing to move forward, if she has to, says she has more cards to play. So far she's played it perfectly being the voice of reason and making them drag her reluctantly towards impeachment.

That wasn’t bait I was laying

All I was saying is that she’s one of the smartest people in Congress

I put her somewhere between Trump and the Cookie Monster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk