Impeach Trump!

[Ibanez]

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

What POTUS hasn’t obstructed Congress in some way or another (when controlled by the opposite party)?

so your position is, they’ve all done it? That’s weak. How does that change the fact that 2 Presidents have been impeached for obstruction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

Meh. "Impeachment" means nothing unless the Senate goes along with it and the POTUS is removed from office. The Dems didn't allow it to pass in the Senate with Clinton. But they are using the same path this time around. Why isn't it BS for the Dems?

One could argue that the Republicans saw how obstruction wasn't enough during the Clinton ordeal, and are employing that logic here.

Bottom line is the BS can be argued, and defended, towards both sides, not just at the Republicans.

I don’t disagree. But let’s state facts and not feelings. There’s historical precedent, that’s all I’m saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

No. December 11, 1998.

That aint manning up in my book.

Taking ownership of your failures isn’t manning up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury. He wasn't removed.

And it would matter now because it was the Republicans that used Obstruction as an impeachable offense 20 years ago.

The hypocrisy here shouldn't be alarming to anyone.

That's another problem i've had with the White House defense. They keep saying these aren't impeachable offenses even though the precedent has been set and 2 presidents have been impeached for obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress. They're language is inaccurate. It's impeachable but is it grounds for removal?

All of this is moot given that there is no obstruction of justice in this case

The other article is legitimate and deserves examination but the obstruction article should be dismissed. Including it at all has diminished the House’s position and leaves room for Republicans to dismiss the whole thing.

A few years from now when most of the passions have subsided we will see legal scholars making this same point on obstruction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You raise a good point. Personally, the abuse of power charge is what matters and is what is truly cause for impeachment and removal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Obstruction was enough to pursue impeachment against Nixon. And Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not entirely true. In the Nixon, Clinton, or the Trump impeachments, they never would've impeached simply on the obstruction. The obstruction is just filler that gets added in to flesh the impeachment out a little bit. But in every case, there was a meatier impeachment article that was there: with Nixon, the obstruction charge was actually obstruction of justice, since they were interfering with the police investigation into the break-in, and then there was the abuse of power charge, which was legit in that one as they were wiretapping people secretly, using the IRS to harass people, and again, getting in the way of the investigation by the FBI and non-Congress sorts. Clinton's was easy because he lied to a grand jury and tried to get others to lie as well. Again, in both cases, obstruction of Congress was simply one to add on. They never would've impeached any of these three Presidents on just the obstruction of Congress charge.

..perhaps not but obstructing Congress is exactly what the administration's policy has been at every turn all the way from the get.

[UNI88]

That aint manning up in my book.

Taking ownership of your failures isn’t manning up?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

89 doesn't have any failures so he wouldn't know.

[BDKJMU]

Why didn't Nancy subpoena Bolton?

Answer that, and you understand why its a big nothingburger. Donks with egg on their faces again.

Because she didn't need to

How about the way she's turned this thing around? She's like LeBron playing against some high school's JV team.

Turned this thing around? This thing is all but over. Nancy ‘Own Goal’ Pelosi made the disastrous decision to impeach Trump, then doubled down on stupid by appointing lying Adam Schift to run the trial in the House and Senate. In one fell swoop Pelosi actions have deep sixed Biden, and re elected Trump..

[SDHornet]

Because she didn't need to

How about the way she's turned this thing around? She's like LeBron playing against some high school's JV team.

Turned this thing around? This thing is all but over. Nancy ‘Own Goal’ Pelosi made the disastrous decision to impeach Trump, then doubled down on stupid by appointing lying Adam Schift to run the trial in the House and Senate. In one fell swoop Pelosi actions have deep sixed Biden, and re elected Trump..

Yeah, this thing has witnesses called and the Biden(s) have to testify, the Dems are essentially throwing Bidens hopes for President away.

[SeattleGriz]

Lol. Parnas gets invited to impeachment trial by Schumer as a publicity stunt, but is denied entry due to his ankle monitor.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/01/29 ... unt-880662

[kalm]

Turned this thing around? This thing is all but over. Nancy ‘Own Goal’ Pelosi made the disastrous decision to impeach Trump, then doubled down on stupid by appointing lying Adam Schift to run the trial in the House and Senate. In one fell swoop Pelosi actions have deep sixed Biden, and re elected Trump..

Yeah, this thing has witnesses called and the Biden(s) have to testify, the Dems are essentially throwing Bidens hopes for President away.

Biden has peaked. Bloomberg becomes the scandal free, non socialist insurance policy for the Dems.

[Ivytalk]

Yeah, this thing has witnesses called and the Biden(s) have to testify, the Dems are essentially throwing Bidens hopes for President away.

Biden has peaked. Bloomberg becomes the scandal free, non socialist insurance policy for the Dems.

Biden has talked recently about tapping Michelle Obummer for VPOTUS. That ticket would be damn near unbeatable and would bring out the black vote bigly. Caramel Harris is damaged goods by now.

[kalm]

Biden has peaked. Bloomberg becomes the scandal free, non socialist insurance policy for the Dems.

Biden has talked recently about tapping Michelle Obummer for VPOTUS. That ticket would be damn near unbeatable and would bring out the black vote bigly. Caramel Harris is damaged goods by now.

Interesting notion. Do you think, given the age of Biden, Warren, and Bernie that a VP choice can tip the scales that much?

[∞∞∞]

Biden has peaked. Bloomberg becomes the scandal free, non socialist insurance policy for the Dems.

Biden has talked recently about tapping Michelle Obummer for VPOTUS. That ticket would be damn near unbeatable and would bring out the black vote bigly. Caramel Harris is damaged goods by now.

An old conservative and someone with zero political experience as their back-up?

Yeah, no thanks.

[Skjellyfetti]

Since Biden keeps getting brought up - if it turns out there is evidence he withheld aid to Ukraine to influence an investigation into his son - do y'all think there's anything wrong with that? Seems the Conks are now of the opinion that it is no big deal.

I have no problem saying Biden should not be President if that's true. But, seems like some of y'all have spent so much time defending Trump that you're going to have a hard time crucifying Biden.

[kalm]

Since Biden keeps getting brought up - if it turns out there is evidence he withheld aid to Ukraine to influence an investigation into his son - do y'all think there's anything wrong with that? Seems the Conks are now of the opinion that it is no big deal.

I have no problem saying Biden should not be President if that's true. But, seems like some of y'all have spent so much time defending Trump that you're going to have a hard time crucifying Biden.

Excellent point. Perhaps Hunter can be model for the Nepotism Ken Doll.

[Ivytalk]

Biden has talked recently about tapping Michelle Obummer for VPOTUS. That ticket would be damn near unbeatable and would bring out the black vote bigly. Caramel Harris is damaged goods by now.

An old conservative and someone with zero political experience as their back-up?

Yeah, no thanks.

Nobody who knows politics well describes Biden as conservative. He’s just a bit less leftish than you and your cohort prefer.

And simply because Michelle has never held elective office — and her community organizer husband had served less than one term in the Senate before he was nominated — her political instincts are pretty good. I’d say that she has more political experience with eight years in the WH than Bootyitch has as mayor of the booming metropolis of South Bend.

[houndawg]

Turned this thing around? This thing is all but over. Nancy ‘Own Goal’ Pelosi made the disastrous decision to impeach Trump, then doubled down on stupid by appointing lying Adam Schift to run the trial in the House and Senate. In one fell swoop Pelosi actions have deep sixed Biden, and re elected Trump..

Yeah, this thing has witnesses called and the Biden(s) have to testify, the Dems are essentially throwing Bidens hopes for President away.

You do realize that the Rs control this cover up and can call whoever they want to call anytime, right?

Remember four days ago when this thing was already over except for the formalities?

The question is: Does Nancy Pelosi kick ass at the Jackie Chan level or at the Bruce Lee level?

[houndawg]

An old conservative and someone with zero political experience as their back-up?

Yeah, no thanks.

Nobody who knows politics well describes Biden as conservative. He’s just a bit less leftish than you and your cohort prefer.

And simply because Michelle has never held elective office — and her community organizer husband had served less than one term in the Senate before he was nominated — her political instincts are pretty good. I’d say that she has more political experience with eight years in the WH than Bootyitch has as mayor of the booming metropolis of South Bend.

[Ibanez]

Since Biden keeps getting brought up - if it turns out there is evidence he withheld aid to Ukraine to influence an investigation into his son - do y'all think there's anything wrong with that? Seems the Conks are now of the opinion that it is no big deal.

I have no problem saying Biden should not be President if that's true. But, seems like some of y'all have spent so much time defending Trump that you're going to have a hard time crucifying Biden.

It doesn't matter. According to Dershowitz, If Biden thought acting in his own best interests is in the national interests then he is in the clear.

[Ibanez]

An old conservative and someone with zero political experience as their back-up?

Yeah, no thanks.

Nobody who knows politics well describes Biden as conservative. He’s just a bit less leftish than you and your cohort prefer.

And simply because Michelle has never held elective office — and her community organizer husband had served less than one term in the Senate before he was nominated — her political instincts are pretty good. I’d say that she has more political experience with eight years in the WH than Bootyitch has as mayor of the booming metropolis of South Bend.

Ivy, you have to remember than to the extremists (like Trip) anyone to the right of comrade Sanders is a conservative.

[89Hen]

That aint manning up in my book.

Taking ownership of your failures isn’t manning up?

Not years later after you were forced to admit them after lying on national TV about them.

[kalm]

Nobody who knows politics well describes Biden as conservative. He’s just a bit less leftish than you and your cohort prefer.

And simply because Michelle has never held elective office — and her community organizer husband had served less than one term in the Senate before he was nominated — her political instincts are pretty good. I’d say that she has more political experience with eight years in the WH than Bootyitch has as mayor of the booming metropolis of South Bend.

Ivy, you have to remember than to the extremists (like Trip) anyone to the right of comrade Sanders is a conservative.

Biden is a center-right corporatist. Yours and Ivy’s view of the middle is distorted. Don’t worry, you’re not alone.

[Ibanez]

Taking ownership of your failures isn’t manning up?

Not years later after you were forced to admit them after lying on national TV about them.

I think admitting a mistake is manning up.

We can debate his sincerity.

[89Hen]

Not years later after you were forced to admit them after lying on national TV about them.

I think admitting a mistake is manning up.

We can debate his sincerity.

I guess we'll disagree. I think admitting a mistake ONLY years later and after being forced to reveal it doesn't count. Admitting a mistake immediately and unprovoked... sure, that's manning up.

[Ibanez]

I think admitting a mistake is manning up.

We can debate his sincerity.

I guess we'll disagree. I think admitting a mistake ONLY years later and after being forced to reveal it doesn't count. Admitting a mistake immediately and unprovoked... sure, that's manning up.

Well nothing when forced really counts. And again, it is reasonable to assume that happened.

But it's just as reasonable to assume the opposite.