Donald Trump will be impeached.

JUPITERASC said:

Click to expand...

The ONLY reasons Trumpublicans champion Bernie are: (1) they know he can't possibly win in the Electoral College--like an opposing baseball team choosing the pitcher they would would most like to bat against. And, (2) they realize that when Bernie doesn't win the nomination, it will cause his Democratic supporters to lose interest in the election, possibly even deciding not to vote for the Democratic candidate who is nominated.

Just another sneaky Republican campaign tactic, like urging Republicans to vote for a weak Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary election in States where this is allowed. And, yes, Democrats have been known to do the same sort of thing.

Democrats LOVED what Pelosi did! Trumpublicans hated it.

Trumpeached knows she got to him, and corroded his image. That's why he refused to shake her hand at his Blight of the Union celebration.

david starling said:

Democrats LOVED what Pelosi did! Trumpublicans hated it.

Trumpeached knows she got to him, and corroded his image. That's why he refused to shake her hand at his Blight of the Union celebration.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

The ONLY reasons Trumpublicans champion Bernie are: (1) they know he can't possibly win in the Electoral College--like an opposing baseball team choosing the pitcher they would would most like to bat against. And, (2) they realize that when Bernie doesn't win the nomination, it will cause his Democratic supporters to lose interest in the election, possibly even deciding not to vote for the Democratic candidate who is nominated.

Just another sneaky Republican campaign tactic, like urging Republicans to vote for a weak Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary election in States where this is allowed. And, yes, Democrats have been known to do the same sort of thing.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

The ONLY reasons Trumpublicans champion Bernie are: (1) they know he can't possibly win in the Electoral College--like an opposing baseball team choosing the pitcher they would would most like to bat against. And, (2) they realize that when Bernie doesn't win the nomination, it will cause his Democratic supporters to lose interest in the election, possibly even deciding not to vote for the Democratic candidate who is nominated.

Just another sneaky Republican campaign tactic, like urging Republicans to vote for a weak Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary election in States where this is allowed. And, yes, Democrats have been known to do the same sort of thing.

Click to expand...

The reason they point to bernie is to show the democrats are willing to commit fraud to achieve their goals.

Dirius said:

The reason they point to bernie is to show the democrats are willing to commit fraud to achieve their goals.

Click to expand...

∆
FALSE ACCUSATION, NO PROVEN FRAUD!
That DNC case was tried in court and the charges were dismissed. (REAL court, not the phony-baloney, so-called Senate Impeachment "trial".).

Trumpeached is one of ONLY THREE Presidents to be forevermore Impeached.
He's also one of ONLY FIVE Presidents to have lost the Popular vote!

He's also the ONE and ONLY President to have achieved BOTH of those dubious distinctions, and he accomplished that in just a SINGLE Presidential term in office!

chiamaria said:

And he's the only one who overcame both. If it were any other person you'd pat them on the back and congratulate them for being so strong and resilient. Don't we all suffer setbacks and less then stellar results at some point in our lives? If you had to try 100 times before making your big break and succeeding and then you have some weirdo screaming at you and saying "but what about all those times you DIDN'T succeed? You'll always have that" wouldn't you just think they have some serious issues in their own life and reek of that "loser" complex?

You're holding onto that fact like a person desperately holding on for dear life on a sinking boat. I'm not a fan of Trump but he is not the one who looks foolish to me right now.

Click to expand...

He hasn't "overcome" them. He has to live with them.

You're not asking WHY these things happened.

Chiamaria, are you a fan of his dictatorial, inhumane and anti-enviromental policies? Or his bullying, self-aggrandizing, divisive rhetoric? He's the CAUSE of his own sullied reputation, not the victim.
HE'S the "weirdo", and not in a good way.

david starling said:

Trumpeached is one of ONLY THREE Presidents to be forevermore Impeached.
He's also one of ONLY FIVE Presidents to have lost the Popular vote!

He's also the ONE and ONLY President to have achieved BOTH of those dubious distinctions, and he accomplished that in just a SINGLE Presidential term in office!

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Chiamaria, are you a fan of his dictatorial, inhumane and anti-enviromental policies? Or his bullying, self-aggrandizing, divisive rhetoric? He's the CAUSE of his own sullied reputation, not the victim.
HE'S the "weirdo", and not in a good way.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

He hasn't "overcome" them. He has to live with them.

Click to expand...

Hi david starling,

I'm guessing he sleeps quite well at night.

david starling said:

Trumpeached is one of ONLY THREE Presidents to be forevermore Impeached.

Click to expand...

Trump was impeached only in a pathetic attempt to stop an investigation into Democratic shenanigans in Ukraine, which are many, starting with the illegal overthrown of the Ukrainian government by the Obama Administration.

leomoon said:

IF Joe Biden or Hunter Biden broke any laws, there is nothing forbidding Trump's DOJ from indicting them. Why don't they?

Click to expand...

Hi leomoon.

It's called "jurisdiction."

The FBI cannot just boogie into another country and start running around conducting an investigation whenever they want.

What, you thought the German Polizei come to the US and start rifling through the papers of the federal and state governments and private businesses whenever they want?

That's not how it works.

It requires both consent and cooperation.

Moondancing said:

I read respectable never Trumper facebook and twitter accounts and they are all silent about FISA Court fraud.

Click to expand...

Hi Moondancing.

Of course they're silent. That FISA warrant was issued on 100% fraudulent grounds.

Dirius said:

The entire thing was a sham to begin with david. The whole issue was based on air, with no evidence presented at all, just inconclusive and contradicting testimony from the few witnesses in the house.

Click to expand...

Hi Dirus,

At the end of the day, they just can't accept that Hillary lost.

From Day One, they've refused to accept the results of the election and have tried to invalidate it anyway they can.

Moondancing said:

Bringing in new witness in the Senate is not how a trial is run there.

Click to expand...

That's not how a trial is run in any state or federal court in the US.

I'm sorry, but TV drama surprise last minute witnesses or evidence is nothing but Hollywood fantasy.

That is not how it works in reality.

You know the names of every witness and every piece of evidence to be introduced at trial a very long time before the trial even begins.

New witnesses cannot be introduced except under very extraordinary circumstances, and even then only with the consent and approval of the judge prior to the witness testifying (and the judge will likely interview the witness in his chambers to see if their testimony is even remotely relevant) and even then the opposing party is given every opportunity to interview the witness at length before the witness ever testifies.

AJ, it doesn't matter, as far as history goes. He WAS impeached, one of only 3 so far. He DID lose the Popular vote, one of only 5. And, no other President has both on his record.

Some think the Impeachment was justified, some don't. Interesting that Mitt Romney's opinion is that it was justified.

AJ Astrology said:

Hi david starling,

I'm guessing he sleeps quite well at night.



Trump was impeached only in a pathetic attempt to stop an investigation into Democratic shenanigans in Ukraine, which are many, starting with the illegal overthrown of the Ukrainian government by the Obama Administration.



Hi leomoon.

It's called "jurisdiction."

The FBI cannot just boogie into another country and start running around conducting an investigation whenever they want.

What, you thought the German Polizei come to the US and start rifling through the papers of the federal and state governments and private businesses whenever they want?

That's not how it works.

It requires both consent and cooperation.



Hi Moondancing.

Of course they're silent. That FISA warrant was issued on 100% fraudulent grounds.



Hi Dirus,

At the end of the day, they just can't accept that Hillary lost.

From Day One, they've refused to accept the results of the election and have tried to invalidate it anyway they can.



That's not how a trial is run in any state or federal court in the US.

I'm sorry, but TV drama surprise last minute witnesses or evidence is nothing but Hollywood fantasy.

That is not how it works in reality.

You know the names of every witness and every piece of evidence to be introduced at trial a very long time before the trial even begins.

New witnesses cannot be introduced except under very extraordinary circumstances, and even then only with the consent and approval of the judge prior to the witness testifying (and the judge will likely interview the witness in his chambers to see if their testimony is even remotely relevant) and even then the opposing party is given every opportunity to interview the witness at length before the witness ever testifies.

Click to expand...

Then, why was it necessary to VOTE on whether new witnesses could testfy? They obviously could have been, according to the rules of impeachment, and the Republicans were obviously afraid of what they might say.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was monitoring, and if calling new witnesses went against the procedure as outlined in the Constitution, he would have said so.

Stop whining about the fact that he was Impeached!

david starling said:

Then, why was it necessary to VOTE on whether new witnesses could testfy? They obviously could have been, according to the rules of impeachment, and the Republicans were obviously afraid of what they might say.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was monitoring, and if calling new witnesses went against the procedure as outlined in the Constitution, he would have said so.

Stop whining about the fact that he was Impeached!

Click to expand...

david starling said:

AJ, it doesn't matter, as far as history goes. He WAS impeached, one of only 3 so far. He DID lose the Popular vote, one of only 5. And, no other President has both on his record.

Some think the Impeachment was justified, some don't. Interesting that Mitt Romney's opinion is that it was justified.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Then, why was it necessary to VOTE on whether new witnesses could testfy? They obviously could have been, according to the rules of impeachment, and the Republicans were obviously afraid of what they might say.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was monitoring, and if calling new witnesses went against the procedure as outlined in the Constitution, he would have said so.

Stop whining about the fact that he was Impeached!

Click to expand...

Nancy Pelosi wanted assurances from Mitch McConnell that they would have witnesses before she'd bring the articles to the Senate. Mitch said no 'pre-trial' assurances would be given. After the trial the senators would then vote if there was need of further testimony. House did not make their case to the Senate so they voted against it. I don't believe new witnesses could be introduced, only witnesses from the House trial to clear up any confusing matters. But there has been so much spin hard to know.

He was acquitted and there can be much debate whether he is really impeached. A case can be made he is not. If Republicans win the House, I've heard they can expunge the impeachment articles so they no longer exist. That would be delicious!!

Moondancing said:

Nancy Pelosi wanted assurances from Mitch McConnell that they would have witnesses before she'd bring the articles to the Senate. Mitch said no 'pre-trial' assurances would be given. After the trial the senators would then vote if there was need of further testimony. House did not make their case to the Senate so they voted against it. I don't believe new witnesses could be introduced, only witnesses from the House trial to clear up any confusing matters. But there has been so much spin hard to know.

He was acquitted and there can be much debate whether he is really impeached. A case can be made he is not. If Republicans win the House, I've heard they can expunge the impeachment articles so they no longer exist. That would be delicious!!

Click to expand...

No, he's permanently impeached. No debate, just grasping at straws.

Actually, Mitch DID give a pre-trial assurance: Acquittal REGARDLESS of evidence! Which goes against the "fair and IMPARTIAL" rule required by the Constitution , and reiterated by Chief Justice John Roberts.

david starling said:

No, he's permanently impeached. No debate, just grasping at straws.

Actually, Mitch DID give a pre-trial assurance: Acquittal REGARDLESS of evidence! Which goes against the "fair and IMPARTIAL" rule required by the Constitution , and reiterated by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Click to expand...

Regardless of NO evidence and because of political pressure the Senate didn't shut down the trial from the get-go but instead allowed for a vote. The House trial protected Schiff's leaker and provided no due process to the President. In Pelosi's own words the impeachment trial was to be bi-partisan and the evidence needed to be overwhelming. Then she proceeded to stomp all over her standards.

I have no confidence the Democrats can run this country and uphold the checks and balances according to the Constitution.

It was funny seeing the Iowa caucus fall apart and everyone's first reaction is it's the Democrats cheating.

Moondancing said:

Regardless of NO evidence and because of political pressure the Senate didn't shut down the trial from the get-go but instead allowed for a vote. The House trial protected Schiff's leaker and provided no due process to the President. In Pelosi's own words the impeachment trial was to be bi-partisan and the evidence needed to be overwhelming. Then she proceeded to stomp all over her standards.

I have no confidence the Democrats can run this country and uphold the checks and balances according to the Constitution.

It was funny seeing the Iowa caucus fall apart and everyone's first reaction is it's the Democrats cheating.

Click to expand...

Romney agreed there was enough evidence. Remember, executive privilege allowed the Administration to redact documents and forbid potential witnesses from testifying. Imagine being a defendant and having THAT kind of advantage, along with a jury foreman and an intimidated jury pledging ahead of time to acquit you, no matter what. Along with a figurehead judge (which was Roberts' Constitutional role, not his fault).

I read it was some right-wing, fringe website wreaking havoc, not the Democrats. Makes sense.

What I find surprising is how much this Impeachment has upset people. The guy got off scot free. So what if he's now labeled an impeached President? The whining is off the scale!

david starling said:

Romney agreed there was enough evidence. Remember, executive privilege allowed the Administration to redact documents and forbid potential witnesses from testifying. Imagine being a defendant and having THAT kind of advantage, along with a jury foreman and an intimidated jury pledging ahead of time to acquit you, no matter what. Along with a figurehead judge (which was Roberts' Constitutional role, not his fault).

I read it was some right-wing, fringe website wreaking havoc, not the Democrats. Makes sense.

What I find surprising is how much this Impeachment has upset people. The guy got off scot free. So what if he's now labeled an impeached President? The whining is off the scale!

Click to expand...

david starling said:

No, he's permanently impeached. No debate, just grasping at straws.

Actually, Mitch DID give a pre-trial assurance: Acquittal REGARDLESS of evidence! Which goes against the "fair and IMPARTIAL" rule required by the Constitution , and reiterated by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Click to expand...