Easy for a senator to insist on impeachment when the house handles it. Lol
No doubt , she’s asking the house to start the process not demanding it and yes even if the house voted to impeach it would die in the senate but it’s still the right thing to do !
That'd be a foolish thing to do from a political standpoint. I see your point-of-view (Trump should be impeached, so impeach him) but since there wouldn't be a conviction in the Senate, I think it would lead to a "enough is enough" stance from a lot of on-the-fence voters that could swing things Trump's way.
First we were told that Mueller's report was going to expose that Trump is a Russian puppet who colluded with Russia during the election. That didn't happen. So they understandably turned to obstruction of justice. It appears though that Trump was too dumb to actually obstruct justice like he wanted to (and credit to Sessions and the others that refused to do his bidding). But while his failed attempts to obstruct justice are definitely impeachable, since there wouldn't be a senate conviction given the current group of senators, that'd be the third failed attempt in "taking Trump down." Like Mayor Pete said recently on Seth Meyers, the only way to get rid of him is to decisively beat him at the polls in 2020.
Easy for a senator to insist on impeachment when the house handles it. Lol
No doubt , she’s asking the house to start the process not demanding it and yes even if the house voted to impeach it would die in the senate but it’s still the right thing to do !
That'd be a foolish thing to do from a political standpoint. I see your point-of-view (Trump should be impeached, so impeach him) but since there wouldn't be a conviction in the Senate, I think it would lead to a "enough is enough" stance from a lot of on-the-fence voters that could swing things Trump's way.
First we were told that Mueller's report was going to expose that Trump is a Russian puppet who colluded with Russia during the election. That didn't happen. So they understandably turned to obstruction of justice. It appears though that Trump was too dumb to actually obstruct justice like he wanted to (and credit to Sessions and the others that refused to do his bidding). But while his failed attempts to obstruct justice are definitely impeachable, since there wouldn't be a senate conviction given the current group of senators, that'd be the third failed attempt in "taking Trump down." Like Mayor Pete said recently on Seth Meyers, the only way to get rid of him is to decisively beat him at the polls in 2020.
Not impeaching Team Trump Treason for his “high crimes and misdemeanors would be a huge abdication of the House’s responsibility as one half of a co-equal branch of government and would set a dangerous precedent. If there are no impeachment hearings and a trial, even with a preordained outcome, you can kiss claims of “but the sacred constitution” goodbye. The fact that Team Trump Treason was unsuccessful in his attempts to have his directives carried out is not an excuse. Careful what you wish for.
You people do realize impeachment is a whole process, right?
Like, it's not just a vote and it's over.
The Senate can call witness after witness after witness after witness after witness to testify.
And there is an endless supply of witnesses here.
Fun fact: you can't plead the fifth on crimes you've already been convicted of, plead guilty to, or pardoned from.
Drag this entire administration through the wringer, one after the other. I wanna see hucka testify, Hicks, Conway, trump, pence, flynn. The whole lot.
Easy for a senator to insist on impeachment when the house handles it. Lol
No doubt , she’s asking the house to start the process not demanding it and yes even if the house voted to impeach it would die in the senate but it’s still the right thing to do !
That'd be a foolish thing to do from a political standpoint. I see your point-of-view (Trump should be impeached, so impeach him) but since there wouldn't be a conviction in the Senate, I think it would lead to a "enough is enough" stance from a lot of on-the-fence voters that could swing things Trump's way.
First we were told that Mueller's report was going to expose that Trump is a Russian puppet who colluded with Russia during the election. That didn't happen. So they understandably turned to obstruction of justice. It appears though that Trump was too dumb to actually obstruct justice like he wanted to (and credit to Sessions and the others that refused to do his bidding). But while his failed attempts to obstruct justice are definitely impeachable, since there wouldn't be a senate conviction given the current group of senators, that'd be the third failed attempt in "taking Trump down." Like Mayor Pete said recently on Seth Meyers, the only way to get rid of him is to decisively beat him at the polls in 2020.
It’s about principles he knew the Russians were helping him he welcomed their plan , you think that’s worth letting go of this ? The trade off is from this point forward future presidents would be enticed into committing crimes knowing they could just point back to this moment in history..
Easy for a senator to insist on impeachment when the house handles it. Lol
No doubt , she’s asking the house to start the process not demanding it and yes even if the house voted to impeach it would die in the senate but it’s still the right thing to do !
That'd be a foolish thing to do from a political standpoint. I see your point-of-view (Trump should be impeached, so impeach him) but since there wouldn't be a conviction in the Senate, I think it would lead to a "enough is enough" stance from a lot of on-the-fence voters that could swing things Trump's way.
First we were told that Mueller's report was going to expose that Trump is a Russian puppet who colluded with Russia during the election. That didn't happen. So they understandably turned to obstruction of justice. It appears though that Trump was too dumb to actually obstruct justice like he wanted to (and credit to Sessions and the others that refused to do his bidding). But while his failed attempts to obstruct justice are definitely impeachable, since there wouldn't be a senate conviction given the current group of senators, that'd be the third failed attempt in "taking Trump down." Like Mayor Pete said recently on Seth Meyers, the only way to get rid of him is to decisively beat him at the polls in 2020.
Not impeaching Team Trump Treason for his “high crimes and misdemeanors would be a huge abdication of the House’s responsibility as one half of a co-equal branch of government and would set a dangerous precedent. If there are no impeachment hearings and a trial, even with a preordained outcome, you can kiss claims of “but the sacred constitution” goodbye. The fact that Team Trump Treason was unsuccessful in his attempts to have his directives carried out is not an excuse. Careful what you wish for.
I don't disagree with where you're coming from with this. In perfect world, after the house votes to impeach, the republican senators would vote to convict based simply on the fact that that's the correct vote. But you know they're not going to vote like that. So why not wait and have impeachment as a sort of ace-in-the-hole in the event that he's reelected in 2020, then vote to impeach if he's reelected. I think there's a belief among many that to begin impeachment proceedings before 2020 would hurt Trump's chances at reelection (with the cloud of impeachment over his head during the campaign). I just don't agree that that would work. He'd spin it as "See they can't beat me in an election so now they're trying this." And his fans will go for it. And maybe, non-fans that are sick of hearing about Mueller, collusion, and obstruction might go for it too.
Easy for a senator to insist on impeachment when the house handles it. Lol
No doubt , she’s asking the house to start the process not demanding it and yes even if the house voted to impeach it would die in the senate but it’s still the right thing to do !
That'd be a foolish thing to do from a political standpoint. I see your point-of-view (Trump should be impeached, so impeach him) but since there wouldn't be a conviction in the Senate, I think it would lead to a "enough is enough" stance from a lot of on-the-fence voters that could swing things Trump's way.
First we were told that Mueller's report was going to expose that Trump is a Russian puppet who colluded with Russia during the election. That didn't happen. So they understandably turned to obstruction of justice. It appears though that Trump was too dumb to actually obstruct justice like he wanted to (and credit to Sessions and the others that refused to do his bidding). But while his failed attempts to obstruct justice are definitely impeachable, since there wouldn't be a senate conviction given the current group of senators, that'd be the third failed attempt in "taking Trump down." Like Mayor Pete said recently on Seth Meyers, the only way to get rid of him is to decisively beat him at the polls in 2020.
Not impeaching Team Trump Treason for his “high crimes and misdemeanors would be a huge abdication of the House’s responsibility as one half of a co-equal branch of government and would set a dangerous precedent. If there are no impeachment hearings and a trial, even with a preordained outcome, you can kiss claims of “but the sacred constitution” goodbye. The fact that Team Trump Treason was unsuccessful in his attempts to have his directives carried out is not an excuse. Careful what you wish for.
I don't disagree with where you're coming from with this. In perfect world, after the house votes to impeach, the republican senators would vote to convict based simply on the fact that that's the correct vote. But you know they're not going to vote like that. So why not wait and have impeachment as a sort of ace-in-the-hole in the event that he's reelected in 2020, then vote to impeach if he's reelected. I think there's a belief among many that to begin impeachment proceedings before 2020 would hurt Trump's chances at reelection (with the cloud of impeachment over his head during the campaign). I just don't agree that that would work. He'd spin it as "See they can't beat me in an election so now they're trying this." And his fans will go for it. And maybe, non-fans that are sick of hearing about Mueller, collusion, and obstruction might go for it too.
There’s also a lot of folks who voted for him last time and after reading this report they will not vote for him come 2020 ..
Then GOP retained the Senate, retained the house, and proceeded to win the next presidential election.
People are over estimating the political risk of impeachment. I think it has more of an upside.
I don't think Clinton's impeachment/acquittal had much (if any) influence on the 2000 election. Bush won by like only 500 votes in Florida. And I think he won mostly due to "there's been a guy from THIS party for 8 years, now let's try a guy from THAT party." Gore being a boring stiff didn't help matters either.
So concerning Trump, what do you feel is the upside of an impeachment that won't get a conviction?
Your idealism is adorable. It shows that you have a heart and that you want what's best for this country. That's nice. You know who don't have hearts? Senators from the Notorious GOP. They are not going to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. I think as it stands now, about 20 GOP senators would have to vote to convict Trump. No way that happens.
Then GOP retained the Senate, retained the house, and proceeded to win the next presidential election.
People are over estimating the political risk of impeachment. I think it has more of an upside.
I don't think Clinton's impeachment/acquittal had much (if any) influence on the 2000 election. Bush won by like only 500 votes in Florida. And I think he won mostly due to "there's been a guy from THIS party for 8 years, now let's try a guy from THAT party." Gore being a boring stiff didn't help matters either.
So concerning Trump, what do you feel is the upside of an impeachment that won't get a conviction?
Your idealism is adorable. It shows that you have a heart and that you want what's best for this country. That's nice. You know who don't have hearts? Senators from the Notorious GOP. They are not going to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. I think as it stands now, about 20 GOP senators would have to vote to convict Trump. No way that happens.
Personally, I don’t think there’s enough time to impeach by 11/2020. Lots of subpoenas and testimony will be challenged in court. It becomes a campaign issue as in “why won’t you support the release of or so and so to testify, etc, why are you hiding behind executive privilege if Team Trump Treason is “Fully exonerated,” etc. 10-12 of those senators are vulnerable in my view to being linked to Team Trump Treason and his malfeasance. I’d run ad after ad after ad in Tom “I’m a Warrior, Hear Me Roar Cotton’s state just asking if this is what he served in Iraq for. Shots of him grilling Hillary over Benghazi and asking what’s the difference. Coddling dictators with shots of poisoned Russians, khashogi, Little Rocket Man and the North Korean being shot at as he flees. Then shots of Team Trump Treason denigrating our intelligence services, military and law enforcement. One last question, when will Team Trump Treason accept responsibility for his predicament? Had he and his administration just told the truth, sat for an interview and admitted to everything up front, we wouldn’t be where we are. But to relenquish our responsibility because it’s politically distasteful? Fuck that. And you know if the shoe was on the other foot, the repubs would be going full bore, no hesitation, no mercy. It’s time these bullies were stood up to.
Then GOP retained the Senate, retained the house, and proceeded to win the next presidential election.
People are over estimating the political risk of impeachment. I think it has more of an upside.
I don't think Clinton's impeachment/acquittal had much (if any) influence on the 2000 election. Bush won by like only 500 votes in Florida. And I think he won mostly due to "there's been a guy from THIS party for 8 years, now let's try a guy from THAT party." Gore being a boring stiff didn't help matters either.
So concerning Trump, what do you feel is the upside of an impeachment that won't get a conviction?
Your idealism is adorable. It shows that you have a heart and that you want what's best for this country. That's nice. You know who don't have hearts? Senators from the Notorious GOP. They are not going to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. I think as it stands now, about 20 GOP senators would have to vote to convict Trump. No way that happens.
Impeachment isn't about removing trump from office. That's going to happen anyway. It's just a bonus if it happens before the election.
It's about the political theatre. Let the GOP continue to make asses of themselves by defending trump. He won't do the same for them. He's an albatross around their necks.
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
You are bending backwards with your defence on Trump not obstructing for whatever reason taken out of thin air.
Even when @jeffbr posts why Mueller would not STATE what you say they would have stated - you respond with "Me, myself and I think it's time to move on" which is a irrelevant non-response in the context.
To make you understand how off you argument in this thread, here is a short Barr-esque summarization:
YOU: There was no obsbustruction! And I read the NY Times.
ME: NY Times, that you say you read, quotes the Mueller report stating that if he did not obstruct they would have said so.
YOU: But if there was obstruction, they would state so!
JEFFBR: No, they would not and Mueller state why they would not in the report.
YOU: I disagree with the clearly stated text to defend this opinion of there being no obstruction even when all my arguments have been rebutted by you. Because of reasons.
REREAD YOUR NEWS SOURCES OR JEFFBR POSTS. AND STOP ARGUING LIKE ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS WHO'S ABOUT TO FLUNK YOUR CLASS.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I think if impeachment went forward the left and right would grow further apart and nothing would get done in this country. I know you don’t believe in him but I d like to believe that moving forward he would do what is best for the country rather than be consumed with impeachment.
You can't believe that. Haha. My god. This is some crazy shit.
And, I'm just calling it as I see it. That is disillusionised to a level of unhealthy.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Saying there was insufficient evidence to charge the president when no one can charge a sitting president due to DoJ guidelines, would be factually wrong... wouldn't it? What has it do with Trump?
And the political process of impeachment is up to congress to decide on, and not Mueller through the report.
And isn't it a weird position to have "I don't want our country to be consumed by impeachment, so when a report point out the President acted in a impeachable way we should set the precedent for the future to not do jack-shit because of not being consumed by impeachment because of reasons"
And if you say the case is closed and no obstruction -- then I guess you didn't read the report but instead maybe got the jist of it from Sean Hannity after bumping into him during an elevator ride?
I read the New York Times, cnn and local news.
I watch CNN and haven't heard anyone on there come to the conclusion that there was no obstruction?
You didn't answer my other question:
Saying there was insufficient evidence to charge the president when no one can charge a sitting president due to DoJ guidelines, would be factually wrong... wouldn't it? What has it do with anyones view of Trump?
Good talk here. Compare someone like the sound and sober Schiff to a partisan conspiracy theory-spouting Hillary-name-dropping idiot like that dude who never wears a suit, Jim Jordan or whatever his name is. American politics... haha
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
You are bending backwards with your defence on Trump not obstructing for whatever reason taken out of thin air.
Even when @jeffbr posts why Mueller would not STATE what you say they would have stated - you respond with "Me, myself and I think it's time to move on" which is a irrelevant non-response in the context.
To make you understand how off you argument in this thread, here is a short Barr-esque summarization:
YOU: There was no obsbustruction! And I read the NY Times.
ME: NY Times, that you say you read, quotes the Mueller report stating that if he did not obstruct they would have said so.
YOU: But if there was obstruction, they would state so!
JEFFBR: No, they would not and Mueller state why they would not in the report.
YOU: I disagree with the clearly stated text to defend this opinion of there being no obstruction even when all my arguments have been rebutted by you. Because of reasons.
REREAD YOUR NEWS SOURCES OR JEFFBR POSTS. AND STOP ARGUING LIKE ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS WHO'S ABOUT TO FLUNK YOUR CLASS.
BRAVO.
The president obstructed justice at least ten times. The only reason he was not charged is because the DOJ believes you cannot charge a sitting president. So if he was anyone else other than the president, he would’ve been charged and would be facing jail time.
Then GOP retained the Senate, retained the house, and proceeded to win the next presidential election.
People are over estimating the political risk of impeachment. I think it has more of an upside.
I don't think Clinton's impeachment/acquittal had much (if any) influence on the 2000 election. Bush won by like only 500 votes in Florida. And I think he won mostly due to "there's been a guy from THIS party for 8 years, now let's try a guy from THAT party." Gore being a boring stiff didn't help matters either.
So concerning Trump, what do you feel is the upside of an impeachment that won't get a conviction?
Your idealism is adorable. It shows that you have a heart and that you want what's best for this country. That's nice. You know who don't have hearts? Senators from the Notorious GOP. They are not going to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. I think as it stands now, about 20 GOP senators would have to vote to convict Trump. No way that happens.
Personally, I don’t think there’s enough time to impeach by 11/2020. Lots of subpoenas and testimony will be challenged in court. It becomes a campaign issue as in “why won’t you support the release of or so and so to testify, etc, why are you hiding behind executive privilege if Team Trump Treason is “Fully exonerated,” etc. 10-12 of those senators are vulnerable in my view to being linked to Team Trump Treason and his malfeasance. I’d run ad after ad after ad in Tom “I’m a Warrior, Hear Me Roar Cotton’s state just asking if this is what he served in Iraq for. Shots of him grilling Hillary over Benghazi and asking what’s the difference. Coddling dictators with shots of poisoned Russians, khashogi, Little Rocket Man and the North Korean being shot at as he flees. Then shots of Team Trump Treason denigrating our intelligence services, military and law enforcement. One last question, when will Team Trump Treason accept responsibility for his predicament? Had he and his administration just told the truth, sat for an interview and admitted to everything up front, we wouldn’t be where we are. But to relenquish our responsibility because it’s politically distasteful? Fuck that. And you know if the shoe was on the other foot, the repubs would be going full bore, no hesitation, no mercy. It’s time these bullies were stood up to.
100% agreed impeachment proceedings even if they fail in the senate is the correct thing to do ..
I also agree. Show some backbone and impeach him now
He is making a mockery of America, it's institutions and it's it's values.
He is not fit to hold office. I don't see how anyone can argue he is.
It’s unreal that folks even in this forum would rather just wish this away , instead of making sure this never happens again to make sure our democracy and our elections are safe . And you can bet it all on the Russians helping him again in 2020 .
I think if impeachment went forward the left and right would grow further apart and nothing would get done in this country. I know you don’t believe in him but I d like to believe that moving forward he would do what is best for the country rather than be consumed with impeachment.
You can't believe that. Haha. My god. This is some crazy shit.
And, I'm just calling it as I see it. That is disillusionised to a level of unhealthy.
I do believe it, that's why I wrote it. Since you are still asking about one sentence in Mitt Romney's post maybe send him an e-mail and ask him yourself. I thought his post was pretty spot on. Moving on.
I also agree. Show some backbone and impeach him now.
He is making a mockery of America, it's institutions and it's values.
He is not fit to hold office. I don't see how anyone can argue he is.
Well, the least they can do is investigate as much as possible, hold hearings, and see what comes of it. That is their job and this is what Mueller intended. If the timing isn't right for impeachment, they could censor him. You still need to get the results of the other investigations the Russia report spawned too.
If people think it's too much. Tough shit. This is what happens when the most corrupt and least transparent president in our country's history is in the White House.
I think if impeachment went forward the left and right would grow further apart and nothing would get done in this country. I know you don’t believe in him but I d like to believe that moving forward he would do what is best for the country rather than be consumed with impeachment.
You can't believe that. Haha. My god. This is some crazy shit.
And, I'm just calling it as I see it. That is disillusionised to a level of unhealthy.
I do believe it, that's why I wrote it. Since you are still asking about one sentence in Mitt Romney's post maybe send him an e-mail and ask him yourself. I thought his post was pretty spot on. Moving on.
The question was for you, not for Mitt.
You are the one falling for factually wrong spin. And then being confronted (and unable to answer for Whatever reason).
That question was for you and not Mitt. Because you didnt seem to understand but just going with some gullable ”hear hear!” on BS. You still saying his post "was pretty spot on" shows you don't understand shit or choose to learn. Just calling it as I see it.
But keep on believing in Trump. Transparent.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
@mcgruff10 listen to Toobin here. Maybe you will get the facts right finally, and it will help you answer my question about the MItt-BS you still claim is correct:
I just imported The Last Action Hero soundtrack into my baseball game today ... I haven't listened to it in well over a decade and came across it while doing some spring cleaning. The Great Magnet must be at work today because you are probably the first person to bring up The Last Action Hero in over a decade as well.
Comments
First we were told that Mueller's report was going to expose that Trump is a Russian puppet who colluded with Russia during the election. That didn't happen. So they understandably turned to obstruction of justice. It appears though that Trump was too dumb to actually obstruct justice like he wanted to (and credit to Sessions and the others that refused to do his bidding). But while his failed attempts to obstruct justice are definitely impeachable, since there wouldn't be a senate conviction given the current group of senators, that'd be the third failed attempt in "taking Trump down." Like Mayor Pete said recently on Seth Meyers, the only way to get rid of him is to decisively beat him at the polls in 2020.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Like, it's not just a vote and it's over.
The Senate can call witness after witness after witness after witness after witness to testify.
And there is an endless supply of witnesses here.
Fun fact: you can't plead the fifth on crimes you've already been convicted of, plead guilty to, or pardoned from.
Drag this entire administration through the wringer, one after the other. I wanna see hucka testify, Hicks, Conway, trump, pence, flynn. The whole lot.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Then GOP retained the Senate, retained the house, and proceeded to win the next presidential election.
People are over estimating the political risk of impeachment. I think it has more of an upside.
Country over party. ITMFA
So concerning Trump, what do you feel is the upside of an impeachment that won't get a conviction?
Your idealism is adorable. It shows that you have a heart and that you want what's best for this country. That's nice. You know who don't have hearts? Senators from the Notorious GOP. They are not going to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. I think as it stands now, about 20 GOP senators would have to vote to convict Trump. No way that happens.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It's about the political theatre. Let the GOP continue to make asses of themselves by defending trump. He won't do the same for them. He's an albatross around their necks.
You are bending backwards with your defence on Trump not obstructing for whatever reason taken out of thin air.
Even when @jeffbr posts why Mueller would not STATE what you say they would have stated - you respond with "Me, myself and I think it's time to move on" which is a irrelevant non-response in the context.
To make you understand how off you argument in this thread, here is a short Barr-esque summarization:
YOU: There was no obsbustruction! And I read the NY Times.
ME: NY Times, that you say you read, quotes the Mueller report stating that if he did not obstruct they would have said so.
YOU: But if there was obstruction, they would state so!
JEFFBR: No, they would not and Mueller state why they would not in the report.
YOU: I disagree with the clearly stated text to defend this opinion of there being no obstruction even when all my arguments have been rebutted by you. Because of reasons.
REREAD YOUR NEWS SOURCES OR JEFFBR POSTS. AND STOP ARGUING LIKE ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS WHO'S ABOUT TO FLUNK YOUR CLASS.
And, I'm just calling it as I see it. That is disillusionised to a level of unhealthy.
CUOMO MAKES MY KNEES WEAK
Good talk here. Compare someone like the sound and sober Schiff to a partisan conspiracy theory-spouting Hillary-name-dropping idiot like that dude who never wears a suit, Jim Jordan or whatever his name is. American politics... haha
The president obstructed justice at least ten times. The only reason he was not charged is because the DOJ believes you cannot charge a sitting president. So if he was anyone else other than the president, he would’ve been charged and would be facing jail time.
He is making a mockery of America, it's institutions and it's values.
He is not fit to hold office. I don't see how anyone can argue he is.
If people think it's too much. Tough shit. This is what happens when the most corrupt and least transparent president in our country's history is in the White House.
You are the one falling for factually wrong spin. And then being confronted (and unable to answer for Whatever reason).
That question was for you and not Mitt. Because you didnt seem to understand but just going with some gullable ”hear hear!” on BS. You still saying his post "was pretty spot on" shows you don't understand shit or choose to learn. Just calling it as I see it.
But keep on believing in Trump. Transparent.
The blonde woman is the rest of us
Strange.