***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

gimmesometruth27

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.

How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?

Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.

The case is in front of the SCOTUS now, as far as the extent of executive privilege.  the Democrats did not want to wait for that to be resolved, which I think was the right call.  If the House wins the case, they can always file the subpoenas at that point.  I think it was the right call because the SCOTUS could kick it to the next term.  

If you're sending it to a hostile Senate anyway, what's the advantage to rushing? He gets acquitted and you hope for a second go around?

i agree.

with everything he has done, i do not think it out of the realm of possibility that new impeachable offenses are committed. they can impeach him more than once with different articles.

i am going to bet him sending rudy to ukraine is going to end up leading to some other impeachable crime that trump committed. i think rudy went there not to uncover dirt on biden, but to cover trump's tracks for other crimes he committed that have not yet come to light.

CM189191

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...

No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.  

That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?

Come now...

No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that.  Reaching.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?

You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?

He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated?  Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election...  It can be assumed or implied, that is it.  It isn't cut and dry. So no.

Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage.  No on that too.

Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty.  You like Trump, he's innocent.

I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.

I guess I'm in the center then...

He has multiple rivals in the election - what BS. Biden has been the front runner with the strongest name recognition since this campaign started. To claim that this is innocent betrays all prior knowledge of Trump and how he conducts himself. 

Your conclusion that your opinion on Trump is purely related to whether you ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ him is fucking dumb, and fucking baseless, and fucking insulting. Some of us follow logic, not the bullshit rhetoric thrust at us on a regular basis. 

I can’t believe that intelligent humans who can string a sentence together can’t see the egregious behaviours at play. 

You want logic then?  Look at who voted for impeachment, all democrats.  You see who voted no?  All republicans and 3 dems.

Last I checked the democrats didn't like him.

I'd love to ask what side of the aisle everyone is that is for the impeachment.  My guess would all be along party lines.

so that's evidence to you of what? all that shows me is republicans have hitched their wagons to this asshole where they previously all said he was an asshole because it's politically expedient for them to do so. for democrats? this could blow up in their faces in 2020, but they did it anyway. who has more to lose?

he told zelinsky he needed a PERSONAL/POLITICAL favour, not a favor for the nation, for himself and his campaign, using taxpayer congress-approved funds as the carrot. and guili-fucking-ani is STILL DOING IT. 

how is that not impeachable??

"so that's evidence to you of what?"  Evidence that the people whom didn't like him went full on and hitched their wagon to impeachment.  Hell there was a member that posted a thread "should Trump be impeached?"  THE DAY HE WAS ELECTED!

It can be implied that it was for his campaign, that's it.

That is the direction the dems are leading the impeachment findings to be.

It falls short in my eyes.

Lol. Cry moar.

If the president has something that is exculpatory - Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence - then he should make that known, and that's part of the inquiry," Pelosi said. 

"So far we haven't seen that but we welcome it"

Let's see the tax returns!  Let's have Trump testify, all of them. 

Dozens of Trump associates have gone to jail already and dozens more will. 

At the very least, Trump has been laundering money for the mob.
His dad? Mob.
Manafort? Mob.
Manafort's dad? Mob.
Parnas? Mob.
Sater? Mob.
Trump is being impeached and he's going to jail.

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.

How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?

Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.

The case is in front of the SCOTUS now, as far as the extent of executive privilege.  the Democrats did not want to wait for that to be resolved, which I think was the right call.  If the House wins the case, they can always file the subpoenas at that point.  I think it was the right call because the SCOTUS could kick it to the next term.  

If you're sending it to a hostile Senate anyway, what's the advantage to rushing? He gets acquitted and you hope for a second go around?

Pelosi had to be cognizant of having senators who are running for president being pinned down in the trial during Feb/Mar and beyond.  That's peak primary season.  The trial would run six days a week, leaving no time for Harris, Booker, Sanders, Klobuchar and Warren to campaign.  I think the speedy process was influenced by that factor.  

With this announcement think that's gonna happen anyway.....

mace1229

So are you saying who cares if he is actually guilty of what he is being accused of, the country is better off without him so impeach anyway?

brianlux

myoung321 said:

How many times have the words.. "If our Founding Framers where in this hall, what would they say?" been said since this started?

I personally think they would say something like..... "How did you get torches in the ceiling to make this light? or
"What's that Black Magic thing in your hand (phone)? or "Why are women and slaves in the chairs that belong to Congress MEN? " --- 

When the time machine is built and we bring the Founding Fathers into the present, we will break them in slowly to the technological and cultural advances of today.  They were smart people.  They will catch on.  And then we will introduce them to Trump and I think they will say (using their new formed modern vernacular), "How in the FUCK did this guy get elected in the first place?  What the hell went wrong here???"

pjl44

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

tbergs said:

pjl44 said:

And, yeah, the House does what they have to do regardless of what the Senate might do. They could have done a much better job in getting some testimony out in the open, but at least you're putting people on the record. I can't help but think if they had done a better job in the hearings, it puts Senate Republicans in a tighter spot to hold the line.

How were they supposed to do a better job of getting people to testify when the president openly told them not to?

Use the courts. Who knows if it would have been successful, but they didn't even try. These are people with first hand knowledge. They chose to leave that for the Senate trial and I think you and I would both be skeptical about how that's gonna go.

The case is in front of the SCOTUS now, as far as the extent of executive privilege.  the Democrats did not want to wait for that to be resolved, which I think was the right call.  If the House wins the case, they can always file the subpoenas at that point.  I think it was the right call because the SCOTUS could kick it to the next term.  

If you're sending it to a hostile Senate anyway, what's the advantage to rushing? He gets acquitted and you hope for a second go around?

i agree.

with everything he has done, i do not think it out of the realm of possibility that new impeachable offenses are committed. they can impeach him more than once with different articles.

i am going to bet him sending rudy to ukraine is going to end up leading to some other impeachable crime that trump committed. i think rudy went there not to uncover dirt on biden, but to cover trump's tracks for other crimes he committed that have not yet come to light.

You're probably right, but then it just starts to feel like a game if they're not taking the current process seriously enough. You risk losing the gravity of the situation with the public. The whole thing feels too loose to me, given what's at stake.

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...

No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.  

That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?

Come now...

No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that.  Reaching.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?

You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?

He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated?  Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election...  It can be assumed or implied, that is it.  It isn't cut and dry. So no.

Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage.  No on that too.

Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty.  You like Trump, he's innocent.

I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.

I guess I'm in the center then...

Trump made a calculation that Biden would be the candidate.  So are you saying that it was happenstance that Biden is on his radar here?  Are you saying that he is truly trying to root out corruption?  If you don't see what I'm saying, how do you explain his behavior?  Is it just a series of unfortunate events?

I've said this before, Trump is vindictive and anyone that utters a bad word against him he goes after.

That is how I see it.

Okay, so using tax payer dollars to induce a foreign government to investigate someone you don't like isn't impeachable?  That's a not a breach of the people's trust?  That's pretty fucking corrupt.  

That is where the Quid Pro Quo would come in to play.  That won't be proven either.

Optics aren't good and I get that but too much hearsay and too much stretching by the dems for this.

Look if you think politics is all by the book then maybe we have a bigger problem.  It's not.  It's dirty and some are better than others at it.

So you think through all of the witness testimonies, the texts, the Gordon Sundlands, it hasn't been proven that Trump demanded that the Uke gov't do this for the aid? WTF do you need as proof?  A signed affidavit by Trump?

The optics are bad yes, but he did it for the upcoming elections?  No.

I read everything that they said in the hearings.  I mentioned before that I was wondering about one conversation Sondland had but nothing ever came of it.  I thought that was the slam dunk and it wasn't.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...

No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.  

That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?

Come now...

No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that.  Reaching.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?

You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?

He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated?  Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election...  It can be assumed or implied, that is it.  It isn't cut and dry. So no.

Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage.  No on that too.

Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty.  You like Trump, he's innocent.

I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.

I guess I'm in the center then...

He has multiple rivals in the election - what BS. Biden has been the front runner with the strongest name recognition since this campaign started. To claim that this is innocent betrays all prior knowledge of Trump and how he conducts himself. 

Your conclusion that your opinion on Trump is purely related to whether you ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ him is fucking dumb, and fucking baseless, and fucking insulting. Some of us follow logic, not the bullshit rhetoric thrust at us on a regular basis. 

I can’t believe that intelligent humans who can string a sentence together can’t see the egregious behaviours at play. 

You want logic then?  Look at who voted for impeachment, all democrats.  You see who voted no?  All republicans and 3 dems.

Last I checked the democrats didn't like him.

I'd love to ask what side of the aisle everyone is that is for the impeachment.  My guess would all be along party lines.

registered independent since 1988 , my first eligible presidential election........

impeach. this man is so unfit for this position. literally beneath the office he holds. there are a litany of impeachable offenses in my view since he was sworn in. none of which have to do with HOW he was elected.

A major one would be Emoluments. Not only the foreign money pouring into his still owned by him properties but tax money from all these I wont have time to golf weekend golf trips.......

I dont know the man personally, but his behavior as our national representative are reprehensible.

IMPEACH AND CONVICT.

tempo_n_groove

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

josevolution said:

Jason P said:

mrussel1 said:

Jason P said:

Well at least if Biden wins we will have a POTUS with an impeccable record and guarded public speaking that will in no way open himself up to the GOP using this as a precident to launch a similar show in a few years.  Whew.  

So you think what Trump did with Ukraine is either acceptable or standard presidential behavior?

What I think is that this will get shot down in the Senate. 

So because of that looming scenario you believe this should of never been done? In other words let him do what ever he wants since he is the president..

I would say that what he did goes on everyday in politics.  The Dems are so hellbent at ousting him that they found their shot and took it and will fail miserably.

I tell you I am about fed up w politics and the lack of bipartisanship and please don't tell me it's all the rep fault.  That is what IS wrong w politics.

It literally does not. Did you suffer a stroke? That's why hardly any republicans are agreeing with him that it was a "perfect call." 

You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit? And then hold up much needed aid until they do? And then block a lawfully investigation into such an act?

Ladies and gentlemen....welcome to the twilight zone. 


What the fuck.

You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit?

I have a problem with this because that is not what happened.  Sorry, not buyng this for a second.  You can imply that but that is not what happened.

You have lost your mind. 

Trump wanted him investigated.  Where does it say that he wanted foreign countries to interfere w the election?  If that happened then I missed that.

1. Trump didn't care if he was investigated, he cared that it was announced on cable news that he was going to be investigated.  
2. We have laws on the books that provide a method for the DOJ to investigate the actions of US nationals in overseas dealings.  This is the proper and lawful method to handle such situation.  
3. The administration was withholding congressionally appropriated aid until the announcement took place.  This aid was critical for the Ukrainian gov't to defend itself in an actual hot war.

I feel like you really didn't pay attention to this whole deal.  

The republicans have been successful at getting a segment of the population to believe a separate set of alternative facts. My head was hurting this morning responding to this stuff. 

I didn't use the words "sham, witch hunt" or any other buzz words that the republicans like to use so they have had zero influence on my thinking.  It's what I read and made up for my own mind.

The Juggler

2019

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

josevolution said:

Jason P said:

mrussel1 said:

Jason P said:

Well at least if Biden wins we will have a POTUS with an impeccable record and guarded public speaking that will in no way open himself up to the GOP using this as a precident to launch a similar show in a few years.  Whew.  

So you think what Trump did with Ukraine is either acceptable or standard presidential behavior?

What I think is that this will get shot down in the Senate. 

So because of that looming scenario you believe this should of never been done? In other words let him do what ever he wants since he is the president..

I would say that what he did goes on everyday in politics.  The Dems are so hellbent at ousting him that they found their shot and took it and will fail miserably.

I tell you I am about fed up w politics and the lack of bipartisanship and please don't tell me it's all the rep fault.  That is what IS wrong w politics.

It literally does not. Did you suffer a stroke? That's why hardly any republicans are agreeing with him that it was a "perfect call." 

You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit? And then hold up much needed aid until they do? And then block a lawfully investigation into such an act?

Ladies and gentlemen....welcome to the twilight zone. 


What the fuck.

You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit?

I have a problem with this because that is not what happened.  Sorry, not buyng this for a second.  You can imply that but that is not what happened.

You have lost your mind. 

Trump wanted him investigated.  Where does it say that he wanted foreign countries to interfere w the election?  If that happened then I missed that.

1. Trump didn't care if he was investigated, he cared that it was announced on cable news that he was going to be investigated.  
2. We have laws on the books that provide a method for the DOJ to investigate the actions of US nationals in overseas dealings.  This is the proper and lawful method to handle such situation.  
3. The administration was withholding congressionally appropriated aid until the announcement took place.  This aid was critical for the Ukrainian gov't to defend itself in an actual hot war.

I feel like you really didn't pay attention to this whole deal.  

The republicans have been successful at getting a segment of the population to believe a separate set of alternative facts. My head was hurting this morning responding to this stuff. 

I didn't use the words "sham, witch hunt" or any other buzz words that the republicans like to use so they have had zero influence on my thinking.  It's what I read and made up for my own mind.

You don't have to use their exact wording...

Look man, you think it's okay for the president to have a foreign leader investigate his main political rival. That's cool. Completely un-american, but hey totally cool!

The Juggler

2019

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...

No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.  

That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?

Come now...

No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that.  Reaching.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?

You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?

He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated?  Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election...  It can be assumed or implied, that is it.  It isn't cut and dry. So no.

Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage.  No on that too.

Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty.  You like Trump, he's innocent.

I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.

I guess I'm in the center then...

He has multiple rivals in the election - what BS. Biden has been the front runner with the strongest name recognition since this campaign started. To claim that this is innocent betrays all prior knowledge of Trump and how he conducts himself. 

Your conclusion that your opinion on Trump is purely related to whether you ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ him is fucking dumb, and fucking baseless, and fucking insulting. Some of us follow logic, not the bullshit rhetoric thrust at us on a regular basis. 

I can’t believe that intelligent humans who can string a sentence together can’t see the egregious behaviours at play. 

You want logic then?  Look at who voted for impeachment, all democrats.  You see who voted no?  All republicans and 3 dems.

Last I checked the democrats didn't like him.

I'd love to ask what side of the aisle everyone is that is for the impeachment.  My guess would all be along party lines.

registered independent since 1988 , my first eligible presidential election........

impeach. this man is so unfit for this position. literally beneath the office he holds. there are a litany of impeachable offenses in my view since he was sworn in. none of which have to do with HOW he was elected.

A major one would be Emoluments. Not only the foreign money pouring into his still owned by him properties but tax money from all these I wont have time to golf weekend golf trips.......

I dont know the man personally, but his behavior as our national representative are reprehensible.

IMPEACH AND CONVICT.

I was a registered republican up until about a decade ago. Been independent ever since. This republican party is a shell of it's former self. 

tempo_n_groove

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

josevolution said:

Jason P said:

mrussel1 said:

Jason P said:

Well at least if Biden wins we will have a POTUS with an impeccable record and guarded public speaking that will in no way open himself up to the GOP using this as a precident to launch a similar show in a few years.  Whew.  

So you think what Trump did with Ukraine is either acceptable or standard presidential behavior?

What I think is that this will get shot down in the Senate. 

So because of that looming scenario you believe this should of never been done? In other words let him do what ever he wants since he is the president..

I would say that what he did goes on everyday in politics.  The Dems are so hellbent at ousting him that they found their shot and took it and will fail miserably.

I tell you I am about fed up w politics and the lack of bipartisanship and please don't tell me it's all the rep fault.  That is what IS wrong w politics.

It literally does not. Did you suffer a stroke? That's why hardly any republicans are agreeing with him that it was a "perfect call." 

You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit? And then hold up much needed aid until they do? And then block a lawfully investigation into such an act?

Ladies and gentlemen....welcome to the twilight zone. 


What the fuck.

You think it's common for presidents to call upon foreign leaders and essentially ask them to interfere in our election for their own personal benefit?

I have a problem with this because that is not what happened.  Sorry, not buyng this for a second.  You can imply that but that is not what happened.

You have lost your mind. 

Trump wanted him investigated.  Where does it say that he wanted foreign countries to interfere w the election?  If that happened then I missed that.

1. Trump didn't care if he was investigated, he cared that it was announced on cable news that he was going to be investigated.  
2. We have laws on the books that provide a method for the DOJ to investigate the actions of US nationals in overseas dealings.  This is the proper and lawful method to handle such situation.  
3. The administration was withholding congressionally appropriated aid until the announcement took place.  This aid was critical for the Ukrainian gov't to defend itself in an actual hot war.

I feel like you really didn't pay attention to this whole deal.  

The republicans have been successful at getting a segment of the population to believe a separate set of alternative facts. My head was hurting this morning responding to this stuff. 

I didn't use the words "sham, witch hunt" or any other buzz words that the republicans like to use so they have had zero influence on my thinking.  It's what I read and made up for my own mind.

You don't have to use their exact wording...

Look man, you think it's okay for the president to have a foreign leader investigate his main political rival. That's cool. Completely un-american, but hey totally cool!

No, incorrect.  I don't think it was right, I just don't think it's impeachable.

Reagan should have been impeached for the Iran Contra affair.  That I could understand.  This?  No.

benjs

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Again I'll ask because apparently I am "ignorant"...

No where do yo mention that Trump wanted other countries to interfere with an election.  

That is what I am missing and you did too, but I'm ignorant?

Come now...

No I don't support Trump but the reach here is just that.  Reaching.  

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the evidence of where Trump asked for the election interference?

You don't understand how asking a foreign gov't to launch a sham investigation into his most likely 2020 rival, and demanding it be done on television, while tying it to aid isn't attempting to interfere and corrupt the election? You don't see how he is using the power of the presidency to give himself an unfair advantage and leveraging OUR tax dollars to do it?

He would have multiple rivals in the upcoming election, is he going to have them all investigated?  Having it tied to aid is not interfering with the upcoming election...  It can be assumed or implied, that is it.  It isn't cut and dry. So no.

Not seeing how he used his presidency to "leverage" an advantage.  No on that too.

Just not seeing it the way you all do which is interesting, if you dislike Trump, he's guilty.  You like Trump, he's innocent.

I don't care for Trump but I think he is innocent.

I guess I'm in the center then...

He has multiple rivals in the election - what BS. Biden has been the front runner with the strongest name recognition since this campaign started. To claim that this is innocent betrays all prior knowledge of Trump and how he conducts himself. 

Your conclusion that your opinion on Trump is purely related to whether you ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ him is fucking dumb, and fucking baseless, and fucking insulting. Some of us follow logic, not the bullshit rhetoric thrust at us on a regular basis. 

I can’t believe that intelligent humans who can string a sentence together can’t see the egregious behaviours at play. 

You want logic then?  Look at who voted for impeachment, all democrats.  You see who voted no?  All republicans and 3 dems.

Last I checked the democrats didn't like him.

I'd love to ask what side of the aisle everyone is that is for the impeachment.  My guess would all be along party lines.

You’re once again making an assumption that this is extreme partisanship instead of logic. Your claim is also ridiculous when the Republicans voted in party lines exclusively as well - why does your bias assume that every single Republican is right and every single Democrat is corrupt, and what is it that leads you in this one case (fuck the BS about wanting it from the start - Pelosi owns this and was against for months and months) to assume this to be the case when the facts speak so incredibly loudly? Could it not, dare I say, be the opposite? You’ve not given a single valid argument against impeachment, nor have I seen one posted here. May I have one? Otherwise, all due respect, those who are arguing on the merit of the facts instead of the merit of the process, are deserving of the faith when the facts need not even be interpreted to be obviously troubling.

lindamarie73

HesCalledDyer said:

To anyone who claims to not like Trump but is supporting Trump in this endeavor, would we as a nation not be better without that cocksucker in office?  Yes. Yes, we would.  So fuck him, fuck your technicalities, fuck your inability to see he's a piece of fucking shit.  Party lines or not, get rid of the mother fucker.  I hope he dies a slow fucking death and we all get to watch on tv while he suffers and pleads in agony.  I wouldn't waste my piss to put his burning ass out. Fuck him. He's as corrupt as they fucking come and has divided this country in ways not seen since the god damn 50s and 60s.  So there's youre party line.  Republicants in congress are nothing but a bunch of spineless fucking weaklings suckling at his gross teets. Fuck them all for voting no. They should all be impeached too for harboring a god damn terrorist.

Perhaps sharing the XMas card I just got from President Trump to calm you down a bit.... Btw, it’s Pretty bad mojo wishing a slow death to anyone, Especially The President of the United States.....

HesCalledDyer said:

To anyone who claims to not like Trump but is supporting Trump in this endeavor, would we as a nation not be better without that cocksucker in office?  Yes. Yes, we would.  So fuck him, fuck your technicalities, fuck your inability to see he's a piece of fucking shit.  Party lines or not, get rid of the mother fucker.  I hope he dies a slow fucking death and we all get to watch on tv while he suffers and pleads in agony.  I wouldn't waste my piss to put his burning ass out. Fuck him. He's as corrupt as they fucking come and has divided this country in ways not seen since the god damn 50s and 60s.  So there's youre party line.  Republicants in congress are nothing but a bunch of spineless fucking weaklings suckling at his gross teets. Fuck them all for voting no. They should all be impeached too for harboring a god damn

josevolution

2018

lindamarie73 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

To anyone who claims to not like Trump but is supporting Trump in this endeavor, would we as a nation not be better without that cocksucker in office?  Yes. Yes, we would.  So fuck him, fuck your technicalities, fuck your inability to see he's a piece of fucking shit.  Party lines or not, get rid of the mother fucker.  I hope he dies a slow fucking death and we all get to watch on tv while he suffers and pleads in agony.  I wouldn't waste my piss to put his burning ass out. Fuck him. He's as corrupt as they fucking come and has divided this country in ways not seen since the god damn 50s and 60s.  So there's youre party line.  Republicants in congress are nothing but a bunch of spineless fucking weaklings suckling at his gross teets. Fuck them all for voting no. They should all be impeached too for harboring a god damn terrorist.

Perhaps sharing the XMas card I just got from President Trump to calm you down a bit.... Btw, it’s Pretty bad mojo wishing a slow death to anyone, Especially The President of the United States.....

HesCalledDyer said:

To anyone who claims to not like Trump but is supporting Trump in this endeavor, would we as a nation not be better without that cocksucker in office?  Yes. Yes, we would.  So fuck him, fuck your technicalities, fuck your inability to see he's a piece of fucking shit.  Party lines or not, get rid of the mother fucker.  I hope he dies a slow fucking death and we all get to watch on tv while he suffers and pleads in agony.  I wouldn't waste my piss to put his burning ass out. Fuck him. He's as corrupt as they fucking come and has divided this country in ways not seen since the god damn 50s and 60s.  So there's youre party line.  Republicants in congress are nothing but a bunch of spineless fucking weaklings suckling at his gross teets. Fuck them all for voting no. They should all be impeached too for harboring a god damn

lol yeah just like last night totally stomping Dingell in his grave yeah he’s a real jolly good Santa , I feel for you ..

mickeyrat

Its a shrewd move on holding off sending the articles to the Senate sans rules in place. It allows her to choose the right managers once it becomes known. Also kinda puts McConnell on the spot. It almost seems he thought HE could sit on them or at least have them in his control to pull some dick move.

Spiritual_Chaos

The Juggler

2019

mickeyrat said:

Its a shrewd move on holding off sending the articles to the Senate sans rules in place. It allows her to choose the right managers once it becomes known. Also kinda puts McConnell on the spot. It almost seems he thought HE could sit on them or at least have them in his control to pull some dick move.

I've heard they are considering Justin Amash to be one of the managers. Really hoping that comes to bear. 

josevolution

2018

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Yep once in Moscow Mitch’s hands he would have more control over matters .

pjl44

The Juggler said:

mickeyrat said:

Its a shrewd move on holding off sending the articles to the Senate sans rules in place. It allows her to choose the right managers once it becomes known. Also kinda puts McConnell on the spot. It almost seems he thought HE could sit on them or at least have them in his control to pull some dick move.

I've heard they are considering Justin Amash to be one of the managers. Really hoping that comes to bear. 

I can't endorse this enough