Tittums
6 years ago

Pretty sure everything you based your decision on there was incorrect....

So... uh... that's like... just your opinion man.....

victor809 wrote:



Do tell, what is incorrect? The questionable means by which the FISA warrants were obtained? The shoddy work product of a British spy interfering in our elections? The grounds Trump had to ask for Biden to be investigated? I've been told the whole Biden thing was debunked but "son of a b!tch" he admitted to doing it in his own words.
View All Posts by User
victor809
6 years ago
None of what you said is even peripherally related to the impeachment. So.... not sure why you are focusing on it as justification for not having an impeached president....

And half of what you stated is incorrect (the last half) and the other half is... a hodgepodge.

So you're using mostly inaccurate and completely irrelevant arguments to defend something that is completely unrelated to them.
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
6 years ago
Not they’re not irrelevant because there was an established pattern of abuse of power directly towards an election by the very folks who’ve brought this in the first place.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago
the more info that emerges, the worse it looks...
it goes back to Poison Rudy and Parnas plotting to get the Ambassador out of the way and makes a lot of the testimony from Taylor et al more credible than it already appeared.
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
6 years ago

the more info that emerges, the worse it looks...
it goes back to Poison Rudy and Parnas plotting to get the Ambassador out of the way and makes a lot of the testimony from Taylor et al more credible than it already appeared.

frankj1 wrote:



What is wrong with Trump firing an ambassador? Ambassadors work at the pleasure of their employer. Since they are Executive branch employees, the President who is the Senior executive branch administrator he is well within his right to fire without cause any appointed employee. Last I checked an ambassador is an appointed employee of the Executive branch.

This but another red herring attempt to make it seem that Trump did something wrong, when in fact he has the authority to do exactly what he did.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago

What is wrong with Trump firing an ambassador? Ambassadors work at the pleasure of their employer. Since they are Executive branch employees, the President who is the Senior executive branch administrator he is well within his right to fire without cause any appointed employee. Last I checked an ambassador is an appointed employee of the Executive branch.

This but another red herring attempt to make it seem that Trump did something wrong, when in fact he has the authority to do exactly what he did.

Abrignac wrote:


all he had to do was recall her, no reasons needed, totally agree.

So the firing itself isn't the real issue but the story emerging about why he was advised to do so is another dot that connects...that she would have been a "problem" in the way of the real acts being looked at as, to be kind, "questionable".

And to be very clear the red herrings are the fake stories tossed out about Biden and Ukraine having the server...which was conceived by PUTIN! How "red" do you need?
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
6 years ago
Yeah you can’t have it both ways. It’s his choice period, again separation of powers

Let’s not forget a tool used for FOREIGN surveillance was used on an American citizen illegally to get to the trump campaign. And a litany of other bullschtein crap that puts Nixon to shame......
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
6 years ago

all he had to do was recall her, no reasons needed, totally agree.

So the firing itself isn't the real issue but the story emerging about why he was advised to do so is another dot that connects...that she would have been a "problem" in the way of the real acts being looked at as, to be kind, "questionable".

And to be very clear the red herrings are the fake stories tossed out about Biden and Ukraine having the server...which was conceived by PUTIN! How "red" do you need?

frankj1 wrote:



Not sure how the *server* fits, but Biden issues are certainly not fake. One may argue the relevance, but the facts themselves are plain as day.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago

Yeah you can’t have it both ways. It’s his choice period, again separation of powers

Let’s not forget a tool used for FOREIGN surveillance was used on an American citizen illegally to get to the trump campaign. And a litany of other bullschtein crap that puts Nixon to shame......

ZRX1200 wrote:


don't need it both ways.
The firing is not illegal, nor does it need a reason.
But the actions behind the scenes that are related to it are tightly wrapped to the alleged crimes...but again, the firing was not illegal.

Not sure the specifics you are clinging to, but do we need an investigation into the investigation of the hows and whys of the Mueller Investigation et al yet again? Is Hunter Biden involved???
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago

Not sure how the *server* fits, but Biden issues are certainly not fake. One may argue the relevance, but the facts themselves are plain as day.

Abrignac wrote:


98.2% of the world knows why Biden (who was representing their wishes and our very publicly known Official Foreign Policy)
warned about holding back aid.
Never was about leaving his kid alone.

In fact the threat to withhold, according to the world, was because the corrupt Ukrainian Investigator failed to really investigate corruption which included, Hunter's company! They had been "cleared" by him along with other favors he did for other corrupt oligarchs.

Biden's withholding would have potentially put his son's employer at risk, the opposite of what people repeating Trump's debunked nonsense fail to understand.

Where's Rudy?
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
6 years ago
I think I wasn’t clear in making my point. The waters a clearly muddied with no clear path. Are we as a nation comfortable of that being the standard we use to remove a sitting President going forward? This is a very slippery slope. As such I not only oppose the current impeachment of Trump, but felt the same in regards to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Both have been highly partisan affairs. As a country we need consensus, both impeachments have contributed to the rapid and rabid polarization we must continue to live with. Absent that we all lose.

Think about this for a moment: we now have a veteran member of Congress on record saying that if others do not agree then the are complicit. To me that is treasonous in that he advocates trampling on the 2nd amendment rights of duly elected US Senators.

As far as the charge of obstruction of Congress, there is merely dispute, nothing else and certainly no high crime or misdemeanor. According to separation of powers clause the Judicial branch is the final arbitrator when there is a dispute between Legislative branches. As such, the Dems jumped the gun on that issue. When Trump refused to comply they should have asked the court to make a decision.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago
definitely should have gone the subpoena/court route. I agree.

All I heard as to why they did not was that it would have then been tied up until well after the coming election.
I say, so what? Either you know you have a case or you don't. As it looks now, the assertions likely would have been backed up by previously unreleased yet leaking documents/phone calls/etc. Maybe even positively corroborated by Bolton and another one or two direct witnesses.

When I saw that strategy (to not press for testimony and documents) on day one, and knowing it would take a nuke to get the Senate to convict, it affirmed my original opinion for censure, not impeachment, and let the Dems get a candidate who could win in November. They did none of those things.

All that aside, it's hard to ignore everything coming out. But they banked on the fact that the Senate not only could but would call for new evidence and testimony as history was strongly on their side for this happening.

Sometimes you lose when you gamble.
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
6 years ago
Great minds think alike.

I think this is going be like a boomerang for the DEMS. Their only hope in the next election are the undecided. Those are the ones the Dems should be courting. Unfortunately for them, the House managers come across as highly partisan and mostly bombastic. That is why I posted the Rasmussen poll. Trumps approval rating has seen an uptick during this charade.
View All Posts by User
fishinguitarman
6 years ago
No removal

Bloomberg will take votes away from the Dummycraps because he is slamming Trump at every turn

Bottom line: no socialists in the WH and


TRUMP 2020!!!!!
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
6 years ago

Both have been highly partisan affairs.

Abrignac wrote:



Not really. With Clinton 31 Democrats in the House voted for impeachment.  On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.

Trump's final vote had no Republican support in the House and 2 Dems voting no.

This sham is purely partisan. Clinton had real statutes and laws broken. He paid fines and was disbarred from practicing Law. Trump had a separation of power between branches mind fart by the Democrats and a flimsy case that if tried in a legal court would've been tossed out on its merits.
View All Posts by User
Brewha
6 years ago

No removal

Bloomberg will take votes away from the Dummycraps because he is slamming Trump at every turn

Bottom line: no socialists in the WH and


TRUMP 2020!!!!!

fishinguitarman wrote:


So a communist instead of a socialist?
View All Posts by User
izonfire
6 years ago

So a communist instead of a socialist?

Brewha wrote:


A fascist
View All Posts by User
frankj1
6 years ago
President Putin
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
6 years ago
Ya know... even knowing he won’t get removed, and believing breaking the law to withhold funds in order to ask another country to announce an investigation in to your political opponent is sort of bad, having him removed from the ballot is a bridge too far and nothing I could ever support.

If anyone approves of using government funds to encourage investigations in to their political rivals recognizing if we bless this the other party will do this as well then they should get a chance to vote for that.

If anyone believes this is not what really happened on the surface I question if they should vote but it is America so it’s their right.

Either way removing him from the ballot is stupid. I think trying to remove him is stupid too. Let the next election decide and if we are stupid enough to re-elect we deserve him and deserve this sort of activity from both sides. We are saying it’s ok.
View All Posts by User
Dg west deptford
6 years ago
It's not only ok it's a duty to route out all the corrupt swampers. I don't want to live in an America that investigates Trump and ignores the Bidens, the corrupt CIA, FBI and other swamp critters.
Has everyone seen the Looney tunes clip with roadrunner (tweetus Maximus and Sciff T coyote) hilarious!
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com