Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 I'm not holding my breath. Me either. The obstruction of justice charge seems enough already, but its hard to believe this clown hasn't done other impeachable offenses as well. No need to hold your breath
Koko78 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 I'm still waiting for someone to provide documented evidence of SOMETHING----ANYTHING impeachable by Trump. Not hearsay. Not rumors. Not invented news. Actual, written, investigated and completely factual evidence. The libs should be held to the same standard of proof that they demanded for Hillary: Proof beyond all doubt, supported by a signed affidavit from God (notarized by Jesus Christ).
Rockpile233 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Any liberal with half a brain should stop well short of any impeachment conversations. Trump is your best friend for stymieing the GOP's agenda. Keep the sideshow going Don, you're a yuggggge star.
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 The libs should be held to the same standard of proof that they demanded for Hillary: Proof beyond all doubt, supported by a signed affidavit from God (notarized by Jesus Christ). Hmmmm....I don't remember Obama firing Comey for investigating Hillary Any liberal with half a brain should stop well short of any impeachment conversations. Trump is your best friend for stymieing the GOP's agenda. Keep the sideshow going Don, you're a yuggggge star. No, this is way above party politics. If Mike Pence can get the GOP agenda through its better than having a guy who is in bed with the Russians
Koko78 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Hmmmm....I don't remember Obama firing Comey for investigating Hillary Why would he? Comey ignored the evidence and cleared her.
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 Why would he? Comey ignored the evidence and cleared her. You mean evidence she mishandled classified information?
Chef Jim Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 What do you mean "we", Kimosabe? Actually the media tore down "their girl" so they could cover the freak show. They'd never get these kind of ratings or readership with a normal administration. I'll take The Left STILL Has No Idea Why Hillary Lost for $1bill Alex. This 25th Amendment wet dream is just about as hilarious as the liberal fantasy that the Electoral College was going to turn on Trump. Agreed. With so much other ammo going with the 25th is asinine. But then again we're dealing with the Left.
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 I'll take The Left STILL Has No Idea Why Hillary Lost for $1bill Alex. Agreed. With so much other ammo going with the 25th is asinine. But then again we're dealing with the Left. I think the 25th option would be the easiest for the country. And since you guys don't understand at all where this is coming from, it would be all right wingers involved in doing this option
Governor Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 If Trump can't change this news cycle in the next 4-5 days he's finished. Republican donors are walking away. The market is tanking. He's going to resign.
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 Dow drops 250 points, S&P and Nasdaq fall 1% as Trump worries send shivers down Wall Street
Doc Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 The libs should be held to the same standard of proof that they demanded for Hillary: Proof beyond all doubt, supported by a signed affidavit from God (notarized by Jesus Christ). Yep. I'm sure all Don talked to Jimbo about was their grandkids.
PastaJoe Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 So, it was the media that lost the election for your girl? For some reason you are totally blind when it comes to her. Have you been like, you know, pleasuring yourself while looking at her picture or something? First, you're a sick person. Second, they didn't help her as some claim. The daily constant discussion about emails while giving Trump free publicity by televising his speeches and letting him call in to shows did not help Clinton. The Comey letter of course was a significant factor, as shown by the change in poll numbers after it was released. He completed the investigation into Clinton, he should have been allowed to do the same with Trump. Trump ended Comey's role in that prematurely, but private citizen Comey may be the one to take him down.
jr1 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 does anyone really think he's doing a better job than Pence would do?
PastaJoe Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 does anyone really think he's doing a better job than Pence would do? Pence would be just as bad on policy, maybe worse on some social issues, but it would be without the Trump drama of what's he going to screw up next. Of course Pence would have the issue of meeting alone with female leaders unless he got "mother's" approval.
Doc Brown Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) Republicans were thinking let's get tax cuts in to please their donors and then turn on him, but Comey may force their hand. It's still Comey's word against Trump's so who knows exactly what will happen. Trump's supporters are intense and loyal judging by his rallies so a GOP led congressional committee impeachment won't look good. does anyone really think he's doing a better job than Pence would do? I've been saying since day one that I am baffled on why liberals would prefer Pence to Trump? He'd set their agenda back 20 years with his view on social issues. He also would require Democratic politicians to come up with an actual platform rather than say how evil Trump is. The progressive wing has to take over the Democratic Party and offer real change or they'll continue to be the minority in every level of government. Edited May 17, 2017 by Doc Brown
B-Man Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES: Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice. Widespread howls erupted, including by editors of this paper, asserting that President Trump obstructed justice. But as distasteful as the president’s statements may be, they do not constitute an obstruction of justice. Indeed, if they did, virtually every communication between criminal defense lawyers and investigators would be a crime. . . . Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Trump intended an implied offer of continued employment in exchange for Mr. Comey’s dismissal of the Flynn investigation, it would be implausible for Mr. Comey to construe it as such. Mr. Comey was aware that he was an at-will employee who could be fired by the president at any time, for any reason. Indeed, when President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in June 2016 — during the height of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s private email server — it would have been similarly implausible for Mr. Comey to construe Mr. Obama’s pro-Clinton remarks as an implicit offer of continued employment, in exchange for dropping the Clinton investigation. Even though Mr. Comey dropped the investigation one month later, he presumably knew that although it would please both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it would not insulate him from being fired. But even if one adopted an unprecedentedly broad conception of bribery, Mr. Trump’s purported statement still would not violate Section 1510. The statute is designed to preserve the free flow of information, prohibiting only acts that obstruct investigators’ access to information. Bribery of a potential witness, for example, is behavior prohibited by Section 1510. But telling the F.B.I. director that someone is a “good guy” and expressing the hope that an investigation will cease does not obstruct the free flow of information. Another, broader federal obstruction statute is Section 1505 of Title 18, but even this statute does not fit. Specifically, Section 1505 declares that anyone who “corruptly” endeavors to obstruct the proper administration of law “under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States” is guilty of a felony. Even putting aside the difficulty of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that President Trump’s brief and generalized words evinced the necessary “corrupt” mind-set, Section 1510 applies only to a “pending proceeding.” Read the whole thing. Also note that the Obama Administration made sure that Lois Lerner — who ran a corrupt, political effort to target political opponents using the power of the federal government — didn’t face charges.
PastaJoe Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Trump, in Coast Guard graduation speech: "No politician in history has been treated worse or more unfairly". And it was actually in his telprompter speech, not ad-libbed!
Chef Jim Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Dow drops 250 points, S&P and Nasdaq fall 1% as Trump worries send shivers down Wall Street How's life Chicken Little?
Doc Brown Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES: Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice. Widespread howls erupted, including by editors of this paper, asserting that President Trump obstructed justice. But as distasteful as the president’s statements may be, they do not constitute an obstruction of justice. Indeed, if they did, virtually every communication between criminal defense lawyers and investigators would be a crime. . . . Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Trump intended an implied offer of continued employment in exchange for Mr. Comey’s dismissal of the Flynn investigation, it would be implausible for Mr. Comey to construe it as such. Mr. Comey was aware that he was an at-will employee who could be fired by the president at any time, for any reason. Indeed, when President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in June 2016 — during the height of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s private email server — it would have been similarly implausible for Mr. Comey to construe Mr. Obama’s pro-Clinton remarks as an implicit offer of continued employment, in exchange for dropping the Clinton investigation. Even though Mr. Comey dropped the investigation one month later, he presumably knew that although it would please both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it would not insulate him from being fired. But even if one adopted an unprecedentedly broad conception of bribery, Mr. Trump’s purported statement still would not violate Section 1510. The statute is designed to preserve the free flow of information, prohibiting only acts that obstruct investigators’ access to information. Bribery of a potential witness, for example, is behavior prohibited by Section 1510. But telling the F.B.I. director that someone is a “good guy” and expressing the hope that an investigation will cease does not obstruct the free flow of information. Another, broader federal obstruction statute is Section 1505 of Title 18, but even this statute does not fit. Specifically, Section 1505 declares that anyone who “corruptly” endeavors to obstruct the proper administration of law “under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States” is guilty of a felony. Even putting aside the difficulty of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that President Trump’s brief and generalized words evinced the necessary “corrupt” mind-set, Section 1510 applies only to a “pending proceeding.” Read the whole thing. Also note that the Obama Administration made sure that Lois Lerner — who ran a corrupt, political effort to target political opponents using the power of the federal government — didn’t face charges. Oh god, please let this be true. The longer this Trump investigation goes on the better.
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Pence would get more Republicsn legislation through and reset a level to international trade. Definitely bad for Dems but I don't give two spits about the Dems. Pence for Trump would be good for the country. But that's a ways off.
Recommended Posts