Pocohantes calls for impeachment hearings...

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

So Bob, you're for double jeopardy? Making Congress a new criminal branch of the government?

 

He's for whatever the "experts" and "authorities" on the left tell him to support. Thinking for himself is not Bob's thing.

[Bob in Mich]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So, as often happens with me, when I get worked up and frustrated, I have to step back, smoke a couple camels and have a glass of scotch. Or, I would if i was a camel killer  and drank scotch. 

 

Anyway, to the broad point, of course lawful and reasonable oversight is lawful, reasonable and necessary. We can agree on that and simply move on....

 

Except...the fact that you personally have decided this moment in time, with this president is the one that finally leads to a monarchy.  It's the classic "But I don't want to talk about what he did.." or "Hillary Clinton isn't the president" or for all the Comey fans out there..."spying ain't spying, we're just hanging out in the cargo van with the state of the art parabolic microphone pointed at the trump guy!". 

 

A more reasonable approach for seekers of truth would be to investigate why and how the intelligence community missed so badly when trying trump to criminality and Russia.  Gross incompetence at best, but it was far worse than that. 

 

Given where we are now, and knowing the approach the enemies at the gate will employ (complete destruction of trump and anyone in their way), I support the admin employing every sensible and legal tactic to carry the day.  

 

Now let's go get a g-d snack. 

 

Good post

 

Not that you need to be aware of my positions but I have consistently stated that if there were abuses of the FISA process we should investigate, improve the process going forward, and if appropriate, punish wrongdoers.  If that leads to Obama, Hillary, and Abe Lincoln, fine.

 

There really needs to be no decision about which to investigate.  Why make these separate investigations an either/or issue?  All of us, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, would hopefully be in favor of uncovering any wrongdoing, regardless of the party of the wrongdoer. 

 

I get the impression that a whole lot of Trump lawyer wannabe's here think that Donnie should not be investigated any further chiefly because they fear that they will have to ignore even more misdeeds and that would be more uncomfortable for them.  The boiling frog however cares not about another degree or two, eh?

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

All of us, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, would hopefully be in favor of uncovering any wrongdoing, regardless of the party of the wrongdoer. 

 

Not all of us are on the same side. Some, clearly, are more partisan than they are patriotic. 

 

And I'm looking right at you while I say that.

 

Prove me wrong and show me a single post you made in 2012 re: Holder -- otherwise, you're only proving your own lack of principles. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Good post

 

Not that you need to be aware of my positions but I have consistently stated that if there were abuses of the FISA process we should investigate, improve the process going forward, and if appropriate, punish wrongdoers.  If that leads to Obama, Hillary, and Abe Lincoln, fine.

 

There really needs to be no decision about which to investigate.  Why make these separate investigations an either/or issue?  All of us, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, would hopefully be in favor of uncovering any wrongdoing, regardless of the party of the wrongdoer. 

 

I get the impression that a whole lot of Trump lawyer wannabe's here think that Donnie should not be investigated any further chiefly because they fear that they will have to ignore even more misdeeds and that would be more uncomfortable for them.  The boiling frog however cares not about another degree or two, eh?

So, after 2+ years of investigations by Mueller and 18 prosecutors plus all of their staff and 35 million dollars Trump still needs to be investigated? He's been thoroughly investigated and the DOJ could find no reason to charge him with anything. Thisshit is nothing more than pure partisanship.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, after 2+ years of investigations by Mueller and 18 prosecutors plus all of their staff and 35 million dollars Trump still needs to be investigated? He's been thoroughly investigated and the DOJ could find no reason to charge him with anything. Thisshit is nothing more than pure partisanship.

 

Correct. 

 

He's following the words of proven liars and traitors to this country who are projecting their own sins onto Trump -- and Bob isn't willing to doubt his dear leaders. Not even after they've made a fool out of him and his position over the past two years. 

Truth doesn't matter to Bob. Justice doesn't matter to Bob. His only desire is to get rid of Trump by any means necessary because that's how he's been programmed.

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So according to Democrats, a majority of 63% of Americans want Congress to continue (because Republicans don't count).

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

So according to Democrats, a majority of 63% of Americans want Congress to continue (because Republicans don't count).

Almost one in four or 37% want Congress to move on. Gotcha.

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, after 2+ years of investigations by Mueller and 18 prosecutors plus all of their staff and 35 million dollars Trump still needs to be investigated? He's been thoroughly investigated and the DOJ could find no reason to charge him with anything. Thisshit is nothing more than pure partisanship.

 

Look, trust of the other party is in very short supply...both ways, right?  It is obvious to many that Atty Gen Barr has not been acting impartially.  To say that Barr not criminally charging the sitting President after the Mueller report proves that there is nothing there, is disingenuous and is pure partisanship on your part.

 

The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment.  I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican.  You may think I am now a Raging Democrat but I view myself as Independent and have voted for plenty of Dems and Repubs and will likely continue that pattern.  I wouldn't want anyone convicted of non-existent crimes but I also don't think we should ignore misdeeds just because of our party affiliation.  I think we citizens should be more like jurors and less like the lawyers I see around here.

 

There was an outcry of Mueller overreach during his investigation.  So to avoid widening that probe, he spun off several investigations.  Those should proceed as should any Congressional investigations deemed appropriate by the various committee leaders.  Again, you may be rightfully sick and tired of investigations but that in no way means that Trump should be above all future oversight.  You are essentially advocating for that.  

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Look, trust of the other party is in very short supply...both ways, right?  It is obvious to many that Atty Gen Barr has not been acting impartially.  To say that Barr not criminally charging the sitting President after the Mueller report proves that there is nothing there, is disingenuous and is pure partisanship on your part.

 

False on every count. Barr has acted legally and ethically. 

 

The Mueller report destroyed the Russian Collusion narrative you've been pushing for two plus years. It definitively proves there was NEVER anything to that story, it was fiction from the start. 

To deny this is the conclusion of Volume One, and instead to focus on Volume Two, is disingenuous and pure partisanship on your part. 

 

But, that's how you roll. ***** honesty. ***** reason. Orange man bad is where it's at for Bob! 

 

 

 

[LB3]

14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment.  I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican.

[row_33]

Raging ***** is more like it

 

[Bob in Mich]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

False on every count. Barr has acted legally and ethically. 

 

The Mueller report destroyed the Russian Collusion narrative you've been pushing for two plus years. It definitively proves there was NEVER anything to that story, it was fiction from the start. 

To deny this is the conclusion of Volume One, and instead to focus on Volume Two, is disingenuous and pure partisanship on your part. 

 

But, that's how you roll. ***** honesty. ***** reason. Orange man bad is where it's at for Bob! 

 

 

 

FU   FU    FU   

 

I cannot believe what a fukstick you have become.  Put down the toot, dude.  Hell, it is before noon out there.  That stuff is already eating your brain alive.

 

I consistently pushed to let the Mueller probe run its course in the face of near universal opposition here.  That was my position.  Let the damn investigation proceed.  I never declared Trump a traitor or you a Putin supporter, you ***** moron.  That doesn't fit your narrative though does it, #######?    Strain a bit and try using your coked up brain.  I know it hurts but you can't let reality completely run away from you.

 

When the Barr report came out, I stated that I was surprised Trump didn't screw with the probe and that I was surprised and incorrect in that there weren't further Mueller indictments.  Remember that, you idiot?  Now, we should all ignore the obstruction of justice and focus on the fact that Mueller said insufficient evidence to bring charges for conspiracy?  And Barr is fair and balanced too?  Gawd, what a ***** fool you have become.

 

Here is my new position.   You are a colossal POS and a Putin supporter.  Feel free to claim I said that going forward.  And once more for luck....FU  (Back to ignore, fukstick)

24 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

 

Ok, here ya go.....

 

>     I think I'm finally starting to put together some clues on this ...
>
>     Many Clinton supporters view all of the Republicans as the Religious
> Right Wing, therefor the enemy.  They feel that for many years the
> Religious Right has been trying to take away more and more personal
> freedoms in the name of morality.  They want the government to stay out of
> their personal lives.  That feeling is at the root of this Clinton
> support.  They see Ken Starr as one who has pried into the President's
> personal life.  They feel that the Republicans (aka Christian Coalition)
> now are trying to throw him out of office because of 'immoral behavior in
> his private life'.  Many have decided that regardless of the facts, they
> are not giving any more ground to this morality craze. 
>
>     Also, most people that liked Bill (before all of this) knew he had
> told lies in the past and they accepted him anyway.  Many of us that
> didn't like him because of his lying felt that his backers just couldn't
> see how dishonest the guy was.  In reality the backers saw the dishonesty
> and liked him for his other fine leadership qualities.  When he is finally
> caught red handed in these lies, his detractors say 'See, we told he was
> dishonest.  Look at the evidence we have on him.'  While his supporters
> say, 'What's the big deal?  He told a lie about sex.  The economy is
> great.  Get over it.'
>
>     This is the backstepping I've seen in protecting our buddy Bill.  It
> seems so many points have been conceded, yet there's always another
> position to fall back to ... 
>
>     1.     The story breaks...  He did not have an affair with this
> 'gold-digger'.  She is just trying to smear the President or just out to
> get a book deal for her self.  The Whitehouse says that she was stalking
> the President and that the FBI is investigating her.
>     2.     Talk of the stained dress surfaces.  Now the stance is 'I
> doubt he had any affair, but even if he did, so what if he committed
> adultery, it's strictly a personal matter between himself, his family, and
> his God.  The damn Republicans probably planted this woman in there to try
> to get Clinton'.
>     3.     He lied about sex, so what, everybody lies about sex.  Who
> hasn't lied about sex?  Obstruction of Justice!  Get real. 
>     4.     He didn't have any obligation to do the job of the Jones'
> attorneys.  He wasn't forthcoming and he was evasive.  He can be
> misleading without committing perjury.  There's nothing illegal just
> because he didn't offer up answers to questions he wasn't asked.  Besides
> he had to protect Hillary. 
>     5.     OK, maybe he lied, but it was a civil matter and the case
> was eventually thrown out.  Everybody lies in civil cases.  It's not a
> serious matter to commit perjury in a civil case.   Besides, that Ken
> Starr spent how many millions of dollars?  He was appointed to investigate
> Whitewater and then it became Travelgate and blah, blah, blah ... That
> Betty Curry thing?  He was just helping to refresh his memory, that's all.
>     6.     Well, he had to lie to the Grand Jury.  What was he going to
> do, admit to perjury in the Jones case - that would have been stupid.  He
> had to deny that he lied earlier or Ken Starr, that no good, rotten,
> bastard .... would be able to indict him for perjury when he leaves
> office.  He has to maintain that he never lied now, or Starr will get him.
>
>     7.     Look, perjury is just not that serious of a matter.  It's
> certainly not a 'high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery'.
> There's no way they could make any case for Obstruction of Justice.  The
> obstruction case is purely speculation.  He says- She says case - could
> never be proven.  Even if, for the purposes of argument, you suppose all
> allegations are true, these are not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'.
>     8.     The House prosecutors show that a few Federal Judges have
> been removed by the Senate for just such deeds (The Senate labeling the
> perjury a 'high crime or misdemeanor').  Ok, in some cases perjury could
> be grounds for removal, but not in this case.  This case is only about sex
> and lying about it and if that pervert Starr wasn't peeping into
> everybody's bedroom...  Would you want to be asked sexual questions under
> oath?
>     9.     The Senators are not just jurors, you know.  They are trying
> the case.  They need to consider more than just the facts, the rule of
> law, and the Constitution.  They also need to consider what's in the best
> interests of this country.  The House managers may have made a pretty good
> case, but it is not in our best interests to remove the president even if
> he committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
>     10.     And then the latest to my ears ... They had no business
> asking him personal, private questions in a grand jury setting where he
> couldn't plead the fifth (the protection from self incrimination).  That
> f***er Ken Starr.  It was a witch hunt.  Any evidence against Clinton has
> to be discounted because of the 'illegitimate' means that were used in
> acquiring it.  It doesn't really matter what they found out because of the
> way they went about it.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

FU   FU    FU   

 

I cannot believe what a fukstick you have become.  Put down the toot, dude.  Hell, it is before noon out there.  That stuff is already eating your brain alive.k)

 

Treason and sedition -- and the cheerleaders of it -- has that effect on me. 

 

Like hearing the truth has a poor effect on you, as you continually demonstrate. 

 

I've been right on this since day one, I've tried to pull you along with me and you've refused. When faced with information that ran opposite to your beliefs your reaction was to get mad at me, rather than get mad at the people who lied to you for two years (and still are). 

That's on you, Bob. Not me. Be better. 

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

I consistently pushed to let the Mueller probe run its course in the face of near universal opposition here.  That was my position.  Let the damn investigation proceed.  I never declared Trump a traitor or you a Putin supporter, you ***** moron.  That doesn't fit your narrative though does it, #######?    Strain a bit and try using your coked up brain.  I know it hurts but you can't let reality completely run away from you.

 

This isn't true and you know it. You went off the deep on me several times while I was trying to present counter arguments to your staunch belief that "Collusion/conspiracy is real!". 

 

But carry on.

 

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

When the Barr report came out, I stated that I was surprised Trump didn't screw with the probe and that I was surprised and incorrect in that there weren't further Mueller indictments.  Remember that, you idiot?  Now, we should all ignore the obstruction of justice and focus on the fact that Mueller said insufficient evidence to bring charges for conspiracy?  And Barr is fair and balanced too?  Gawd, what a ***** fool you have become.

 

You were "surprised" and completely ignored the findings which showed the narrative you'd been pimping for two years was fiction. 

 

You're still glossing over that fact. 

 

I'm trying to shake you out of your idiocy -- but you keep digging back in. 

 

That's on you, not me.

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Here is my new position.   You are a colossal POS and a Putin supporter.  Feel free to claim I said that going forward.  And once more for luck....FU  (Back to ignore, fukstick)

 

We know how you respond to information which runs counter to your preformed conclusions. You lash out at the messenger. 

 

Keep on blaming those who are trying to help you, it's helping you survive in this information war. It hasn't addled your brain at all. 

 

 

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Treason and sedition -- and the cheerleaders of it -- has that effect on me. 

 

Like hearing the truth has a poor effect on you, as you continually demonstrate. 

 

I've been right on this since day one, I've tried to pull you along with me and you've refused. When faced with information that ran opposite to your beliefs your reaction was to get mad at me, rather than get mad at the people who lied to you for two years (and still are). 

That's on you, Bob. Not me. Be better. 

 

 

This isn't true and you know it. You went off the deep on me several times while I was trying to present counter arguments to your staunch belief that "Collusion/conspiracy is real!". 

 

But carry on.

 

 

You were "surprised" and completely ignored the findings which showed the narrative you'd been pimping for two years was fiction. 

 

You're still glossing over that fact. 

 

I'm trying to shake you out of your idiocy -- but you keep digging back in. 

 

That's on you, not me.

 

 

We know how you respond to information which runs counter to your preformed conclusions. You lash out at the messenger. 

 

Keep on blaming those who are trying to help you, it's helping you survive in this information war. It hasn't addled your brain at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

Play "Taps", Mr. Music....

 

 

[Albwan]

    I say they impeach now, right &^%$ing now,  lets get it started.

Let the blowhards in Washington back up all their BS they

have been spewing. Mueller report insinuates that Trump

is guilty, then they better get him out of there or they are 

obstructionists.

  Oh wait, without the orangemanbad campaign, cnn and democrats

are empty shells, they got nothing else to offer even their 

own voters/viewers.

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, Albwan said:

    I say they impeach now, right &^%$ing now,  lets get it started.

Let the blowhards in Washington back up all their BS they

have been spewing. Mueller report insinuates that Trump

is guilty, then they better get him out of there or they are 

obstructionists.

  Oh wait, without the orangemanbad campaign, cnn and democrats

are empty shells, they got nothing else to offer even their 

own voters/viewers.

 

Strikingly insightful.  Thanks for sharing

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

This is a stupid post .  Full stop!  This is shocking since you are the smartest guy here, even if only self proclaimed.  Sheeesh....still unbelievable!

 

Bob, you're about to get your ass kicked.  You're too dumb to know it, but everyone else will enjoy it.

 

Sans Evidence????!!!   Seriously?

 

Yes, Bob.  Sans evidence.

 

There is no evidence of any crime having been committed by the President of the United States.  There never was.

 

In fact, an 18 month long open ended fishing expedition, consuming $30m on tax payer dollars, run by a team of vocally anti-Trump partisans, chartered for the purpose of finding some sort of criminality conducted by the President or members of his family, turned up exactly zero evidence of any sort of criminal wrong doing.  None. 

 

Incredibly important to note that this probe turning up zero evidence is evidence itself that there was never evidence enough in the first place to begin a probe; but rather instead is evidence of criminality perpetrated against the President in order to force him from office (a coup).

 

And the probe itself was, in fact, so broad that it turned up evidence of a lawyer committing tax fraud over the use of NYC taxi medallions, and led to the seizure of all of his files from his office, home, and a hotel.  This lawyer was the personal lawyer of President Trump, sometimes called his "fixer".  This raid turned up nothing.  No evidence of criminal wrong doing on the part of the President.

 

Further, the Federal government already has the President's tax returns in their entirety for as long as he's been paying taxes.

 

He filed them, as do you and I, with the IRS.  President Obama's IRS, in fact, which was routinely weaponized against conservatives.

 

And never, not even once, was there a criminal issue discovered with his taxes.

 

This is the root of your stupid I think.  A stretch perhaps but if capable, try to imagine President Hillary....if there were similar questions about her charity, taxes, businesses, bank loans, etc, etc, would you want Congress to investigate ?

 

Bob, there are no serious people asking legitimate questions about these things.  Only criminals complicit in the coup attempt and cover-up, and brain dead partisan morons following them over a cliff like drooling lemmings. 

 

They've already investigated and turned up nothing.

 

In general terms,

 

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.^[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

 

...

 

You are mind numbingly stupid.

 

You aren't even making your own argument anymore, and have instead presented evidence bolstering mine.

 

From your (plagiarized) quote:

 

"Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation."

 

Show me, within that quote which defines the purview of Congressional oversight, where Congress is empowered to conduct investigations into the life of a person when they were a private citizen, related in no way to the Executive branch.

 

You can't because they don't have that just authority.

 

Stop being a partisan piece of ***** and destroying this country.

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Stop being a partisan piece of ***** and destroying this country.

 

How ironic.  My view of you and your partisan toadies is exactly the same. 

 

Isn't this about where you state that you are looking forward to shooting me in the coming war? 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

How ironic.  My view of you and your partisan toadies is exactly the same. 

 

Isn't this about where you state that you are looking forward to shooting me in the coming war? 

 

So by looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion based on said facts they are partisan toadies because said facts don't jive with your fantasy?  Awesome!! 

[unbillievable]

They have to investigate until they find something.

I want proof that Trump is innocent or guilty.

This "not enough evidence" to prove anything is complete BS.

It's like the tv show LOST all over again.