Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment

[DC Tom]

7 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So you are ok with selling out our sovereignty because the Dems did it first (in you imagination) 

 

 

You are talking about China and Bill Clinton here, right?

[njbuff]

This should be the President's attitude towards this impeachment nonsense.

 

 

I came across this old clip and I almost died laughing watching this. 

 

If the President acted like this............ the impeachment crap would be over.

[Koko78]

6 hours ago, njbuff said:

This should be the President's attitude towards this impeachment nonsense.

 

 

I came across this old clip and I almost died laughing watching this. 

 

If the President acted like this............ the impeachment crap would be over.

 

So... he should hit Pelosi with a cane and use a steel chair to break Schiff's leg?

[Buffalo_Gal]

30 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

So... he should hit Pelosi with a cane and use a steel chair to break Schiff's leg?

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

 

[njbuff]

29 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

So... he should hit Pelosi with a cane and use a steel chair to break Schiff's leg?

 

That would be funny as hell. ?

 

But I only meant the way he speaks and his attitude.

[Rob's House]

37 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

So... he should hit Pelosi with a cane and use a steel chair to break Schiff's leg?

I'd buy that PPV.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

18 hours ago, Doc said:

 

If it's good enough for the Dems...

 

 

...whoa....but, but Biden said "it ain't so"......."Bo Knows"...."Joe Knows"......

[B-Man]

ROGER SIMON: Dems’ Impeachment Charade a Disaster for Them, Not the American People.

Meanwhile, if you watched Trump in Tupelo Friday night, you know the people are with him, just as they were in Dallas and Minneapolis a week or two back.  No one ever has had a grass roots response like that. And power, as we used to say back in the day, belongs to the people.

The deep state — the instigators of all this, from the fake Russia probe though Kavanaugh and now the risible Ukraine nonsense–made a big mistake in their approach. (And considering they’re in a large part CIA, that’s worrying.) It would have been smarter psychologically to have embraced Trump from the start, rather than try to subvert him.  He’s certainly favorably disposed to praise.  Then they could have coopted him.  But they bollicked up the entire thing and alienated a huge swath of the republic in the process.  After 2020, more of the deep staters will be gone. — and they know it (hence the panic).  Good for us.  Keep up the fight.  And, as you know, never give up. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[Chef Jim]

On 11/1/2019 at 2:08 PM, Doc said:

 

What was sold out? 

Brains when Tibs went to the brain store. 

[Albwan]

I like the new tact the left and the moron media is starting to take: Republicans can't argue 

process anymore, Trump should step up now and help them by confessing like

Bill Clinton did.

 

 

Hilarious, just comedy gold.

[row_33]

When does the House break for a long vacation?

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

When does the House break for a long vacation?

 

 

January 1, 2019.

[3rdnlng]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

When does the House break for a long vacation?

 

 

"District Work Week" means vacation.

 

Look up "House of Representative Calendar".

Edited November 3, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[SoCal Deek]

7 hours ago, row_33 said:

When does the House break for a long vacation?

 

They don't....they're all standing in a basement hallway trying to hear what's happening inside the inquisition....I mean impeachment hearings.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Doctored and missing pages notwithstanding...
 

 

[keepthefaith]

Question for any that would like to weigh in.

 

In your opinion have democrat pols simply adopted a win at all cost stance since 2016, or are they being more aggressive because it's Trump an outsider?  Let's say Romney was the republican nominee in 2016.  Would Obama have spied on his campaign as well?  If Romney had been elected would the same unhinged effort to destroy his presidency ensued or would we see more civil behavior by the left now? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

40 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Question for any that would like to weigh in.

 

In your opinion have democrat pols simply adopted a win at all cost stance since 2016, or are they being more aggressive because it's Trump an outsider?  Let's say Romney was the republican nominee in 2016.  Would Obama have spied on his campaign as well?  If Romney had been elected would the same unhinged effort to destroy his presidency ensued or would we see more civil behavior by the left now? 

They have promised their base impeachment since the day President Trump was inaugurated. Once they won the House, their base expected results! They gave them lip service and fund-raised off it, while the polls (haha) showed it was a loser for them with the independents.

Welp, now the next OIG report has been circulated in some areas (like to the people who get the opportunity to "make corrections") and it is (probably) worse than they imagined! So what do they do?? Well, make it appear they are going to impeach President Trump. The ultimate distraction that the press will carry their water for! A win-win. Until it is a lose-lose.

Will they actually impeach him? I give odds at 50-50 right now. As little as three months ago I'd have said nope, but the Democrats seem to be on the Thelma and Louise route and showing few signs of slowing down going over that cliff.

The problem with impeaching him is it goes to the (Republican) Senate, which can hold an open trial bringing the "charges" into the open.

Also, (supposedly) when Senators are involved in an Impeachment Trial, they cannot campaign for higher office. If this is true, that means Bernie, Lizzie, Kamala, etc cannot be on the campaign train screaming #OrangeManBad while nothing would be stopping Donny-Two-Scoops from holding rally after rally, speech after speech, and campaigning and fund-raising off the Impeachment-nonsense (Biden could too, but they are trying to limit Joey-B's public appearances as he slowly disintegrates before our eyes).

However this plays out in Congress, President Trump will not be convicted. Then the question of backlash comes into play. And who knows if the Ds hold the House after that (19 D seats need to flip R).

The Democrats are ***** any which way you look at it. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They just need to figure out what/who they are sacrificing impeaching or not impeaching, and make their play from there. 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

Question for any that would like to weigh in.

 

In your opinion have democrat pols simply adopted a win at all cost stance since 2016, or are they being more aggressive because it's Trump an outsider?  Let's say Romney was the republican nominee in 2016.  Would Obama have spied on his campaign as well?  If Romney had been elected would the same unhinged effort to destroy his presidency ensued or would we see more civil behavior by the left now? 

 

IMO the "win at all costs" mentality on display at present is entirely because Trump is an outsider, and thus a threat to not only the dems but the GOP establishment as well. Had an insider/establishment pick won (Jeb, Mittens, Rubio), it would have been a very different 2017 to present. There would be no talk of impeachment, just the usual one sided mud slinging against "dumb ol' Jeb/racist Mitt" by the entertainment complex. They'd try to HW Bush the winner, keep them to a one term administration, but because the administration would be establishment (and thus playing by the establishment's rules which are tilted against the right to begin with), the dems wouldn't need the impeachment gambit to keep him in check.They would know Jeb or Mitt would not be threatening to expose them, or threaten their bank accounts by targeting trafficking rings of all kinds and resisting expanding our state of perma-war, because exposing them would mean exposing themselves in the process.  

 

But, I don't think an establishment pick on the other side would have ever made it through the general had Trump not gotten the nomination. They would have taken a fall, either willingly or unwillingly, because of your next question: Would 44 have spied on their campaigns anyway?

 

Yes.

 

44 was spying on all the campaigns in 2016 already, not just Trump's. He was spying on establishment picks like Cruz and Rubio as an example, not to mention Bernie and others on their own side. 44's desire was to cement his legacy through HRC's administration, and he was willing to flagrantly flout the constitution while attempting to do so. While a GOPer from the establishment winning the election wouldn't jeopardize his legacy in the ways Trump's administration has, it would still be the second favored outcome for 44. Thus, I suspect, they would have used their spying to gin up an October Surprise that would have knocked whoever was in the lead out (that was the intent of leaking the FBI CI investigation into Trump to the Times in October, not to mention the Access Hollywood tape). Imagine the dirt they could have sprung about Mitt or Jeb from unlimited surveillance... it would have been something sexual, something disturbing, and it would have detonated the GOP right before the general.

 

That was the plan. They tried it with Trump but forgot he's the Honey Badger.   

 

An establishment candidate would not have had that level of Honey Badger in him, and would have folded under that pressure -- desperate to keep their standing in the legacy/establishment media so they could make a killing on speeches and appearances on cable news in the future. And HRC would have won...

 

... And we'd be in two new wars at least at this point, with a tanked stock market and depressed economy. 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Deranged Rhino