No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

192 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

^^^ That's ok. There's already more than enough evidence of what has transpired from multiple witnesses. All the people stonewalling now at the direction of the WH are just going to end up adding more obstruction charges to the articles of impeachment. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Looks like he's put on a twenty burger since last week.  Dude's jowls are flapping around, looking like one of them rescue dogs with a first aid barrel tied around his neck.  

 

'Bout time for his doctor who isn't a GP to issue a new press release on his latest physical, announcing that he's now 7 feet tall.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Image may contain: 1 person, text


recall the expression "a Libertarian is a Conservative under indictment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

🤡 


There is so much going on here, but seriously, guy is not very well up there at all.

 

Fox News can tank this fool tomorrow and elevate Mike Pence and the base of insane people won’t go anywhere. Why are they subjecting us to this nightmare. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dems should really start needling Trump that even Republicans don't call it a perfect call. He'd get super annoyed if Pelosi (or Nancy as I call her) kept on bringing up he point. Maybe he'll put pressure on one of these vulnerable Senators to parrot his line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Looks like he's put on a twenty burger since last week.  Dude's jowls are flapping around, looking like one of them rescue dogs with a first aid barrel tied around his neck.  


“the fittest president in us history”

 

 

F9FA17CB-C01C-444C-A635-038E5F11D01D.png

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Quid Pro Quo was/is so good, why did the GOP spend so much time lying about there never being a quid pro quo?  These guys are just shameless, and everyone looking at this objectively saw this pivot coming a mile away.

 

"No Way that happened"

"Not only did it happen, but it's completely OK, and a great thing"

 

F-ing Shameless.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just another version of "if you just take this word, and then pretend he did something else, which that word might describe, . . . "

 

I'm willing to bet ALL foreign relations are quid pro quo. 

 

But this wasn't "We'll open our markets to your bananas if you'll open your markets to our soybeans."

 

This was "I'll stop blocking the funds that have already been approved to help you with the Russians who have invaded your country if you'll help out my election campaign."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

🤡 

 

This is basically the gist of what their arguments have ended up being for virtually every scandal they've been involved in, once all of their original obfuscations and excuses were quickly proven to be lies.

 

"We didn't do it, or maybe we did. But if we did, it would be fine anyway"

 

 

 

And lol @ Bill Bennet. We were trying to help Ukraine by refusing to give them aid we had promised and they desperately needed (and had been Congressionally authorized) unless they inserted themselves into our domestic politics by helping Trump smear one of his political opponents with "investigations" into made up conspiracies about Biden and the 2016 election?? Jesus Christ....

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill ****ing Bennett. These rethug lizards are too much. He led the freakout over multicultural curricula with all that higher ed panic and his schtick about virtues. And behold, he’s just another bootlicker. Republicans stand for NOTHING other than themselves. Same as it ever ****ing was.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to elaborate on my previous post concerning normal Quid pro Quo, and Trump's Quid pro Quo, 

 

It's normal, even desirable, for our country's foreign relations to involve the President (or his subordinates) to be fishing for anything they can get, for the country.  That's what we want them to do.  (In fact, considering candidate Trump's frequent bloviating on his world's greatest negotiating skills, you can argue that that's specifically what he, individually, was elected for.)  

 

What Trump did, was to try to use his position, to demand something to help him, personally.  That's the distinction that makes it abuse of office.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Larry said:

What Trump did, was to try to use his position, to demand something to help him, personally.  That's the distinction that makes it abuse of office.  

 

Correct, and something we could explain to a child and they would understand the difference with relative ease.  The GOP is already trying to equate this Quid Pro Quo to benefit Trump personally/politically as somehow "normal negotiations." 

 

Also can we please do away with the term "Never Trumper?"  The man has ran for office exactly 1 time in his life. Voting for someone else the one time he has run for office doesn't make one a "Never Trumper"  There are plenty of GOPers who didn't vote for him simply because he came off like an incompetent fool if not a dangerous simpleton.   

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

What Trump did, was to try to use his position, to demand something to help him, personally.  That's the distinction that makes it abuse of office.  

 

For that to be distinct you would need to demonstrate that it was not a anti-corruption/election interference motive.

 

otherwise you give blanket immunity to any political opponent and those associated with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, twa said:

 

For that to be distinct you would need to demonstrate that it was not a anti-corruption/election interference motive.

 

otherwise you give blanket immunity to any political opponent and those associated with them.

 

 

List all the other corruption investigations Trump mentioned in the "perfect" phone call.  I'll wait.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

List all the other corruption investigations Trump mentioned in the "perfect" phone call.  I'll wait.

 

Moreover, and this is easy to forget with everything going on, traditionally the Justice Department, while technically serving under the President (and having its leaders appointed by him), is independent. I think I saw somewhere that President Obama met with the head of the FBI like twice during his entire presidency.

 

The way the system is SUPPOSED to work is that if there are shady dealings by a politician, career justice department officials investigate.

 

Obviously nothing is ever that perfect and noble in reality, but it'd been working pretty well up until now. It's just another Trumpled* tradition/norm that will have to be re-established. 

 

*Get it? Trump trampled, so... Never mind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

List all the other corruption investigations Trump mentioned in the "perfect" phone call.  I'll wait.

 

 

Irrelevant, but didn't he mention the server/election interference issue?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

 

 

Irrelevant, but didn't he mention the server/election interference issue?

 

 

 

Yes.  Yes he did.   As if that strengthens your argument...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

 

 

Irrelevant, but didn't he mention the server/election interference issue?

 

Sweet - a bogus conspiracy theory created to make people believe he didn't benefit from Russian interference in our election. Totally not political / in his personal interest. People wonder why Ukraine didn't comply with the requests - having to manufacture evidence might have been an impediment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.