Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


Impeachment  

198 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, gbear said:

I just want to know what Nunes thinks about when he says dems want nude picts of Trump. I dont know anyone, Republican or Democrat, male or female who wants to see that.

Maybe Nunes is into old men shaped like the koolaid man. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

How can any reasonable person look at the complaint and think it lacks substance?  One may question whether the allegations are true, but if they are, I would hope everyone could agree that it is clear abuse of power by the President.

 

Even if there was no quid pro quo (I think circumstances show that there was, even if Trump never spelled out "give me the investigation for the aid".  And I think he may have spelled it out in steps in conjunction with Guiliani), the mere act of asking another foreign government to conduct an investigation into your political rival would be an abuse of power.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. No one's perfect. His stance is basically that the President is above the law if his AG backs him up. Might want to consider how you would feel about that with a Democratic President.

Also, drama. It's not his integrity that was questioned, it was his judgement.

 

 

Every single person who takes a job for Trump immediately has questionable integrity.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Trump really can't help himself, can he?  The stuff he says, the reactions he has.  FFS.

He has a G-d Complex. He thinks he's untouchable. The Republicans and FOX News, Breitbart, etc. have done their best to reinforce that notion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the whistle blower claims could be proven or disproven pretty easily if a proper investigation is allowed.   You bring the whistle blower in, make sure you ask him who the other character witnesses in all of this are, bring them in to confirm or deny what the whistle blower has to say.  Get the full audio transcripts pulled, weigh those against the accusations being made.  Done.  

 

Isn't intimidation of a whistle blower some form of obstruction of justice?  Basically Trump attempting to put fear in the whistle blower, since they haven't yet testified.


Trump is basically following all the steps of "Here is why you should impeach me"

 

The kicker in all of this is Trump said he was going to do this, on national TV.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Trump throws around the word "treason" having no idea what it actually means, it kind of shines a light into the corporate world side of him.  I bet as a CEO he finds this kind of thing as legitimate treason, if an underling reported on wrong-doing.  The problem is it doesn't work like that in gov't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Seems like the whistle blower claims could be proven or disproven pretty easily if a proper investigation is allowed.   You bring the whistle blower in, make sure you ask him who the other character witnesses in all of this are, bring them in to confirm or deny what the whistle blower has to say.  Get the full audio transcripts pulled, weigh those against the accusations being made.  Done.  

Isn't intimidation of a whistle blower some form of obstruction of justice?  Basically Trump attempting to put fear in the whistle blower, since they haven't yet testified.


Trump is basically following all the steps of "Here is why you should impeach me"

 

I'd warn of the precedent of such a investigation, but I'm enjoying this too much to care.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I'd warn of the precedent of such a investigation, but I'm enjoying this too much to care.

 

 

 

Wait, the "anti-Trump whistle blower?"  That has been established by this fine twitter journalist how, exactly? 

 

Edit: Oh.....The Federalist.  Makes sense now.

Edited by NoCalMike
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a question for everyone,

 

Now that all of this (whatever it ends up being) has come to light.  What would Ukraine's role, if anything, be in this investigation? Is there any kind of precedent of going directly to them and asking, "eh....care to fill us in here?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Wait, the "anti-Trump whistle blower?"  That has been established by this fine twitter journalist how, exactly? 

 

Edit: Oh.....The Federalist.  Makes sense now.

 

The ICIG identified him as a supporter of one of Trumps opponents in the election......would you think that makes him neutral or a Trump supporter??

:pint:

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Wait, the "anti-Trump whistle blower?"  That has been established by this fine twitter journalist how, exactly? 

 

Edit: Oh.....The Federalist.  Makes sense now.

His sources for reading are a complete and total joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...