COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

As House impeachment looms, Senate, Trump grapple over next moves

104 Comments
By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

104 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Trump will be the first president impeached in the absence of a crime being committed. The articles of impeachment admit that Trump has done nothing chargeable in any Federal or State statute.

Dems have no constitutional basis for this circus.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Dems have no constitutional basis for this circus.

Hmm, constitutional lawyers say there is.

Internet poster says there isn't.

I guess the internet poster has more credibility, right?

 

 

Right?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Trump will be the first president impeached in the absence of a crime being committed. The articles of impeachment admit that Trump has done nothing chargeable in any Federal or State statute.

That’s not required for impeachment. You went from cheering the dems because this would bury them to complaining about it overnight. You come across as worried.

Dems have no constitutional basis for this circus.

Stranger handled this nicely. Where did you go to law school, Burning? Liberty University? Trump University?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Democratic donor constitutional lawyers handpicked by the Dems do. Now what about everyone else?

you really should just go to a censure and move on. Horowitz testimony just killed your narrative even more.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Trump says he wants to see testimony from witnesses, including Biden and his son Hunter,

Trump wants to prove his interest in corruption wasn't just about the Bidens . . . by getting testimony from the Bidens.

You can't make this stuff up.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Jonathan Turley went to Georgetown. Is that insufficient?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Democratic donor constitutional lawyers handpicked by the Dems do. Now what about everyone else? 

No defense except disparagement. Very telling.

you really should just go to a censure and move on. Horowitz testimony just killed your narrative even more.

No, we’re going for impeachment.

Is Horowitz for or against Donny? You people are all over the place depending on whether someone speaks well or ill of Donny. What’s it like to have zero integrity?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"I think as an American the best thing we can do is deep-six this thing," Graham told reporters 

What a patriot.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Doesn’t matter if Horowitz for or against. In fact anyone who isn’t viciously anti-Trump is best that can be hoped for these days.

he blew your whole “innocent, no bias, nothing happened” headline right out of the water. Comey said it’s all lies and he is vindicated. Ummm nope.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

In other news:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/donald-trump-protester-politically-correct-084917149.html

Whether he goes down or not (Trumpy) - who really knows.

Fact is that people should understand who he really is, what his goals are and where he is steering the USA.

Fact is that it is not the US I used to know something like 30 years ago. Things have changed under his regime, but definitely not for the better.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Trump will be the first president impeached in the absence of a crime being committed. The articles of impeachment admit that Trump has done nothing chargeable in any Federal or State statute.

Dems have no constitutional basis for this circus.

Interesting, more people Goggled Peloton than watched this boring farce and a new poll came out 51% of Americans overall don’t want him impeached. Decent and rational thinking Liberals and Non-Trump supporter intellectuals like professors Turley and Dershowitz both agreed this is going to backfire, unconstitutional and nothing good can come out of rushing this. As I’ve always said, liberals are definitely not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to this. But at least they’re making him politically stronger, so that’s a positive sign.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Democrats say Trump endangered the U.S. Constitution, jeopardized national security and undermined the integrity of the 2020 election by pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July 25 telephone call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Yep.

Trump, who maintains that he did nothing wrong, has said he wants to see a full, public trial that he hopes would flesh out the case against conviction

Oh, Donald. No. The GOP will make this decision for you since you'll screw it up. Just lie to the American public and that's all that's needed from you.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Oh, Donald. No. The GOP will make this decision for you since you'll screw it up. Just lie to the American public and that's all that's needed from you.

There’s no way on God’s green Earth that a Trump lie can match anything close to Schiff and the House Democrats, he’s not that good at it compared to these people.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I know we are on the right path when CNN refuses to televise the opening statement of Horowitz testimony then won’t even put the story on the main page of the website.

when liberals can’t refute they just omit.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

How does Trump do it? He is the weakest "leader". The man spends his days whining like a baby, acting like the world's biggest victim. I've seen 2 year olds who moan and whine less than he does. What the heck does his base see in him? There is nothing presidential about him and he has no leadership qualities I can see. I am shocked daily by his supporters.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Hmm, believe constructional lawyers who have passed the bar, or anonymous internet poster.

mhmm guess you gotta believe the internet hack.

Seem legit.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Blacklabel and @BurningBush

Jonathan Turley went to Georgetown. Is that insufficient?

Jonathan Turley also said a few years ago:

But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct. "While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post."

Oh, my.............

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Not to mention, also Barr and Trump can't distract with the Russian probe.

Opening speech of Horowitz at the impeachment inquiry part 3:

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz: My Report Doesn’t ‘Vindicate Anybody’

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-ig-michael-horowitz-report-194240168.html

That doesn't make Trump or his personal lawyer Barr very happy.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

How does Trump do it? 

He watches the Dems jump off that cliff and then goes “Beep, Beep!”

He is the weakest "leader". The man spends his days whining like a baby, acting like the world's biggest victim.

As if Schiff a model for calmness and rationality.

I've seen 2 year olds who moan and whine less than he does. What the heck does his base see in him? 

Someone who wants to demolish the Washington establishment in a very nasty and unapologetic way. That’s a great thing.

There is nothing presidential about him and he has no leadership qualities I can see. I am shocked daily by his supporters.

The haters will definitely think that. In the meantime, the House Democrats need to update their resumes.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Blacklabel:. Democratic donor 

Name a single instance when you discredited an opinion by saying they are biased for being a Republican or Republican donor.

Just one.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Gordon Sundland basically bought his ambassadorship by being a Republican donor. That’s not good.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

That’s wonderful. Now do what he said a few weeks ago about this case.

Jonathan Turley also said a few years ago:

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Blacklabel 

I know we are on the right path when CNN refuses to televise the opening statement of Horowitz testimony then won’t even put the story on the main page of the website.

when liberals can’t refute they just omit.

IG Horowitz said the Investigation was started correctly based on FBI procedures at the time...BUT...he ALSO said FBI procedures were TOTALLY MESSED UP and needed to be reformed!

That's pretty much what Mueller said. Yet, as in this case, Trump claimed vindication.

A total of thirty-four individuals and three companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. Eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials.

On May 29, 2019, In a press conference, Mueller stated that "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Bass:. There’s no way on God’s green Earth that a Trump lie can match anything close to Schiff

So do you still think Trump acted improperly and used bad judgement or have you folded yet?

There's no law against not answering, but if you choose to go off topic kindly start a separate post that doesn't reference my question so we can have an entirely different conversation.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

That’s wonderful. Now do what he said a few weeks ago about this case.

It is wonderful because it shows his legal views are not based on the law or facts but on his political affiliations.

He had the same view for 20 years once again defending his opinion a few years ago, but suddenly flipped when it was a Republican president being impeached. Republican witness, right?

How convenient for the Trumpers?

No, worries! All the other legal experts with better credentials testified that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

@Blacklabel, where did you get your law degree from again?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So do you still think Trump acted improperly and used bad judgement or have you folded yet?

We already covered that. But it has nothing to do with the Dems impeaching this President on the most flimsiest of charges.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It is wonderful because it shows his legal views are not based on the law or facts but on his political affiliations.

he’s also very limited in his scope of what he can obtain on facts, that’s where Durham ans Barr will take over.

No, worries! All the other legal experts with better credentials testified that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

And they all got shot down by Turley: "If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power You're doing precisely what you are accusing the President of doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches.

But hey, the Democrats want to dig that hole, I definitely won’t stop them.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

So when Trump gets let off the hook for selling out our country and ally for personal gain I'm guessing he will have learned his lesson and won't ever do it again.

Either that or other world leaders will start lining up to buy Trump at our expense.

Hmmmm...could break either way I suppose.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

He didn’t vote for Trump. Didn’t donate to Republicans. Maybe he “evolved”

Republican witness, right?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

He didn’t vote for Trump. Didn’t donate to Republicans. Maybe he “evolved”

And yet he’s a life long Republican. Making him clearly biased and therefore clearly cannot be trusted.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

...unless you want to believe a proven liar. Which, Republicans do.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So the low threshold was met to “open” the investigation. Everything after that is the problem. FISA process was abused, exculpatory evidence hidden. He also said he can’t “rule out” political bias.

no one involved is vindicated.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So when Trump gets let off the hook for selling out our country and ally for personal gain

Liberals keep pushing that baseless narrative with zero and I mean, zero evidence of that.

I'm guessing he will have learned his lesson and won't ever do it again.

I am more concerned with liberals learned her lesson and it seems like they never do, never.

Either that or other world leaders will start lining up to buy Trump at our expense.

The way liberals are mouthing off about Russia, I am starting to wonder if it’s them that’s really working for the Russians pushing this. Seems plausible.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

You just don’t like what he said. You love lifelong Republicans Mueller and Rosenstein, Cohen and Sondland, right? Or is what they said not to be trusted?

And yet he’s a life long Republican. Making him clearly biased and therefore clearly cannot be trusted

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

So the low threshold was met to “open” the investigation. Everything after that is the problem. FISA process was abused, exculpatory evidence hidden. He also said he can’t “rule out” political bias.

Nah, those are just the lies they are telling in the bubble. You should get out more!!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You just don’t like what he said

He literally placed 100% of the blame on republicans. Not 99%. Why would I not like that?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

That’s his exact testimony today.

Nah, those are just the lies they are telling in the bubble. You should get out more!!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The FISA process here was not used appropriately, properly, and the rules were not followed," Horowitz testified. Though he didn't accuse FBI officials of intentionally abusing the FISA law, he said investigators "certainly misled the court" by omitting exculpatory information from four applications for surveillance. The FISA court ultimately approved all four warrants against Page.

cant rule out political bias:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqzu5lU7n0M

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

That’s his exact testimony today.

In bubble land. Not in reality.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And even if he said something like that, he’s a Republican. Clearly a liar whose words cannot be trusted. And anything he accused was not a crime anyways.

sheesh. Talk about a witch hunt.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

There is a new thing called television where I can see for myself his testimony. Then another thing called YouTube where I can show it to you when you obviously didn’t see it but still feel to comment anyway.

no bubble here. The power of moving pictures with audio on a screen.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Actually Horowitz is a Democrat. Try again.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Seems the impeachment got Trump wins for the USMCA trade deal and also got us everything we wanted for the National Defense Authorization.

To include removing all the progressive nonsense demands from it. Wall funding not blocked. No reversal of transgender ban.

keep your eyes on that impeachment ball while we keep winning behind your back. Comey and his cabal not found guilty (yet) but not exonerated either.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The haters will definitely think that. In the meantime, the House Democrats need to update their resumes.

And once Bolton tells us about the "drug deal" and Rudy let's us in on his "insurance policy", Donnie will need to update his address from Mar-A-Lago to Rikers Island...

The way liberals are mouthing off about Russia, I am starting to wonder if it’s them that’s really working for the Russians pushing this. Seems plausible.

Sure, as Donnie yucked it up with his Master's Foreign Minister yesterday...."Mr Lavarov, sir, could you ask his most honorable and distinguished President Mr Putin to please not interfere in our elections in 2020? Except as we planned at the three Summits we've had where the the notes were all destroyed?"

There is a new thing called television where I can see for myself his testimony. Then another thing called YouTube where I can show it to you when you obviously didn’t see it but still feel to comment anyway.

And there is this new thing called MAGA-Vision goggles where once you put them on, Trump's head appears on Stallone's body - just like in real-life...

cant rule out political bias:

Take off your MAGA-vision goggles - he already has...

You just don’t like what he said. You love lifelong Republicans Mueller and Rosenstein, Cohen and Sondland, right? Or is what they said not to be trusted?

Uh, who on this very site called Sondland a "hero", then 24 hours later after he testified, called him "scum"?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Actually Horowitz is a Democrat. Try again.

Don't worry, Durham will get to the bottom of l this nonsense. Horowitz also said that the findings does not exonerate Comey. Hope the guy has a good lawyer.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Sondland was a hero for testifying as to what he presumed was correct. Unfortunately his presumptions were wrong.

I at no time called him “scum”. Just noted his presumptions were incorrect, as non fact based thinking often is.

still Bolton? You sure have high hopes for that guy. Why not Subpoena him?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

There is only one person named in the impeachment. There will only be one person on trial in the impeachment court.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

superlib: So when Trump gets let off the hook for selling out our country and ally for personal gain

bass: Liberals keep pushing that baseless narrative with zero and I mean, zero evidence of that.

Well we had a half dozen diplomats with nearly a hundred years' experience who work closely with the situation saying there was quid pro quo. And then there are the notes from the call, and of course Mulvaney saying it happened to the entire world. All of that would be considered evidence.

A good example of there being "zero evidence" would be claims against Hunter Biden, that millions of illegals voted, that Obama was born overseas, Deep State, that Ukraine tried to influence our election, etc.

Either way, if there's zero evidence of wrongdoing in your mind I'm once again curious as to why you said he used bad judgement and acted improperly if you're not talking about putting himself above country. Did he act improperly in some other way?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

And once Bolton tells us

...that won’t happen by the time that gets through the courts this whole thing will be done probably by the end of January, remember the Senate Democrats have a campaign to run.

Sure, as Donnie yucked it up with his Master's Foreign Minister yesterday...."Mr Lavarov, sir, could you ask his most honorable and distinguished President Mr Putin to please not interfere in our elections in 2020? Except as we planned at the three Summits we've had where the the notes were all destroyed?" 

What?

Uh, who on this very site called Sondland a "hero", then 24 hours later after he testified, called him "scum"?

Sondland: "When did what happen?"

Jordan: "The announcement! When did Pres. Zelensky announce that an investigation was going to happen...When did that happen?"

Sondland: "Never did."

Jordan: "Never did!"

Sondland: "I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of [investigations]."

Goldman: "So you never heard those specific words."

Sondland: "Right. Never heard those words."

Goldman: "Well, let's move ahead..."

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Yeah too bad liberals set this precedent that being unable to prove an allegation after years of investigation doesn’t mean someone is “exonerated”. Poor Comey.

we will see this again after the Senate trial is over and Trump is not impeached. He won’t be considered as cleared or exonerated or found innocent by liberals.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I anticipate as many Dems as possible will be allowed by Nancy to vote against impeachment in the House to protect them in 2020. But voters know they really support it anyway.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So waitasec. This whole Shiff show is based on the claim that corruption in Berisma must not be investigated, because the Biden family is involved in Berisma.

Has anybody ever pointed out that that in itself confirms that Berisma paid 80,000 US/month to Biden simply as protection money? Regardless what Biden Jr. did or did not do for the money (apparently nothing, except lend his name), this protection certainy works. Berisma is protected from investigation because there is a Biden involved. Yep, seems a pretty good investment to me.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

And once Bolton tells us

...that won’t happen by the time that gets through the courts this whole thing will be done probably by the end of January, remember the Senate Democrats have a campaign to run.

Sure, Bolton loved being called a "disaster" by Donnie - by the way. do you agree with Donnie - was Bolton a "disaster" as NSA?

Sure, as Donnie yucked it up with his Master's Foreign Minister yesterday...."Mr Lavarov, sir, could you ask his most honorable and distinguished President Mr Putin to please not interfere in our elections in 2020? Except as we planned at the three Summits we've had where the the notes were all destroyed?" 

What?

Another hard-hitting Trumper reply... Also, did Donnie tell Lavarov to get out of Crimea?

Uh, who on this very site called Sondland a "hero", then 24 hours later after he testified, called him "scum"?

Sondland: "When did what happen?"

Sondland: “Was there a quid pro quo?...The answer is yes.”

So Rudy was running a shakedown and QPQ - did Donnie direct it, through his personal lawyer Rudy?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Sondland: “Was there a quid pro quo?...The answer is yes.”

Sondland: "Right. Never heard those words."

Goldman: "Well, let's move ahead..."

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Graham: "I think as an American the best thing we can do is deep-six this thing,"

If the House comes up with the votes to impeach, this will indeed be deep-sixed in the Senate, as it is DOA.

This is lose-lose for the Democrats now. If they don't come up with the votes next week... oh my!

And if they do, the Senate trial is going to be delicious.

No, worries! All the other legal experts with better credentials testified that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

Yeah, the other three legal experts are educated idiots. We saw more of those that Schiff trotted out the week before too. And you don't need a comma between "No" and "worries."

Oh my...

FBI EXPOSED: Lindsey Graham Details Massive FBI Bias Against President Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yaPqs1u9nE

Cruz on spying: This wasn't Jason Bourne, this was 'Beavis and Butt-head'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ny0GtrO2E4

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" is a recognized federal or state crime. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for separation-of-powers reasons.)"

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" is a recognized federal or state crime. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for separation-of-powers reasons.)"

Good thing an element of impeachment isn’t that the act constituted a codified crime.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

So you plan to impeach a guy who didn’t even commit a crime now?

what happened to treason, bribery and impeaching the “criminal” Trump and jailing the “criminal” Trump after he loses in 2020?

now he’s not even a criminal?

this is getting beyond sad.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Plus Dems already saying they don’t mind to impeach him more than once and even after he is re-elected. What a joke.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

There is a new thing called television where I can see for myself his testimony. 

Pshaw, Republican testimony. Therefore proven untrustworthy.

And it’s fake news anyways.

why do you believe fake news? You pretend to be discerning.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The elected Democrats have been promising an impeachment ever since they finally realized that Hillary could (and did) fail in her 2nd attempt to become POTUS. Schiff repeatedly claimed that he had seen evidence of Trump/Russian collusion. I guess Schiff must have misread, or mislaid, his own evidence, because he didn't produce any hard evidence to back up his claim. Schiff's efforts did produced enough hearsay hot air to kick the global warming thermometer up a notch, all by itself. Nadler had hoped that by having a 3 to 1 edge in constitutional scholars, no one would notice that Nadler's witnesses couldn't actually make a case for impeachment.

After three, very long years, of listening to elected Democrats whining about how badly their feelings were hurt by Hillary's 2nd loss, presidential-wanna-be Pelosi has allowed her Democrats to proceed with just two articles of impeachment. One of them suggests that anyone who expects to use the judicial branch to insure their own Constitutional Rights must be held guilty of obstruction of justice, or obstruction of Congress, or obstruction of Hillary's reign. It's important to note that elected Democrats did not want to present their subpoena claims before any court.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So you plan to impeach a guy who didn’t even commit a crime now?

Umm, you always go on about wanting honest discussions and you don’t even know what impeachment is or how but works.

This is why we can’t have nice things.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Graham: "I think as an American the best thing we can do is deep-six this thing,"

If the House comes up with the votes to impeach, this will indeed be deep-sixed in the Senate, as it is DOA.

Graham 2016: "I think he's a kook, I think he's crazy, I think he's unfit for office, and I'm a Republican and he's not"...

This is lose-lose for the Democrats now. If they don't come up with the votes next week... oh my!

And if they do, the Senate trial is going to be delicious.

I see you enjoy eating crow...

No, worries! All the other legal experts with better credentials testified that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

Yeah, the other three legal experts are educated idiots. We saw more of those that Schiff trotted out the week before too. And you don't need a comma between "No" and "worries."

Turley: "The call was anything but perfect"... Even Repubs own witness think the call is a problem.

Oh my...

FBI EXPOSED: Lindsey Graham Details Massive FBI Bias Against President Trump

One more Lindsey-ism from 2016: "Any person who says George Bush is responsible for 9/11 is not a Republican, they're an extremist, they're crazy"...

Cruz on spying: This wasn't Jason Bourne, this was 'Beavis and Butt-head'

Well, we know Ted's favorite show now....wonder which one he thinks he is?

So you plan to impeach a guy who didn’t even commit a crime now?

As I said yesterday, every day its the same...

52 U.S. Code 30121; Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, which prohibits "solicitation" a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election. 

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Plus Dems already saying they don’t mind to impeach him more than once and even after he is re-elected. What a joke.

I suppose we could go and dig up eight years of obstruction by your team against Obama to show just how much a joke anyone on tour team making the above comment is.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Chip Star - Good thing an element of impeachment isn’t that the act constituted a codified crime.

The Democrats could attempt to impeach a President simply because that President has hurt their collective feelings.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The elected Democrats have been promising an impeachment ever since they finally realized that Hillary could (and did) fail in her 2nd attempt to become POTUS. 

The Hilary Haters have been trying to punish America ever since America decided they despised trump waaaaaay more than Hillary in 2016. Literally every action of theirs since then has been payback for the people choosing Hillary. They don’t even like trump, they just hate Hillary. Pantsuit woman bad.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Hey Russia! If you're listening, could you help Trump and the Republicans again? You know they're in your corner, so could help them get through these impeachment hearings. After all, Trump and the GOP are more Russian than American now.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Gordon Sundland basically bought his ambassadorship by being a Republican donor. That’s not good.

It’s not uncommon. You guys love holding other people to standards you don’t apply to yourselves.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The Democrats could attempt to impeach a President simply because that President has hurt their collective feelings.

So could republicans. I fail to see any substantive reply to my post.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Chip Star - So could republicans. I fail to see any substantive reply to my post.

Why am I not surprised? Republicans wouldn't have thought of it, but they certainly can now, thanks to the dramatic efforts of elected Democrats to establish such a ridiculously low bar. If you can't beat 'em at the ballot box, spend the next three years desperately trying to impeach 'em.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Pshaw, Republican testimony. Therefore proven untrustworthy.

Hmmmm....judging by the polls and how they’re not moving really and will be in the opposite direction, it would be safe to say the Democrats testimony was proven unworthy

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

judging by the polls and how they’re not moving really and will be in the opposite direction, it would be safe to say the Democrats testimony was proven unworthy

Untrustworthy:

1) Ubdeserving of trust or confidence; undependable; Unreliable:

2) Republicans in America.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

As to whether Trump should be impeached, former Congressman Bob Inglis said that Republicans should try to think about what they would do if the president were a Democrat.

“What would we do if Barack Obama had done this?” Inglis said, referring to Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. “I think the answer is pretty clear. We would have impeached him and removed him from office very quickly. I just want fellow Republicans to think about that.”

:)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If you can't beat 'em at the ballot box, spend the next three years desperately trying to impeach 'em.

That's a little off...

2016: If you can't beat 'em at the ballot box, send multiple campaign officials to meet with Russians (Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Sessions, Papadapolous, Page, Stone, et al) to have Russia interfere in the election and harm your political opponent...

2019: If you can't beat 'em at the ballot box, shakedown a foreign government by withholding needed military aid until they launch a bogus investigation into your political rival...

There, fixed it for you...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I love Trump!!

I've been a solid supporter since 2016. I donated then, and did this year already to his campagne handsomely also. Whatever I can do to push the agenda I will. I am wealthy enough to give part of my finances, even if that equates to only 2 to 3 additional votes via more funding for ads.

I just KNEW he was going to trigger all the highbrow faux intellectuals out there. They control the media narrative, they fill and validate the hive minded pearl clutchers out there.

He's getting my vote in 2020!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Too funny. GOP is trying to buy people to give false testimony against Joe’s son and the guy gets arrested. Only the GOP is that xxxxxx. Their party no longer represents the party of truth and justice. The people supporting them are getting fed lies by Fox Entertainment (not licensed to be a news outlet) and other conservative biased outlets who don’t care about the damage they are doing to the country as long as they can get people to watch what they peddle.

Pro-Trump Network OAN Tried to Get This Ukrainian Millionaire a Visa Before His Arrest

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-trump-network-oan-tried-023024753.html

By the way:

Lev Parnas Concealed A $1 Million Payment From Russia, Prosecutors Say

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lev-parnas-concealed-1-million-payment-russia-030242218.html

Oh, my.......

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Numan - As to whether Trump should be impeached, former Congressman Bob Inglis said that Republicans should try to think about what they would do if the president were a Democrat.

That's probably why he is a former Congressman. Better luck next time, Bob.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

IG Horowitz: The activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this.

so now that justifies Comey and McCabe and Strzok being fired, no? Or is it still “obstruction”?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

That's probably why he is a former Congressman. Better luck next time, Bob

Yes, because we want to prompt hyper-partisanship instead of bipartisanship.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

*promote

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No it was supposed to prove exactly what it did prove. Now those go to to the already assigned prosecutor. They also justify the firings as job performance related.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

lincolnman - That's a little off...

Elected Democrats have done the best job that can be expected of them, such as it is. Unfortunately for those elected Democrats, they seem to be un-able to move the poll numbers, or sway the public.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No it was supposed to prove exactly what it did prove

That there was no political bias in the decision to spy on Carter Page.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

One Dem congressman even said Trump has to be impeached because his kids are sad in the family group chat. New levels of stupidly daily.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Strangeland:

I though the IG report was supposed to exonerate everyone and prove Trump is a saint.

Where do you that from? Even on the propaganda channel CNN I did not hear anything that outlandish.

This IG report was supposed to shine light on the 2016 trickery of the FBI, which it did say was wrong. So it simply proved Trump right.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Blacklabel

IG Horowitz: The activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this.

Trump Misleads Rallygoers on IG Report, Impeachment

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/trump-misleads-rallygoers-on-ig-report-impeachment/

Let's see....

Trump accused the FBI of framing him, saying it “hid” evidence that showed his campaign “did absolutely nothing wrong.” The IG report found the FBI omitted some “exculpatory information” when obtaining a surveillance warrant for one campaign official, but it did not find any “intentional misconduct.”

And......

The president claimed that the articles of impeachment showed Democrats are “now admitting there was no collusion, there was no obstruction of justice and there were no crimes whatsoever” related to the Russia investigation. But that’s not what the articles say.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

One Dem congressman even said Trump has to be impeached because his kids are sad in the family group chat. New levels of stupidly daily

And then you hear Donny utter a single sentence and you’re plunged to another new level of stupidity.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Numan: You’re wasting your breath presenting facts. Try pop holes aren’t interested in facts or logic, which means they deserve scorn.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Chip Star - That there was no political bias in the decision to spy on Carter Page.

You're admitting that they chose to spy on Carter Page.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

New levels of stupidly daily.

Pot meet kettle, mang. lol You don't get to call others stupid when you support a buffoon who has difficulty coherently throwing together any more than two or three sentences.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Black

One Dem congressman even said Trump has to be impeached because his kids are sad in the family group chat. New levels of stupidly daily.

Devin Nunes said:

Democrats are trying to get nude photos of Trump.

GOP said:

‘The administration is too dumb to commit a crime.'

Nice try though!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Chip Star - Yes, because we want to prompt hyper-partisanship instead of bipartisanship.

That has been obvious ever since the Democrats gave birth to their resist movement, and their impeachment debacle, three years ago.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

That has been obvious ever since the Democrats gave birth to their resist movement, and their impeachment debacle, three years ago.

Yes, it all started with Democrats when Donny was elected. How intellectually honest of you.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Chip Star - Yes, it all started with Democrats when Donny was elected. How intellectually honest of you.

That's what I've been saying all along.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

A pretty accurate summary of all the GOP, Trump, and administration excuses for not impeaching the president.

WATCH: ‘Daily Show’ Mocks GOP’s Shifting Impeachment Excuses in ‘Trump Club’ Ad Parody

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-daily-show-mocks-gops-shifting-impeachment-excuses-in-trump-club-ad-parody/

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yes, it all started with Democrats when Donny was elected. How intellectually honest of you.

Pretty much, but hopefully once he settles into his second term, the Dems will come to their senses.

Even after he’s gone, conservative policies will still override and crush all this liberal outrageous policies. Now that he achieved a historic confirmation of 50 YOUNG judges to the appellate courts, regardless of what happens, for the next 40 years minimum they’ll have to be patient.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

How do you plea Mr. President?

Guilty or not Guilty?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

You’re wasting your breath presenting facts. Try pop holes aren’t interested in facts or logic, which means they deserve scorn.

Facts? Well, here’s a fact, we can all get on with our lives and poke fun at the Dems once Trump is not convicted or removed.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

So you plan to impeach a guy who didn’t even commit a crime now?

You bet! We can't beat him in an election even with most of the media and the wildly popular Barack and Michelle Obama opposing him, so let's impeach him!

Hey Russia! If you're listening, could you help Trump and the Republicans again?

Trump didn't need any help from the Russians in beating Hillary despite her claims that she lost due to "Russian Wikileaks" lol.

How do you plea Mr. President? Guilty or not Guilty?

Trump: Impeach this!

The Durham report is coming.

TICK TOCK

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Lots of MAGA-vision goggles being worn today.

Even after he’s gone, conservative policies will still override and crush all this liberal outrageous policies.

Very aggressive talk. Yesterday it was "wiping out" progressives and now it's all about crushing the liberals.

This is what happens when Trumpists get frightened. They lash out, advocate violence and beat their chests in order to intimidate those who wish for America to be restored and rescued from their avarice and bigotry.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Very aggressive talk. Yesterday it was "wiping out" progressives and now it's all about crushing the liberals.

Well, The liberals are trying to crush this President and his policies by overturning the election of a duly elected President.

This is what happens when Trumpists get frightened.

Nervous???? Why? Looking at the recent polls, the cry for Impeachment of people now “against” it is about 53%. Time to pop the bubbly.

They lash out, advocate violence and beat their chests in order to intimidate those who wish for America to be restored and rescued from their avarice and bigotry.

And yet when you go on YouTube and Google liberal violence you have 5-12 pages of liberals attacking conservatives and calling them ever name in the book.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The liberals are trying to crush this President and his policies by overturning the election of a duly elected President.

Yes, by duly impeaching him under the same rules in which he was duly elected.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Well, The liberals are trying to crush this President and his policies by overturning the election of a duly elected President.

Apparently you forgot the 25th Amendment. Congress has the right, indeed responsibility, to remove this self-dealing crook.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yes, by duly impeaching him under the same rules in which he was duly elected.

Ok, but he won’t be convicted or removed, but I do thank Pelosi for strengthening his political power. Thanks Nance!

Apparently you forgot the 25th Amendment. Congress has the right, indeed responsibility, to remove this self-dealing crook.

That won’t happen. The Dems are already on thin ice, especially the Freshmen House Dems that won in Trump States, they might not even vote on this farce. She can only lose 17 and this thing is over and do these freshmen Dems really want to ruin all that hardwork and years of sacrifice to get to where they are and lose it over this farce? I seriously doubt it.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites