Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED

[KG1]

There doesn't need to be a law that has been violated to justify impeachment. Corrupt intent is enough.

So implied corrupt intent is grounds for an impeachment in this case?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So implied corrupt intent is grounds for an impeachment in this case?

Impled? No. I don't think there's anything implied concerning this case.

 

[Dead Duck]

Actually, I was thinking about police when I made that post. Just not in the same way. If a police officer pulls over a woman going 5mph, which he is justified to do, but did so because he wanted to ask the woman out. That's corrupt intent, and I think he should lose his job, despite the action not being technically illegal. Agree or disagree?

Agree or disagree?
I would need to see some pictures first because some chicks are worth losing a job over.




Oh.... And I was just curious.
How did it all work out? Did you at least get her number?
Personally, I prefer faster women myself but I've seen some attractive slow ones too.

 

[Morgan88]

Is there any chance the real witch is behind Pelosi pulling the strings waiting for the right time to appear?

Morgan88

 

[jamil]

There doesn't need to be a law that has been violated to justify impeachment. Corrupt intent is enough.

Guess we should have impeached Obama. Impeaching Obama would have been a great idea.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Agree or disagree?
I would need to see some pictures first because some chicks are worth losing a job over.




Oh.... And I was just curious.
How did it all work out? Did you at least get her number?
Personally, I prefer faster women myself but I've seen some attractive slow ones too.

She was a redhead, so I instantly regretted my decision, and let her go with a warning. And if you prefer faster women, check out the minivan set. I've had more soccer moms blow my doors off in Dodde Caravans and Honda Odysseys than those in BMWs and Mercedes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Guess we should have impeached Obama. Impeaching Obama would have been a great idea.

If you have corrupt intent, and can apply it to the individual, and one thinks it's serious enough. Remove them.

 

[2A_Tom]

I, guess since neither I nor you can actually read minds we would never know.

 

[mmpsteve]

i Have read everything that is available to the public on this, and I see no impeachable offense. I know some on this forum disagree, but I don’t see how they can say, with a straight face, that Trump should be impeached, and past offenses of the opposite party was okay. There is WAAYY more evidence of crimes committed by Hillary and, what he admitted to, Biden. I just don’t get it. I like to think I am impartial, I call a spade a spade, and if my guy committed a crime, then he/she/it should answer for it. As a whole I think conservatives adhere to this more. The left, not so much. I fear for the future of our Republic.

Your observations are of course, correct. But fear not. There are multitudes of good men and women willing, and able, to deal with this monstrocity we know as progressive politics. Their agenda is evil and corrupt, and eventually, good people will strike it down with extreme prejudice. It won't be pretty, but it must be dealt with, if our Republic is to survive. This deep state coup attempt needs to be stopped now, by whatever legal means necessary. Barring that, I figure it's about to get ugly (er).

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

i Have read everything that is available to the public on this, and I see no impeachable offense. I know some on this forum disagree, but I don’t see how they can say, with a straight face, that Trump should be impeached, and past offenses of the opposite party was okay. There is WAAYY more evidence of crimes committed by Hillary and, what he admitted to, Biden. I just don’t get it. I like to think I am impartial, I call a spade a spade, and if my guy committed a crime, then he/she/it should answer for it. As a whole I think conservatives adhere to this more. The left, not so much. I fear for the future of our Republic.

Let's test this theory. Was the president culpable in any way, concerning the Stormy Daniels hush payment?

 

[mmpsteve]

If you have corrupt intent, and can apply it to the individual, and one thinks it's serious enough. Remove them.

I see nothing but corrupt intent by one party. Control of energy, health care, firearms, soda pop, plastic straws, ... immigration? Border control, or lack thereof? Come on, man, you know about corruption. Why do you continue to root for it? I know you're an intelligent man, so I just can't understand it. Please help me understand, Mr. K.

.

.

 

[jamil]

If you have corrupt intent, and can apply it to the individual, and one thinks it's serious enough. Remove them.

Shouldn’t it be more than a hunch?

 

[jamil]

Impled? No. I don't think there's anything implied concerning this case.

Just hitting this point again. You seem much more certain than the facts allow. I don’t think a rorschach test is sufficient evidence to impeach someone.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Shouldn’t it be more than a hunch?

It should.

 

[Phase2]

A very good summary of the situation as it now stands:

Note that while asking other nations about the wrongdoing of Democrats is an impeachable offense, asking other nations about the alleged wrongdoing of Republicans is considered our noble, patriotic duty—our higher loyalty.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign had no problem with investigating Trump in other nations and paying foreign operatives for dirt about Trump. After all, that’s what ex-British spy Christopher Steele was hired to do. And the media had no problem with spreading it.

The Obama Administration had no problem asking Ukraine about Paul Manafort and his financial transactions with government officials, which were soon mysteriously released. Nor did the Obama Administration have a problem surveilling the Trump campaign using foreigners and investigating Trump and his team internationally.

And many Democrats had no problem with impeaching the president based on what those foreigners said. When that turned out to be uncorroborated nonsense, they said he must be impeached because he tried to fight off the investigation based on such nonsense. Now they seek to impeach him for asking for an investigation into one of their own.

You got that?

The quote left out one relevant example that the Democrats also wanted to impeach Trump at least in part for a meeting that his son had where he was offered possible dirt on the Clintons.

 

[jamil]

It should.

Then it’s frivolous to impeach the president over THIS hunch. It is a hunch. Whether you care to admit it or not. You’re interpreting. Reading the tea leaves.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Then it’s frivolous to impeach the president over THIS hunch. It is a hunch. Whether you care to admit it or not. You’re interpreting. Reading the tea leaves.

Apparently were calling the Ukraine telephone transcript a "hunch." I took it as factual since both the WH and congress have taken it as such.

 

[jamil]

Apparently were calling the Ukraine telephone transcript a "hunch." I took it as factual since both the WH and congress have taken it as such.

You read it and interpreted it as “the don”. That’s what you said. I read the whole thing and concluded it’s a rorschach test. There is enough to infer whatever motive trips your trigger, from looking out for America to “the don”. It all depends on your worldview, and you’re a TDS’er so it’s not a surprise that the ink blot looks so clearly like an impeachable offense to you. And as well, I suppose we could say the same of the other side. That’s why we shouldn’t leave it to your or anyone else’s whim.

Maybe an investigation of the facts are warranted. I can see enough there that would make an investigation reasonable. But if you think we’re good to go with impeachment just from that transcript, that’s AOC level crazy right there.

 

[KG1]

Impled? No. I don't think there's anything implied concerning this case.

Listen it's not like Trump approached the Ukrainians and said "hey I need a favor. See what kind of dirt you can dig up on my potential political opponent" There was already prior concern about a potential corrupt act by a former Vice President concerning Ukrainian affairs and his son that this President had cause to believe wasn't properly vetted and asked the Ukrainian Leader if they would consider re-examining the circumstances surrounding the controversy. This was a new request to re-examine an existing issue that Trump didn't originally initiate.

Trump could have used any of the existing information that was already out there at any point that he wanted, and still could use it against Biden for political gain.

 

[bwframe]

The good news about all this silliness is that the gun control discussion has went by the wayside.

Thank you dems and TDS folks!