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

[jamil]

This will never again not be the case.

Every future presidency will be framed as having been stolen.

It started with Obama. We heard that a lot. He "stole" the presidency. The only way a candidate could "steal" a presidency is if he/she won by cheating. So you could say, Hillary was the illegitimate nominee of the Democratic party, because they conspired to work against Sanders. For Obama though, there were some fairly significant cases of voter fraud in 2012, but the numbers didn't come anywhere close to adding up to the margin of victory as far as we know. Despite the Russian interference, it does not appear that had an effect on this election. Most pundits, rightly, I think, believe that Comey had way more affect on the election results than what the Russians were doing. Also that Hillary did not campaign in the fly-over states near the end of the campaign, and it was in those states that she lost.

 

[T.Lex]

I thought GWB stole the 2000 election, and Obama was de-legitimized by not being a citizen?

 

[jamil]

To steal from a rapper somewhere "Don't hate the player, hate the game." Either it's constitutional or it's not. If it is Constitutional, deal with it. That's pretty much the response given when congress blocked Garland. I don't remember many complaints then.

At least you're being honest about the lack of principle. Flipping sides because it's in the game is "right". Okay.

BTW, I was personally conflicted with the Garland situation. I did not want Garland on the bench. But I did not think what McConnell was doing was right. He should have brought it to a vote. I think he harmed non-partisan discourse and ratcheted up the extent to which these kinds of tools are available to the other side. Just like it was bad for Reed to go nuclear, someday the other side will be in power and they'll refuse to bring any votes for any Republican nominees.

And, as it turned out, we got Garland anyway. His name is Kavanaugh.

 

[KG1]

I doubt very many. I think the vast majority simply wanted reps that would oppose his vision for the country.

Does "opposing his vision of the country" include trying to concoct ways to impeach him from the get go?

 

[jamil]

I doubt very many. I think the vast majority simply wanted reps that would oppose his vision for the country.

In terms of what he's actually done, it appears their vision of his vision was delusional. For example. He's not literally Hitler. I doubt he's any more racist than you or me. He doesn't seem to be homophobic, or particularly any more bigoted than the people accusing him of such. He tweets stupid stuff. He's obviously a narcissist. But in terms of policy, he's not done terribly bad, except to overturn some crap Obama did. Trump's economy is doing quite well. Not surprising since you don't tax and regulate a nation to prosperity. But, we'll see how the tariffs go; I'm not optimistic. He's a bit too authoritarian, but no more authoritarian than how must of the Democrats are acting these days. Most of the stuff to oppose are straw monsters concocted by partisans who think the president is illegitimate.

 

[jamil]

I thought GWB stole the 2000 election, and Obama was de-legitimized by not being a citizen?

Oh. Crap. How could I forget? Obama wasn't the first modern illegitimate president. SCOTUS illegitimately handed the presidency to Bush -- which later was confirmed once all the seemingly endless recounts were recounted.

But wait? Wasn't Clinton illegitimate in '92? Man that was too many decades ago to remember the details.

ETA: Oh yeah. He was illegitimate because of Ross Perot.

 

[Libertarian01]

OMG! From Piers Morgan of all folks!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...den-Ukraine-questions-doesnt-want-answer.html

Yes, questions DO need to be asked - AND answered directly.

Regards,

Doug

 

[KG1]

In terms of what he's actually done, it appears their vision of his vision was delusional. For example. He's not literally Hitler. I doubt he's any more racist than you or me. He doesn't seem to be homophobic, or particularly any more bigoted than the people accusing him of such. He tweets stupid stuff. He's obviously a narcissist. But in terms of policy, he's not done terribly bad, except to overturn some crap Obama did. Trump's economy is doing quite well. Not surprising since you don't tax and regulate a nation to prosperity. But, we'll see how the tariffs go; I'm not optimistic. He's a bit too authoritarian, but no more authoritarian than how must of the Democrats are acting these days. Most of the stuff to oppose are straw monsters concocted by partisans who think the president is illegitimate.

That aligns with my thoughts. Since we're talking about representation Trump hasn't really done anything that egregious in his duties as Chief Executive than any other POTUS. He has shown the necessary skill needed to form and execute most of the policies that he ran, and was subsequently elected on. That is far from incompetence IMO. Some people might not like those policies but the remedy for that is at the ballot box.

 

[d.kaufman]

The ICIG admits why they changed standards for whistleblower statements.
https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-Gmail

 

[T.Lex]

The ICIG admits why they changed standards for whistleblower statements.
https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-Gmail

That's - at best - misleading. The ICIG didn't change any standards.

Here's the actual press release:
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

n the process of reviewing and clarifying those forms, and in response to recent press inquiries regarding the instant whistleblower complaint, the ICIG understood that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.

The standard - direct knowledge was not required - remained the same. The forms were changed.

The press release covers some more of the recent history of the forms and disclosures.

 

[two70]

I think impeachment should be a thing for every president from here on out. If the party controlling the House is different from the party controlling the White House, impeachment proceedings should be kicked off the day after inauguration. Or I dunno. Maybe give the first family a few days to get moved in. **** it. Let's go full on partisan.

I don't know about going quite that far but clearly, if the in coming President is of a different party than the outgoing one, the losing candidate should collude with the outgoing President (assuming they are different people) to use opposition research commissioned from foreign entities in the form of a dossier as the basis for spying on the incoming President. Then once the incoming President is inaugurated, the losing party should use the losing candidate's actual foreign collusion as the basis for an investigation into the President's fabricated foreign collusion. Note, it is important also that the losing party continues to seek to collude with foreign entities to prove collusion on the part of the President even if that leads them to fall prey to foreign comedians, this is know as the Schiff rule.

Once that fails, the losing party should change whistle blower rules so that a 3rd hand party can be considered a whistle blower in order for said newly designated whistle blower to make a claim of quid pro quo against the President for asking a foreign leader to look into the role of foreign actors in that country in the aforementioned dossier and to look into the quid pro quo committed and admitted to by the previous Vice President and current presidential candidate. This quid pro quo claim, should then be substituted as the basis for an impeachment inquiry once the collusion basis fizzles out. Note #2, it is vitally important that the timing of the rule change is correct, it should be a few days prior to the recorded date of the claim of quid pro quo. Note #3, it is critical to try not to draw undue attention to the actual quid pro quo of the former VP while investigating the supposed quid pro quo of the current President. These are known as Schiff Rules #2 and #3.

Tune back in after step 2 fails to see what step 3 in the partisan, petulant child playbook will be.

 

[1775usmarine]

 

[What's The Frequency]

I don't think he/she's old enough to remember anything but what he/she's been told about most of those presidents, and you can tell what xe/ze's political roots are by the opinions its parroting. I'd venture to say it never actually saw a video on MTV or has recorded anything in analog. Likely it has only ever seen its avatar on youtube

Kind of what I visualize for a bot, only a meat version. Taken over by programming that prompts it to take part in mass attacks on command

I’m in my 40s and was generalizing. Of course presidents are just one thing.

Just because this site (and probably most of your other sites) are echo chambers for your beliefs doesn’t mean I have been”brainwashed” by the media. You should meet some new people. Poor just continue echoing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[What's The Frequency]

Sounds to me like the mainstream media has been determining you opinions for decades.

If you think a president is above reproach then you are mistaken. “Mainstream media” is a cop out. Most of their talking points come directly from Trump’s loose mouth/Twitter hands.

 

[HoughMade]

If you think a president is above reproach then you are mistaken. “Mainstream media” is a cop out. Most of their talking points come directly from Trump’s loose mouth/Twitter hands.

Who said anything about above reproach?

Reagan was not senile.
GW Bush was not dumb, etc., etc.

....but that's what Dan rather was saying back then.

Want to have policy differences with any politician? That's fine. Want to hold any politician liable for corruption? No problem.

However, ad hominem attacks are just divisive and useless. Yes, yes, yes...both sides engage in them...which doesn't make responding in kind the right thing to do.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Edit: Not gonna lie, I thought this was Roseanne.

 

[bwframe]

 

[churchmouse]

I’m in my 40s and was generalizing. Of course presidents are just one thing.

Just because this site (and probably most of your other sites) are echo chambers for your beliefs doesn’t mean I have been”brainwashed” by the media. You should meet some new people. Poor just continue echoing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a solid suggestion for you. If you feel this is an echo chamber then stop responding. Find someplace that better suits your narrow views. Seems to work both ways yes. Like minded people tend to hang with......wait for it.......like minded people.

 

[What's The Frequency]

Your whole statement was basically the ‘ol hillbilly “You ain’t from around here...”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[churchmouse]

Your whole statement was basically the ‘ol hillbilly “You ain’t from around here...”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To what post are you referring...???