Impeachment derail from Democrats 2020

[ZiprHead]

He should have been impeached after firing the head of a federal investigation. Last time I checked that was obstruction. He should have been impeached after throwing Israel under the bus and leaked classified information to Russia. He should have been impeached when it was clear Trump was violating the emoluments clause of the constitution. All of this occurred before 2018 and let's be honest; if a fraction of this crap was done by a democrat, we all know what angelo's reaction would be.

So Rashida Tlaib saying "we're going to impeach the motherfucker" isn't provocative, it's just pointing out the motherfucking obvious. All Trump had to do was colour between the lines, but unfortunately the cunt is as bent as a paperclip.

Let's apply the same standards to the two term Obuma presidency shall we?



Under the New Trump Standard, Why Wasn't Obama Impeached?
.By Larry ElderJanuary 18, 2018
Under the New Trump Standard, Why Wasn't Obama Impeached?AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File
In the era of President Donald Trump, Democrats think presidents should be impeached over policy differences.

In Trump's case, the Democrats accuse him of winning the election by "colluding" with Russia to win. After nearly a year of investigations, there does not appear to be any evidence. Yet many Democrats have already called for impeachment.


In truth, Democrats want this President out because they don't like him or his policies. One of Trump's major campaign promises was to build a "wall" to protect our southern border. Never mind that, in 2006, 26 Democratic senators -- including Hillary Clinton, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer -- voted for hundreds of miles of barriers and fencing. And every Senate Democrat voted for 2013's Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which again called for hundreds of miles of barriers

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...tandard_why_wasnt_obama_impeached_136029.html

Policy disagreement isn't the new standard for impeachment. Your link, and your summary did not even address the point I made. But Larry Elder is notorious for obfuscation and deflection arguments.
When did Obama impede a federal investigation and fire the head of the FBI because of personal reasons? Show me your proof.
When did Obama throw Israel under a bus and leak classified documents to Russia or any other country? Show me your proof.
When did Obama break the emoluments clause of the constitution? Show me your proof.

You can't.

Bottom line. If Obama was held to the same standard as Trump, he would have been fine. Hell, Merrick Garland would be Chief Justice and there wouldn't be a sad senior Matt Damon clone who gets offended when asked if he likes beer on the bench. And if Obama did 5% of the shit Trump has done, Republicans would have sent Obama to the fucking chair.

Man I hope Democrats remember how Republican Joe Wilson acted during Obamas' first State of the Union speech and act accordingly next week. It's no less than what Trump deserves. It's time to give Trump the exact same treatment Republicans gave to Obama.

Agreed. That article was extremely short of impeachable offences. For those who don't want to bother reading Angelo's link, here's the "juicy" part that Elder (I'd call him a libertarian moron but I'd be repeating myself) thinks is impeachable.:

All right, let's apply the Democrats' new standard for impeachment to President Obama and his decision in 2011 to pull all the troops from Iraq against the advice of his national security team. President George W. Bush warned his successor. Bush turned around the Iraq War with his controversial "surge," a troop increase of about 21,500 in 2007. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in October 2011, two months before Obama pulled out all the troops in Iraq, said that Bush's 2007 agreement envisioned a negotiation for a stay-behind force: "There was another provision in (Bush's status-of-forces agreement) that's very important, seems to have been ignored, which was that we would also reserve the right to negotiate with the Iraqis on some stay-behind forces. ... They're a new democracy; they're not very well-organized yet. I worry that in the rush for the exit here, that we may in fact make it very difficult for them to succeed."

But then-Sen. Barack Obama, who called the Iraq War "dumb," not only opposed Bush's surge but also predicted it would make things worse: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. ... So I am going to actively oppose the President's proposal."

 

[ZiprHead]

REPUBLICAN LAWYER SOPHIA NELSON LEAVES THE PARTY AND SLAMS TRUMP ON HER WAY OUT

“I have been a Republican my whole life,” she wrote. “No more. Not while Donald Trump remains the head of the party, and the Senate’s Republicans have stood nearly united behind him, rejecting patriotism to protect him.”

“As an attorney admitted before the illustrious Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, I cannot associate myself with conduct so cowardly, craven, and unpatriotic, so brazenly partisan and so disrespectful of the Constitution’s impeachment powers,” Nelson continued. “The arguments made by the president’s defense team require us to suspend reality.”

“This new Republican Party is beholden to a lawless, immoral, godless man. I have watched people I have known for decades twist themselves into human pretzels to defend him, excuse him, exalt him,” she concluded. ”The current state of the GOP is not good for anyone in our two-party system that breaks down without lawmakers who can work together, and move legislation forward.”

 

[angelo]

He should have been impeached after firing the head of a federal investigation. Last time I checked that was obstruction. He should have been impeached after throwing Israel under the bus and leaked classified information to Russia. He should have been impeached when it was clear Trump was violating the emoluments clause of the constitution. All of this occurred before 2018 and let's be honest; if a fraction of this crap was done by a democrat, we all know what angelo's reaction would be.

So Rashida Tlaib saying "we're going to impeach the motherfucker" isn't provocative, it's just pointing out the motherfucking obvious. All Trump had to do was colour between the lines, but unfortunately the cunt is as bent as a paperclip.

Let's apply the same standards to the two term Obuma presidency shall we?



Under the New Trump Standard, Why Wasn't Obama Impeached?
.By Larry ElderJanuary 18, 2018
Under the New Trump Standard, Why Wasn't Obama Impeached?AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File
In the era of President Donald Trump, Democrats think presidents should be impeached over policy differences.

In Trump's case, the Democrats accuse him of winning the election by "colluding" with Russia to win. After nearly a year of investigations, there does not appear to be any evidence. Yet many Democrats have already called for impeachment.


In truth, Democrats want this President out because they don't like him or his policies. One of Trump's major campaign promises was to build a "wall" to protect our southern border. Never mind that, in 2006, 26 Democratic senators -- including Hillary Clinton, then-Sen. Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer -- voted for hundreds of miles of barriers and fencing. And every Senate Democrat voted for 2013's Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which again called for hundreds of miles of barriers

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...tandard_why_wasnt_obama_impeached_136029.html

Policy disagreement isn't the new standard for impeachment. Your link, and your summary did not even address the point I made. But Larry Elder is notorious for obfuscation and deflection arguments.
When did Obama impede a federal investigation and fire the head of the FBI because of personal reasons? Show me your proof.
When did Obama throw Israel under a bus and leak classified documents to Russia or any other country? Show me your proof.
When did Obama break the emoluments clause of the constitution? Show me your proof.

You can't.

Bottom line. If Obama was held to the same standard as Trump, he would have been fine. Hell, Merrick Garland would be Chief Justice and there wouldn't be a sad senior Matt Damon clone who gets offended when asked if he likes beer on the bench. And if Obama did 5% of the shit Trump has done, Republicans would have sent Obama to the fucking chair.

Man I hope Democrats remember how Republican Joe Wilson acted during Obamas' first State of the Union speech and act accordingly next week. It's no less than what Trump deserves. It's time to give Trump the exact same treatment Republicans gave to Obama.

Obuma threw Israel under a hundred carriage train during his 2 terms, but especially in his remaining last few months of his second term, not a bus. The man and his party today are so anti semetic it's a become a real survival threat to it's very existence. The whole Iran nuclear deal was a direct threat and anti Israel. Their mullahs have said it and keep on saying it that they will wipe Israel off the Middle East map.

 

[angelo]

“Nancy Pelosi has pulled a real sharp one. She’s said even if he’s acquitted and vindicated he’s still impeached. That should not be how it is. Why? He did not have a fair trial. He was indicted. And what happens if a person is acquitted after indictment? The indictment disappears… And when you deny someone due process saying, “Well we’re only indicting him.” You can’t come back and say, “But he’s still indicted!” If he wins this I think no one should regard him as having been impeached anymore than you would regard someone who’s indicted as still being indicted if he won a unanimous twelve person jury.“
—Alan Dershowitz

 

[ZiprHead]

“Nancy Pelosi has pulled a real sharp one. She’s said even if he’s acquitted and vindicated he’s still impeached. That should not be how it is. Why? He did not have a fair trial. He was indicted. And what happens if a person is acquitted after indictment? The indictment disappears… And when you deny someone due process saying, “Well we’re only indicting him.” You can’t come back and say, “But he’s still indicted!” If he wins this I think no one should regard him as having been impeached anymore than you would regard someone who’s indicted as still being indicted if he won a unanimous twelve person jury.“
—Alan Dershowitz

Why are you citing someone who is obviously a moron making a moronic statement?

 

[Keith&Co.]

“Nancy Pelosi has pulled a real sharp one. She’s said even if he’s acquitted and vindicated he’s still impeached. That should not be how it is. Why? He did not have a fair trial. He was indicted. And what happens if a person is acquitted after indictment? The indictment disappears… And when you deny someone due process saying, “Well we’re only indicting him.” You can’t come back and say, “But he’s still indicted!” If he wins this I think no one should regard him as having been impeached anymore than you would regard someone who’s indicted as still being indicted if he won a unanimous twelve person jury.“
—Alan Dershowitz

Why are you citing someone who is obviously a moron making a moronic statement?

Both of the other two impeached presidents were acquitted. And they're still listed as two of the three presidents that have been impeached.

So, no, that's kind of a non-starter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“That should not be how it is. Why? He did not have a fair trial. He was indicted. And what happens if a person is acquitted after indictment? The indictment disappears… And when you deny someone due process saying, “Well we’re only indicting him.” You can’t come back and say, “But he’s still indicted!” If he wins this I think no one should regard him as having been impeached anymore than you would regard someone who’s indicted as still being indicted if he won a unanimous twelve person jury.“
—Alan Dershowitz

This said back in '99?

 

[angelo]

“That should not be how it is. Why? He did not have a fair trial. He was indicted. And what happens if a person is acquitted after indictment? The indictment disappears… And when you deny someone due process saying, “Well we’re only indicting him.” You can’t come back and say, “But he’s still indicted!” If he wins this I think no one should regard him as having been impeached anymore than you would regard someone who’s indicted as still being indicted if he won a unanimous twelve person jury.“
—Alan Dershowitz

This said back in '99?

But still very relevant in 2020! Nothing has changed except that now it's the Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“That should not be how it is. Why? He did not have a fair trial. He was indicted. And what happens if a person is acquitted after indictment? The indictment disappears… And when you deny someone due process saying, “Well we’re only indicting him.” You can’t come back and say, “But he’s still indicted!” If he wins this I think no one should regard him as having been impeached anymore than you would regard someone who’s indicted as still being indicted if he won a unanimous twelve person jury.“
—Alan Dershowitz

This said back in '99?

But still very relevant in 2020! Nothing has changed except that now it's the Trump.

I’ll take Fails for $1200 Alex.

 

[angelo]

It seems that the baseless attack on the Trump have failed miserably as expected! Dems called 18 witnesses, which were not allowed to be cross examined by the senate, then they decided they needed more witnesses. The most inept justice in the country would have thrown it out of a courtroom. Looks like the American voters get to pass judgment on the Trump later this year after all.

 

[ZiprHead]

It seems that the baseless attack on the Trump have failed miserably as expected! Dems called 18 witnesses, which were not allowed to be cross examined by the senate, then they decided they needed more witnesses. The most inept justice in the country would have thrown it out of a courtroom. Looks like the American voters get to pass judgment on the Trump later this year after all.

Not one thing you said here is true.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems that the baseless attack on the Trump have failed miserably as expected! Dems called 18 witnesses, which were not allowed to be cross examined by the senate,...

Are you trolling us with this garbage. I say garbage because it doesn't even make sense. "Were not allowed to be cross examined by the senate"? The Republicans in the Senate voted against witnesses. They could have called anyone of them to testify. The GOP voted no to that.

And the GOP in the House on the committees cross examined the witnesses for an equal amount of time as the Dems got.

Your posts are becoming more and more incoherent. You are sounding less and less like a person and more and more like a Bot.

 

[angelo]

Bot or not. As predicted, the attempt to remove a democratically elected president and trying to deny the people the right to pass judgement on the Trump in November failed. That's what matters and is the the most important thing to come out of this fiasco.

The Dems toxic culture and their feeling of entitlement to government is extreme to say the least. The Trump has many failings, as most humans have. However, he has his country front and center where Pelosi and her lieutenants and her personal politics have an obsessed agenda [power at all costs] which will surely assure the Trump another term and perhaps destroy the Dems in the process.

 

[Patooka]

Everyone except you is very aware that impeaching Trump doesn't provide a Democrat presidency, it only makes Mike Pence President. So basically your assertions are a nice steaming pile of bullshit, with a side order of chips.

 

[angelo]

Everyone except you is very aware that impeaching Trump doesn't provide a Democrat presidency, it only makes Mike Pence President. So basically your assertions are a nice steaming pile of bullshit, with a side order of chips.

Pure unadulterated BS. Pelosi to start off with was against impeachment. But the acolytes on the far left of her party were in the mood for a hanging. The moment they won the house they set in motion baseless charges that even she must've known would fail.

Then the busload of clown wannabees put their hands up, that in no way are capable of beating the incumbent in November, and you have a recipe for trying to foil the will of the people, both in 2016 and again in 2020.

 

[Patooka]

Woosh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Everyone except you is very aware that impeaching Trump doesn't provide a Democrat presidency, it only makes Mike Pence President. So basically your assertions are a nice steaming pile of bullshit, with a side order of chips.

Pure unadulterated BS. Pelosi to start off with was against impeachment.

...because the Democrats didn't have documentation to use in said impeachment because the Trump Administration was releasing almost no documentation and taking every subpoena to court. These court cases are still mulling through the courts and might have made it up to the Appellate Court level now. Once those decisions are ultimately decided, the documentation either starts flowing of the House has him on Obstruction of Justice (of which the GOP will just handwave off again). But that was why Pelosi was holding back. The House had little leverage (other than decades of precedence) to hold against Trump.

But once the Whistleblower's report comes out, we have the modified transcript... then we have the Diplomat testimony. This is what is called a slam dunk or in Australia... a boundary for 6. So the impeachment moves forward. It is this simple.

Then the busload of clown wannabees put their hands up, that in no way are capable of beating the incumbent in November, and you have a recipe for trying to foil the will of the people, both in 2016 and again in 2020.

How is removing Trump and putting Pence in the White House foiling Democracy?

 

[ZiprHead]

Then the busload of clown wannabees put their hands up, that in no way are capable of beating the incumbent in November, and you have a recipe for trying to foil the will of the people, both in 2016 and again in 2020.

You think 2016 was the will of the people?

Bless your heart.

 

[Elixir]

Pure unadulterated BS.

Once again your ignorance of American law raises its ugly head...

Pelosi to start off with was against impeachment.

So were most reasonable people.

 

[angelo]

Then the busload of clown wannabees put their hands up, that in no way are capable of beating the incumbent in November, and you have a recipe for trying to foil the will of the people, both in 2016 and again in 2020.

You think 2016 was the will of the people?

Bless your heart.

Who's sitting in the Oval office today, Killery or the Donald? And don't give me that bullshit about the been foiled by the college vote which was put in place by the Founding Fathers for obvious reason.