Is there a mass movement to impeach Trump because he's an asshole?
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Trump supporters mistake LeVar Burton for LaVar Ball
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
Yes.
The reasons why run the gamut but if Democrats regain Congress then yes, along with establishment GOP and half of the country. Mueller had better come through for them or he’ll be run out of town.
himperv303
Banned
Herpes Blue Cunt… Just shut up, you are sounding dumber then the president himself. Your vagina is swollen with cum poop and you are a racist asshole.
himperv303
Banned
your mothers butthole is exhibit B. go fuck yourself
How can the reasons why run the gamut when I only asked you about one reason: him being an asshole?
From my perspective there are a lot of reasons (that run the gamut from the completely inane to the potentially very serious) why he hears the word "impeach" nearly as much as Obama did. I mean, for one thing the guy's administration has yet to spend a single day not under federal investigation. That doesn't exactly engender a great sense of trust and stability. Hopefully it comes out the other end clean, but until it does...
And he still doesn't come close to the last pres when being inappropriately accused of "treason". Jesus. What a flipping broken and battered record that was...*smh*
I wanted to add to my earlier comment but missed the edit. There was never any serious discussion of impeaching Obama, ever.
There should have been at least 2 special counsels appointed during his tenure but he had his DOJ under control with no chance of silly recusal by his AG’s.
You bring up a great point, his administration is under investigation without any evidence of collusion, or obstruction of justice, meanwhile 33000 emails remain missing.
Stop it with the Obama being treated badly, the GOP establishment grabbed their ankles for him.
I'm not a Trump fan, but this isn't something unique to his halfwit supporters.
A few years ago, the model Sophia Smith received a lot of hate tweets from stupid little girls all over the world. All because she shared a name with some daft bird that was at the time dating one of the 1 Direction people. I hesitate to use singers/song writers or even something else creative to describe them.
A few years ago, the model Sophia Smith received a lot of hate tweets from stupid little girls all over the world. All because she shared a name with some daft bird that was at the time dating one of the 1 Direction people. I hesitate to use singers/song writers or even something else creative to describe them.
There's no possible way you or I can know whether there's any viable evidence of collusion, or obstruction of justice. I don't understand why it's so hard to just agree that in time we WILL know, but that for now an ongoing investigation prevents that possibility.
Yeah. Sure they did. One term president highest priority. Invited Netanyahu to speak before congress. Completely stonewalled Merrick Garland. The list of bend overs just goes on and on.
But perhaps more importantly it was the right in general, and it's affiliated media, that treated him horribly, and frequently wound up looking like idiots in the process - none more than the King Birther himself, Mr. Trump.
Oooh they actually had the nerve to invite a world leader to speak before Congress that was making his case as to why the Iran nuclear deal would be dangerous for the country he leads? Meanwhile Obama was working behind the scenes to defeat him. You’d think they would be doing something really nefarious like passing legislation without one republican vote that controls 1/6 of our economy.
Your total lack of understanding about SCOTUS nominations and the senate’s equal role of advise and consent is quite telling. Congress did exactly what they were supposed to do and It is the only thing I can credit McConnell with that actually helped the country. SCOTUS nominations are always going to be contested. Had Obama been a year or two into his second term, he would have been able to seat Garland.
They grabbed their ankles and confirmed Kagan and Sotomayor, lived in fear over Obama’s threats of government shutdowns and debt ceiling hikes.
And forget the GOP resistance to Obama, Trump has unprecedented resistance within his own party and some have even hinted st impeachment.
They even gave up the senate’s role in ratification of the Iran deal ( thanks Bob Corker) to spread them wide for Obama.
It is every party’s goal to make the opposing party one termers, that has you all butthurt?
:1orglaugh
I need to respond to something else you mentioned about evidence of collusion. In every investigation there is at least a basis, a crime, probable cause to open an investigation. Now in this instance it is been made known to the public that there is an investigation, so based upon that, it separates it from other investigations that we may not know about.
There was not any basis to open an investigation by Comey as it was based upon a phony dossier that it appears that the FBI attempted to buy from Steele along with the DNC and Fusion GPS.
This is known as manufactured evidence, all to spark an investigation and is quite different from a situation like Watergate where clearly a crime had been committed.
So I am correct in saying that there is no evidence of collusion. None.
The special counsel is a fishing expedition, and politically motivated. Pure and simple.
There was not any basis to open an investigation by Comey as it was based upon a phony dossier that it appears that the FBI attempted to buy from Steele along with the DNC and Fusion GPS.
This is known as manufactured evidence, all to spark an investigation and is quite different from a situation like Watergate where clearly a crime had been committed.
So I am correct in saying that there is no evidence of collusion. None.
The special counsel is a fishing expedition, and politically motivated. Pure and simple.
On the collusion part, I agree. But not on the obstruction part.
Trump himself he fired Comey to because of the russia investigation. He knew he was under investigation and, to kill the investigation, decided to fire the guy leading it. How's that not obstruction of Justice ?
Firing Comey would not kill the investigation.
It’s not obstruction because the FBI director and AG serve at the pleasure of the president. Constitutionally it is within his power to shut any investigation down that he chooses. That is why congress were running around suggesting passing laws to stop Trump from firing Mueller because they know he has that power. Any such law by congress would not be upheld by SCOTUS.
All you leftists are grasping at straws and have been from the get go.
He did not fire him to kill the investigation. He simply could have ordered him to shut it down. It is within his power to do so. Of course that would spark the political process of impeachment but he is within his legal rights to do it.
Someone should have explained that to Trump (good luck explaining anything rational to a man who thinks he's better than anyone at anything and thinks he knows more than anyone about anything) before he fired Comey...
I don't lack understanding. What the republicans in the senate did to a supreme court nominee was unprecedented.
You're zipping right past the point that he said it was his TOP priority.
It's not based on the dossier. It was a natural outgrowth of investigating Russian meddling, which our IA's unanimously agreed turned up a massive influence campaign, ordered by Putin, with the intent to aid Trump.
You just proved my point about lack of understanding. 4 prior nominees before Garland received no action on their nomination by the senate. What is unusual is a late term nomination by a president with less than a year in his presidency. Leave it to Obama to buck the trend against a senate that held a majority by the opposition party. Of course for political reasons. There wasn’t much of a stink over it because Hillary had it all sewn up.
It wasn’t 17 intelligence agencies either. They used subsidiaries of the intelligence agencies to try and make it seem that all of them were in agreement. Only Clapper and Brennan agreed and they were doing so for political purposes. You got nothing. Nada , zilch.
The fucking dossier is what sparked Comey’s investigation. That and that alone. Jesus H. Christ there is no talking to your thick headed libs.
Yeah thanks I'm aware it wasn't 17 intelligence agencies. But it WAS unanimous among the four who headed those 17.
Regarding Garland:
'In March 2016, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, and former Connecticut U.S. senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent, both co-chairs of the problem-solving group No Labels, wrote that "There is no modern precedent for the blockade that Senate Republicans have put in place. Even highly-contentious nomination battles in the past, including those over Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, followed the normal process of hearings and an up-or-down vote.
On March 9, 2016, in a letter to Obama and Senate leadership, a group of almost 250 prominent corporate lawyers urged the Senate to hold hearings on the president's nominee. The letter stated that "When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the senate to refuse to perform its ‘advice and consent’ role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed."'
Regarding Garland:
'In March 2016, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, and former Connecticut U.S. senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent, both co-chairs of the problem-solving group No Labels, wrote that "There is no modern precedent for the blockade that Senate Republicans have put in place. Even highly-contentious nomination battles in the past, including those over Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, followed the normal process of hearings and an up-or-down vote.
On March 9, 2016, in a letter to Obama and Senate leadership, a group of almost 250 prominent corporate lawyers urged the Senate to hold hearings on the president's nominee. The letter stated that "When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the senate to refuse to perform its ‘advice and consent’ role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed."'
It was not unprecedented. The only thing unprecedented was Obama’s nominating at the end of his term. ( a caveat, if a late term nomination was made it was made when the president enjoyed a senate majority of his party) Yes during election years nominees have had hearings. The senate advised and informed him not to nominate as the nominee would not have hearings. Obama, in typical Obama form and to create as much friction as possible nominated anyway. The senate, a body within the separate but equal legislative branch refused to hold hearings for the separate but equal executive branch’s nominee. The constitution worked as designed, snowflakes all over the world are still in despair about the unprecedented mistreatment by the mean old senate of Merrick Garland.
Similar threads
