CCGPV wrote:

This is one thing a lot of people don't realize if Trump goes...Pence is now the man. He's a hardcore conservative unlike Trump who only pretends to be. Pence wants to actively roll back legislation that Trump is not going to do. I dread a Pence presidency more than a Trump one to be honest. Pence will be effective where Trump has just been a buffoon.

It'll be Bush 2 on steroids.

Amen CCGPV. Pence would set human rights back in the U.S. 50 years at least.

Trump Resignation/Impeachment Megathread

As neither resignation nor impeachment are likely to occur, you may as well call this the "KICT Wish List Thread" instead.

DocLightning wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

This is one thing a lot of people don't realize if Trump goes...Pence is now the man. He's a hardcore conservative unlike Trump who only pretends to be. Pence wants to actively roll back legislation that Trump is not going to do. I dread a Pence presidency more than a Trump one to be honest. Pence will be effective where Trump has just been a buffoon.

It'll be Bush 2 on steroids.

If the DNC has either house, then a Pence presidency will be pretty bland.

Remember, the President's major power is not domestic, but international. Mr. Pence is the most unctuous, sanctimonious kind of prick I can imagine, but at least he's unlikely to press the Big Red Button.

I agree. More sanctimonious than Ted Cruz though? I'm not a violent man but I've never wanted to punch a face more than Ted's. Just the way he speaks...he's always preaching. Makes me want to puke.

EA CO AS wrote:

Trump Resignation/Impeachment Megathread

As neither resignation nor impeachment are likely to occur, you may as well call this the "KICT Wish List Thread" instead.

Even Slate agrees! Read on...

Please Stop Predicting The End of Trump's Presidency

CCGPV wrote:

More sanctimonious than Ted Cruz though?

Believe me, Mr. Cruz also tempts me to violence (not that I would, but still...). But I am not entirely convinced that Mr. Cruz believes everything he says. I think Mr. Pence does.

EA CO AS wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Trump Resignation/Impeachment Megathread

As neither resignation nor impeachment are likely to occur, you may as well call this the "KICT Wish List Thread" instead.

Even Slate agrees! Read on...

Please Stop Predicting The End of Trump's Presidency

Did you read beyond the headline? I don't think the meat of the article is supporting your claim that it ain't going to happen.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Trump Resignation/Impeachment Megathread

As neither resignation nor impeachment are likely to occur, you may as well call this the "KICT Wish List Thread" instead.

Even Slate agrees! Read on...

Please Stop Predicting The End of Trump's Presidency

Did you read beyond the headline? I don't think the meat of the article is supporting your claim that it ain't going to happen.

Best regards
Thomas

On the contrary, the article is fully supporting my point. Unless you can articulate plausible, realistic scenarios where a resignation or removal from office occurs - and so far, no one is or has - then it's best to just not even go there.

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Even Slate agrees! Read on...

Please Stop Predicting The End of Trump's Presidency

Did you read beyond the headline? I don't think the meat of the article is supporting your claim that it ain't going to happen.

Best regards
Thomas

On the contrary, the article is fully supporting my point. Unless you can articulate plausible, realistic scenarios where a resignation or removal from office occurs - and so far, no one is or has - then it's best to just not even go there.

He paid off an adult film actress to keep quiet (bribery) and the evidence to install him in office by Russia is still mounting (treason) so I don't know why it is not plausible and realistic that he will be removed from office? Let's not forget that he has not fully divested himself from his company, so all these vacations and time off he takes at his resorts and his meetings at those properties, that money goes to him. Conflict of interest.

Trump to Robert Mueller: 'It Wasn't Me' (w/ Shaggy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzt7JvsYIuI

“The President, Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

— Article II, section 4, U.S. Constitution

“Judgment in cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

— Article I, section 9, U.S. Constitution

Lets see what Robert Muller has....Impeachment will not be necessary. As for the pardons...there is a reason he gave NY State a heads up...

N14AZ wrote:

Will not happen. He will be elected for a second time (same happened with Bush II and in the second election he got even more votes than in the first one).

Election years ending in "0" or POTUS elected on Nov 8 have not been kind to POTUS seeking re-election or their VPs.

VP Al Gore - 2000 controversial yes but a U of Miami recount confirmed GW Bush razor-thin victory. Gore reportedly did have a "confrontation" with President Clinton the day after his concession to GW Bush - blaming his affair with Monica Lewinsky and his impeachment for his close loss.

Jimmy Carter 1980 - 40 years ago in 1978 with some success - airline deregulation and Israel-Egypt peace accords and Watergate still a recent memory many thought Carter would be easily re-elected in 1980.

Also Carter was last POTUS before Trump to be elected mid-decade - 1976.

1960 - Richard Nixon regarded as popular VP mostly for his kitchen debate with Soviet premier Khrushchev and his dog "Checkers" speech among other things - many thought he'd beat JFK.

Have to go way back to 1940 to see a POTUS re-elected and Trump is "light years" behind FDR on popularity.

Trump elected on Nov 8 2016.

Also on elected Nov 8 1988 George HW Bush - many though after Gulf War he'd get re-elected easily.

JFK elected on Nov 8 1960 - assassinated Nov 22 1963.

Yet at least one political pundit says despite all of his troubles Trump still looks favorable for re-election.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/underestimate-trumps-reelection-odds-at-your-own-peril/

bmacleod wrote:

VP Al Gore - 2000 controversial yes but a U of Miami recount confirmed GW Bush razor-thin victory.

Sorry - It was Miami Herald and USA Today that did the unofficial Florida recount.

Once a liar, always a liar

https://www.themaven.net/theintellectua ... THC9QvF6g/

TRump lied to Forbes to make himself look good and get on a list. You know: instead of working hard.....

The amount unsubstantiated half and complete untruths reaches levels that confuses everyone and people loose track.

That's the sort of environment in which simple signal and views are effective.

Regardless if they are correct. Before anyone finds out, new ones are launched saturating press and perceptions. Keep them running.

Most Americans I know are ashamed / avoid the topic.

Trumps biggest offense is that he upsets the professional government cadres constantly. But I do not accept the criticism; the government and large institutions should be frightened of the people’s anger at ALL times. That’s is a GOOD thing. That is why the constitution does not say all “well educated” urban Americans get the vote; it says all Americans (mostly uneducated and not a part of recent prosperity) get the vote. That is a profound difference.

I think a lot of people just do not understand the political design of the United States. If you’re not standing up for the lower middle class - people who proudly work, who are struggling, who need child care tax deduction, a reasonable way to see the doctor, to get educated/trained, to not have their wages undercut illegally - you will lose, again. That is how the mathematics works. If your political platform can’t win Wisconsin, a civilized Obama state, you have failed. Trump didn’t even win. Others failed.

The focus on Trump resigning because “this can’t be real” is getting old. It is real. Wake up. Understand why you lost in Wisconsin (for example). And do a better job next time.

Flighty wrote:

Trumps biggest offense is that he upsets the professional government cadres constantly. But I do not accept the criticism; the government and large institutions should be frightened of the people’s anger at ALL times. That’s is a GOOD thing. That is why the constitution does not say all “well educated” urban Americans get the vote; it says all Americans (mostly uneducated and not a part of recent prosperity) get the vote. That is a profound difference.

I think a lot of people just do not understand the political design of the United States. If you’re not standing up for the lower middle class - people who proudly work, who are struggling, who need child care tax deduction, a reasonable way to see the doctor, to get educated/trained, to not have their wages undercut illegally - you will lose, again. That is how the mathematics works. If your political platform can’t win Wisconsin, a civilized Obama state, you have failed. Trump didn’t even win. Others failed.

The focus on Trump resigning because “this can’t be real” is getting old. It is real. Wake up. Understand why you lost in Wisconsin (for example). And do a better job next time.

Great Post. This perfectly explains the state of our politics in the US.

The second paragraph sums it up real well, and its why Trump carried the Mid America states. Trump did a good job convincing these voters that he cared for them and took time to spend with them. Hillary thought she had their votes in the bag and completely ignored them. And the same progressive platform which has changed very little in 20 years, is going to need to be refined and tailored to help these people then they need to be convinced it will help them. Same on the conservative side. Its one thing to pass a massive tax cut. But it is another thing for the tax cut to help these people as well. The biggest issue with tax cuts is that because companies exist for their shareholders and not employees in the US (This isn't mentioned much in non aviation, but in the civil aviation thread this point is beat to death), the people running companies feel they have an obligation to please the shareholders and not the employees. This is why the Tax Cut money is being used for stock buybacks, and not to hike wages. This is why JetBlue's Flight Attendants just voted to unionize. This is why the AA Mechanics still don't have a joint contract with the company 4 years after the merger. Need I go on.

Donald J. Trump is the president of the USA. If you don’t like that then sadly that’s just tough luck.

You liberal loons will try anything when things don’t go your own way. You bleat on about Trump losing the popular vote in an attempt to deligitimise his win but here in the UK Brexit won by the popular vote and you liberals want to ignore that because it didn’t go your own way. Russian hackers, fake news or project fear(s) aren’t working.

Accept. Move on. Trump is your president.

sevenair wrote:

Donald J. Trump is the president of the USA. If you don’t like that then sadly that’s just tough luck.

You liberal loons will try anything when things don’t go your own way. You bleat on about Trump losing the popular vote in an attempt to deligitimise his win but here in the UK Brexit won by the popular vote and you liberals want to ignore that because it didn’t go your own way. Russian hackers, fake news or project fear(s) aren’t working.

Accept. Move on. Trump is your president.

One of Comey's memos, which detail his interactions with the president while serving as Trump's FBI director early last year, said that Trump claimed that he did not stay overnight in Moscow during the 2013 trip.

The former FBI director said Trump offered the comments while saying he could not have told Russian prostitutes to urinate on a bed in the Ritz-Carlton, as the dossier purports.

Comey wrote that Trump "said he had spoken to people who had been on the Miss Universe trip with him and they had reminded him that he didn't stay over night in Russia for that."

Flight records obtained by Bloomberg earlier this week also corroborate that Trump stayed overnight in Moscow.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-miss-universe-host-trump-stayed-overnight-in-moscow-during-2013-trip/ar-AAwiqo5?ocid=ientp

I think it is becoming clear how he was elected and how he is.

I hope FGS this is fake news. Otherwise you might have elected a lying pervert as a president.

Cut the crap & explain that to you family, nothing liberal about that.

And no one should blindly respect such actions, unless you are doing similar things yourself.

Don't accept, don't move on. Correct.

keesje wrote:

sevenair wrote:

Donald J. Trump is the president of the USA. If you don’t like that then sadly that’s just tough luck.

You liberal loons will try anything when things don’t go your own way. You bleat on about Trump losing the popular vote in an attempt to deligitimise his win but here in the UK Brexit won by the popular vote and you liberals want to ignore that because it didn’t go your own way. Russian hackers, fake news or project fear(s) aren’t working.

Accept. Move on. Trump is your president.

One of Comey's memos, which detail his interactions with the president while serving as Trump's FBI director early last year, said that Trump claimed that he did not stay overnight in Moscow during the 2013 trip.

The former FBI director said Trump offered the comments while saying he could not have told Russian prostitutes to urinate on a bed in the Ritz-Carlton, as the dossier purports.

Comey wrote that Trump "said he had spoken to people who had been on the Miss Universe trip with him and they had reminded him that he didn't stay over night in Russia for that."

Flight records obtained by Bloomberg earlier this week also corroborate that Trump stayed overnight in Moscow.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-miss-universe-host-trump-stayed-overnight-in-moscow-during-2013-trip/ar-AAwiqo5?ocid=ientp

I think it is becoming clear how he was elected and how he is.

I hope FGS this is fake news. Otherwise you might have elected a lying pervert as a president.

Cut the crap & explain that to you family, nothing liberal about that.

And no one should blindly respect such actions, unless you are doing similar things yourself.

Don't accept, don't move on. Correct.

Here is a Bloomberg article about his Moscow trip that he lied about

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... cow-nights

That it happened is not a big deal. HE LIED!! HE CHEATED ON HIS THIRD WIFE!!! This is "family values" and "upstanding man" that the right believes. He is a liar and a fraud. They really need to get him under oath. There is evidence he lied, so what would stop him from lying under oath?

keesje wrote:

Otherwise you might have elected a lying pervert as a president.

Might?

What could possibly still make you doubt that he is a liar or a pervert?

There are rumors there is taped evidence about what happened in Moscow. If so the FSB has those files. It seems they have pushed Trump into presidency using, intelligence, fake news & large scale powerful social media tricks. Which they can leak too. Somehow, I just don't believe the CIA has similar material on Putin. The Clintons seem monks compared to this character.


You know I know.

Flighty wrote:

That is why the constitution does not say all “well educated” urban Americans get the vote; it says all Americans (mostly uneducated and not a part of recent prosperity) get the vote. That is a profound difference.

Hey buddy the Constitution originally said women and black people couldn't vote, but don't let that stand in your way.

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

That is why the constitution does not say all “well educated” urban Americans get the vote; it says all Americans (mostly uneducated and not a part of recent prosperity) get the vote. That is a profound difference.

Hey buddy the Constitution originally said women and black people couldn't vote, but don't let that stand in your way.

So what's your point? We need to take the right to vote away from some people?

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

That is why the constitution does not say all “well educated” urban Americans get the vote; it says all Americans (mostly uneducated and not a part of recent prosperity) get the vote. That is a profound difference.

Hey buddy the Constitution originally said women and black people couldn't vote, but don't let that stand in your way.

So what's your point? We need to take the right to vote away from some people?

Yes, of course that was my point.

Anyone who appeals to the spirit of the Constitution should be aware of its history.

And anyone who appeals to the simple and sensical idea of "one person, one vote" should ask themselves if, in that spirit, it makes sense for state legislatures to gerrymander districts such that one party is disproportionately represented in Congress. Or if rural and sparsely populated states should be disproportionately represented in the Electoral College.

This idea that the Trump voters are a "silent majority" is an absolute fraud, but with the help of Fox, Breitbart, Russia, etc., etc., the myth is perpetuated.

Trump will never be impeached or resign. He will be re-elected in 2020. In 2024 Pence will take the White House (two terms). And in 2032 my guess Donald Trump JR will take the White House for 8 years. Obama was such a disaster of a president I highly doubt a demacrat will ever win the White House again, nor will they ever control the house and senate

AA747123 wrote:

Trump will never be impeached or resign. He will be re-elected in 2020. In 2024 Pence will take the White House (two terms). And in 2032 my guess Donald Trump JR will take the White House for 8 years. Obama was such a disaster of a president I highly doubt a demacrat will ever win the White House again, nor will they ever control the house and senate

jetero wrote:

This idea that the Trump voters are a "silent majority" is an absolute fraud, but with the help of Fox, Breitbart, Russia, etc., etc., the myth is perpetuated.

EXHIBIT A

AA747123 wrote:

Trump will never be impeached or resign. He will be re-elected in 2020. In 2024 Pence will take the White House (two terms). And in 2032 my guess Donald Trump JR will take the White House for 8 years. Obama was such a disaster of a president I highly doubt a demacrat will ever win the White House again, nor will they ever control the house and senate

Of course reality will smash these guys in the head in November. Will they accept it? Nah, they will cry . . . VOTER FRAUD.

sevenair wrote:

Donald J. Trump is the president of the USA. If you don’t like that then sadly that’s just tough luck.

You liberal loons will try anything when things don’t go your own way. You bleat on about Trump losing the popular vote in an attempt to deligitimise his win but here in the UK Brexit won by the popular vote and you liberals want to ignore that because it didn’t go your own way. Russian hackers, fake news or project fear(s) aren’t working.

Accept. Move on. Trump is your president.

“You liberals” this, “you liberals” that. Are you also wagging your finger at us?

I think you’ll find once you stop blaming everything on the other side you might see things a bit more clearly.

My little old lady French/Jewish neighbor emphatically makes the comparison between Donald Trump and Petain of France in WW2. She tells me that Petain actually said that he was going to "Make France Great Again". With Trump we are supposed to surrender to Putin, instead of Hitler. No thanks.

tRump's lawyer takes The Fifth

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/nyre ... niels.html

People in this administration have not even gone under oath and already they are not willing to testify under oath. Please, for the love of God (whichever you choose) let the winning stop!

just BREAKING

Here are the questions Mueller wants to ask Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/p ... ussia.html



EDIT:.....could be FAKE NEWS

jetero wrote:

jetero wrote:

This idea that the Trump voters are a "silent majority" is an absolute fraud, but with the help of Fox, Breitbart, Russia, etc., etc., the myth is perpetuated.

EXHIBIT A

AA747123 wrote:

Trump will never be impeached or resign. He will be re-elected in 2020. In 2024 Pence will take the White House (two terms). And in 2032 my guess Donald Trump JR will take the White House for 8 years. Obama was such a disaster of a president I highly doubt a demacrat will ever win the White House again, nor will they ever control the house and senate

Of course reality will smash these guys in the head in November. Will they accept it? Nah, they will cry . . . VOTER FRAUD.

How many people were saying the same thing the day before the 2016 election?

"There's no way its going to happen."

That's a dangerous attitude to have. It should never be a slam dunk.

Looks like those questions are real and even Fox agrees that the NYT would not lie about the source being Trump's own camp. In one TV clip "Judge Napolitano" suggests that a senior Legal staffer did it to purposely pressure Trump into understanding the brutal seriousness of what's about to happen and to make sure he doesn't go off the rails like he did on his Fox and Friends interview last week. I believe this is the closest a paid Fox News contributor has ever come to calling a Trump an idiot on air (unlike most members of his administration who routinely call him an idiot in private). Lovely clip below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... ystem.html

Are these the same questions he has to take home and write about? Why does he get to take his work home and edit and work on that in between golf games, yet "crooked Hillary" was under oath in front of committee and the media for 11 hours? And she not once took the Fifth.

jetero wrote:

Of course reality will smash these guys in the head in November. Will they accept it? Nah, they will cry . . . VOTER FRAUD.

This sounds familiar, would you help me remem.... aaah right. That was the exact same thing the loony left said before November 8, 2016. Of course from November 9, 2016 onwards, it was the left crying VOTER FRAUD and other corrosive lies.

This thread is actually funny. I remember it well. From the day Trump declared to his victory, there was at least one big pieace in a major newspaper that predicted the imminent doom of his candidacy. Then he was elected, and the pieces switched to "yea but he is never gonna take office". Then he took office, and it was "but he will never make it past the 1 year mark". Then the tune switched to impeachment.

Fundamentally un-American, anti-democratic and anti-constitutional ideas. But I guess the loony left needs those wild fantasies to keep themselves from totally breaking.

seb146 wrote:

Why does he get to take his work home and edit and work on that in between golf games, yet "crooked Hillary" was under oath in front of committee and the media for 11 hours? And she not once took the Fifth.

Hillary Clinton was never questioned by the FBI until AFTER it was decided to drop the investigation. The Mueller investigation is not equivalent to a committee investigation, but to the FBI investigation. Meanwhile, I have no trouble imagining Hillary Clinton perjuring herself without even blinking.

aviationaware wrote:

jetero wrote:

Of course reality will smash these guys in the head in November. Will they accept it? Nah, they will cry . . . VOTER FRAUD.

This sounds familiar, would you help me remem.... aaah right. That was the exact same thing the loony left said before November 8, 2016. Of course from November 9, 2016 onwards, it was the left crying VOTER FRAUD and other corrosive lies.

This thread is actually funny. I remember it well. From the day Trump declared to his victory, there was at least one big pieace in a major newspaper that predicted the imminent doom of his candidacy. Then he was elected, and the pieces switched to "yea but he is never gonna take office". Then he took office, and it was "but he will never make it past the 1 year mark". Then the tune switched to impeachment.

Fundamentally un-American, anti-democratic and anti-constitutional ideas. But I guess the loony left needs those wild fantasies to keep themselves from totally breaking.

Well, we heard the EXACT SAME THING for eight years under Obama from the tin foil hat, kool ade drinking right, so....

aviationaware wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does he get to take his work home and edit and work on that in between golf games, yet "crooked Hillary" was under oath in front of committee and the media for 11 hours? And she not once took the Fifth.

Hillary Clinton was never questioned by the FBI until AFTER it was decided to drop the investigation. The Mueller investigation is not equivalent to a committee investigation, but to the FBI investigation. Meanwhile, I have no trouble imagining Hillary Clinton perjuring herself without even blinking.

Let's see: she is a lawyer. She knows the penalty for perjury. She has seen the consequences of perjury up close and personal from her husband. Most importantly:

SHE WAS UNDER OATH FOR 11 HOURS!!! She was questioned by the Benghazi committee under oath, too. But, let's just forget history.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es-so-far/

According to the article, I count three times she testified under oath. I am no expert but that is more than dumb donald.

Has anyone under dumb donald's cabal been under oath at all? Yes, and they all pleaded the Fifth. But, please go on and tell us how Hillary was so much worse for being honest and actually answering questions instead of "I don't want to incriminate myself"

seb146 wrote:

Well, we heard the EXACT SAME THING for eight years under Obama from the tin foil hat, kool ade drinking right, so....

Meanwhile, the Republicans had the majority for 6 of the 8 years Obama was President. Did you see anyone go for impeachment because he was from the opposition? Of course not.

seb146 wrote:

Let's see: she is a lawyer. She knows the penalty for perjury. She has seen the consequences of perjury up close and personal from her husband.

She also knew how high the stakes were: All or nothing. She had protection from the DOJ and White House at that point and fully expected to continue to be invincible after the election because in her mind, she was the preset winner.

Make no mistake, it would be ridiculously easy to get Hillary Clinton indicted and convicted by a grand jury (not a DC one though).

Right wing heads explode in 3... 2... 1...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/us/p ... unsel.html

The orange man baby has hired the same lawyer that defended Bill Clinton and his impeachment.

seb146 wrote:

During the primaries, there were all kinds of reports saying how tRump had a very cozy relationship with Russia and Putin and the oligarchs there.

Yet here we are, 2 years and millions of dollars wasted on an investigation later, and yet not even the hint of proof has been found of that. So how likely is it that those reports had any truth to them whatsoever? Very unlikely, that's what.

aviationaware wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Well, we heard the EXACT SAME THING for eight years under Obama from the tin foil hat, kool ade drinking right, so....

Meanwhile, the Republicans had the majority for 6 of the 8 years Obama was President. Did you see anyone go for impeachment because he was from the opposition? Of course not.

During the primaries, there were all kinds of reports saying how tRump had a very cozy relationship with Russia and Putin and the oligarchs there. Where there is smoke, as the saying goes. All Republicans did under Obama was refuse to seat or hold hearings on his nominees and cry and scream and whine every time he went golfing. It was Republicans who did nothing and blamed Obama. Which is typical of Republicans. Create a mess and blame everyone else because they are the party of personal responsibility.

aviationaware wrote:

seb146 wrote:

During the primaries, there were all kinds of reports saying how tRump had a very cozy relationship with Russia and Putin and the oligarchs there.

Yet here we are, 2 years and millions of dollars wasted on an investigation later, and yet not even the hint of proof has been found of that. So how likely is it that those reports had any truth to them whatsoever? Very unlikely, that's what.

Different from the Cliton witch hunt, 100 million USD taxpayer money or so, that yielded nothing, Mueller has already plenty of scalps under his belt. And his court filings show that he has plenty to convince republican appointed procecuters and judges of crimes having been committed. And the Mueller team doesn't leak.

If they didn't find anything, there would be no need to discredit or fire the people running it.

Best regards
Thomas

bmacleod wrote:

Yet at least one political pundit says despite all of his troubles Trump still looks favorable for re-election.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/underestimate-trumps-reelection-odds-at-your-own-peril/

You conveniently left out that this article is merely a discussion two pundits are having about Trump's reelection odds. There's even a disclaimer at the top in which they inform the reader that the two articles are a back and forth.

aviationaware wrote:

it was the left crying VOTER FRAUD and other corrosive lies.

Funny...it's not Clinton who's crying that voter fraud cost her the Electoral College vote. Trump on the other hand...

aviationaware wrote:

Did you see anyone go for impeachment because he was from the opposition?

Efforts to impeach Obama

Of course, level heads prevailed because they never had a true argument, but in today's environment, had someone else been at the helm of the House, I wouldn't have been surprised if a vote had been set. However, it did make for some good campaigning. Maybe Democrats will take a page out of the GOP's book and use it to turn out their base.

einsteinboricua wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

it was the left crying VOTER FRAUD and other corrosive lies.

Funny...it's not Clinton who's crying that voter fraud cost her the Electoral College vote. Trump on the other hand...

aviationaware wrote:

Did you see anyone go for impeachment because he was from the opposition?

Efforts to impeach Obama

Of course, level heads prevailed because they never had a true argument, but in today's environment, had someone else been at the helm of the House, I wouldn't have been surprised if a vote had been set. However, it did make for some good campaigning. Maybe Democrats will take a page out of the GOP's book and use it to turn out their base.

Yet more making it up as he goes along.

The judge in the Paul Manafort case says Mueller is simply out to get Trump

NOTE that this story is on Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiberal,Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeft leaning CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics ... index.html

727LOVER wrote:

The judge in the Paul Manafort case says Mueller is simply out to get Trump

NOTE that this story is on Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiberal,Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeft leaning CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics ... index.html

That would be a great story for you to pick up on, except that isn't what the Judge said.

Try using quotes next time.

salttee wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

The judge in the Paul Manafort case says Mueller is simply out to get Trump

NOTE that this story is on Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiberal,Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeft leaning CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics ... index.html

That would be a great story for you to pick up on, except that isn't what the Judge said.

Try using quotes next time.

What does the title say?

I substituted GET for HURT

727LOVER wrote:

salttee wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

The judge in the Paul Manafort case says Mueller is simply out to get Trump

NOTE that this story is on Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiberal,Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeft leaning CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics ... index.html

That would be a great story for you to pick up on, except that isn't what the Judge said.

Try using quotes next time.

What does the title say?

I substituted GET for HURT

The CNN title is hyperbole, that isn't what the Judge said.

He did say: "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud" and he apparently did say that he thought that prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment."

Moreover, the tactic being used by Muller's team is perfectly legal and as noted in the article has been used in the past by other prosecutors. Your post was adding hyperbole to CNN's hyperbole. There's nothing to this story.

salttee wrote:

Moreover, the tactic being used by Muller's team is perfectly legal and as noted in the article has been used in the past by other prosecutors. Your post was adding hyperbole to CNN's hyperbole. There's nothing to this story.

Fair enough. I SAW it on CNN...then went and looked for the story

For all of you righties whining "but HILLARY!!!" ask yourself about this:

How many investigation led by Republicans were there against Hillary and how many indictments were handed down as a result?

seb146 wrote:

He paid off an adult film actress to keep quiet (bribery) and the evidence to install him in office by Russia is still mounting (treason) so I don't know why it is not plausible and realistic that he will be removed from office?

Well, Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

Can you tell me what "official" or legal act/duty Stormy Daniels was paid for?

While you're desperately scratching your head trying to come up with a clever yet meaningless retort, think about the fact that Mueller and Co. has had a year and $20M to investigate supposed evidence leading back to Russia and all he’s found are violations committed by others over ten years ago - where his team just had its collective ass handed to it by a federal judge for playing politics - and indictments against foreign nationals who are now fighting it, which will require the special counsel to either produce all their evidence or drop the charges.

This was never about “illegal activities” since collusion is only a federal crime when pertaining to antitrust law; it was and is about trying to throw as much mud at the administration as possible leading up to the midterms.