Trump at brink of impeachment as U.S. House committee approves charges

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I trade for a living so I don't like to take too much risk. I think immediate dismissal would be a sure thing. 

To me it is about truth and justice.  By avoiding a Senate trial you don't risk truth and justice from being served, you assure that it will not be served.  Damn the risk and be confident that truth and justice will persevere.  Not something I would gamble with it.  But that's what politicians do.  Rather than actually stand for what they believe they play the game of which path they think would go their way.  People are tired of this yellow bellied approach.  At least I am.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

"Impeachment must be bipartisan" - Nancy Pelosi.

 

Some Dems won't vote for it and are even attending a Trump party LOL.

 

https://www.axios.com/house-dems-trump-ball-impeachment-c3c3006b-59fc-47d0-92fb-b260bffaed19.html

Still your feeling cofident I see! Laughing out loud!

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Still your feeling cofident I see! Laughing out loud!

 

I would make an avatar wager. If Trump wins you put an avatar of my choice for 2 years. If a dem wins I do the same. Are we on? 

[metisdead]

An off trolling post about the UK has been removed. 

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Any other guesses? I am guessing you will see the main vote on impeachment will have some dems against it. The vote in the senate is going to be to dismiss with no trial. 

Me think a quick trial will be more likely as some Republicans up for election will not get the vote to 51

[Cryingdick]

Just now, earlinclaifornia said:

Me think a quick trial will be more likely as some Republicans up for election will not get the vote to 51

 

I know Joe Manchin who is a dem will vote against it.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I want a trial.  No trial and all of the Dem misdeeds get swept under the rug.  I want Schiff and the whistle blower to testify.  There's more here than meets the eye.  At least for some.

Add those who refused to testify and I totaly agree including Nunes.

[Ireland32]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

He will also be the first ever president impeached without a provable crime existing.

Denialist

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The circus that ensues out of a trial is exactly what Trump wants anyway. 

Yes he does believe in "shock and awe" but I think he will be persuaded to be meek about trial input.

[J Town]

36 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Things are a little different now, The GOP should wait and pounce when the time is right. 

THIS is what's gonna be worth waiting for:

"Supreme Court to Rule on Release of Trump’s Financial Records

The court’s ruling, expected by June"

This will be a game changer. If he continues to hide what EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT over the last 50 years has provided, he'll be labelled as a cheat (I know, he's already labelled a cheat, but this will add fuel). And if his financial records ARE released, well we all know how THAT will turn out.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/supreme-court-trump-financial-records.html?auth=linked-google1tap&smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Kelsall]

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

THIS is what's gonna be worth waiting for:

"Supreme Court to Rule on Release of Trump’s Financial Records

The court’s ruling, expected by June"

This will be a game changer. If he continues to hide what EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT over the last 50 years has provided, he'll be labelled as a cheat (I know, he's already labelled a cheat, but this will add fuel). And if his financial records ARE released, well we all know how THAT will turn out.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/supreme-court-trump-financial-records.html?auth=linked-google1tap&smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Rachel Maddow got hold of his tax returns a while back.  She said there was nothing there.  Another nothing burger.

[Cryingdick]

7 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Yes he does believe in "shock and awe" but I think he will be persuaded to be meek about trial input.

 

Yes an acquittal will be that vehicle.

[HuskerDo]

4 minutes ago, J Town said:

THIS is what's gonna be worth waiting for:

"Supreme Court to Rule on Release of Trump’s Financial Records

The court’s ruling, expected by June"

This will be a game changer. If he continues to hide what EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT over the last 50 years has provided, he'll be labelled as a cheat (I know, he's already labelled a cheat, but this will add fuel). And if his financial records ARE released, well we all know how THAT will turn out.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/supreme-court-trump-financial-records.html?auth=linked-google1tap&smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"And if his financial records ARE released, well we all know how THAT will turn out".... I have no idea what his financial records have to do with anything but when you say "we all know how that will turn out" we really don't. Thanks Kreskin.

[sammieuk1]

Only Farage can save him now after the Boris rescue ????

[Eric Loh]

17 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Rachel Maddow got hold of his tax returns a while back.  She said there was nothing there.  Another nothing burger.

That was 2 pages of his 2005 tax return. She was mocked and apologized. 

[Longcut]

3 hours ago, TooBigToFit said:

If you don't understand Trump's abuse, just imagine next time you go to get your visa extension the officer there says "We'll give you your visa extension. I would like you to do us a favor, though." Then he waits for your answer. 

That used to be the norm here and still is in some places. Ever heard of a "visa agent"? What do you think goes on there?

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, Ireland32 said:

Denialist

I will recant as soon as you show proof.  Impeachment inquiry witness speculations, opinions, conjectures, guesswork, meditations, suppositions are not proof.  They are personal opinion.  Don't even try conflating the two.  So, proof, please.

[rabas]

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

That was 2 pages of his 2005 tax return. She was mocked and apologized. 

You do realize the IRS has  all his tax returns from every year and audits them frequently. A whole side of nothing burger beef there. CNN is not licensed to audit tax returns.

 

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

You do realize the IRS has  all his tax returns from every year and audits them frequently.

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence (you know, the factual stuff, something from the IRS themselves) to back this statement up

[Eric Loh]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

 

If impeached, Trump will go on trial in the Senate in January just as the 2020 presidential campaign begins to pick up speed.

Moment of truth for the Reps who have been calling this impeachment a hoax. Reps senators with WH counseling will likely not go for a lengthy trial but a short trial with few or no witnesses. They fear a lengthy trial with witnesses that will reveal more exposures and discoveries as there are mountain of evidences of the President impeachable acts and will be bad for public consumption and 2020 election. They know they have the numbers and better positioned for the acquittal votes. These corrupt Rep senators who took the oath of office will betray the people and country for 1 corrupt president and thereby preserving their jobs. 

[rabas]

9 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence (you know, the factual stuff, something from the IRS themselves) to back this statement up

Factual stuff, though I too wonder how well the IRS does.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/18/wealthy-americans-are-more-likely-to-have-their-taxes-audited-by-the-irs.html

 

Those who made between $1 million and $5 million in adjusted gross income faced nearly a 1 in 20 chance of getting audited. Those making $5 million to $10 million faced a more than 1 in 10 chance.

Super earners, or those making more than $10 million in 2015, faced by far the highest audit rates. Fully 19 percent of them were audited in 2015 — or nearly 1 in 5.

[ThaiBunny]

27 minutes ago, rabas said:

Factual stuff, though I too wonder how well the IRS does.

It's not factual about Trump. You claimed that Trump has been audited "many times". I want to see your evidence for that. All you're doing is making an assumption

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Moment of truth for the Reps who have been calling this impeachment a hoax. Reps senators with WH counseling will likely not go for a lengthy trial but a short trial with few or no witnesses. They fear a lengthy trial with witnesses that will reveal more exposures and discoveries as there are mountain of evidences of the President impeachable acts and will be bad for public consumption and 2020 election. They know they have the numbers and better positioned for the acquittal votes. These corrupt Rep senators who took the oath of office will betray the people and country for 1 corrupt president and thereby preserving their jobs. 

More likely they're afraid of exposing their hands in the Ukrainian cookie jar.

[Matzzon]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Yep, In all the movies I´ve looked and also in documentaries, they usaully call a face expression as this a face of a madman.

[atyclb]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

Clinton is not president.

 

Not anymore but whether his title as president can come and go he is what many people consider a sex offender. That will never change.

 

 

cut bill some slack, i don't condone underage sex but just imagine you had to sleep with hillary every night.

[Ramen087]

• Bill Clinton was impeached... finished his term of office... favorably, I might add...
   
• Democrats are playing the only cards they’ve had in their hands since the legal result of the 2016 election: we hate this guy for winning fair and square, we have no candidate to run in 2020, so let’s do everything and anything to impugn the reputation of the Commander in Chief. 
   
• good luck getting this fecal matter through the senate; they’ve seen through it from the beginning...
   

 

[malibukid]

let him have his day in court, i.e. The Senate like he wants without his handlers.  he will no doubt go bat crazy for the cameras and the world to see him for what he is.

[BigC]

Looks like Americans  need their second ammendment  now more than ever as i predict  civil war 

[TPI]

7 hours ago, TooBigToFit said:

If you don't understand Trump's abuse, just imagine next time you go to get your visa extension the officer there says "We'll give you your visa extension. I would like you to do us a favor, though." Then he waits for your answer. 

That's not what he said and you know it! Why do some people read what was said and then change the words to suit their mood? The obstruction of congress was because Trump wanted the Supreme Court to adjudicate on whether the WH had to obey the Congressional subpoena or not! It's before the court now! Why would Trump be frightened by a Biden candidacy, it's obvious to "blind Freddy" that the opposition do not have anyone who could beat him! As an Ozy it's obviously some sort of demented political game that has sucked in the Dem voters!  

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I am not really sure what to say on this matter anymore.

 

The facts of the case are essentially uncontested, and if they do not meet the test of Impeachment, I cannot see what ever will. Any future US President, never mind the current one, will be able to use monies allocated as a tool for personal benefit, then stonewall any subsequent investigation rendering themselves above and beyond accountability.

 

This time it is Trump. How will Trump supporters feel if next time it is a (hypothetical) President Warren? President Biden? President Chelsea Clinton? President Malia Obama?

 

History will not be kind to today's Republican party; they will forever be known as the group that gave up Congressional power/oversight in favour of fleeting partisan advantage. The votes that they cast in favour of Trump's action will follow them throughout their political lives; Hillary Clinton's vote in favour of the Gulf War cost her the Presidency in 2008 and votes in Trump's favour now will have an equally detrimental effect on the future of whoever casts them.

 

Sad, sad days for the US, the Republican party and the planet.

 

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

You could also ask what if the close family of your hypothetical Democrat Presidents were found to be on foreign company boards. receiving big remuneration packages for apparently no other reasons than family connections? Should that simply be ignored and swept under a carpet because they're left of center and related to a POTUS or VPOTUS?

 

It's a sad say for the US for sure. A dubious President being challenged by a spiteful corrupt Democrat Party who've been focusing on this since their chosen candidate, who they cheated to select as their nominee and whose husband was previously impeached, lost.

 

It shows the now greater polarization of politics in the US. And, as elected judges are often elected as Democrat or Republican judges, the polarization filters through to the law system.

 

It's not about right or wrong, lawful or illegal anymore. It's about trying to bend the law to suit your own political agendas. In some cases extremely creative bending!

 

If I was an American, I'd be very worried about the direction this is all going. 

 

Whatever Trump is he's certainly kicked the lid off the bottle and let the genies out.