He had to HAVE A SCRIPT
- Thread starter transporter
- Start date
PsyOps
Pixelated
Then you must've been in elementary school or living under a rock during the Obama admin. Here's your reading assignment for tonight.
List of Obama scandals
Feel free to elaborate.
Or do you honestly believe he misspoke. Why would you believe that after the constant lies he tells. Even today he said his walk with the Queen was the first time in 70 years she saw the royal guards.
Inconsequential but yet another lie.
How many of those led to jail time and indictments for those working closely with Obama?
How many people has this White House burned through?
PsyOps
Pixelated
I posted my reply in another thread that I was disappointed in what Trump said. Whether he misspoke or lied or whatever, I don't know. I cannot get into his head, and not even going to try.
I think it was an unfortunate mistake in any event. These are the things that make me question Trump. But, I'm not a one-issue voter. Trump has done some really dumb stuff. But he has also done some really good things. Nothing Trump has done rises to the level of treason. I have seen no evidence that demands impeachment. I have no reason to believe he should stay in that White House. He was elected president and just because some of things he's done makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean I should demand he be removed from the White House. And demanding such a thing on the grounds you and people Brennan and Waters have shown it just silly.
I posted my reply in another thread that I was disappointed in what Trump said. Whether he misspoke or lied or whatever, I don't know. I cannot get into his head, and not even going to try.
Nothing Trump has done rises to the level of treason. I have seen no evidence that demands impeachment. I have no reason to believe he should stay in that White House. He was elected president and just because some of things he's done makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean I should demand he be removed from the White House. And demanding such a thing on the grounds you and people Brennan and Waters have shown it just silly.
Here are the three most compelling reasons :
"Obstruction of Justice.
This charge has precedent, particularly in Nixon’s case (though it was also brought against Clinton for lying to a grand jury about his sexual relationship with an intern). And there are sufficient examples of obstruction or attempts thereof on Trump’s part to support it as a charge against him. There are several examples of Trump’s attempting to obstruct an investigation into possible collusion by him or his campaign and associates with the Russians in their effort to tilt the 2016 election. They would include: Trump’s demanding of “loyalty” from the previous FBI director, James Comey, whose continuation in the job depended on Trump’s approval; Trump’s asking Comey to go easy on investigating Michael Flynn, his initial national security adviser. Then there were Trump’s calls to former heads of intelligence agencies asking them to try to convince Comey to halt his investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia; and Trump’s firing of Comey. Lest there be any ambiguity (which the White House tried to sow) about Trump’s motive, there was his confessing to Lester Holt of NBC News that when he fired Comey, he had on his mind “this Russia thing, ” and the following day, Trump’s telling high Russian officials in the Oval Office that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. Those acts make a strong basis for charging Trump for the crime of obstruction, which requires a showing of intent, as well as an impeachable offense.
Accepting Foreign Emoluments.
The framers of the Constitution were so concerned that the country’s officials—including its ambassadors stationed abroad as well as the president—could be swayed by foreign governments and potentates that they wrote into Article I of the Constitution a prohibition on any “person holding any office of profit or trust under them,” accepting any “present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” This “Emoluments Clause” has never been tested, but some analysts believe that it could apply to payments that Trump’s properties around the world receive from foreign officials. Particular attention has been paid to Trump’s opportunity to receive profits from foreign governments making use of his swank hotel a short walk from the White House.
Trump has said he’d donate any profits from his high-priced D.C. hotel to charity, but no plan for this has ever been made public. His daughter Ivanka has said she would handle any conflicts that might arise from the president’s ownership position in the hotel, which doesn’t exactly put the matter in neutral hands. A suit concerning emoluments has been brought by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which argues that the clause prohibits Trump-owned businesses from accepting any payments from foreign governments. This issue is likely to come up in any congressional consideration of impeaching Trump.
Abuse of the Ethics Rules.
This, too, would be a new kind of impeachable offense, but it’s one rendered conceivable since Trump made the major problematic decision to not relinquish his ownership positions in the family businesses. The public was supposed to be reassured that Trump’s pledge that he would turn the management of the large family concern over to his sons and he wouldn’t talk to them about the matter. How such a restraint was to be enforced was left unexplained. The offense to the body politic is that the president could be helping his businesses profit from his position at the expense of government policy. This could extend to his arranging for his children to benefit from his exalted foreign contacts, for instance in allowing daughter Ivanka, who in addition to holding a stake in the family company owns clothing and jewelry businesses, to sit in on his meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister early in the administration. (Like Trump, Ivanka and husband Jared Kushner, both on the White House staff though they take no salaries, continue to receive income from their companies.)
Is the Trump family to be enriched by the presidency of the patriarch? Is the public simply to trust that the family keeps its business and government matters separate and that the sons don’t talk to the father about them? Why should the Trump family have advantages over private citizens? The impeachable offense could be that Trump has abused power by using his position as president for his own and his family’s enrichment and risked that government policies could be affected by his private interests. Questions have also been raised about Trump’s friendliness toward dictators of countries where he owns hotels, including Turkey and the Philippines. It’s recently been learned that Trump was seeking to build a large Trump Tower in Moscow while he was running for president (efforts to win Russian approval of this project had begun earlier and was abandoned early in the campaign for lack of permits and land).
And then there’s Trump’s famous soft spot for Vladimir Putin. Trump often claimed that he didn’t have business in Russia but that wasn’t for lack of trying. In May, of this year Trump’s tax lawyers sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying Trump had not received any income from Russian sources over the past 10 years “with a few exceptions.” The conservative foreign-policy analyst Max Boot has written, “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies. Eric Trump said in 2014, “We don’t rely on American banks…. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-case-for-impeaching-donald-trump-is-real-and-serious-heres-why
do us all a big favor and hold your breath until Trump is impeached, convicted, and removed from office.
This_person
Well-Known Member
If you're going to attack what you believe is a fault in someone else's intelligence, you should learn the difference between doing a 360 and a 180.
Maffs is hard for Sappy...especially Al Jebra.
I thought Obama killed him in a Afgan drone strike?
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Navy 'CORPSMAN'...(because that's what is on the teleprompter)
This_person
Well-Known Member
Hard to have obstruction of justice when he, himself, is not the subject of any investigation (at least according to every single person involved), and he has the ability to pardon or stop any other investigation he chooses as one of the responsibilities of his office.
If this is a good reason to impeach a president, where were you when Obama was selling copies of his books in many, many countries???? Surely, when Mrs. Clinton spent $70,000 of taxpayers' money on the book as Sec State, there must have been a thought that this was abuse of government funds, right? You were upset about all of those things like a hotel room, right?
So, the mere appearance of impropriety is the issue here, like the president's state dept ordering $70,000 of his books? Or, like Biden's son Hunter getting a great deal with China after flying there with dear old Dad?
I mean, you're no hypocrite, right? You'd NEVER vote for Biden, again, knowing this now, right? you know, Biden can still be impeached after the fact, right? Are you in belief that should happen, to set the moral record straight?
You mean, like laws that shield them from insider information? Oh, wait, no, that's congress - a law backed and signed by Mr. Obama (repeal of key provisions of the STOCK Act).
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Do you think he really meant to say wouldn't?
PsyOps
Pixelated
I have no idea. He's not a normal politician - who tends to measure every word they say. Trump's not scripted. My initial response to his comment was "disappointed". This is what Trump does. He makes outrageous statements to get people all stirred up. It works every time. A lot of people like this. They like that he keep the left in constant stomach contractions, almost ready to vomit through the top of their skulls. I tend not to get all worked up over it because I feel I get him. The frenzied foaming-at-the-mouth left is nothing more than entertaining analyzing every word Trumps says in hopes they will find something treasonous. I feel like I'm watching a 3rd grade class where a kid farts and everyone in the class gets all worked up over it.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Well yea, the freakout aside, and using the summit as the only source of info I seriously doubt he meant to say "wouldn't". The tone and context of the whole response to the question, his Fox Interview, and now the "no" flub, I really don't see how Trump is some genious aiming to piss off one side (and personally, that makes him a petty person). I think he genuinely believes that Russia had nothing to do with it, and that Montenegro will start WWIII.
I really wonder if we'll see any changes to the Magnitsky Act or if Russia will be allowed to comb through US records or interview US citizens/workers.
Of course, that's my opinion.
This_person
Well-Known Member
With respect to would or wouldn't, context-clues say he meant would. But, I think that is with respect to Putin, the Russian government itself, not Russians at all.
With respect to the "no" thing, he's repeatedly done that "no" thing meaning "no, I won't fall for your crap and answer a 'do you still beat your wife' question you azzwipe". I believe that one because I've seen him do it many times, and he's known to pontificate on answering questions like that, not just give a "no" answer.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I thought it was collusion that they/you were after? Trump hasn't been officially accused of, let alone charged with any of these. You keep forgetting that Trump still isn't even a target of his investigation. Over a year of investigating and nothing on Trump.
And remember that Comey said: "...anybody who’s actually done investigations knows that if you’ve been investigating something for almost a year and you don’t have a general sense of where it’s likely to end up, you should be fired because you’re incompetent."
This is an unintentional indictment on Mueller's investigation.
BOP
Well-Known Member
The irony is that the establishment GOP stands ready, willing, and able to help them regain that power.
BOP
Well-Known Member
I posted my reply in another thread that I was disappointed in what Trump said. Whether he misspoke or lied or whatever, I don't know. I cannot get into his head, and not even going to try.
Nothing Trump has done rises to the level of treason. I have seen no evidence that demands impeachment. I have no reason to believe he should stay in that White House. He was elected president and just because some of things he's done makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean I should demand he be removed from the White House. And demanding such a thing on the grounds you and people Brennan and Waters have shown it just silly.
Trump could fart loudly in public and they'd scream treason and demand his impeachment.