The Atty General of the most powerful country in the history of the human race probably has more on his plate, than any of the magistrates of that piddly little city-state you hail from.
What’s your angle? You post hate on the US and all things conservative night and frigging day on here. Just curious, since I don’t think you really have any reason other than being Euro Liberal.
Really? More on his plate that the “lock her up” woman? The epitome of unspeakable evil? The murderer of brave Americans in Benghazi? The godmother of open borders? What about Seth Rich?
The conservatives claimed that the choice between Hillary and Trump was a Manichean struggle between good and evil, and now that you finally have a chance to put this monster and a key Soros ally on trial, it’s “meh, we have other things to do”
Really?
Oh, someone is upset that I’ve dared to insult the God Emperor.
Honestly, I’m probably more conservative that you since you seem to ascribe to this weird Soviet style cult of personality.
I was curious why the GOP would not want a full blown trial with a chance to shred the Dems into a possible collapse, similar to the Whigs.
But I also see the wisdom of denying a nebulous political attack disguised as saving the Republic. I say this because: the original charges sound a whole lot more like semantics than wrongdoing, the proofs offered heretofore do not seem either conclusive or even in lockstep in uniformity, the final charges, while squishy (abuse of power) deserve a more thorough cross examination. There is a component of executive vs legislative that needs a judicial review also.
I have no particular love for Trump, due to his obnoxious manner.
However, I am on board for the majority of his acts as President.
Not being a hater of everything Trump doesn’t mean my comments are suddenly invalid or without a logical or somewhat educated basis. That most here don’t like them for that reason - oh well.
You don’t know most conservatives so why say something you cannot verify as true?
ha literal man in the house
I guess that’s one way to get away with avoiding facts.
I don’t know that I have ever seen you really take a position and defend it with citations or some deduced conclusion, that would sway anyone to your side.
But a majority of your posts refute some other poster with nuh-uh, you’re wrong, I can read that in the original language I taught myself, you’re not smart enough, conservatives have no access to the real facts, etc.
Ironic that you use literal-ism as reply to others, while making sweeping generalities not based in fact.
The case of impeachment in the house is meant to provide a litmus test for the trial in the senate. Why would witnesses being called in defense of Trump be necessary, when the House doesn’t conduct the trial?
Isn’t that what they’re doing? Albeit delayed as a stunt to rebuke Mitch’s “we have no intention of looking into this” public stance.
Ah right. Honesty and fairness. In DC. Right.
I say this with no sarcasm, that it would be great for this country if at least 20% of either party thought this way.
I felt the same damn way about Benghazi, but all the good that did me.
If it makes you feel better, I disagreed with husband Clinton impeached on lying about boffing Monica.
I don’t. Even a little. Lie under oath as the POTUS you deserve to catch all the shit people can fling. If they had removed him from office I’d probably have a different view
I still subscribe to a pretty simple philosophy about politicians. I hold them to a higher standard than I hold myself, and if that standard can’t be met, I expect them to not be so fucking stupid as to get caught red handed.
I’ll concede that.
My bad, by transparency I meant for the entire house of representatives, not the public.
And if they could only get trump under oath, he would perjure himself in record time. Trump would resign before he would answer any questions from democrats in congress under oath.
It’s not an issue of semantics. It’s very cut and dry… black and white… no wiggle room. Trump broke the law. The GAO put it best:
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the opinion said. “[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason … not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act].”
If your position is that the President should be allowed to break the law when it’s politically expedient to do so, then fine - own it. Don’t pussyfoot around it.
GAO?
Fake news?
It’s spelled Fox News.
Don’t worry, conservatives will soon be able to hear the truth directly from the troll fac… I mean the source without having to use intermidiaries such as Fox, Breitbart and Sinclair Broadcasting.
The GAO declared 7 times that Obama broke the law.
Were you the lone voice calling for Obama’s impeachment?
And no, this is not “what-about-ism”, it’s just showing that the GAO has found most modern American presidents guilty of “breaking the law”, yet I don’t recall impeachment hearings on any of them except Trump.
Technically, it was not Obama.
Nope. The truth is I didn’t pay much attention to politics until the 2016 election. I have no recollection of the findings or the larger context within which those findings were released. My point was that this impeachment isn’t about semantics… It’s a cut-and-dried. In addition to the GAO finding, there’s sworn testimony from several people with firsthand knowledge of the facts. The President blocked military aid appropriated by Congress in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. Not only was that against the law, but it also violated the Appropriations clause of the Constitution. I think it says a lot that the people willing testify to the President’s crimes are willing to do so under oath while those defending the President refuse to do so under oath. If anyone had exonerating evidence, surely they’d testify accordingly… right?
This is all a symptom of a fundamental issue - Trump is a cheat. If he can find a way to abuse his power to gain an unfair advantage, he will. It’s worked out well for him until now, with the only consequence being the occasional bankruptcy or civil lawsuit. But, it’s a lot harder to cheat with all the scrutiny that comes with being the President.