I agree. But I just wanted to add Bush was an actual piece of shit. I wouldn't just put him with the other presidents like "Oh he also got hate like the rest of them". No he was a coward.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
How would Hillary and the fbi be more guilty when it comes to Russian collusion
Have you EVER heard of the Steele dossier?
The one originally paid for by a Republican presidential candidate? yes I have. But playing along with your misinformed comment, I don’t understand how that amounts to more collusion with a foreign government than a campaign who literally accepted help from Russia , a country who specifically told them they were trying to help their campaign and get trump elected and who published anti-Hillary propaganda to help trump win. I don’t see how those two things even begin to compare. But I’m sure with right wing “logic” you’ll find a way to equate those two
You are obviously not interested in hearing anyone who disagrees with you and I do not choose to be an audience for your political ranting. Goodbye!
i don't think so, O&W. I always respect your opinons, but respectfully, on this topic we disagree.
@juliaanita That's okay.
@OlderAndWiser you handled that well, and I agree with you and @juliaanita
@JackSmy :) :)
You want collusion, check out China.
@genuinlysensitive since the question is about impeachment, I think it beats repeating that there is no crime called "collusion."
well I was kinda thinking inslaw but i dont think anyone who wants to live wants to tackle that
This was basically my opinion worded more eloquently. Saved me writing it.
Hillary actually probably did collude with Russia unlike Trump which makes this whole thing even funnier the Dems have no morals they don't care about facts they tried to ruin Trump's life and then to find out he was innocent and Hillary actually was the one who colluded wow just wow.
I will also mention that Hillary did commit greater atrocities with Russia: selling 20% of U. S. uranium stockpile to Russia, followed by russia donating millions to the Clinton foundation and paying Bill $500,000 for a speech.It would not make Trump innocent of a crime, but lucky for Republicans, he hasn't committed any high crimes or misdemeanors
uh. . . the Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC not a republican. Where the hell did you hear that? Also Trump never "accepted help from Russia". That literally never happened and the mueller report out right states they found absolutely no US citizen having colluded with Russians at any time (except for the small issue that they never investigated or questioned Clinton or any one else involved with the dossier).
In truth Trump would have been right to collude with Russia, because Hillary Clinton posed a very serious threat to peace between the two countries. She was largely responsible for the scale and length of the Syrian civil war, as she was behind US funding for the Free Syrian Army, popularly believed to be the "good guys" in the region at that time. (To put it lightly, they weren't.)She was one of the people who characterized Russia's presence in Syria as an invasion (they were invited) and not only threatened to force down Russian planes (which means kill the pilots if they won't comply) but promised to station SAM units in heavily populated areas, while openly acknowledging that this would lead to considerable civilian casualties. If anyone from this country deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, it is John Kerry for defusing this situation and guiding the Obama administration's foreign policy back toward sanity. Which is why he will never again be eligible for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.Use your head. If Russia wanted Trump to win the presidency, and their instrument was the WikiLeaks dump, why in the hell did they time it just before the Democratic convention? The beneficiary of this move was not Donald Trump but Bernie Sanders - a more devoted, harder working, and far better liked candidate than Hillary Clinton, and he would have mopped the floor with Trump in the general election. The only reason WikiLeaks' actions didn't unseat Clinton is that the DNC had been actively favoring her for all this time, and at the convention treated Sanders' supporters like dirt - confiscating their campaign signs, interfering with their chanting, and finally refusing them reentry to the event. He never had a chance against her. But had the leak succeeded, Bernie Sanders would be president today.
@Ogopogo I disagree with your conclusion that Sanders would have easily defeated Trump. His far left positions alienate far too many centrists and independent voters. This country does not want to move towards Socialism and that thinking will guarantee Trump's re-election in 2020.
Easily? Okay, maybe not. But Hillary Clinton barely showed up. She campaigned less than any general election presidential candidate I can remember, didn't show up at all in certain battleground states, and she was widely dislikes, while Bernie's following loved him for a variety of reasons. As a Trump supporter even I could stomach Bernie, if only because it's hard for me to view a country that spends over a trillion dollars a year on social programs as anything other than socialist. I always thought it was silly when conservatives used language with him that suggested bread lines, mandated career paths, and communal farms. He wants college, healthcare, and basic employment to mirror what we already do with education, food, and housing. I don't agree with it, but it's not this hairpin turn some people painted it as being. It's just more of the same dumb modern day America we already have.
@Ogopogo I liked Bernie in 2016 but the way he acts now I despise him he is getting nasty and lying about people just like the others.
@IreallyhateGAG In 2016, I respected Bernie although I strongly disagreed with his politics. Now, I don't respect him. There are people on "the other side" who I like and respect although I disagree with many of their positions. One of my favorites is Joe Lieberman.
@OlderAndWiser I was always a conservative and before that I was apolitical until about 27 years old and I believe in everything the Republicans want but for a while there I did want single payer healthcare because of how unfair it is in the US and how insurance companies make us our their bitches. Since then though I know the dangers of socialism and I do not want it but at the same time I know more about the world now and I know it will happen because we are heading for full on socialism and open borders as well it doesn't matter if Trump is president or whoever because it is the UN agenda. Bernie pulled me in for a little while but I see the bigger picture now I hope it does not happen within my lifetime.
@IreallyhateGAG just want you to know that i am enjoying the conversation you two (or three) gentleman are having. It's almost completely without name calling, and I find it refreshing, especially on GAG.Of course I am far left to either of you-and i probably disagree with most of your conclusions, if not facts. But i like the civil discourse.i am currently reading a new book by George Will, entitled "the Conservative Sensibility" as I want more perspective.George Will is one of the leading conservative academics in the US. His credidentials are impeccable. And he is virulent anti trump. I probably don't agree with much of his conclusions either, but I have always respected his argumentation. I would recommend his book to you.in the meantime, continue your conversation :)
@juliaanita What you need to realize is you can read all the books you want our whole country and the entire system is rigged so anything you think you know you do not know. Not because you lack intelligence just because we have all been indoctrinated into all of these beliefs we all have. Just when you think you've got the answers the elite have changed the questions.
@IreallyhateGAG im probably not as paranoid as you are about the workings of the government. There is corruption yes. But the WHOLE system isn't rigged. Im not even sure what that word means, But it has certainly been used by the president when factual evidence isn't supportive of his narrative. But to use the word as though it is an objective assessment, is less than honest at best and is in any case misleading.Your comment RE 'anything you think you know..' suggests that we are unable to discern the truth and is simply not true- It smacks of the Russian Federations's campaign of disseminating disinformation-and is echoed by the current president and is exactly what they/he want you to believe, Your statement is evidence that it is working.I have my eyes wide open RE the system, and the one truth that remains truth is that the government cannot rule without the consent of the people. This isn't my idea. It comes from John Locke and is echoed in our constitution. Corruption comes from wealth and power (and we certainly have it in the oval office now) but consent to be governed is only vested in the people. So all i can think of is that have the government we deserve.To keep things civil-the one thing you and I can both agree upon is that we want a government we can trust. To that end, again, i would recommend that you ignore anything that smacks of conspiracies and disinformation. Concentrate instead on some in-depth reading RE how the government works, the historical underpinnings of why it works, and where the real power of the government comes. I recommend starting with George Will. If you don't know him already-you should. He's on your side of the political fence.Thanks for the conversation
@juliaanita You are clueless and brainwashed I am sorry. Research Freemasonry, Skull and Bones , The Shriners and Rothchilds. All of your beliefs are just going by propaganda not truth.
@IreallyhateGAG Geez, you started the name calling. But aren't those the same adjectives the president uses? Why does that not surprise me?Having read your 'research' topics, i got your number. Bummer that you don't expand your research horizens beyond web conspiracy channels. I had more faith in you than i should have. My mistake.bye then.
How is this relevant to impeachment?
It's relevant to impeachment because the legal case for impeachment has failed, and in real life the issue is over with. Asking at this late hour if people want Trump impeached is no different from asking if he should be tarred and feathered.
In the Senate I count at least 56 no votes: all Republicans plus Manchin, Jones, and Sinema.
@Liam_Hayden - As I said very unlikely for over 50 - I honestly have not got into numbers beyond 53 Republicans because of the senate arithmetic
So attempting to obstruct justice 10 times is not a crime? That’s definitely not what mueller said under oath when he testified on Wednesday.
There is no law governing an ATTEMPT to obstruct justice. Either justice was obstructed or it wasn't. Attempting to fire Mueller did not obstruct justice because Mueller wasn't fired. so no justice was obstructed.
Then what about actually firing comey because he was investigation into trump. Does that not count as obstruction?
Even if Mueller WAS fired and another Special Prosecutor was installed, justice was therefore STILL not obstructed. Has DJT ordered the investigation stopped (he could have), THAT would be obstruction.
No it does not. A new FBI director was installed and was free to resume the investigation. Had DJT ordered the FBI to cease investigating him, THAT would be obstruction.
Remember that the entire Mueller investigation was fraudulent, as is now being exposed. The Pee dossier was fabricated for the Clinton campaign.
Asker he only obstructed justice because he tried to shut down a fraudulent investigation. He should not be impeached because the Democrats ran with lies and tried to ruin his life and he tried to shut it down. The Dems created his crimes by trying to railroad him. To be honest you are sickening and so are they. Go after a man for no reason when no crime happened then say he should be impeached for defending himself. No prosecutor on earth is going to charge him with obstruction any judge would throw it out given the circumstances of what happened.
Firing Comey was not obstruction because someone else took his place it is not like he put the FBI off his trail he just fired someone who was incompetent. Before the election Comey let Hillary walk on a crime she committed he was not fit for his job.
@IreallyhateGAG Important to be precise. He did not obstruct justice. At worst, he only tried. In either the Special Counsel's or FBI's case, replacements would have been/were seated.
What it all comes down to is it was a witch hunt since he did nothing to begin with he should be free of all charges and honestly the Dems who pushed these lies and wasted taxpayer money should be prosecuted
@IreallyhateGAG Prosecutions are coming. The IG report will be damning. Investigations may go all the way to Obama himself. Notice how quiet he's been?
Yea and what bothers me the most is how Dems fake reality. Whatever happens they twist everything into something else. I have had Democrats in my family and they would not have acted that way at all they used to be a good party my uncle though is just like Pelosi and all of them Saying Trump is a racist without any proof and saying sanctuary cities don't protect criminals it makes me sick
All of this was done to cover up of the illegal spying of Trump and the campaign by Obama and his Justice department. Where are the indictments on them?
@Asker- this is not even a question. It’s all been debunked, over and over. It’s done. The AG determined there will not be an indictment of this president. He has, however, decided there’s good reason to believe Trump was right all along, there was an attempt to overthrow a legitimate administration and the perpetrators will be outed and indicted. Possibly all the way up to Obama.
You should all prepare for a very different outcome of all this, before the election.
Yes here is the indictment now:Everyone thinks that an indictment is a conviction, the scary thing is like the old saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. This is another case of trying to get rid of the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
@genuinlysensitive And what would you say if an investigation found Obama obstructed justice according to testimony under oath from his own lawyer? You'd be in favor of impeachment then wouldn't you?
They actual don’t have anything otherwise they would be screaming it in factual terms instead of just screaming like idiots. They have nothing but desire and that doesn’t cut it.
Which also begs the question of whether or not you can really obstruct an investigation into a crime you didn't commit.
@winterfox10 Well I think that would be up to the prosecutor who more than likely would throw it out of court.
@Agape- that is a bold face lie. It is patently false. The first words out of Millers‘s mouth in the second session he said specifically that is not how he should be characterized and that he did not make his decision based on POLC‘s and justice department guidelines that a sitting president cannot be impeached you should check the record
Nadler liedTo the American people when he made the same statement you just repeated everyone knows that except you and Ladda apparently
Nadler not ladda
Sitting presidents cannot be indicted, because if they could any political activist prosecutor could indict him to hold up his agenda. You know the old saying about indicting a ham sandwich.
I love how you keep talking girther without proving your assertions lol evidence over emotions.
@en mad byAgape- you are saying, in effect, not to believe my lying eyes and ears, when I watched Nadler live, tell the same lie you just repeated. I wonder if you saw the hearing, the part where mueller clearly corrected the misstatement made by the congressman in the earlier session. I don’t need to provide proof, bc it’s in the record. It is true what @genuinelysensitive says. But mueller stated in his testimony that it did not hahave anything to do with his decision to not indict. its not emotional to correct misinformation when it’s presented. That’s all I have done here. I’m glad you “love” when I correct your false statements.
@Agape- you have the right to your own opinion, but you do not have a right to your own facts.
You keep saying it’s a lie but you aren’t backing it up with empirical facts. You’re welcome to your own opinion, but your not welcome to act as if your opinion is a fact.
The burden of proof lie with the one making the original statement. That’s you. I don’t need to back up anything, all I’m doing is confronting your misinformation. You keep insisting I need a source or proof, that’s just ignorance on your part. You keep saying that although it is you who does not have a source or proof, bc there’s no proof bc it’s a lie. Confirmed lie due to your ignorance of public discourse, and basic rules about the court of public opinion.You continue to ignore what I asked you early on, did you see any of the hearing? The answer is obviousY “no”. If you had, you’d never make this false statement. Muelle said in the hearing, as well as before the hearing. He did not consider the OLC guidelines when making the decision to not indict the president.
I will not keep replying to someone who is intellectually bankrupt. Or who is too unethical to concede obvious defeat in a debate. You should use this as a learning experience. Don’t make statement about things you know nothing about, especially when it is something everyone knows a lot about. You’ll continue to be laughed at, and embarrass yourself. 😎
Lol hon, I have no burden of proof. I’m restating what mueller himself said on national television. YOU are the one asserting that people are lying and are not backing it up with FACTS. If you did, I would be on your side.
Look up the 1st Amendment and get back to us.
So , in short, https://i.imgur.com/ggouCJh.gifv
And his supporterssdrawkcabkool.tumblr.com/image/127528320737
@Liam_Hayden Fire! in a crowded theater anyone?
He pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, GOODpulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, GOODcut taxes for the rich (and everyone else) GOODappointed an ex-telecom employee as chairman of the FCC to gut net neutrality GOOD, increased the wars in Afghanistan WRONG and Iraq (AND DEFEATED ISIS)Goldman Sachs people in his administration WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?increased the Drug War, GOODinstalled people to the EPA to deregulate GOODWaiting for the bad.1|10|1Reply
So you're saying this is a partisan endeavor.
@genuinlysensitive No, Trump is wholly unsuited for the office. But it's pointless for the House to pass articles of impeachment if the Senate won't convict.
Do people actually take a moment to drive around and talk to hard working Americans to see if the economy has actually gotten better in their opinion? Or do they watch commercials which rave "jobs, jobs, jobs"? It's mind blowing really. But hey, "This is America".
@Renee93 I have talked to people and they even think the economy is better and there is much more job growth and lower unemployment rate especially where I am.
Right... maybe that's where "you" are.
@Renee93 a lot of people all over the country feel the exact same way. Maybe you’re letting your hatred for him overtake everything. I’m not the biggest fan of him either but I give credit when due. He’s doing great right now for the economy. I read we’ve even have the best economy now since the Great Depression. This hasn’t happened in decades.
You believe whatever you desire too. I know the truth as do others who aren't blinded by a bunch of charismatic speech. I respect our president because he's just that, the president of the United States. But I can clearly see that this nation is headed back to a depression, whether you think it is or not is not the issue. It will happen. And we'll all be standing in the same soup and bread lines. Don't be so easily deceived. I've worked in television, I've heard what's really happening out there. It's not about hating the president it's about seeing through what were told. You'll understand as you get older... maybe