|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Impeachment? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1494440339 Message started by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 11:18:58 |
|
Title: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 11:18:58 Oh yes boys and girls - it looks like tweety is on the road to impeachment. I (almost) feel bad for those that voted for him. But honestly, what could they expect? There is a certain amount of expected hypocrisy in politicians and politics. But tweety's entire presidency thus far has been one lie after another. This reality TV show is really starting to get good!! LOL |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by Serowbot on 05/10/17 at 11:29:24 I'm still trying to think of something that rhymes with ... Orange... Impeached is close enough... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 11:32:04 7C6A7D60786D607B0F0 wrote:
LOL!!! |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 11:48:46 Yeah, Trump should be impeached, and Hillary is not guilty. The world is upside down. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by Serowbot on 05/10/17 at 12:06:30 JOG, yer' standing on your head... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 12:19:38 627D7B7C61665767576F7D713A080 wrote:
No, no - hillary got exactly what she deserved. Now it's tweety's turn. This is gonna get REAL good! |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 12:20:40 And so then this is completely normal.... right? https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/trump-excludes-us-media-from-meeting-with-russian-ambassador-but-russian-state-news-allowed-in/ |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 12:26:02 372926272A372C31430 wrote:
No, no - hillary got exactly what she deserved. Now it's tweety's turn. This is gonna get REAL good![/quote] Huhh? Address this just once. I'm tired of this. Comey EXPLAINED WHY she should be prosecuted. Comey STATED that Anyone else in the same situation would have NO EXPECTATION of Not being PROSECUTED. And yet, you're able to read that and declare she's INNOCENT? How? Drag me through the logic. I've explained the reasoning I use. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/10/17 at 12:27:51 Taking any bets yet? Context: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/james-comey-wanted-more-resources-russia-investigation-238216 From this you got no smoking gun, dem senators saying nothing yet, etc, to impeachment? Gee, and you think me believing in God is a stretch ;D We'll see. Unamed sources just don't excite me. You would think by now, all this energy, would have produced something solid to chew on.... Do you know how unbelievably stupid a person would have to be to do this while standing nekked and flood lights shinning brightly upon him??? Doesn't pass the smell test ;D |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 12:34:47 706F696E73744575457D6F63281A0 wrote:
No, no - hillary got exactly what she deserved. Now it's tweety's turn. This is gonna get REAL good![/quote] Huhh? Address this just once. I'm tired of this. Comey EXPLAINED WHY she should be prosecuted. Comey STATED that Anyone else in the same situation would have NO EXPECTATION of Not being PROSECUTED. And yet, you're able to read that and declare she's INNOCENT? How? Drag me through the logic. I've explained the reasoning I use. [/quote] First off, this thread is NOT about hillary - this is about tweety and his impending impeachment. Second - I'M NOT DEFENDING hillary!!! She got what she deserved - SHE LOST. She is poison now. If you've really read and studied the situation, she wasn't prosecuted because, at the time of the hearings, she WASN'T SOS. In case you missed it - here's comey's statement from July 5th, 2016: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. So... there you have it. Let's get back to our regularly scheduled impeachment, shall we? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by verslagen1 on 05/10/17 at 12:49:04 Keep your hopes up... don't turn blue... ah, sorry, you're already blue. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 12:50:21 495A4D4C535E585A510E3F0 wrote:
Oh no worries... impeachment is a coming down the highway! |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 12:53:53 SHE isn't the point. HOW she was treated IS. The left cheer when anti trump crap is stirring. And IGNORE THE FACT that she should have been prosecuted. The FBI head DOES NOT have the decision making Authority Lynch PRETENDED he did. The complete lack of honesty by lefties is just stunning. he DETECTIVE doesn't TELL the DA whether or not to prosecute. The DETECTIVE gets EVIDENCE. The DA decides. And what impeachable offense is trump guilty of that Obama wasn't? Did you Always INTEND to break laws you've broken? The Gee, I didn't Mean To defense doesn't cut it. The law says she's guilty. They COULDN'T prosecute her Without exposing ALL THE PEOPLE SHE SWAPPED email with. Everyone KNEW that was not an official address. It's not reasonable to believe that the people here who have demonstrated intellectual capabilities like I've seen, and yet, they're unable to see these things. That's a choice. Your credibility is about shot. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 13:15:21 293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote:
Oh no... my credibility on a forum post that is seen by 6 people is shot!! Heavens, whatever shall I do???? LMAO! Sorry JOG - my "credibility" is not the issue - the issue here is tweety's impending impeachment. You want to question credibility - look no further than tweety's campaign promises - ALL OF THEM. Yeah, let's talk about credibility, huh? He's done. It's over. He's trying to burn the evidence and it's painfully obvious. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 13:24:23 Pitiful. Offbase and unwilling. I know he is screwing up. But it's not a bit worse than Obama. Of COURSE no other president didn't go to his own resort. They were all parasites. Politicians who never DID anything. You people are amazing. Don't see why he changed. Think JFK. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/10/17 at 13:31:02 Please......, produce the evidence, I would like to see it. You say it is plainly obvious, is that also visible, I'd love to see it. Not links, innuendo, anonymous sources. Please show me. Thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 13:36:49 6A757374696E5F6F5F67757932000 wrote:
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAA!!!!! Look up the psychological definition of "denial". I love it!!! If Obama had done anything REMOTELY like this during his administration... well, I'm sure you would have been ok with it... LMAO!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 13:39:50 I disagree with the perpetual vacation of all of them. Packing family off to remote places and we pay.. bullshit. But this pretending that Trump is worse is a load. They all sukk. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 13:54:24 3D2E362B2E38284F0 wrote:
Um, no links? Do you want to send me your mailing address??? I'm not sure you get how this forum works...LOL Anyhoo - take a look at some of these links - sorry, I'm too lazy to type out what's already been typed out.... https://www.inverse.com/article/24886-reasons-trump-could-be-impeached http://www.politicususa.com/2017/03/20/comey-testimony-suggests-trump-committed-impeachable-offense-false-obama-wiretap-claim.html http://www.nationalmemo.com/yes-trump-impeached-tweet/ http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/03/12/did-trump-commit-an-impeachable-offense-when-he-claimed-obama-wiretapped-him/ https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/03/07/mainstream-outlets-are-normalizing-trumps-impeachable-offense/215566 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/22/donald-trump-president-impeached-liberals-history-process This is just a small sampling of what's out there. One last thing you might want to consider - what is the REAL reason that tweety won't open up his tax returns, hmm? I smell a rat about the size of our president - and he's squirming. if you honestly can't see that - there's no getting through to you. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/10/17 at 14:19:20 Huh..... its supposition and theory, you got a smoking gun? He said, she said, taunting online, etc.... This is worthy of impeaching??!?? I don't see how. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 14:30:59 74677F62677161060 wrote:
OK - that's a fair enough statement. If you truly stand by it, then you must also now defend Clinton in his impeachment and say that it was unjustified, yes? (or is that somehow different?) Remember, "taunting online" is not what tweety did. It was obstruction of justice. Implicating the former president - in print - is not just "taunting". That one incident is worthy of impeachment. That's not me saying that - that's the law. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 14:40:16 online" is not what tweety did. It was obstruction of justice. Implicating the former president - in print - is not just "taunting". That one incident is worthy of impeachment. BS, how does accusing someone impede or obstruct justice? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 14:48:58 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
Again, that's not an accusation by me - it's the law: According to 18 U.S. Code 1503, Obstruction of Justice includes when someone “by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by pg on 05/10/17 at 15:08:26 637D72737E637865170 wrote:
Again, that's not an accusation by me - it's the law: According to 18 U.S. Code 1503, Obstruction of Justice includes when someone “by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”[/quote] I suppose it is ok to meet with the spouse of someone who is under investigation on the tarmac?? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/10/17 at 15:34:35 7166606C6373010 wrote:
Again, that's not an accusation by me - it's the law: According to 18 U.S. Code 1503, Obstruction of Justice includes when someone “by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”[/quote] I suppose it is ok to meet with the spouse of someone who is under investigation on the tarmac?? Best regards, [/quote] I'm putting up what the LAW is. tweety broke the law. hillary didn't - sorry for you. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/10/17 at 15:59:09 445A555459445F42300 wrote:
OK - that's a fair enough statement. If you truly stand by it, then you must also now defend Clinton in his impeachment and say that it was unjustified, yes? (or is that somehow different?) Remember, "taunting online" is not what tweety did. It was obstruction of justice. Implicating the former president - in print - is not just "taunting". That one incident is worthy of impeachment. That's not me saying that - that's the law.[/quote] Well, according to your statement and interpretation, then I guess we would have to extend that same impeachment consideration to Obama, as he said Hillary had done nothing wrong, while still under investigation.... That is not true, she did, they just didn't assign intent. That to me seems to fit obstruction too. Or how about the time Obama accused a white cop of racism, wrongly, and then had a beer summit to patch up his error. Shouldn't he had just stayed out of it until the investigation was completed? That kid in Florida with skittles? Also, after inexhaustibly trying to find context and root to the headlines Comey asked for more money, help, etc, just says before Trump fired him.... Was because he was answering a democrat, and a republican senator, to please hurry up his investigation, that is when he asked for more resources. That is the only true context I can find. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by WebsterMark on 05/10/17 at 16:38:50 I'm sorry but what is Trump going to be impeached for? You think the Republican controlled congress is going to vote for articles of impeachment because liberals $hit their pants every day because Trump beat their girl?! What exactly are the "high crimes and misdemeanors " ? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 17:05:36 And WHAT EXACTLY did Trump DO that broke the law. Yes, COMEY SAID ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE PROSECUTED. SHE SHOULD be . He SAID ANYONE else in the same spot should expect prosecution. Now how is that ANYTHING but guilty? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by Serowbot on 05/10/17 at 17:15:40 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
You seem to be doing a historical rewrite... That didn't happen... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/10/17 at 17:25:05 I posted it several times. I think Versy linked to it after I decided not to show you again, because the truth slide off. It's pointless. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/10/17 at 19:03:06 I am soooooo confused. T&T wrote: Again, that's not an accusation by me - it's the law: According to 18 U.S. Code 1503, Obstruction of Justice includes when someone “by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” So he thinks did that, ok..... I don't know, as they are not saying exactly what it is that he did, but.... Using that reference as the bar, or threshold, then did Obama obstruct justice, or use influence, when he said Bergdal, the guy he swapped out for prisoners, was a war hero, etc, before any investigation, trial, etc. If no, please explain how that might not obstruct, or sway, any investigation and deny the families, of the solders killed who went out to search for him when he abandoned the service, please. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by WebsterMark on 05/10/17 at 19:13:20 I ask again: I'm sorry but what is Trump going to be impeached for? You think the Republican controlled congress is going to vote for articles of impeachment because liberals $hit their pants every day because Trump beat their girl?! What exactly are the "high crimes and misdemeanors " ? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by verslagen1 on 05/11/17 at 07:59:44 7E687F627A6F62790D0 wrote:
You seem to be doing a historical rewrite... That didn't happen...[/quote] Oh ye of liberal memory. It was posted many times, Comey's speech can be found on your CNN I'm sure... if they haven't revisioned it yet. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/11/17 at 08:09:14 746770716E6365676C33020 wrote:
You seem to be doing a historical rewrite... That didn't happen...[/quote] Oh ye of liberal memory. It was posted many times, Comey's speech can be found on your CNN I'm sure... if they haven't revisioned it yet.[/quote] You beat a dead horse...... It's like a guy who gets caught pounding his next door neighbor, his wife walks in on them..... After the pants and panties are put back on, and the explanations begin.... The guy ask his wife, after telling her nothing was happening, " Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" That explains Bot to a "T" ;D |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by Serowbot on 05/11/17 at 08:37:49 Remind me with a quote... What was said,.. word for word... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/11/17 at 08:42:51 77686E6974734272427A68642F1D0 wrote:
Again - see above. |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by T And T Garage on 05/11/17 at 08:46:09 7D6E766B6E78680F0 wrote:
Because that statement did not call for an investigation, no accusation of wrongdoing, no potential crime, no call to an action. C'mon... you can't be honestly questioning this.... |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by Serowbot on 05/11/17 at 08:55:34 "We do not see those things here." That's in English,.. right?... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Impeachment? Post by raydawg on 05/11/17 at 09:09:22 3F212E2F223F24394B0 wrote:
Because that statement did not call for an investigation, no accusation of wrongdoing, no potential crime, no call to an action. C'mon... you can't be honestly questioning this.... [/quote] He was already being investigated for deserting, etc, and you mean to tell me the president weighing in with his remarks is NOT influential????? |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |