Trump 2020,2024,2028

[mawshj]

maybe He and Hillary will get out at the same time, what a party

[XXL]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

You mean for visiting with some of the crooked Bidens, or for visiting some of the traitorous Democrats that are trying to effect a coup on the duly elected President of the United States?

Here's a link to get you started so you'll be up to speed by the time President Trump is out of office in 2020. I'd like it to be earlier but have no confidence in the feckless Republican senators to put their oath of office and the Constitution before party loyalty. Feel free to do a google search for - What charges can be brought against Donald Trump once he's out of office- see what you can find.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-house-227050

Merry Christmas!

[Pipe_Dream]

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by XXL

Here's a link to get you started so you'll be up to speed by the time President Trump is out of office in 2020. I'd like it to be earlier but have no confidence in the feckless Republican senators to put their oath of office and the Constitution before party loyalty. Feel free to do a google search for - What charges can be brought against Donald Trump once he's out of office- see what you can find.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-house-227050

Merry Christmas!

If he was that "guilty" of all those charges then tell me why all the Dems are charging him with is Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. What a sham... Is that all they can come up with after all this bull$hit and wasting of taxpayer's money? Since there has been no trial he cannot be accused of obstruction, since he has never been afforded, in a court of law, the ability to confront his accuser and to present his defense. The Democrats are making up their own laws as they go along. First it was Quid pro Quo, then when they couldn't prove that they switched to Bribery (that their focus groups told them would resonate with the public), then when that didn't work out they switched to this latest bunch of MALARKEY.

As for the abuse charge, what did he abuse? As the chief executive he has the RIGHT, (actually, the obligation) under the Constitution, to make requests of any foreign government into any possible corruption by any US citizen.
And I hardly need to point out that the Political is nothing but a left wing democrat mouthpiece. Anything that you read there can be taken with a grain of sand.

The American public isn't dumb, they see through this sham and I'm telling you right now, the Dems are handing Trump a win in 2020.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

If he was that "guilty" of all those charges then tell me why all the Dems are charging him with is Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power. What a sham... Is that all they can come up with after all this bull$hit and wasting of taxpayer's money? Since there has been no trial he cannot be accused of obstruction, since he has never been afforded, in a court of law, the ability to confront his accuser and to present his defense. The Democrats are making up their own laws as they go along. First it was Quid pro Quo, then when they couldn't prove that they switched to Bribery (that their focus groups told them would resonate with the public), then when that didn't work out they switched to this latest bunch of MALARKEY.

As for the abuse charge, what did he abuse? As the chief executive he has the RIGHT, (actually, the obligation) under the Constitution, to make requests of any foreign government into any possible corruption by any US citizen.
And I hardly need to point out that the Political is nothing but a left wing democrat mouthpiece. Anything that you read there can be taken with a grain of sand.

The American public isn't dumb, they see through this sham and I'm telling you right now, the Dems are handing Trump a win in 2020.

It's not a sham and it's really pretty simple. First off, your assertion that Politico is a left wing democrat mouthpiece is simply NOT factual, It's rated as one of the least biased and most factual news sources available: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/
Cruise around that site and see how the news sources you rely on are rated for comparison. Do a search for Fox News, Breitbart, Sinclair, or maybe you're into OANN by now, I don't know, but check it out.

Secondly, The impeachment process does not have to have a crime associated with it to be a valid tool to remove a person from office. Precedents are already in existence to bear that out.

Third, The House is NOT responsible for Trying the President in a trial setting, that's the job of the Senate with the Chief Justice (Roberts) presiding. President Trump was offered the opportunity to participate in the House proceeding, but declined. Which brings us to your question about Obstruction of Congress. Not only did President Trump refuse to participate in the House Process, he willfully withheld documents, phone records and White House personnel from the process thereby obstructing Congress's oversight responsibility. See, that was simple.

Fourth, Abuse of Power; The President DOES have the right to investigate corruption or any other activity by a foreign government receiving aid from the US. However, he doesn't have the right to use Congressionally mandated, taxpayer provided funds, in the neighborhood of $400 million as leverage to obtain foreign assistance in denigrating his primary opponent in the upcoming election. It's against Federal Election Commission rules for any candidate to receive something of value from a foreign entity to help in an election.

The Democrats aren't "making up their own laws" as they go along, that's just an ignorant statement. I'll grant you the Democrats are trying to find a way to phrase the charges to best describe the inappropriateness of the President's behavior, but when you're in a target-rich environment it's hard to settle on just a couple. Whether it's shagging a porn-star and then paying her off in secret while your wife's home with the new baby, or mocking a disabled reporter by acting like a spazz, or most lately, jealous-tweeting about Time magazine's Person of the Year, there are many examples of this President's unsuitability for office. None of which will mean anything to you because of your bias. But, hey okay, we all have biases and we can agree to disagree.

Finally, talking about waste of taxpayer money, $114,000,000 for golf trips. The expense of these hearings pales in comparison.

You may be right about President Trump being re-elected, but in my opinion, the fact that the Democrats are up-holding what I see as their right of oversight provided for in the Constitution, and staying true to the oath they took to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, underscores why this is NOT a sham. And if President Trump is re-elected, we'll still be here pushing back on the things that are not in support of the Nation's best interest or against established practice and law.

All my best,
XXL

[oteps]

Im still voting for him, who else is there? I don't really care what the fake news or the democrats say. Watch what happens with the idiots running VA.

[mawshj]

Originally Posted by XXL

Here's a link to get you started so you'll be up to speed by the time President Trump is out of office in 2020. I'd like it to be earlier but have no confidence in the feckless Republican senators to put their oath of office and the Constitution before party loyalty. Feel free to do a google search for - What charges can be brought against Donald Trump once he's out of office- see what you can find.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-house-227050

Merry Christmas!

if you think that these charges could be used against citizen trump , are you sure that they could not also be used against you??

[XXL]

Originally Posted by mawshj

if you think that these charges could be used against citizen trump , are you sure that they could not also be used against you??

Well, I don't know. I don't underestimate the perfidiousness of a judicial system that convicts innocent people, however, since I haven't engaged in any of the activities that have put President Trump in the position he's in, I think it's highly doubtful I have anything to worry about. Never say never, though.

[Pipe_Dream]

Originally Posted by XXL

It's not a sham and it's really pretty simple. First off, your assertion that Politico is a left wing democrat mouthpiece is simply NOT factual, It's rated as one of the least biased and most factual news sources available: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/
Cruise around that site and see how the news sources you rely on are rated for comparison. Do a search for Fox News, Breitbart, Sinclair, or maybe you're into OANN by now, I don't know, but check it out.

Secondly, The impeachment process does not have to have a crime associated with it to be a valid tool to remove a person from office. Precedents are already in existence to bear that out.

Third, The House is NOT responsible for Trying the President in a trial setting, that's the job of the Senate with the Chief Justice (Roberts) presiding. President Trump was offered the opportunity to participate in the House proceeding, but declined. Which brings us to your question about Obstruction of Congress. Not only did President Trump refuse to participate in the House Process, he willfully withheld documents, phone records and White House personnel from the process thereby obstructing Congress's oversight responsibility. See, that was simple.

Fourth, Abuse of Power; The President DOES have the right to investigate corruption or any other activity by a foreign government receiving aid from the US. However, he doesn't have the right to use Congressionally mandated, taxpayer provided funds, in the neighborhood of $400 million as leverage to obtain foreign assistance in denigrating his primary opponent in the upcoming election. It's against Federal Election Commission rules for any candidate to receive something of value from a foreign entity to help in an election.

The Democrats aren't "making up their own laws" as they go along, that's just an ignorant statement. I'll grant you the Democrats are trying to find a way to phrase the charges to best describe the inappropriateness of the President's behavior, but when you're in a target-rich environment it's hard to settle on just a couple. Whether it's shagging a porn-star and then paying her off in secret while your wife's home with the new baby, or mocking a disabled reporter by acting like a spazz, or most lately, jealous-tweeting about Time magazine's Person of the Year, there are many examples of this President's unsuitability for office. None of which will mean anything to you because of your bias. But, hey okay, we all have biases and we can agree to disagree.

Finally, talking about waste of taxpayer money, $114,000,000 for golf trips. The expense of these hearings pales in comparison.

You may be right about President Trump being re-elected, but in my opinion, the fact that the Democrats are up-holding what I see as their right of oversight provided for in the Constitution, and staying true to the oath they took to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, underscores why this is NOT a sham. And if President Trump is re-elected, we'll still be here pushing back on the things that are not in support of the Nation's best interest or against established practice and law.

All my best,
XXL

mediabiasfactcheck reads pretty much like the fox guarding the henhouse. Run by a guy who "

over the years has focused on personal research in media bias and the role of media in politics" using admittedly "subjective judgement" might reaffirm your personal opinion, but is hardly an authority.


Secondly, impeachment has never resulted in a President being removed from office, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it won't this time, either.

Third, Trump was wise not to participate in the House's biased, totally partisan impeachment hearings. Withheld documents from a Congressional investigation? Okaaaay. Now do Obama.

Fourth, Okaaaay. Now do Biden.

"I'll grant you the Democrats are trying to find a way to phrase the charges to best describe the inappropriateness of the President's behavior" is so rich. The House Democrats' interpretation of events with regard to Ukraine are so broad that they could be applied to any President and probably any member of the House and Senate. It will be interesting to watch how this new precedent plays out in future Presidencies where the House is held by the opposition party, especially when the President is a political outsider and threatens the swamp's status quo. And your claim of "mocking a disabled reporter" displays your own lack of bias or willful ignorance. Take your pick.

Democrats' claim that they're just doing their job is disingenuous at best. And nothing that either of us has to say is going to change minds and hearts, so carry on "pushing back" and have a Merry Christmas.

Cheers!

[XXL]

Originally Posted by Pipe_Dream

mediabiasfactcheck reads pretty much like the fox guarding the henhouse. Run by a guy who "

over the years has focused on personal research in media bias and the role of media in politics" using admittedly "subjective judgement" might reaffirm your personal opinion, but is hardly an authority.


Secondly, impeachment has never resulted in a President being removed from office, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it won't this time, either.

Third, Trump was wise not to participate in the House's biased, totally partisan impeachment hearings. Withheld documents from a Congressional investigation? Okaaaay. Now do Obama.

Fourth, Okaaaay. Now do Biden.

"I'll grant you the Democrats are trying to find a way to phrase the charges to best describe the inappropriateness of the President's behavior" is so rich. The House Democrats' interpretation of events with regard to Ukraine are so broad that they could be applied to any President and probably any member of the House and Senate. It will be interesting to watch how this new precedent plays out in future Presidencies where the House is held by the opposition party, especially when the President is a political outsider and threatens the swamp's status quo. And your claim of "mocking a disabled reporter" displays your own lack of bias or willful ignorance. Take your pick.

Democrats' claim that they're just doing their job is disingenuous at best. And nothing that either of us has to say is going to change minds and hearts, so carry on "pushing back" and have a Merry Christmas.

Cheers!

Thanks for sharing your opinions with us, the only one that I take offense with is my observation that the President mocking a disabled reporter is willful ignorance. I watched him perform on TV, there was nothing ambiguous about how he mimicked the reporter in question. Who am I supposed to believe, DJT or my own lying eyes?

thank you for your Christmas wish, right back at you and a good 2020 as well.
XXL