[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

lmao disbar barr

RESOLUTION

Calling for the resignation and disbarment of United States Attorney General William P. Barr, and for other purposes.

Whereas, on March 24, 2019, United States Attorney General William P. Barr deliberately mischaracterized the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” issued by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III;

Whereas, on March 25, 2019, at Attorney General Barr’s direction, the Department of Justice ceased defending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), a duly enacted law under the United States Constitution;

Whereas, on April 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr directed then-Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to defy a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee pertaining to its investigation of the 2020 census;

Whereas, on July 8, 2019, Attorney General Barr deliberately mischaracterized the legal reasoning behind the Trump administration’s desire to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and abruptly removed career Department of Justice attorneys in an unprecedented attempt to undermine a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States;

Whereas, on July 16, 2019, Attorney General Barr ignored the recommendation of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division by declining to bring charges against the New York Police Department officer in the death of Eric Garner;

Whereas, on July 17, 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Barr in criminal contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a duly-issued subpoena and deliberate obstruction of congressional oversight authority;

Whereas, on December 4, 2019, Attorney General Barr threatened the withholding of police protection from communities that do not show “support and respect” to law enforcement, a statement that has been interpreted as being directed at communities of color that protest police violence;

Whereas Attorney General Barr has perpetuated and promulgated conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly debunked by United States law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, where he referred to legitimate and legal law enforcement surveillance as “spying”, and while traveling abroad to meet with foreign intelligence officials where he has continued to spread this dis*in*for*ma*tion;

Whereas Attorney General Barr has used taxpayer funds for international travel to seek foreign assistance in investigating a domestic political rival of the President of the United States;

Whereas Attorney General Barr has sought to undermine the Department of Justice inspector general’s report “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation”, regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of the Trump campaign; and

Whereas Attorney General Barr has refused to recuse himself from any Ukraine-related matters in which he is allegedly involved: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns United States Attorney General William P. Barr for his despicable comments and actions;

(2) calls on United States Attorney General William P. Barr to resign;

(3) calls on the Virginia State Bar to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;

(4) calls on the New York State Bar Association to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;

(5) calls on the District of Columbia Bar to remove United States Attorney General William P. Barr from its rolls;

(6) reaffirms support for the diversity of the United States; and

(7) reaffirms, in the strongest terms, its support for and commitment to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
aScotiA said:
Regardless of whether you think the impeachment is a sham, can we not agree that it's unprecedented for any elected official in US history, let alone the President, to completely stonewall a congressional investigation without any perceivable consequences?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Jefferson (although judicial), Bush, and I'm sure your favorite, Obama.

If Trump truly wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine, why would he back-channel the investigation through Rudy fucking Giuliani rather than have the appropriate intelligence agencies/government officials investigate the corruption he was so allegedly concerned about?
Click to expand...

Because Trump is beyond incompetent.

Let's play pretend and imagine if Obama or Hillary were in office doing this.
Click to expand...

They were. You are fucking deluded if you think they weren't. They just possessed a much higher competency and/or a penchant for "not recalling."

In reality, Nancy Pelosi had been extremely reluctant to impeach because she was well aware of how divisive it would likely become.
Click to expand...

Pelosi doesn't give one flying fuck about divisiveness. She only cares about what is politically and tactically viable. The same for everyone else in politics. If you believe she wasn't drooling at the prospect of using the whistleblower to impeach Trump, again, you are deluded. Why would you believe one fucking word out of her or any politician's mouth?
 
They’ll say Eric Holder was corrupt (he was) and then look at Barr and with a straight face say he’s an upstanding AG. Lol.

Anyway, I thought I’d post this one more time since everyone seems to have gone to bed.

 
aScotiA said:
Let's play pretend and imagine if Obama or Hillary were in office doing this. Really try to imagine the people they had or would have had in their cabinet and put the words of Barr/Mulvaney/etc. into the mouths of those people. If you try to say this wouldn't make you seethe with anger, I don't believe you. No matter how you feel about Hillary (I don't like her either), she sat and testified in person for 11 hours during the Benghazi hearings and answered pretty much every question posed to her in detail and strolled out of the place without a mark on her. These days it's almost nostalgic to reminisce about the old days of quasi-accountability in politics.
Click to expand...

they DID do this. they wanted dirt on their political rival, and they produced it, from a foreign agent, no less. and don't go there with the benghazi thing. seriously, i would agree with you if clinton wasn't a great fucking liar that knows she can get away with murder because she's a part of the deep state and she has the full backing of all main stream media, you fucking twerp.

Another argument you guys like to make is that Pelosi and the Democrats have been champing at the bit to impeach Trump early and often for the tiniest little infraction. In reality, Nancy Pelosi had been extremely reluctant to impeach because she was well aware of how divisive it would likely become. It was obvious to everyone that impeachment would be a foolish and unnecessary political risk, particularly due to the math in the Senate. She didn't impeach over banning Muslims. She didn't impeach over separating families and putting children and babies in jail indefinitely ("Obama did it first!!!" No. Just no.). She didn't impeach over misappropriating Pentagon funds to build a pointless wall. She didn't impeach over the Russia investigation. There was absolutely no shortage of events that would have caused most/all other prior Presidents to be impeached, if they didn't resign first.
Click to expand...

if you believe for one second that pelosi and the house have NOT been waging an impeachment war from the minute that trump took office, then you are an ingenuous moron. and "No, just no"? obama WAS putting kids in cages long before trump, you fucking asshole. i don't care if you believe it or not, it's been proven. and believe me, pelosi wasn't stopping impeachment out of the good of her black heart, she just didn't have anything on trump. don't be so damned naive.

Democrats as a whole consistently pushed back against the idea of impeachment until Ukraine.
Click to expand...

lol you are living in your own delusional world.

Let's not forget that this whole scandal began because Trump was coerced by circumstances--circumstances of his own making--into openly admitting that he had exploited the office of the Presidency to gain an unfair advantage in the 2020 election. This was repeated by himself on the White House lawn, and further corroborated by Mick Mulvaney during a press conference. Trump cheated, and there are absolutely no signs that he intends to stop cheating. This is precisely why Democrats cannot wait until the 2020 election to let the voters decide. Even if Trump is not removed by the Senate, it would be a dereliction of duty for the House to allow any President to cheat in an election without attempting to check him. That would be an unacceptable precedent to set.
Click to expand...

lol how did trump "cheat" in the 2020 election? you fucking dolt. the primaries haven't even happened. and anyone that thinks that trump would EVEN need to cheat to beat kiddie diddler creepy joe biden is a complete and utter fucking dipshit.

Change my mind.
Click to expand...

obvously you're fucking insane, and your mind is made up.
 
Why is Trump blocking Subpoenas?

Because of Executive Privilege. The same privilege Obama used when blocking individuals from appearing before congressional hearings.

https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download


So no, it is not unprecedented. Even if it was, just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done because it would be illegal to do so. Our entire system of laws is based on "precedent". That means we wait for a set of circumstances to arise which no clearly defined laws appear to address. Then we debate how the law applies and/or if the law applies. Then we make a decision to cover the situation, thus creating a precedent that will serve to guide future rulings and applications of the law moving forward, should these circumstances rise again.

That is why the American Government has 3 branches of government, one of those branches being the Judicial Branch. It is not up to the Legislative Branch to decide how the law applies or resolve legal disputes between The Executive and Legislative branches of Government, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi boasts about bringing Trump to justice... that's not her prerogative.

The 2014 OLC opinion explains that “[t]he Executive Branch’s longstanding position, reaffirmed by Administrations of both political parties, is that the President’s immediate advisors are absolutely immune from congressional testimonial process.” The opinion, collecting past executive branch precedent, makes three principal arguments. One, senior presidential advisers are “alter egos” of the president and share his immunity; otherwise, the separation-of-powers principles underlying the president’s immunity would be damaged. Two, if Congress can compel senior presidential advisers to testify, that authority would “interfere with the President’s discharge of his constitutional functions” by threatening his independence and autonomy. Utilizing that authority, Congress could “wield their compulsory power to attempt to supervise the President’s actions, or to harass those advisers in an effort to influence their conduct, retaliate for actions the committee disliked, or embarrass and weaken the President for partisan gain.” Third, such authority would “threaten executive branch confidentiality,” a euphemism for executive privilege. The opinion recognizes that the “President’s advisers could invoke executive privilege to decline to answer specific questions” but concludes that immunity is necessary because advisers could reveal confidential information on accident or be pressured by the committee to reveal protected information. The opinion also explains at length why its position is “consistent with relevant Supreme Court case law” and rejects the district court’s conclusion, in the subsequent litigation over Harriet Miers’s immunity, that the 2008 OLC opinion was incorrect. The 2014 OLC opinion does not address the applicability of its analysis to a former official, but it cites the 2008 opinion favorably.
Click to expand...

Executive Privilege and Compelled Testimony of Presidential Advisers: Don McGahns Dilemma - Lawfare


Why are the Democrats fighting so hard to prevent Trump from taking these issues to court? Because the court will likely fail to produce a ruling on the question of if Trump can block people from complying with the subpoenas before the next election in 2020. That's why the democrats are desperate... DESPERATE... to get this thing done before the election. They are grasping at straws, because they know how bad their position is in the next election. They've all banked so much political capital on impeaching Trump that its sink or swim for them.

The court could very well rule against Trump and say he has to comply with the subpoenas... Richard Nixon did the same thing, he took the issue to court and the courts ruled against him and said he had to comply, so he resigned instead. The problem is... that won't happen fast enough for the DNC, they can't risk it. Nancy Pelosi and gang has said as much with their own words. They need this done right now, before the election.


Some would argue "Well, if Trump has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, why doesn't he just comply? Why resist?"...

Simple, its the same reason why your Miranda rights state "you have a right to be silent" because "anything you say can and will be used against you". It's why any defense council worth their salt will tell you to not talk to the police, even when you are absolutely innocent because the only thing talking will do for you is give the police opportunities to accuse you of having broken the law by entrapping you with your words. Look what happened to Micheal Flynn.

From the very beginning, it has become readily apparent that there are highly partisan and biased factions who are engaged in an effort to undermine and thwart President Trump at any cost. They are not seeking the truth, they are looking for dirt to affirm their presumption of guilt. They have engaged in activities and behaviors that have only one intent, to pin a crime on Trump they can impeach him for. We don't cooperate with people like this. No good can come from it, it can only serve to provide them with an opportunity to invent a crime to convict you of and use the information to embarass or manipulate you.

What happened to President Andrew Johnson? They invented a law they knew he'd have to break, and then when he inevitably broke it... they accused him of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". The crime they tried to impeach him for? Firing a guy and thus breaking a law they created specifically to protect that guy. When the vote to impeach failed, because "This is bullshit and not what impeachment is for", they tried to convict on different articles... which also failed... because they were also bullshit.

See a familiar resemblance?

One year later, the "Tenure of Office Act" they tried to impeach Johnson with was repealed because, as it turns out, President Johnson is allowed to fire the guy after all.

Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.

- Lyman Trumbull of Illinois (R)
Click to expand...

You can't impeach Donald Trump because you don't like him. Despite all the rhetoric and all the pantomime from podiums about the nobility of the constitution and the founding fathers and 1776 and rule of law... it's all bullshit. The ugliness of the opposition to Trump is leaking all over for every one to see... this is all coming down to you don't like the guy. He defied you. He humiliated you. He offends you. You hate him for it.
 
Last edited:
ShartShooter said:
This ones pretty easy. Do you agree with Richard Blumenthals stance?

Federal law defines bribery as the solicitation of “anything of value personally” by a public official “in return for” an official act. It also specifies that a bribe can be a reward for an act the public official would have done anyway. In short, merely soliciting a bribe is bribery.

So, we face two questions. First, did Trump seek something of personal value from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky?

He most certainly did. Everything from information about the whereabouts of a witness to the promise of future campaign contributions has been identified as a “thing of value” in bribery law.

Trump clearly valued Ukrainian investigations into his political enemies. By all accounts, he was obsessed with them. According to multiple reports, Trump cared more about the investigations than he did about defending Ukraine from Russia.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't.

Trump is the President. He was seeking for national gain. Not personal gain.
The corruption was pre-existing. Under the last administration. The president is fully within his rights to investigate corruption and to look after the interests of the USA. Especially into matter of who we give aid to.

Aid is not a right. Of course there can be conditions.
 
Last edited:
aScotiA said:
I fully expect this to fall on deaf ears, but since you asked, here goes. The Democrats had no choice other than to impeach Trump. The Constitution mandates that a President who behaves as if he is above the law must be held accountable. Since the POTUS cannot be charged with a crime while in office, impeachment is the only available check on his power.

Change my mind.
Click to expand...



Also for all you unhinged who think "we had to impeach"

You are insane. This is not how the country works. If you don't think we COULD have gone after every president for something or other - you are high. We have not in the past because ultimately, it's a waste of time. Unless - there is truly something going on. Certainly not in Trump's case.

Which of these little fucks was dancing around with the realization that even if Trump is re-elected - "we could impeach again!" . Rozenwang or something?
“There is almost certainly NOT a barrier to a second impeachment, even for the exact same conduct,” said former Whitewater prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig, adding that this obviously goes for “a second impeachment for a different offense” as well.
Click to expand...

So - for those of you who think weaponizing impeachment is good for the country - we hate you. You are the enemy.


 
Last edited:
aScotiA said:
Hogwash and malarkey
Click to expand...

Everything you've said is a load of bunk. "We had no choice! Democracy!" is ridiculous on it's face. Democrats have been selling democrats a bill of goods for three years, that Trump conspired with Russia to steal an election. They've told you this every day. They've gaslit and lied to you every day. They told you to flat out ignore a 2 year investigation that said there is no evidence that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia in any way. Why? Because they were embarrassed. We didn't lose to Trump, he stole it.

That's where the presupposition starts. You already believe Trump stole an election, so it's an easy sell that he might steal two. It's so obvious what they're doing, it shouldn't be the right that's mad, it should be the left. But you're not, because your blinded by your irrational hatred of Trump. Not a single one of the investigated crimes over the last 3 years is on the articles of impeachment. Why?

Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, they all sat there and said that this is a clear and present danger. The interference in the 2020 election and obstructing congress. Well obstructing congress is silly, as it is presently in the court system. You're saying impeachment can't wait for the legal process because the law being broken is so egregious. Only it isn't, that's not how our country works, and the danger is based on the presupposition that Trump interfered with 2016 which an investigation concluded he did not.

Dems completely overplayed their hand and could not back it down because of people like you. Schiff told Pelosi "I've got him!" because their anointed candidate Biden was brought up. It has nothing to do with Ukraine at all. Nothing to do with Bribery at all. It was never about collusion, or conspiracy, or emoluments. They had absolutely nothing, the needle didn't move despite all of their attempts to railroad and wordplay, but they had gone too far to stop without another humiliating defeat. So they slapped together a pitiful collection of articles about 2020 election interference and not cooperating with being impeached.

It's ok though, because they know you'll never be critical about it because you hate the Orange Man and are simply gleeful about being taken for a ride. You've never asked "what's the strategy here?" to yourself. Democrats railroaded impeachment through at the fastest pace possible. Why? Democrats made no attempt to be fair. Why? Democrats did not impeach for what they were investigating. Why? They were never going to get 20 Republican senators to flip with an obviously biased and one-sided process, they were practically giving the senate an out even if they had an uncovered actual criminality. So why not charge him with something you've been claiming he's guilty of for years and that there's so much evidence he'd be found guilty by a jury in 3 minutes flat.

Because it doesn't exist.
 
So Shiftsucker posts the video of Graham saying something bad about Trump (and reposts, and reposts) and says we are blind and deaf because we are refusing to believe the proof of Graham hating Trump because he is saying these very things on video. If he says it plain as day on video, you cannot deny it.

Biden says plain as day on video that he threatened to withhold $1B in loans unless a guy was fired, and that is magically debunked as not actually being true. So shitsucker, why should we believe YOUR video?

To quote many here - you can't make this shit up.

Also, didn't the dims lawyer admit that Biden was committing quid pro quo and validate the reasoning as "pursuant to US policy at the time"? They dropped QPQ to avoid implicating Biden anymore, but my point is that the dims scream that something was done - there is evidence!!! - but don't actually list that charge?

Why not????
 
aScotiA said:
I fully expect this to fall on deaf ears, but since you asked, here goes. The Democrats had no choice other than to impeach Trump. The Constitution mandates that a President who behaves as if he is above the law must be held accountable. Since the POTUS cannot be charged with a crime while in office, impeachment is the only available check on his power.

Regardless of whether you think the impeachment is a sham, can we not agree that it's unprecedented for any elected official in US history, let alone the President, to completely stonewall a congressional investigation without any perceivable consequences? He ordered all witnesses in the executive branch to not testify (some have defied him) and his administration has provided no documents to a co-equal branch of government with legitimate oversight authority. If Trump has nothing to hide, then why has he gone to such extraordinary lengths to obstruct the scrutiny of his "perfect" phone call? This Ukraine scheme, of course, was not limited to one phone call. It unfolded over the majority of 2019 until it was exposed.

If Trump truly wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine, why would he back-channel the investigation through Rudy fucking Giuliani rather than have the appropriate intelligence agencies/government officials investigate the corruption he was so allegedly concerned about? Why did it go unchallenged when [$1m Trump donor] Gordon Sondland testified that all Zelensky needed to do was announce an investigation into Biden on TV? Doing an actual investigation was never necessary. Why is it only now that Trump's bleeding heart for Ukrainian corruption suddenly became relevant? I would love it if someone addressed these questions one-by-one.

Let's stop pretending this is all about Ukraine though. Ukraine is simply the continuation of a long pattern which pre-dated Trump as President. Trump's entire adult life has been a perpetual cycle of cheat, lie, steal, deceive, betray, sue, walk away (not necessarily in that order). If the unchallenged timeline of events in the Ukraine story are true, Trump was on the phone with Zelensky asking for his little favor the next day after Mueller's congressional testimony. Dude, you literally just beat a years-long special council investigation about election meddling and you're on the phone the next fucking day trying to abuse your Presidential authority to cheat in the next election? I don't like the guy, but it's hard to say that he doesn't have balls of steel.

Let's play pretend and imagine if Obama or Hillary were in office doing this. Really try to imagine the people they had or would have had in their cabinet and put the words of Barr/Mulvaney/etc. into the mouths of those people. If you try to say this wouldn't make you seethe with anger, I don't believe you. No matter how you feel about Hillary (I don't like her either), she sat and testified in person for 11 hours during the Benghazi hearings and answered pretty much every question posed to her in detail and strolled out of the place without a mark on her. These days it's almost nostalgic to reminisce about the old days of quasi-accountability in politics.

Another argument you guys like to make is that Pelosi and the Democrats have been champing at the bit to impeach Trump early and often for the tiniest little infraction. In reality, Nancy Pelosi had been extremely reluctant to impeach because she was well aware of how divisive it would likely become. It was obvious to everyone that impeachment would be a foolish and unnecessary political risk, particularly due to the math in the Senate. She didn't impeach over banning Muslims. She didn't impeach over separating families and putting children and babies in jail indefinitely ("Obama did it first!!!" No. Just no.). She didn't impeach over misappropriating Pentagon funds to build a pointless wall. She didn't impeach over the Russia investigation. There was absolutely no shortage of events that would have caused most/all other prior Presidents to be impeached, if they didn't resign first.

Yeah, there were the fringe entities in the Democratic Party who made it no secret that they wanted to impeach well before Ukraine. We all remember Al "Get Off My Lawn" Green, and how could one forget Maxine "I'll Woop My Grandson's Ass For Saying a Curse Word" Waters. They were the exceptions to the rule. Loose screws will always exist in a 230+ member caucus. Democrats as a whole consistently pushed back against the idea of impeachment until Ukraine. After the whistleblower story became public, despite the massive political risk, impeachment became a matter of principle for the Democrats.

Let's not forget that this whole scandal began because Trump was coerced by circumstances--circumstances of his own making--into openly admitting that he had exploited the office of the Presidency to gain an unfair advantage in the 2020 election. This was repeated by himself on the White House lawn, and further corroborated by Mick Mulvaney during a press conference. Trump cheated, and there are absolutely no signs that he intends to stop cheating. This is precisely why Democrats cannot wait until the 2020 election to let the voters decide. Even if Trump is not removed by the Senate, it would be a dereliction of duty for the House to allow any President to cheat in an election without attempting to check him. That would be an unacceptable precedent to set.

Change my mind.
Click to expand...

Man, i have to say thanks for taking the time to write this up. Seeing a perspective that isn't full of drivel was refreshing. I hope both sides sent you some +rep.

Now, with that said, I disagree with your perspective. First i'll start by answering what you requested to be answered:


If Trump truly wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine, why would he back-channel the investigation through Rudy fucking Giuliani rather than have the appropriate intelligence agencies/government officials investigate the corruption he was so allegedly concerned about? Why did it go unchallenged when [$1m Trump donor] Gordon Sondland testified that all Zelensky needed to do was announce an investigation into Biden on TV? Doing an actual investigation was never necessary. Why is it only now that Trump's bleeding heart for Ukrainian corruption suddenly became relevant? I would love it if someone addressed these questions one-by-one.
Click to expand...

Imagine you just took a new job as CEO of the biggest Corporation in the world. When you took the job, 85% of the employees that now work for you (Its my guess that somewhere around 85% of the people that work in government are dems), didn’t want you there and felt you cheated to get there. How could you possibly implement change?



That’s what Trump is up against. So for your first question in regards to Rudy’s back door investigation, in my opinion, has to do with the lack of trust in the intelligence community(DOJ/FBI/CIA). So, my question back to you is, how could you trust any other investigation that wasn’t independent of the individuals that are benefiting from the corruption?

Additionally, it sounds to me like Rudy is building quite the case and has a record of being boss in rooting out corruption and cleaning up entire cities. He is now on record stating he is ready to bring documentation to congress to officially open an investigation:

https://warroom.org/giuliani-embassy-blocking-visas/

As for the Gordon Sondland’s testimony questions. That did go challenged and Sondland had to admen his original testimony two times because ‘memories started to come back to him’ as he wasn’t a good note taker. Meaning his story changed twice from his original testimony. Hell, even in his public testimony he contradicted himself time after time. That guy is a joke.

Lastly, Ukraine became relevant for three reasons:

1.) Biden caught on tape asking for quid pro quo. I mean… Come on…
2.) Russia Gate collapsed and dems needed something to kick off impeachment. This goes to your point about how Trump was on the phone the next day… they had to have something, they just choose this.
3.) Dems/RINO’s playing defense because they know if Trump actually looks into Ukraine their scheme is blown wide open. Meaning Trump could claim ANOTHER campaign promise fulfilled while ending the career of people like Biden/Pelosi/Kerry/Romney.



John Kerry’s son cut business ties with Hunter Biden over Ukrainian oil deal

HMM: Former Mitt Romney Adviser Sits on Board of Ukrainian Gas Company That Employed Hunter Biden

The scheme being: The United States providing US Tax payer foreign aid to a Country. Then that aid being funneled by the receiving country to different state ran/private corporations. These corporations have sitting US politician’s friends and/or family members on their boards/’working’ for the company. Said Friends and Family receive US Tax Payer funds to do nothing.

Wow. What a massive waste of US Tax Payer funds. How does that make you feel?

Do you believe this is something worth looking in to?

So, this is what we are impeaching Trump for. Let that sink in.

To follow-up on what you’re saying about the republican double standard. I also have to disagree. Lets take a brief look at Nancy during the Bush Jr. Administration. Bush Jr. was one of the, if not the, worst presidents in the history of America. I’ll never change my mind in that regard. So, when Nancy took control of the Speakership, why didn’t she impeach? I mean… she had Bush, on paper/video, committing torture. Going to war without congress approval. 9/11 has all sorts of holes that weren’t answered.



So, torture is okay, but a phone call to Ukraine is gross abuse of power.

Do you see any issues with this at all?

Lastly, why is the MSM hiding the real ‘bombshell’ story behind impeachment? Why did MSNBC and CNN not show the Horowitz testimony? This is the real story. Impeachment is only here to help the dems control the narrative. Your post only goes to show… its working.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top