Sign in to follow this  
Don

It's About Time - After Months of Threats, Innuendo and vacillating House Panel Votes to Move Toward Impeaching Trump

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, DonF said:

you mean like millions spent on benazi, and other waisted money be repiblican, how about the 23 billion from shutting down the governtment, or the 157 million wastd on 60 plus votes to repeal the ACA. Or the 300 plus million trump has spent on golfing

Mueller report says trump is guilty but cant be charged while in office  it sure as hell doesnt clear him of anything infact it says quite the opposite.

and now we have trump trying to rent out (HIS OWN FUCKING WORDS) our military to the Saqudi's

and of course his telling tirkey to invade syria which he is now trying to claim hes going to stop with sanctions after turkey shelled our troop and has ben setting ISIl prisoners loose , that forced our allies the Kurds to ask syria and Russia for help after he betrayed them .

only thing people are pissed at the democrats for is not getting him out of office fast enough

But have no fear you will be remembered in the same way Hitler supporters are . On the wrong side of history and as an example to be ashamed of

Ah yes, Benghazi...

This wasn't some opposition political party seeking to overthrow the president, no committee was empowered to investigate possible impeachable offenses by president Obama, it was a fact finding process. Through subsequent investigations problems were identified with security measures at the Benghazi facilities, due to poor decisions made by employees of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, specifically its director Eric Boswell, who resigned under pressure in December 2012.

And you're really attempting to compare the two incidents? 

The Benghazi investigation where a U.S. Embassy was overrun by well armed and organized militant factions, leading to the deaths of at least four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, where several warnings and requests for increased security measures including requests from Ambassador Stevens himself were ignored and security assets were even reduced on State Department recommendations. Then the false statements to the American public from members of the Obama administration and even president Obama himself when they tried to explain to the public that the attack was because of some "video"...

-vs-

The Mueller report which stemmed from a dossier initially suggested and paid for by the DNC and factions trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, a dossier which contained more unsupportable fiction than fact, which ultimately Mueller reported there was no evidence Donald Trump "colluded" with Russia to win the election.

A dossier that requested a foreign intelligence official, contact foreign governments to try to "dig up dirt" one a political opponent leading up to a presidential election... Which appeared to have people misrepresenting facts to obtain federal surveillance warrants (*the IG's report will be released soon), which apparently had personnel investigating someone, who had personal bias against the person they were investigating, etc...

But to no avail.

The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 195l(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume 1, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law-including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause.

And as to the charge of "obstruction", well that's already been addressed... 

On 10/12/2019 at 11:39 AM, Don said:

Mueller: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-

And now the Democrats are attempting another impeachment attempt based on a phone call to the Ukrainian president...

I'm guessing yet another instance of your TDS inspired lack of fact posts probably came from another inaccurate meme posted on Facebook that you believed because it references your own personal bias and lack of concern for factual information.

FALSE-MUELLER-BENGHAZI-MEME.png

The meme's suggestion that the cost of $7,000,000 of the Benghazi investigation is near the truth, but their claim that the Mueller investigation cost no more than $3,200,000 is a another anti-Trump fabrication. A complete and utter falsehood...  The latest information released by the Justice Department on Dec. 14, 2018, shows that since the investigation started in May 2017 through Sept. 30, 2018, direct spending by the Mueller investigation reached $12.3 million and indirect spending $12.9 million, totaling $25.2 million... and the rest of the meme is also - not quite accurate - no doubt the product of a TDS addled mind -

Much like your false claim that Mueller said he didn't charge Trump because he was president and the OLC's restrictions against charging a sitting president -

The New Yorker:

Mueller’s Testimony Walks Back the Suggestion That Trump Would Be Indicted If He Weren’t the President

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/muellers-testimony-strongly-suggests-that-trump-would-be-indicted-if-he-werent-the-president

Can you post a link to the statement or Tweet where president Trump said he's renting out our military to the Saudi's? I've looked for it for a couple of days and I couldn't find that phrase being used anywhere except the Occupy Democrats (who posted a false headline) and even they didn't have reference to where president Trump said anything like that, just a repost from some anti-Trump VOX "journalist" who actually did accurately quote the president...

TRUMP: "Are you ready? Saudi Arabia at my request has agreed to pay us for everything we are doing. That is a first. Saudi Arabia, and other countries soon now, but Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay us for everything we are doing to help them and we appreciate that."

 

Even MSNBC (and I doubt they would pass on something like that) isn't reporting that president Trump said he was "renting out our military" so I'm guessing this too is just another instance of make believe by some TDS afflicted whoever.

Still, president Trump can "call it" what ever he wants, the fact remains that right now - in this reality - protecting the United State's ability to import of oil from Saudi Arabia is in the interests of both national security and our national economy. You complain about complain (without any kind of proof) that Trump said he's renting out the military... well, we're sending the military to Saudi Arabia and they've agreed to reimburse the U.S. for our assistance over there. 

How can anybody possibly consider something like that a bad idea? Protecting our national interests in an allied nation and being reimbursed for doing so...

Just more false information, fabricated references and misleading half truths from a recognized Trump hater...

But then you do often seem to have a problem with not post anything factual, preferring instead TDS inspired fabrications, when it comes to president Trump, so I'm neither shocked or surprised by yet more false - half fact statements.

 

7 hours ago, DonF said:

But have no fear you will be remembered in the same way Hitler supporters are . On the wrong side of history and as an example to be ashamed of

Ah your usual and by now expected attempt to call someone a Nazi when they disagrees with you and are able to point out your fact deficit statements.

Lack of Common Sense2.jpg

Which reminds me...

On 10/4/2019 at 1:29 AM, Don said:

If Trump is really such a bad guy, why do the TDS afflicted incessantly need to lie and make things up to explain how bad Trump is?... or something like that.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like hell it wasnt Bengazi was nothing but a political show . But unlike Trump and the republicans , Obama didnt try to hide anything , every one showed up and testified because no laws were broken . Thats the difference. Republicans and trump Know damn well they broke the laws

73300949_3120124251413941_36899356782142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I already mentioned, the Benghazi investigation wasn't with the stated purpose of attempting to unseat or impeach the president, or any Obama administration official. But after weeks of false information being disseminated by Obama officials and even the president himself to find the truth behind who attacked (not just a random mob), why they attacked (not "because of a movie") and what if anything could have been done to better protect Embassy personnel (why were multiple requests to the State Department for additional security from Embassy officials, including Stevens himself were ignored) and why were security assets previously assigned to the Embassy withdrawn prior to the attack (BBC -US security 'cut' before Benghazi consulate attack), once the investigation was done several State Department officials either resigned or were reassigned.

The Benghazi investigation did not go on a fishing expedition to uncover business or financial improprieties of those involved. There were no press conferences With the Speaker of the House talking about removing anyone from office and with the exception of the subsequent discovery and investigation regarding Clinton's private email server, Congress remained withing the scope of investigating events, policy and decisions related to the Benghazi attack.

The Mueller investigation started to determine if president Trump was guilty of "collusion", trying to get Russia to help him get elected - It determined he was not.

The Mueller investigation then went to charges of "obstruction" and determined there was - no determination Trump committed a crime.

Then the Mueller investigation expanded it's investigation further to look into the finances and business dealings of the president and those connected to the Trump campaign... There was no discovery leading to charging Donald Trump specifically, or those associated with his campaign with either "collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election" or "obstruction of justice",  but that's already been stated and reference provided.

As for yet another of your 'not quite accurate' memes... Ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 Benghazi attack, six of these by Republican-controlled (but not Republican only) House committees. Problems were identified with security measures at the Benghazi facilities, due to poor decisions made by employees of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and specifically its director Eric Boswell.

  • The FBI {Not Republicans} opened its investigation soon after the attack and it remains ongoing. On May 2, 2013.
  • The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence delivered their bipartisan report on the terrorist attacks on January 15, 2014.
  • Five {bipartisan} House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. The Republicans on these five House Committees[9] delivered an interim report to the Members of the House Republican Conference on April 23, 2013.
  • The State Department {Not Republicans) established on October 4, 2012, an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks".
  • Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee {Again, not just Republicans} with Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME) opened an investigation in mid October 2012. Their final report was delivered December 31, 2012.
  • In May 2014, House Speaker John Boehner announced a House select committee would be formed to further investigate the attacks in light of new State Department documents released on April 29, 2014.

Yeah if you have information that more than 10 investigations, 9 Congressional investigations took place, I challenge you to tell us what they were...

*By the way you should probably thank folks like Nate Lerner's Twitter feed, Facebook, Occupy Democrats and the rest of your usual sources for providing those fanciful and misleading statements which are easily shown to be false. It certainly keeps me from having to spend a lot of time digging to try to determine the veracity of their statements. Smiley-hilarious.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 1:43 PM, Don said:

Yeah if you have information that more than 10 investigations, 9 Congressional investigations took place, I challenge you to tell us what they were...

 

You should know better by now Don.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hutch said:

You should know better by now Don.  

Oh I do, but I always like to offer someone the opportunity to back up their words - if they can...

That they don't, simply confirms for me they can't so I (we) can dismiss their comments for the unsupportable and probably false claims they are with a clear conscience.

**BTW did anyone else look up this Nate Lerner, the person who posted the comment DF parroted?

Not at all surprising all things considered. :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After conducting the "impeachment" process, behind closed doors, Speaker Pelosi,  in opposition to past precedence to allow vote on the House floor has said there will be no floor vote on the impeachment charges. Probably because this would allow the president's lawyers and those who oppose the impeachment tactic to allow party members to view statements, question those giving statements and the opportunity to call witnesses to counter testimonial statements, my prediction that this is going to be used by the Democrats as a campaign tool in an attempt to turn public opinion away from president Trump's chances at election in 2020 by just "leaking" dribs and drabs of unsubstantiated and not supported allegations appears to be spot on.

An Op-Ed from Congressional Representative Fred Keller (R-PA): 

"It started with the “Russia Collusion” hoax, which failed, and has turned into an “impeachment inquiry” being conducted behind closed doors with a predetermined outcome meant to deny the will of the American people 13 months before an election.
 
Aside from the alarming impact the current “impeachment inquiry” presents to our form of government is the immediate and practical effect of what it has done to governing.
 
While Speaker Pelosi said that the 116th Congress would be one that unifies, rather than divides our nation, her leadership—or lack thereof—has put real legislating at a standstill.
 
Like many Americans, I am appalled that Congress is consumed with impeachment instead of legislating.
 
Congress has the opportunity to pass real, meaningful legislation this fall. The USMCA would boost our economy and help our farmers and manufacturing sectors. A bipartisan infrastructure bill could literally pave the way to better roads and bridges to ensure safe travel of persons and goods. And immigration reform could finally end the security and humanitarian crisis on our border.
 
Unfortunately for them, Democrats want impeachment over improvement and have traded unity for uselessness."
 

If there is evidence warranting impeachment the Democrats should trot it out and let the American public see it...

If there isn't sufficient evidence warranting impeachments the Democrats should get back to the jobs they were elected to do, legislate on measures they've put on hold in pursuit of their impeachment objectives. If this carries over into the 2020 election cycle with no charges, no proof, no evidence against the president I at least hope the American voters will recognize their 4th official attempt to impeach president Trump as the sham it appears to be.

Opinion Post(s).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this