No one has brought impeachment charges, so it's a little early to demand to know what they are. When and if impeachment charges are filed, we'll find out what they are. barfo
Yes, that is one thing that Trump said. He also said a bunch of things that contradict that. Seems like you are indeed demonstrating how cherry picking works. Who are you going to believe, Lyin' Donald, or Lyin' Trump? barfo
You also didn't complain about "this bullshit of losing elections and disrupting the government of the winner". barfo
Sometimes I get the feeling that your life is just one giant flashback. Speaking of flashbacks you going to the Oregon Country Fair?
I want honesty and truthfulness. Virtually all claims should be faced with skepticism by the press. Clinton used a private email server. Not Clinton broke the law. Day 1, that is. When the truth comes out, report it. It's not gotcha and journalism. Again, we don't know the context of what was being said. People in the room called it a negotiation tactic. You don't know what he meant by "pressure," either. The Holt response, directly from the man, on camera, with context. I just proved to you the NYT is being deceitful by cherry picking the one sentence out of context. Anyone who saw the Holt interview knows what he said. If you rely on NYT or CNN, etc., you know what they want you to believe.
The similarity to Watergate is laughable. The similarity to McCarthyism is only lost on the uneducated. "I have proof right here in my briefcase that the government is infested by Russian agents." Only instead of the press saying, "have you no shame?" they're being McCarthy.
I guess I was using the broader "Merriam Webster" definition "the action of betraying someone or something." in this particular case; if those allegations are true, Trump or his team would have betrayed the integrity of the electoral process, which is sort of the bedrock of our republican system of government. I'll grant, that under the provisions of Article Three, the bar is much higher and the definition is much narrower for the act of "treason." I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing the charges might be closer to: Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud and/or Espionage. Either way, if this actually happened (which remains to be seen) then that's pretty goddamned alarming. If it was Hillary's campaign in the cross-hairs, people on the right would be howling for her to be strung up, and they'd be right to be mad as hell.
The House can pretty much charge the president with whatever it deems to be high crimes and misdemeanors. Proving it in a senate trial is required to actually remove the president. If there is this mythical smoking gun that ties the president to the Russian hacking, I think he's toast. Directing the WikiLeaks document releases? Not so much. But I think he stands zero chance of reelection, or even getting the Republican nomination.
I probably won't this year but if you are going stop by and have a beer....I can hear the bass and drums from the main stage on my deck.. Thursday or Friday are the best days to go
True. I do not recall any disrupting to complain about. When was Obama investigated without reason? Who suggested impeachment without a crime?
Donald Trump offered a million bucks for his birth certificate...Obama was stonewalled from day one his first term....how many GOP reps were screaming for his proof of natural birth.....you think that's any different? I don't.....if Obama conducted himself like Trump has...you'd freak out...admit it
