Pocohantes calls for impeachment hearings...

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

Trump says he would turn to Supreme Court if Democrats move to impeach him

It was unclear how the president would legally justify such a move, since the Constitution delegates impeachment proceedings to Congress, not the courts.

 

How about having a president that understands how the constitution works? How can people support this total idiot?

 

 

[Q-baby!]

[Big Gun]

On 4/22/2019 at 11:32 AM, Joe Miner said:

 

You forgot backing infanticide, 16 year old voting, and doing away with the electoral college.

Also don't forget felons being allowed to vote and drivers licenses for illegals

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

.

 

they only back punishment of crime when it's Trump for treason

 

everything else they think is a wonderful self-expression of assault and murder

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[Q-baby!]

31 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

.

Then Trumptard promptly walks off the end down the stairs on his own, forgetting to remove the noose. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BigMcD said:

 

When the con man's fixer calls the con man a con man, do you believe him?  Or do you instead ask yourself if you're being conned?

[Q-baby!]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

When the con man's fixer calls the con man a con man, do you believe him?  Or do you instead ask yourself if you're being conned?

It’s like when a ***** calls another woman a *****. They are both whores. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, BigMcD said:

It’s like when a ***** calls another woman a *****. They are both whores. 

 

Or like when a Canadian like you calls someone else a Canadian, and you're both insufferable idiots.

[Q-baby!]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Or like when a Canadian like you calls someone else a Canadian, and you're both insufferable idiots.

Try and keep up old dude! 

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Or like when a Canadian like you calls someone else a Canadian, and you're both insufferable idiots.

 

You're the last one flicking that snot.

 

I'm begging you. Please. Ignore him with the rest of us. 

[Q-baby!]

Just now, LABillzFan said:

 

You're the last one flicking that snot.

 

I'm begging you. Please. Ignore him with the rest of us. 

Yeah! 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

You're the last one flicking that snot.

 

I'm begging you. Please. Ignore him with the rest of us. 

 

Okay, since you're begging.  

 

He's Canadian anyway, so it's not like ignoring him is out of my way, really...

[Q-baby!]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Okay, since you're begging.  

 

He's Canadian anyway, so it's not like ignoring him is out of my way, really...

Oh, Tammy! So close! 

[IDBillzFan]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Okay, since you're begging.  

 

He's Canadian anyway, so it's not like ignoring him is out of my way, really...

 

Thanks. 

 

[Q-baby!]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Thanks. 

 

Thanks. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 4/22/2019 at 11:46 AM, Bob in Mich said:

 

Funny.

 

But the real question is, who will check Trump going forward if all of his previous obstructive behavior is deemed OK ?  Do you think that without further sanction, he will change his ways and stop interfering?  Are you OK with future actions that are similar to the 11 incidents described in the Meuller report?

I'm absolutely ok with the perception that the/A president had the balls to say "***** off" repeatedly, and with malice, to his enemies and to enemies of the state who set up a scheme that put him at personal and political risk.  I'm ok with future actions that are lawful in thought/word/deed that serve to protect his presidency and hamstring his enemies.  

 

I also support the declassification of material harmful to the democrats, Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe etc for both transparency and the greater good of all Americans.  

 

The answer to your question, btw, is that the opposition party will "check" the president moving forward, with a demonstrated willingness to say, do or support anything real or imagined that achieves their goal of annihilation of the man and his agenda. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm absolutely ok with the perception that the/A president had the balls to say "***** off" repeatedly, and with malice, to his enemies and to enemies of the state who set up a scheme that put him at personal and political risk.  I'm ok with future actions that are lawful in thought/word/deed that serve to protect his presidency and hamstring his enemies.  

 

I also support the declassification of material harmful to the democrats, Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe etc for both transparency and the greater good of all Americans.  

 

The answer to your question, btw, is that the opposition party will "check" the president moving forward, with a demonstrated willingness to say, do or support anything real or imagined that achieves their goal of annihilation of the man and his agenda. 

 

We are at a very interesting juncture in history, a crossroads even. 

 

For two years the public at large has been sold a phony story about Russians colluding with Trump to steal the 2016 election. This narrative was engineered by a small segment of the US Intelligence community, working on behalf of the Obama White House and the Clinton campaign. It was a flimsy premise, leaked to the media who then weaponized it in a massive, two year disinformation campaign. Millions of people, not knowing any better nor having a reason to doubt what their intelligence leaders and talking heads on TV were telling them about our "democracy being under assault", bought into this lie.

 

Millions. 

 

Now, slowly but surely, that narrative is being exposed for the con-job it always was. The Mueller report lays bare the deception of the past two years by not only smiting the Steele Dossier (the probe could not find ANY evidence to support the dossier's claims), but also the entire collusion/conspiracy hoax. The same report tries to minimize these revelations by piling on a (legally ridiculous) case for obstruction before punting on rendering a verdict. 

 

The millions of people who have been lied to, through no fault of their own, are being given an option now. A red pill or a blue pill. They can continue to follow the narrative created by Brennan, Clapper, Simpson, Steele, and Comey -- despite having incontrovertible evidence that these same people have been lying to them for the past two years about this very subject (and with Clapper and Brennan -- this is the second time they've been caught lying to the public about major events: WMD and US torture/spying on Congress), proving they've learned nothing from the past two years... or, they can take the red pill and start to question the narrative they've been given. 

 

Trump is the obstacle for many. His personality and Trumpisms rub some the wrong way, and they will never give him the benefit of the doubt. But he's ultimately irrelevant to this subject. The only thing that matters in this conversation is this simple question: 

 

Do you believe a sitting US President should be able to use, and abuse, the massive powers of our intelligence agencies and surveillance technology to spy on their political opponents or to execute a backdoor coup should their side lose in an election?

 

Because that's what really has gone on for the past two years. 

 

If you care about the republic, there can only be one answer to that question. It goes above partisanship or political parties. It's goes beyond Trump or Clinton or Obama. It's about whether or not we wish to live in a REAL democratic republic, or merely the illusion of one. 

[Magox]

On 4/19/2019 at 7:08 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Mayor Pete destroyed Beto. His campaign is dead, he just doesn't know it. 

 

Mayor Pete did destroy Beto.  Poor guy, I'm sure he thought he was the second coming of Obama.    

 

 

On 4/20/2019 at 9:23 PM, Doc Brown said:

People just don't like it when it thinks it works against them.  For instance.........

 

 

 

Everyone should know by now that he only says things that attempt to shed him in a good light.  His words are almost meaningless, which is why the thought that he attempted to obstruct justice or collude with Russians in plain sight is ridiculous.  It merely was the rantings of man who will say anything to gain public support.

[Doc Brown]

17 minutes ago, Magox said:

Everyone should know by now that he only says things that attempt to shed him in a good light.  His words are almost meaningless, which is why the thought that he attempted to obstruct justice or collude with Russians in plain sight is ridiculous.  It merely was the rantings of man who will say anything to gain public support.

I just point it out because there's posters on here who have stated that Trump is a constitutionalist who just wants to turn the balance of power back to the legislative branch like it once was.  It was brought up when he ended the CSR payments to insurance companies under the ACA.  Even though the decision ended up costing the federal government more money driving the debt up even more.

[/dev/null]

39 minutes ago, Magox said:

Everyone should know by now that he only says things that attempt to shed him in a good light.  His words are almost meaningless, which is why the thought that he attempted to obstruct justice or collude with Russians in plain sight is ridiculous.  It merely was the rantings of man who will say anything to gain public support.

 

5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I just point it out because there's posters on here who have stated that Trump is a constitutionalist who just wants to turn the balance of power back to the legislative branch like it once was.  It was brought up when he ended the CSR payments to insurance companies under the ACA.  Even though the decision ended up costing the federal government more money driving the debt up even more.

 

Trump at his core is Democrat or at best a Big Government Republican

 

Democrats could have had two years of a somewhat sympathetic Republican to work with.  Instead they went BSC with the TDS and turned what could have been willing partner into an adversary who has taken positions that he may not have taken otherwise out of spite

[Magox]

15 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I just point it out because there's posters on here who have stated that Trump is a constitutionalist who just wants to turn the balance of power back to the legislative branch like it once was.  It was brought up when he ended the CSR payments to insurance companies under the ACA.  Even though the decision ended up costing the federal government more money driving the debt up even more.

Constitutionalist??  

 

Did someone really say that? 

[Magox]

8 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

Trump at his core is Democrat or at best a Big Government Republican

 

Democrats could have had two years of a somewhat sympathetic Republican to work with.  Instead they went BSC with the TDS and turned what could have been willing partner into an adversary who has taken positions that he may not have taken otherwise out of spite

 

More like an amalgamation of conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, whatever will benefitism.   If there is anything that he truly believes in other than himself it could be crony like capitalism and protecting U.S trade.  Aside from that, he just goes where he can get support.  With that said, his instincts of what the Republican base wants is uncanny, he truly  has a great feel for what gets them going and he knows how to deliver it in a manner that viscerally connects with the base.    

 

Lots of his policies have been crafted by establishment and talk radio sort of conservatives.  They have guided him but it has been his instincts and ultimately his decisions that have led him to where he is, which is the president of the most powerful country in the world presiding over a pretty terrific economy.  So it's hardly a fluke.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

Trump at his core is Democrat or at best a Big Government Republican

 

Democrats could have had two years of a somewhat sympathetic Republican to work with.  Instead they went BSC with the TDS and turned what could have been willing partner into an adversary who has taken positions that he may not have taken otherwise out of spite

If they worked with Trump most would be primaried and reelection is all they care about.  Trump also has surrounded himself with very conservative advisers formally (Mulvaney, Pence, Miller, Pompeo) and informally (Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich) who would likely talk him out of any bipartisan compromise on issues like immigration or health care.

[row_33]

pragmatism

 

what we all live our lives by if we have a job and responsibilities more than screaming at the sky all the time

 

[B-Man]

.........they are truly addicted

[row_33]

the Report saying there is nothing worth pursuing makes it obvious there is so much more to arrest Trump for

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

the Report saying there is nothing worth pursuing makes it obvious there is so much more to arrest Trump for

 

 

Of course.  Because it's obvious he obstructed justice by interfering in the investigation to force Mueller to report there's nothing worth pursuing, when Adam Schiff has undisclosed concrete evidence that there was something worth pursuing...

 

I wish they'd just shout "But there's consensus!" and stop pretending they're rational.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Of course.  Because it's obvious he obstructed justice by interfering in the investigation to force Mueller to report there's nothing worth pursuing, when Adam Schiff has undisclosed concrete evidence that there was something worth pursuing...

 

I wish they'd just shout "But there's consensus!" and stop pretending they're rational.

 

so then how do these people go home and believe their spouse and kids when they say they love them?

 

some heavy duty game playing going on in their skulls.

 

better to have a worldview that tries to be consistent on evidence?

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

20 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm absolutely ok with the perception that the/A president had the balls to say "***** off" repeatedly, and with malice, to his enemies and to enemies of the state who set up a scheme that put him at personal and political risk.  I'm ok with future actions that are lawful in thought/word/deed that serve to protect his presidency and hamstring his enemies.  

 

I also support the declassification of material harmful to the democrats, Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe etc for both transparency and the greater good of all Americans.  

 

The answer to your question, btw, is that the opposition party will "check" the president moving forward, with a demonstrated willingness to say, do or support anything real or imagined that achieves their goal of annihilation of the man and his agenda. 

 

Len.....Lenny.... Lenny Slimfast....no, no, no.  Lenny doesn't get it this time.   That is my point, in this toxic environment and with the Republican enablers in the Senate, there is currently insufficient check on this president.

 

Ignoring the individuals currently in the offices, do you think that Congress should have any oversight of the Executive branch, aside from impeachment?  In other words, should Congress be able to look into possible misdeeds of the President?  Subpoena witnesses or documents?

 

No?  Ok, thanks.  We are done discussing this.  Enjoy the kingdom.  The king appreciates your support.

 

Yes?  Ok, thanks.  So if they have oversight duty, how can they do that job if Trump has decided that the Executive branch no longer has to comply with Congressional requests? 

 

I understand most everyone is sick of investigations after the Mueller report, but to say you support no oversight will effectively lead to King Donnie.  Also, of course after Donnie dies and Ivanka tires of the job, you will desire no check on future Democratic presidents, right?

Edited April 25, 2019 by Bob in Mich

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Len.....Lenny.... Lenny Slimfast....no, no, no.  Lenny doesn't get it this time.   That is my point, in this toxic environment and with the Republican enablers in the Senate, there is currently insufficient check on this president.

 

Ignoring the individuals currently in the offices, do you think that Congress should have any oversight of the Executive branch, aside from impeachment?  In other words, should Congress be able to look into possible misdeeds of the President?  Subpoena witnesses or documents?

 

No?  Ok, thanks.  We are done discussing this.  Enjoy the kingdom.  The king appreciates your support.

 

Yes?  Ok, thanks.  So if they have oversight duty, how can they do that job if Trump has decided that the Executive branch no longer has to comply with Congressional requests?  I understand most everyone is sick of investigations after the Mueller report, but to say you support no oversight will effectively lead to King Donnie.  Also, of course after Donnie dies and Ivanka tires of the job, you will desire no check on future Democratic presidents, right?

 

"Trump has decided." 

 

Again, no different than Obama's exercise of executive privilege.  Which was little different from Bush's.  And I doubt Bush started the precedent.  

 

At worst, Trump is just furthering the erosion that started decades ago.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Len.....Lenny.... Lenny Slimfast....no, no, no.  Lenny doesn't get it this time.   That is my point, in this toxic environment and with the Republican enablers in the Senate, there is currently insufficient check on this president.

 

How DARE the illegal coup fail! 

 

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Ignoring the individuals currently in the offices, do you think that Congress should have any oversight of the Executive branch, aside from impeachment?  In other words, should Congress be able to look into possible misdeeds of the President?  Subpoena witnesses or documents?

 

No?  Ok, thanks.  We are done discussing this.  Enjoy the kingdom.  The king appreciates your support.

 

Ironically, I don't recall you being this upset about Eric Holder withholding documents on Fast and Furious for years... could your anger not be principled but based solely in partisanship? 

 

Yessir! 

 

So maybe you should be the one to ***** off. 

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2013/04/eric-holder-im-still-the-presidents-wingman-160861

Holder, who's been held in contempt the House of Representatives and has been the focus of numerous Republican-led Congressional investigations,

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Len.....Lenny.... Lenny Slimfast....no, no, no.  Lenny doesn't get it this time.   That is my point, in this toxic environment and with the Republican enablers in the Senate, there is currently insufficient check on this president.

 

Ignoring the individuals currently in the offices, do you think that Congress should have any oversight of the Executive branch, aside from impeachment?  In other words, should Congress be able to look into possible misdeeds of the President?  Subpoena witnesses or documents?

 

No?  Ok, thanks.  We are done discussing this.  Enjoy the kingdom.  The king appreciates your support.

 

Yes?  Ok, thanks.  So if they have oversight duty, how can they do that job if Trump has decided that the Executive branch no longer has to comply with Congressional requests?  I understand most everyone is sick of investigations after the Mueller report, but to say you support no oversight will effectively lead to King Donnie.  Also, of course after Donnie dies and Ivanka tires of the job, you will desire no check on future Democratic presidents, right?

 

This is a very stupid post.

 

No, Congress does not enjoy a supervisory role over the Executive Branch.  The Constitution lays out, in painstaking detail, the prescribed role of each branch of government.

 

No, President Trump has not overstepped the modern boundaries of his office, but rather has shrunk the purview of the Executive Branch by drastically reducing the regulatory state, and enforcing the law as written placing the onus back on Congress to legislate.

 

No, it is not acceptable in a free society purporting to operate on democratic principals for investigative or legislative bodies to use the powers of government to open investigations into individuals, sans evidence, in search of possible crimes.

 

 

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

This is a very stupid post.

 

No, Congress does not enjoy a supervisory role over the Executive Branch.  The Constitution lays out, in painstaking detail, the prescribed role of each branch of government.

 

No, President Trump has not overstepped the modern boundaries of his office, but rather has shrunk the purview of the Executive Branch by drastically reducing the regulatory state, and enforcing the law as written placing the onus back on Congress to legislate.

 

No, it is not acceptable in a free society purporting to operate on democratic principals for investigative or legislative bodies to use the powers of government to open investigations into individuals, sans evidence, in search of possible crimes.

 

 

That might be a primary source of the Congress critters’ contempt for President Trump. He has the temerity to make THEM actually have to do their jobs. That’s something that by in large they’ve shied away from for years. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Len.....Lenny.... Lenny Slimfast....no, no, no.  Lenny doesn't get it this time.   That is my point, in this toxic environment and with the Republican enablers in the Senate, there is currently insufficient check on this president.

 

Ignoring the individuals currently in the offices, do you think that Congress should have any oversight of the Executive branch, aside from impeachment?  In other words, should Congress be able to look into possible misdeeds of the President?  Subpoena witnesses or documents?

 

No?  Ok, thanks.  We are done discussing this.  Enjoy the kingdom.  The king appreciates your support.

 

Yes?  Ok, thanks.  So if they have oversight duty, how can they do that job if Trump has decided that the Executive branch no longer has to comply with Congressional requests?  I understand most everyone is sick of investigations after the Mueller report, but to say you support no oversight will effectively lead to King Donnie.  Also, of course after Donnie dies and Ivanka tires of the job, you will desire no check on future Democratic presidents, right?

So, as often happens with me, when I get worked up and frustrated, I have to step back, smoke a couple camels and have a glass of scotch. Or, I would if i was a camel killer  and drank scotch. 

 

Anyway, to the broad point, of course lawful and reasonable oversight is lawful, reasonable and necessary. We can agree on that and simply move on....

 

Except...the fact that you personally have decided this moment in time, with this president is the one that finally leads to a monarchy.  It's the classic "But I don't want to talk about what he did.." or "Hillary Clinton isn't the president" or for all the Comey fans out there..."spying ain't spying, we're just hanging out in the cargo van with the state of the art parabolic microphone pointed at the trump guy!". 

 

A more reasonable approach for seekers of truth would be to investigate why and how the intelligence community missed so badly when trying trump to criminality and Russia.  Gross incompetence at best, but it was far worse than that. 

 

Given where we are now, and knowing the approach the enemies at the gate will employ (complete destruction of trump and anyone in their way), I support the admin employing every sensible and legal tactic to carry the day.  

 

Now let's go get a g-d snack. 

[B-Man]

ANOTHER ‘NON-PARTISAN’ LIBERAL DARK MONEY GROUP EXPOSED:

 

Joe Schoffstall is a smart, young investigative journalist worth following closely.

 

Today he shines light on the lefty Trump impeachment activity of the Six Thirty Fund. .

 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

This is a very stupid post.

 

No, Congress does not enjoy a supervisory role over the Executive Branch.  The Constitution lays out, in painstaking detail, the prescribed role of each branch of government.

 

No, President Trump has not overstepped the modern boundaries of his office, but rather has shrunk the purview of the Executive Branch by drastically reducing the regulatory state, and enforcing the law as written placing the onus back on Congress to legislate.

 

No, it is not acceptable in a free society purporting to operate on democratic principals for investigative or legislative bodies to use the powers of government to open investigations into individuals, sans evidence, in search of possible crimes.

 

 

 

This is a stupid post .  Full stop!  This is shocking since you are the smartest guy here, even if only self proclaimed.  Sheeesh....still unbelievable!

 

Sans Evidence????!!!   Seriously?  This is the root of your stupid I think.  A stretch perhaps but if capable, try to imagine President Hillary....if there were similar questions about her charity, taxes, businesses, bank loans, etc, etc, would you want Congress to investigate ?

 

In general terms,

 

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.^[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

This is a stupid post .  Full stop!  This is shocking since you are the smartest guy here, even if only self proclaimed.  Sheeesh....still unbelievable!

 

Sans Evidence????!!!   Seriously?  This is the root of your stupid I think.  A stretch perhaps but if capable, try to imagine President Hillary....if there were similar questions about her charity, taxes, businesses, bank loans, etc, etc, would you want Congress to investigate ?

 

In general terms,

 

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.^[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

 

 

On June 28, 2012, Holder became the first U.S. Attorney General in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt. He was held, by a bipartisan vote, in contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255–67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure, 2 Republicans voting against the measure.

 

Quick! Find all the outraged posts made by Bob in 2012! He must have been furious about this kind of offense! 

 

Oh... wait... 

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

This is a stupid post .  Full stop!  This is shocking since you are the smartest guy here, even if only self proclaimed.  Sheeesh....still unbelievable!

 

Sans Evidence????!!!   Seriously?  This is the root of your stupid I think.  A stretch perhaps but if capable, try to imagine President Hillary....if there were similar questions about her charity, taxes, businesses, bank loans, etc, etc, would you want Congress to investigate ?

 

In general terms,

 

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.^[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. Oversight also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

 

 

So Bob, you're for double jeopardy? Making Congress a new criminal branch of the government?