Jump to content

Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Chris Wallace was on a few minutes ago comparing the Benghazi hearings to this whatever you want to call it "investigation". He basically said that they were being handled in the same way. No, they are not. Every day there are leaks or fabrications coming from the people who want to see Trump hurt. I say "hurt" because this is all a big fvcking farce. The last thing they want to do is impeach Trump. They want to damage Trump without having to go on record regarding impeachment. They also are trying to make the coming lowering of the boom on the criminals that were attempting a soft coup, a political thing.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Chris Wallace was on a few minutes ago comparing the Benghazi hearings to this whatever you want to call it "investigation". He basically said that they were being handled in the same way. No, they are not. Every day there are leaks or fabrications coming from the people who want to see Trump hurt. I say "hurt" because this is all a big fvcking farce. The last thing they want to do is impeach Trump. They want to damage Trump without having to go on record regarding impeachment. They also are trying to make the coming lowering of the boom on the criminals that were attempting a soft coup, a political thing.

 

Yup. 

 

Benghazi was not an impeachment push -- even with the political theater involved in those hearings. It's a very different kettle of fish. 4 dead bodies, including a US ambassador, demands a very different procedure than investigating what happened on a (now) unclassified call which we all can read for ourselves. The attempt to conflate the two is a sign of a weak mind/argument. 

 

So of course Wallace pushes it. He's a hack.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yup. 

 

Benghazi was not an impeachment push -- even with the political theater involved in those hearings. It's a very different kettle of fish. 4 dead bodies, including a US ambassador, demands a very different procedure than investigating what happened on a (now) unclassified call which we all can read for ourselves. The attempt to conflate the two is a sign of a weak mind/argument. 

 

So of course Wallace pushes it. He's a hack.

There was a time when I thought Wallace was pretty fair, back when he was also moderating debates. I view him now on the level of Shepard Smith, without the bitchy attitude. He doesn't tell the full story if the full story is going to support conservatives.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

They launched the Ukraine gambit too soon. It was designed to deflect from the Barr/Durham criminal investigations — but now it’s dead and buried long before it can serve its true purpose. 

 

Going to be fun times ahead. Get the popcorn. 

 

If they're smart, they'll try to assassinate Warren or Biden next.  

 

I mean...their first inclination has to be to assassinate Trump, or Pence, or Barr.  But that would be a "Reichstag fire" moment, and counter-productive.  Killing off a Democratic front-runner will distract from the Barr/Durham investigation, and they can find a way to blame Trump for it, and it would probably cement the election for whichever Democrat wins the primaries, particularly if they can blame a white supremacist.

 

Probably Warren, so they get the misogyny angle too.  Then Hillary steps in "because as a government official of almost thirty years, despite my reluctance I feel it is my solemn duty to once again serve mysel- er, my country in this time of grave crisis."

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

If they're smart, they'll try to assassinate Warren or Biden next.  

 

I mean...their first inclination has to be to assassinate Trump, or Pence, or Barr.  But that would be a "Reichstag fire" moment, and counter-productive.  Killing off a Democratic front-runner will distract from the Barr/Durham investigation, and they can find a way to blame Trump for it, and it would probably cement the election for whichever Democrat wins the primaries, particularly if they can blame a white supremacist.

 

Probably Warren, so they get the misogyny angle too.  Then Hillary steps in "because as a government official of almost thirty years, despite my reluctance I feel it is my solemn duty to once again serve mysel- er, my country in this time of grave crisis."

  Sadly and somewhat fearfully I see this as a real life scenario.  Somebody in the Democratic Party (Hillary) wants power at any cost and does not care as to the damage it will do to this country.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The silence of Senate Republicans is deafening 


They already said that they won’t convict if the house somehow manages to get enough votes to impeach him. Not much more to say.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yup. 

 

Benghazi was not an impeachment push -- even with the political theater involved in those hearings. It's a very different kettle of fish. 4 dead bodies, including a US ambassador, demands a very different procedure than investigating what happened on a (now) unclassified call which we all can read for ourselves. The attempt to conflate the two is a sign of a weak mind/argument. 

 

So of course Wallace pushes it. He's a hack.

You guys pushed a fake investigation and the Dems are holding the president to account for lawless actions, that's the difference 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...