Jump to content
NM11046

DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

Recommended Posts


32 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

I think the Republicans are right in asking about Cohen's lying and credibility.  And I love when he was asked about recording people, and Cohen said "I don't", then 30 seconds later said "I've recorded about 100 times", plus where's the hard evidence to impeach Trump?  I mean, isn't this the endgame for the Democrats?

 

 

There is plenty of evidence to impeach Trump. The evidence isn’t the hard part. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

I have a lot of thoughts about that, but I'm sure they aren't true.  I guess what it comes down for me is that this Russian collusion thing doesn't seem to have any real evidence, and that's what they've been hanging their hats on this whole time.

 

Al Capone was a gangster who ran liquor past the border and murdered or orchestrated the murder of several dozen men.

 

He was convicted of tax evasion and spent the rest of his life in jail.

 

I'll almost guarantee you they don't try to convict Trump of anything like Collusion. That'll be something for historians to chew on.  Prosecutors are going to go for what they absolutely know can stick.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There is plenty of evidence to impeach Trump. The evidence isn’t the hard part. 

Really? Like what?

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

What questions did the Republicans bring that had any sort of substance to what Cohen was there for? 

 

Still waiting for your response to this, @RedNebraskan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

Really? Like what?

There is evidence of illegal campaign donations: Stormy Daniels payoff

There is evidence of using the office of POTUS for personal financial gain: Maralargo membership, foreign leaders staying at Trump Hotel, etc...

There is evidence of his foundation illegally using donations: they are being forced to dissolve

 

These are just a few that could be used pretty easily if Democrats were up for the political fight that would ensue.

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

Really? Like what?

 

 

They could probably impeach him for violating the emoluments clause alone.

 

Impeachment rules are very vague. The House can define “high crimes or misdemeaners” in a number of different ways.

 

I’d also say having 2 witnesses that Stormy Daniels was paid for her silence, plus the checks, might be enough by itself. 

 

There are probably going to end up being dozens of ways they could impeach him that have enough evidence to back them up.

 

And what @funhusker said about Trump’s “charity.”

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There is plenty of evidence to impeach Trump. The evidence isn’t the hard part. 

 

6 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

Really? Like what?

 

Nixon was going to be impeached on Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, and Contempt of Congress.  Trump fits all of those right now.

 

 

 

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Still waiting for your response to this, @RedNebraskan

Probably not many.  But it would be the exact opposite by congress if there was someone defending Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Nixon was going to be impeached on Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, and Contempt of Congress.  Trump fits all of those right now.

 

 

 

If that was true, he would have been impeached by now or at least begun the first stages of impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

If that was true, he would have been impeached by now or at least begun the first stages of impeachment.

 

Not without the the senate in control of Republicans sympathetic to Trump. The house can introduce articles of impeachment with a simple majority, but conviction requires two-thirds majority from the Senate after the trial.

 

GOPers in the Senate are going to have to start turning their backs on Trump for impeachment to work. Which will require intense public pressure.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedNebraskan said:

If that was true, he would have been impeached by now

 

By whom? The Republican-held congress? C'mon.

 

2 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

or at least begun the first stages of impeachment. 

 

They have. So far there are convictions and/or cooperation by Trump's:

 

Campaign Chairman

Lawyer

National Security Advisor

Campaign Staffer

Campaign Advisor

 

What do you think has been going on the past two years?

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

If that was true, he would have been impeached by now or at least begun the first stages of impeachment.

Not true. Impeachment is all politics and if they don't have enough support to pull it off then things can get ugly politically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RedNebraskan said:

If that was true, he would have been impeached by now or at least begun the first stages of impeachment.

 

Yeah...the fact he hasn't been impeached yet, is not evidence that there isn't grounds for it.  Ulty pretty much sums it up.

 

3 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

Not without the the senate in control of Republicans sympathetic to Trump. The house can introduce articles of impeachment with a simple majority, but conviction requires two-thirds majority from the Senate after the trial.

 

 

After watching what was shown today, do you honestly think enough Republicans would break ranks to impeach him no matter what evidence they saw?

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, knapplc said:

So, just before Cohen is going to testify, this brilliant gentleman steps up to the plate with this gem:

 

 

Screen shot, because I'm guessing this will be taken down soon:

 

5Ej2Ue8.png

 

In case you're not familiar with Mr. Gaetz:

 

Matthew Louis Gaetz II is the U.S. Representative for Florida's 1st congressional district since 2017, where he serves on the Budget, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees. He is a member of the Republican Party.

 

 

 

 

Pretty good call on the screenshot, eh? 

 

Anyoldhoo, Mr. Gaetz is in a smidge of trouble, as one might expect.

 

 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...