He can do it without proof. What else do you want me to say? Go live life and enjoy it. Over 4 years I've listen to the left complain everydayyyyyyyy it's gotten old now. I honestly used to vote down the middle....now I can't.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, a President cannot abuse their power to force a foreign government to fabricate charges against a political opponent. That is not what happened here.

---

---

But it did happen in 2016 under Obama and in Ukraine.

ETA: The so-called "black ledger" against Manafort was likely forged pursuant to the DNC's and State Department's request.

Bingo.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

---

What a head shot.

Trump and the Republicans should put up a ticker to keep track of Congress ignoring USMCA so they can show it starting next year how it is affecting plenty of people that would benefit from it. Nice election fodder to show what a **** show congress is worrying about a witch hunt and not doing what they were elected for because it might give the President a win.

So what?

If there is significant evidence of malfeasance. What you are describing is exactly what Obama did to trump

captkirk said:

---

If there is significant evidence of malfeasance. What you are describing is exactly what Obama did to trump

---

And Susan Rice's email-to-self proves it. I have never fully understood what possessed her to write such a self-condemning and Obama implicating email. Incredibly stupid, not to mention impolitic of her.

aggie2812-2 said:

---

He can do it without proof. What else do you want me to say? Go live life and enjoy it. Over 4 years I've listen to the left complain everydayyyyyyyy it's gotten old now. I honestly used to vote down the middle....now I can't.

---

This should be the strategy of every single President, Democrat & Republican, going forward then.

She was covering her ass, not Obama's. She knew it had hair all over it.

Aggiebrewer said:

---

First I've heard of Rice doing that,

---

Quote:

---

Ambassador Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote:

"President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities 'by the book'. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book."

Grassley and Graham were struck by the context and timing of this email, and sent a follow up letter to Ambassador Rice. The letter reads in part:

"It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed 'by the book,' substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed 'by the book.'"

---

LINK

How is that self-condemning?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

He can do it without proof. What else do you want me to say? Go live life and enjoy it. Over 4 years I've listen to the left complain everydayyyyyyyy it's gotten old now. I honestly used to vote down the middle....now I can't.

---

This should be the strategy of every single President, Democrat & Republican, going forward then.

---

The entire point of an investigation is to uncover evidence, if there is any (last point should be noted for House Democrats).

If an investigation done solely for political gain, it's inappropriate and likely criminal.

If it is done to root out a crime, it's legal and appropriate . If the President gains politically because the criminal happens to be his potential adversary, that's a byproduct.

It's not rocket surgery.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the democrats know exactly what they are doing.

---

Which is what, exactly? Because there are no grounds to impeach other than personal animus and partisanship that I see.

---

My goodness, Al Green told us over a year ago. If we don't impeach him, he will get re-elected.

The Democrats only chance of winning in 2020 is to excite their base, these people r not stupid. Trump gave them a small opening and like good opponents they are pounding it.

Who in the media doesn't want a trial? Ratings will be sky high once the senate gets going.
Who in the senate doesn't want their chance to shine on TV to the home base?

Of course the senate will find him not guilty but if the Democrats can get a majority they will say Victory against the evil King. Their base will be on fire, maybe hot enough to pull off the greatest upset since....well Trump beat Hillary. That is what they r betting on...IMO.

Drama Drama Drama

For those thinking this is about the IG report, don't think so as we r now hearing that not a lot of meat in that report.

On to Durham.....what a show, from both sides.


This is the greatest show on earth

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

There is zero evidence the intent was to influence the 2020 election. It's not like Biden has made it through a primary. Trump ran I'm draining the swamp and his actions during the past three years have proven that.

The 2020 election is a straw man argument used by Democrats to find a crime in order to attempt to achieve their goal of removing a man from office that they don't like.

---

Is that a yes or a no?

Why can't anyone give a straight answer? Can a future President ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent because they believe the opponent is corrupt? Yes or No?

---

Yes. A President can absolutely utilize foreign governments in aid of an investigation of a US citizen for crimes against the United States. That person being a politician does not shield them from justice. That is what happened here.

No, a President cannot abuse their power to force a foreign government to fabricate charges against a political opponent. That is not what happened here.

Here's a question for you. If the desire to investigate a crime is off limits, what should be done with the underlying crime?

---

I don't think investigating a crime is off limits. I'm more focused on the unique situation of the President involving himself in a foreign investigation of an alleged crime or a political opponent.

---

I do not remember your being concerned when hillary paid for the Steele dossier.

Weird

Quote:

---

Who in the media doesn't want a trial? Ratings will be sky high once the senate gets going.
Who in the senate doesn't want their chance to shine on TV to the home base?

Of course the senate will find him not guilty but if the Democrats can get a majority they will say Victory against the evil King. Their base will be on fire, maybe hot enough to pull off the greatest upset since....well Trump beat Hillary. That is what they r betting on...IMO.

Drama Drama Drama

For those thinking this is about the IG report, don't think so as we r now hearing that not a lot of meat in that report.

On to Durham.....what a show, from both sides.


This is the greatest show on earth but we have forgive me the reference here

---

Forgive me but it is too tempting to not quote Shakespeare here:

Quote:

---

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

There is zero evidence the intent was to influence the 2020 election. It's not like Biden has made it through a primary. Trump ran I'm draining the swamp and his actions during the past three years have proven that.

The 2020 election is a straw man argument used by Democrats to find a crime in order to attempt to achieve their goal of removing a man from office that they don't like.

---

Is that a yes or a no?

Why can't anyone give a straight answer? Can a future President ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent because they believe the opponent is corrupt? Yes or No?

---

Yes. A President can absolutely utilize foreign governments in aid of an investigation of a US citizen for crimes against the United States. That person being a politician does not shield them from justice. That is what happened here.

No, a President cannot abuse their power to force a foreign government to fabricate charges against a political opponent. That is not what happened here.

Here's a question for you. If the desire to investigate a crime is off limits, what should be done with the underlying crime?

---

I don't think investigating a crime is off limits. I'm more focused on the unique situation of the President involving himself in a foreign investigation of an alleged crime or a political opponent.

---

I do not remember your being concerned when hillary paid for the Steele dossier.

Weird

---

I only made 3 total posts on TexAgs in 2016, so it would have been strange if you did remember this. By the way, I was and am still concerned about it. I don't think we should allow any foreign interference in our elections at all.

Cool. Did you vote for Hillary? Or did your "concern" over ride that decision?

And with all due respect, we did not know Hillary paid for the Steele dossier until later if I recall correctly. And when we did find that out, I do not remember you posting your "concerns" about that.

Again weird.

I find it amusing that our liberal posters will get on this forum and cry and whine about Trump, but when it comes to naming their "favorite" dem candidate, they scurry away like roaches.

dermdoc said:

---

Cool. Did you vote for Hillary? Or did your "concern" over ride that decision?

---

Do I need to answer all these questions in my signature? I didn't vote for Hillary, but I don't really see how that has anything to do with what I'm talking about now.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

There is zero evidence the intent was to influence the 2020 election. It's not like Biden has made it through a primary. Trump ran I'm draining the swamp and his actions during the past three years have proven that.

The 2020 election is a straw man argument used by Democrats to find a crime in order to attempt to achieve their goal of removing a man from office that they don't like.

---

Is that a yes or a no?

Why can't anyone give a straight answer? Can a future President ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent because they believe the opponent is corrupt? Yes or No?

---

Yes. A President can absolutely utilize foreign governments in aid of an investigation of a US citizen for crimes against the United States. That person being a politician does not shield them from justice. That is what happened here.

No, a President cannot abuse their power to force a foreign government to fabricate charges against a political opponent. That is not what happened here.

Here's a question for you. If the desire to investigate a crime is off limits, what should be done with the underlying crime?

---

I don't think investigating a crime is off limits. I'm more focused on the unique situation of the President involving himself in a foreign investigation of an alleged crime or a political opponent.

---

I do not remember your being concerned when hillary paid for the Steele dossier.

Weird

---

I only made 3 total posts on TexAgs in 2016, so it would have been strange if you did remember this. By the way, I was and am still concerned about it. I don't think we should allow any foreign interference in our elections at all.

---

Again, straw man. Just because you don't like who the citizens of the US elected as their President does not mean you can take an action and fabricate a crime to fit your narrative.

Investigating a crime against US interests is not a foreign nation meddling in our elections. No matter how much you want it to be.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Cool. Did you vote for Hillary? Or did your "concern" over ride that decision?

---

Do I need to answer all these questions in my signature? I didn't vote for Hillary, but I don't really see how that has anything to do with what I'm talking about now.

---

It makes all the difference in the world in establishing bias. So who did you vote for? I voted for Trump and proud of it so i assume you would be proud of who you voted for also.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

Sure, since it's already been happening throughout our history as a nation. Stop being weak minded and complaining all the time.

---

Does the alleged corruption have to be proven to make it ok? Or does the President have the authority to do it without any proof?

---

Well every other impeachment in our history has had an indisputable crime driving it. This one has no crime. Go ahead cowboy. Impeach over nothing. You have that power since the dems control the House. But, the senate is going to rip into this like a pit bull on a poodle. (Schiff is the poodle)

dermdoc said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Cool. Did you vote for Hillary? Or did your "concern" over ride that decision?

---

Do I need to answer all these questions in my signature? I didn't vote for Hillary, but I don't really see how that has anything to do with what I'm talking about now.

---

It makes all the difference in the world in establishing bias. So who did you vote for? I voted for Trump and proud of it so i assume you would be proud of who you voted for also.

---

Gary Johnson

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

Sure, since it's already been happening throughout our history as a nation. Stop being weak minded and complaining all the time.

---

Does the alleged corruption have to be proven to make it ok? Or does the President have the authority to do it without any proof?

---

Well every other impeachment in our history has had an indisputable crime driving it. This one has no crime. Go ahead cowboy. Impeach over nothing. You have that power since the dems control the House. But, the senate is going to rip into this like a pit bull on a poodle. (Schiff is the poodle)

---

The thread you are replying to is not about impeachment.

And by the way, you are not very good at this. May need to brush up on your talking points. And if somebody is paying you, they are not getting their money's worth.

If all the folks who said they voted for Gary Johnson actually did, he would have done a lot better.

Hmmm, jimmy voted for Gary Johnson. I think I see a connection.

dermdoc said:

---

And by the way, you are not very good at this. May need to brush up on your talking points. And if somebody is paying you, they are not getting their money's worth.

---

Cool thanks!

Rockdoc said:

---

Hmmm, jimmy voted for Gary Johnson. I think I see a connection.

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

Sure, since it's already been happening throughout our history as a nation. Stop being weak minded and complaining all the time.

---

Does the alleged corruption have to be proven to make it ok? Or does the President have the authority to do it without any proof?

---

Well every other impeachment in our history has had an indisputable crime driving it. This one has no crime. Go ahead cowboy. Impeach over nothing. You have that power since the dems control the House. But, the senate is going to rip into this like a pit bull on a poodle. (Schiff is the poodle)

---

The thread you are replying to is not about impeachment.

---

It's actually in the title as "the official impeachment thread".

I'd like to avoid a ban and not call you something appropriate.

dermdoc said:

---

If all the folks who said they voted for Gary Johnson actually did, he would have done a lot better.

---

Have you heard from more than 4.5 million people?