titan said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Continuing to quote a discredited poll does not make it true no matter how much you want it to be.

---

Here is the dilemma. If you have a firestation on 8th street that is painted yellow with a circular open drive-way on top of a hill and 90% of the media says it is painted green with a covered drive-in next to a canal than you are easily going to get 70% of the people assuming it is painted green with a covered drive-in in a low spot next to a canal. They have no other reference. The only ones who will know different will be the ones who physically drive by it (investigate the primary source), skeptics that seek out current documentation of the edifice, those who know the terrain (history and law) and what can't be true, and the 30% that believe the counter-claim by the other party no matter what and take what happens to be true at face value.

There has been more than enough evidence, even things like Rolling Stone and NYT itself at times outing it, that the MSM has engaged in a whole-lot of coordinated work with the Democrats calling the firestation green.

So once again, a poll only measures what is believed because that is what people are told---not what is true.

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Call it what you may. There's a 30% floor on impeachment, no matter who the president is and whether or not they've even been accused of anything. Vice versa a 30% support base no matter what. Impeachment sentiment has slowly risen to 50% from 30% last summer.

70% acknowledging wrong doing suggests everybody who can be swayed has been. The last 30% are the "don't care who he shot on 5th avenue" crowd. The polling numbers are worse than Nixon and getting worse.

---

FriscoKid said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

Whose sock is Chase?

---

Probably Gary Johnson. The majority of his posting history is on tarrifs and other economic stuff. Just an assumption and it really doesn't matter though.

If it's not GJ there has been a sudden shift, by Chase, in interest to all things impeachment now and away from the booming economy that must be what really irritates him about this president.

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Interesting.

---

Quote:

---

You have a problem with setting a precedent? A precedent of a *foreign* government being asked to investigate US citizens because they happen to be running for political office and it might provide untoward political advantage to a sitting President? You don't say?

How much of a problem is it for you that a sitting President and at least a dozen of his senior staff used the FISA courts to get warrants for political spying? How much of a problem is it that a Democrat presidential candidate paid for a completely fabricated dossier that was fed to the FBI as "intelligence" when in fact everyone from the President to DCI, DNI, AG, and the Director of the FBI knew it was a complete and total fabrication but swore an affidavit that it was not only credble but verified independent? Is it a problem for you that none of those people were prosecuted or impeached?

So it's a problem for you that a foreigner might be asked to conduct an investigation of a US citizen at the behest of the President. Foreigners like an MI6 agent who allowed his asset to be poisoned with Polonium? How about an ambassador from a foreign country being used to try and trick a campaign staffer into falsely stating that he had knowledge of Russian hacking of an opposing candidate? Suppose an FBI asset being paid through a no-compete contract from the DoD Office of Net Assessment was used by a President and his FBI appointees to try and entrap the campaign staffer by urging him in secretly recorded conversations to corroborate false statements that the staffer never heard nor spoke.

Would any of those precedents be a problem for you? Apparently not because all of that happened and you haven't so much as made a peep to condemn it on this forum. All of those precedents that have been substantiated in sworn testimony, recovered text messages, a report of investigation by the IG, and documents released in response to FOIA requests but that's not the problem thats not the problem thatost concerns you about precedents or presidential abuse of power for political gain?

---

Zemira said:

---

You shouldn't encourage the troll. Now we are going to get a few half assed links he Googled.

---

EKUAg said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Interesting.

---

Poll internals?

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Very nice of Rudy to confess to his role in the conspiracy with corrupt Ukrainians to falsely discredit the uber-patriotic anti-corruption US Ambassador to Ukraine.

Trump supporters must be so proud today.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

One of the guys Yovanovitch has admitted to protecting.

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Is Telizhenko the Russian mafia guy or the KGB agent? It's so hard keeping up with Rudy's myriad sources.

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Is Telizhenko the Russian mafia guy or the KGB agent? It's so hard keeping up with Rudy's myriad sources.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Speaking of polls...

---

yawny06 said:

---

And I noticed how not a single one of them even attempted to address this post, so it warrants repeating:

Ulysses90 said:

Quote:

---

You have a problem with setting a precedent? A precedent of a *foreign* government being asked to investigate US citizens because they happen to be running for political office and it might provide untoward political advantage to a sitting President? You don't say?

How much of a problem is it for you that a sitting President and at least a dozen of his senior staff used the FISA courts to get warrants for political spying? How much of a problem is it that a Democrat presidential candidate paid for a completely fabricated dossier that was fed to the FBI as "intelligence" when in fact everyone from the President to DCI, DNI, AG, and the Director of the FBI knew it was a complete and total fabrication but swore an affidavit that it was not only credble but verified independent? Is it a problem for you that none of those people were prosecuted or impeached?

So it's a problem for you that a foreigner might be asked to conduct an investigation of a US citizen at the behest of the President. Foreigners like an MI6 agent who allowed his asset to be poisoned with Polonium? How about an ambassador from a foreign country being used to try and trick a campaign staffer into falsely stating that he had knowledge of Russian hacking of an opposing candidate? Suppose an FBI asset being paid through a no-compete contract from the DoD Office of Net Assessment was used by a President and his FBI appointees to try and entrap the campaign staffer by urging him in secretly recorded conversations to corroborate false statements that the staffer never heard nor spoke.

Would any of those precedents be a problem for you? Apparently not because all of that happened and you haven't so much as made a peep to condemn it on this forum. All of those precedents that have been substantiated in sworn testimony, recovered text messages, a report of investigation by the IG, and documents released in response to FOIA requests but that's not the problem thats not the problem thatost concerns you about precedents or presidential abuse of power for political gain?

---

---

Quote:

---

Attorneys representing House Democrats have told a federal court that House Democrats intend to continue impeachment investigations against President Donald Trump after they vote on impeachment this week, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Senate's impeachment trial.

"In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House's demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate's expected impeachment trial next month," Politico reported. "But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit."

---

Quote:

---

These people are completely unhinged.

---

Quote:

---

I really want to wear my new santa MAGA hat to an impeachment rally tomorrow night. Wonder if Dallas is having one.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Good grief!

Quote:

---

Attorneys representing House Democrats have told a federal court that House Democrats intend to continue impeachment investigations against President Donald Trump after they vote on impeachment this week, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Senate's impeachment trial.

"In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House's demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate's expected impeachment trial next month," Politico reported. "But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit."

---

LINK

These people are completely unhinged.

---

Cassius said:

---

SUag said:

---

captkirk said:

---

How much cash do you want to bet on this?

---

You underestimate how much most of the country is sick of his malignant narcissistic ways and how much of a continued exercise of moral, mental, and religious hypocrisy it takes to be a true trumpian believer.

I'll bet a lot against the impeached one winning in 20. Against anyone. Sorry to disappoint.

---

I'm in for $1000, charity of choice, money kept in escrow by trusted 3rd party.

---