Impeach Michael McDonald!

No Michael McDonald fans.. I'm sad. I bet y'all hate cats too.

Squadron7 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

But who?

---

Read the chyron beneath her face. Norma Torres.

---

Long day, thanks. Prepping for a contentious mediation tomorrow in houston.

---

I saw Contentious Mediation open for the Doobie Brothers in Waco in 1975.

---

Doobies are back on tour with Michael McDonald again. I'd pay to see that combination and probably will.

---

Michael McDonald is what ruined the Doobie Brothers.

Change My Mind.

---

Cassius said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

But who?

---

Read the chyron beneath her face. Norma Torres.

---

Long day, thanks. Prepping for a contentious mediation tomorrow in houston.

---

I saw Contentious Mediation open for the Doobie Brothers in Waco in 1975.

---

Doobies are back on tour with Michael McDonald again. I'd pay to see that combination and probably will.

---

Michael McDonald is what ruined the Doobie Brothers.

Change My Mind.

---

Yeah well, that's like your opinion man. I like both sets of Doobies.

---

This is the internet. I think you're supposed to call me something bad and tell me that I'm the cause of something even worse.

Are you new here?

titan said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

"Just piece of paper with words on it" Like all the sudden Democrat concerns for proper process, no doubt.

And written with not even an iota of the sincerity the Constitution was written with.

Another reason for the House loss in 2018 by the way was the ongoing fraud of Nancy Pelosi's "2 and 2 1/2 year impeachment" railroad under its various name that was ongoing in the background. The MSM lying about that also played a role.

---

Yep, spoken like the good little marxist her and her party have become.

Actually, impeach the next Democrat President immediately only if they favor loose borders, subjecting to the UN, gun grabbing, nationalize this or that, etc. Wait and see if they genuinely try to govern from the center. But if they do, do it at once. President Obama by this standard should have been impeached several times --- and one real good example to impeach for that might have gotten bipartisan support of voters is the almost entirely unbacked by the people idea of interfering in Libya and then Syria.

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Actually, impeach the next Democrat President immediately only if they favor loose borders, subjecting to the UN, gun grabbing, nationalize this or that, etc. Wait and see if they genuinely try to govern from the center. But if they do, do it at once. President Obama by this standard should have been impeached several times --- and one real good example to impeach for that might have gotten bipartisan support of voters is the almost entirely unbacked by the people idea of interfering in Libya and then Syria.

---

The illegal Iran deal should have been the third. Paul Ryan sucked as a leader and Speaker.

---

Oh, absolutely. But frankly, its kind of easy to think of impeachable offenses by Obama using the Democrat's new standard. A thread list of them might be illuminating. They would go toward the next POTLEFT style President; assuming not a more middle type (certainly none are running or was last time).

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

Every person.... Lmao

hbtheduce said:

---

Could announce probes into potential corruption cases in the interests of the United States**

FIFY

NEWSFLASH every action the president takes supposedly helps him politically. Laughable standard for impeachment.

---

Stock markets at all time high!!!

Impeach the mother effer!!!!!!! He is helping his election chances.

Side note, I have always been annoyed that Trump lied on the campaign trail when he said we would get tired of winning. Today I just realized he wasn't talking to me. He was talking to liberals.

Promises made, promises kept.

MetoliusAg said:

---

MSM reporters (and SDNY investigators) to Rudy: "Go on."

---

Of course. I would have recalled her as well.

MetoliusAg said:

---

MSM reporters (and SDNY investigators) to Rudy: "Go on."

---

Still nothing illegal, she serves at the president's leisure

Trump is the one that turned me partisan. I have always been a conservative. I graduated will a degree in PS and was planning on grad school but had too good of a job. I have worked on campaigns and have testified in front of state legislatures. I have even drafted legislation for legislators that are now state law affecting a lot of people. I have donated to campaigns. But I have never been a partisan.

Trump changed that. Or maybe Obama did and Trump reinforced it.

Nice

Just now on Ingraham, she reported that Larry Tribe who I think may have helped the Dems draft the impeachment articles is promoting an idea to impeach Trump but not deliver the articles to the Senate for a trial. Dershowitz was on and basically said this is like a person being indicted but never allowed to go to trial to defend themselves. Basically shreds due process and the Bill of Rights.

Unreal. Who the hell knows at this point what Dems are capable of with this but it truly reveals who is abusing their power and it ain't Trump.

I'm sure most of the State Department WOULD line up to say what Kyle Cheney said, maybe not under oath, but I'm sure they would.

If given a couple of days, I could come up with a minimum of ten instances where the State Departments actions were HIGHLY political for the Dems, in particular Obama and Hillary. Based on the behavior of the State Department since 2000, I'd be very much in favor of a forensic accounting of State, at the very least, not to mention a Durham type investigation to discover possible criminal activity under Obama.

4stringAg said:

---

Just now on Ingraham, she reported that Larry Tribe who I think may have helped the Dems draft the impeachment articles is promoting an idea to impeach Trump but not deliver the articles to the Senate for a trial. Dershowitz was on and basically said this is like a person being indicted but never allowed to go to trial to defend themselves. Basically shreds due process and the Bill of Rights.

Unreal. Who the hell knows at this point what Dems are capable of with this but it truly reveals who is abusing their power and it ain't Trump.

---

An indictment not taken to trial -- what??? A non-delivered impeachment? Well if so can't that be ignored? Trump unlike the "wobblers" earlier in the century is not going to do some silly like bow out because of some `expectation'. It either has the compulsory force of law or it doesn't. He won't do an AG Sessions.

BTW, I think that's probably a pretty good decision for the crooks, uh Dems.

It keeps them out of the spotlight of possible cross examination, therefore revealing the entire conspiracy of the Left, DNC, Schiff, contractors, FBI, CIA, DOD, and possibly judges. It keeps Schiff and his staff off the stand, keeps the Bidens off the stand, and allows the press to start every single sentence involving President Trump with "the recently impeached President Trump".

The 20% of their wack job supporters who are passionately supporting impeachment at all costs, likely don't know anything about the process, and these House members will go back to their town halls selling the fact that the goal was achieved. These same supporters will *****, but by April, it's election season, and they'll be forgotten.

"Probes that could help Trump politically"? Do you really think that's what Rudy said? More likely it was "probes into the U.S. corruption".

Met is great for fiction.

EKUAg said:

---

Met is great for fiction.

---

Wisdom should come with age, but he has learned nothing.

EKUAg said:

---

Met is great for fiction.

---

Just another lying liberal.

Hey I've been gone a while just checking in! So how have the facts changed recently?

1) Biden made his comment in 2018 about withholding funds for the Ukraine (action happened in 2015) until Shokin was fired. Yes, Biden said that. In the full context of what he's speaking about though... our vice president, as a coordinated effort with allies, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations withheld aid for a period of time to get an investigator fired because he WAS NOT investigating corruption. There is not an argument to be made that Shokin was a noble force, he needed to be removed. Replacing him with a prosecutor more serious about corruption would have only been bad for Burisma (and hence Hunter Biden).

2) Contrast that with a president that demanded the Ukrainian president announce an investigation into the Biden's (only an announcement mind you, not an actual investigation per Ambassador Sondland) and went through no diplomatic channels only his own personal attorney Rudy Guilliani (who is also under federal investigation as we speak for connections with the Ukraine).

3) And finally, if what Biden did was so corrupt (it was widely known that Hunter Biden had his position with Burisma, and it was widely known that the U.S. withheld aid to Ukraine) then why was there no Republican led opposition to these actions? If I'm not mistaken they had the majority in the House and Senate at this time. Multiple major U.S. papers reported on exactly this issue and the GOP did nothing... until Biden started polling ahead of Trump.

Yeah that pretty much sums it up.

One more tidbit, Shokin actively shielded Zlochevsky/Burisma while working at the PGO before becoming chief prosecutor.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

Corroborating Ukrainian source

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/anti-corruption-action-center-lutsenkos-speculation-regarding-burisma.html

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

Actually, impeach the next Democrat President immediately only if they favor loose borders, subjecting to the UN, gun grabbing, nationalize this or that, etc. Wait and see if they genuinely try to govern from the center. But if they do, do it at once. President Obama by this standard should have been impeached several times --- and one real good example to impeach for that might have gotten bipartisan support of voters is the almost entirely unbacked by the people idea of interfering in Libya and then Syria.

---

The illegal Iran deal should have been the third. Paul Ryan sucked as a leader and Speaker.

---

Paul was ask to be speaker, remember how he reluctantly took the job. He sucked at it.



I use to think this impeachment was all about Clinton, tic for tac, but not so sure, could it be...

The Republicans may never rule the house again. The boldness of the Democrats doesn't make sense unless u believe that statement could be true. The demographics of our country is changing and due to the gerrymandering that favored the democratic base, the house may be a loss cause for the conservatives and the liberals know it.

The Democrats told us 3 yrs ago they would impeach and they are. If u read the background noise, Nancy's minions are stating they can and will impeach him again.....hummm, bold statements.


What do they know we don't?

fasthorse05 said:

---

I'm sure most of the State Department WOULD line up to say what Kyle Cheney said, maybe not under oath, but I'm sure they would.

If given a couple of days, I could come up with a minimum of ten instances where the State Departments actions were HIGHLY political for the Dems, in particular Obama and Hillary. Based on the behavior of the State Department since 2000, I'd be very much in favor of a forensic accounting of State, at the very least, not to mention a Durham type investigation to discover possible criminal activity under Obama.

---

That was a joke, right?