CDZ Impeachment Precedent

[JoeB131]

So BJ Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle the case just for the hell of it???

No, his insurance companies paid her because it was cheaper than litigating all the appeals. Most companies settle these kinds of cases without admitting guilt because it is cheaper than litigating.

The key thing to the settlement was the lying cow stopped insisting on an apology.

 

[Flash]

These confused immoral Moon Bats like Joe will go to any lengths, no matter how convoluted, to support the Clinton scum.

Naw, what he did was wrong and all... it just wasn't impeachable like trying to solicit a foreign government to smear your political opponent...

What he did was between him and his wife. His lying about it had no effect on Paula Jones' meritless case.

So BJ Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle the case just for the hell of it???

That is the kind of delusion that uneducated low information morons like Joe has when it comes to Slick Willy and Crooked Hillary.

Joe probably voted for both of those scumbags. Can you imagine somebody being that much lacking in moral clarity as to vote for those two scumbags?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Trump will forever be seen as an incompetent illegitimate president, and now he will be known as one of the few who were impeached. What a loser.

How is Trump illegitimate?

Can you point where any votes were changed in the 2016 election in favor of Trump?

We both know minds and votes are certainly changed through advertising. That's why political parties spend millions on it every election. The FALSE information spread by Russian sources have been shown to have had an effect on the outcome of the election. Just because it's difficult, or impossible to put an exact number on how drastically the election numbers were effected doesn't mean the effect wasn't substantial. Your taunt about how many votes were changed for Trump is either the ramblings of a less than intelligent person, or the direct application of unethical misdirection. I know the leadership of the GOP is smart enough to see what really happened, so their repetition of that meme is proof positive of lack of integrity.

Can you show where in the Mueller Report where the investigation agreed with you?

It has been stated the False Media advertisements did not change the outcome and it is you stating the average voter can not be trusted to research the subject matter to make sure what they are reading is factual.

The fact is it is you being dishonest and what your main goal is to discredit the Wikileaks dump of DNC server files that clearly pointed to dirty dealings within your own political party during the 2016 election but the fact is the Wikileaks dump was all factual and none of it was false unlike the spin the left has been trying since.

Finally, the real reason why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election has to do with her comments, James Comey last minute reopening of the investigation and the fact the woman has been in the news since early 1990's but all of a sudden fake news about twenty million Amish voting is what caused her to lose according to you and your kind, and you call me dishonest in the CDZ?

No, fact is Russia fake news did nothing but the Wikileaks dump which was not fake did hurt her but the one person that cost her the Electoral College vote was James Comey!

Also what does this have to do with Trump Impeachment?

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump will forever be seen as an incompetent illegitimate president, and now he will be known as one of the few who were impeached. What a loser.

How is Trump illegitimate?

Can you point where any votes were changed in the 2016 election in favor of Trump?

We both know minds and votes are certainly changed through advertising. That's why political parties spend millions on it every election. The FALSE information spread by Russian sources have been shown to have had an effect on the outcome of the election. Just because it's difficult, or impossible to put an exact number on how drastically the election numbers were effected doesn't mean the effect wasn't substantial. Your taunt about how many votes were changed for Trump is either the ramblings of a less than intelligent person, or the direct application of unethical misdirection. I know the leadership of the GOP is smart enough to see what really happened, so their repetition of that meme is proof positive of lack of integrity.

Can you show where in the Mueller Repiet where the investigation agreed with you?

It has been stated the False Media advertisements did not change the outcome and it is you stating the average voter can not be trusted to research the subject matter to make sure what they are reading is factual.

The fact is it is you being dishonest and what your main goal is to discredit the Wikileaks dump of DNC server files that clearly pointed to dirtt dealings within your own political party during the 2016 election but the fact is the Wikileaks dump was all factual and none of it was false unlike the spin the left has been trying since.

Finally, the real reason why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election has to do with her comments, James Comey last minute reopening of the investigation and the fact the woman has been in the news since early 1990's but all of a sudden fake news about twenty million Amish voting is what caused her to lose according to you and your kind, and you call me dishonest in the CDZ?

No, fact is Russia fake news did nothing but the Wikileaks dump which was not fake did hurt her but the one person that cost her the Electoral College vote was James Comey!

Also what does this have to do with Trump Impeachment?

Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for anything. If you would have read it instead of taking Barr's word for it, you would have seen 10 well documented examples of Trump's lawlessness.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Trump will forever be seen as an incompetent illegitimate president, and now he will be known as one of the few who were impeached. What a loser.

How is Trump illegitimate?

Can you point where any votes were changed in the 2016 election in favor of Trump?

We both know minds and votes are certainly changed through advertising. That's why political parties spend millions on it every election. The FALSE information spread by Russian sources have been shown to have had an effect on the outcome of the election. Just because it's difficult, or impossible to put an exact number on how drastically the election numbers were effected doesn't mean the effect wasn't substantial. Your taunt about how many votes were changed for Trump is either the ramblings of a less than intelligent person, or the direct application of unethical misdirection. I know the leadership of the GOP is smart enough to see what really happened, so their repetition of that meme is proof positive of lack of integrity.

Can you show where in the Mueller Repiet where the investigation agreed with you?

It has been stated the False Media advertisements did not change the outcome and it is you stating the average voter can not be trusted to research the subject matter to make sure what they are reading is factual.

The fact is it is you being dishonest and what your main goal is to discredit the Wikileaks dump of DNC server files that clearly pointed to dirtt dealings within your own political party during the 2016 election but the fact is the Wikileaks dump was all factual and none of it was false unlike the spin the left has been trying since.

Finally, the real reason why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election has to do with her comments, James Comey last minute reopening of the investigation and the fact the woman has been in the news since early 1990's but all of a sudden fake news about twenty million Amish voting is what caused her to lose according to you and your kind, and you call me dishonest in the CDZ?

No, fact is Russia fake news did nothing but the Wikileaks dump which was not fake did hurt her but the one person that cost her the Electoral College vote was James Comey!

Also what does this have to do with Trump Impeachment?

Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for anything. If you would have read it instead of taking Barr's word for it, you would have seen 10 well documented examples of Trump's lawlessness.

Wow, moving the goal posts and putting words into what I never wrote, and again you call me dishonest?

Nowhere did I write that Mueller report exonerated Trump for his Obstruction of Justice but it did state for a fact that Russia fake news had little if any in changing the outcome of the vote!

Fact is you want Wikileaks dump to be discredited and treated as Fake Russian News but in the end the Wikileaks Dump was not false and you should be ashamed of your own political party!

Now be so kind to show in my response where I exonerated Trump Obstruction of Justice or mentioned Barr and let bet you spin again!?!

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump will forever be seen as an incompetent illegitimate president, and now he will be known as one of the few who were impeached. What a loser.

How is Trump illegitimate?

Can you point where any votes were changed in the 2016 election in favor of Trump?

We both know minds and votes are certainly changed through advertising. That's why political parties spend millions on it every election. The FALSE information spread by Russian sources have been shown to have had an effect on the outcome of the election. Just because it's difficult, or impossible to put an exact number on how drastically the election numbers were effected doesn't mean the effect wasn't substantial. Your taunt about how many votes were changed for Trump is either the ramblings of a less than intelligent person, or the direct application of unethical misdirection. I know the leadership of the GOP is smart enough to see what really happened, so their repetition of that meme is proof positive of lack of integrity.

Can you show where in the Mueller Repiet where the investigation agreed with you?

It has been stated the False Media advertisements did not change the outcome and it is you stating the average voter can not be trusted to research the subject matter to make sure what they are reading is factual.

The fact is it is you being dishonest and what your main goal is to discredit the Wikileaks dump of DNC server files that clearly pointed to dirtt dealings within your own political party during the 2016 election but the fact is the Wikileaks dump was all factual and none of it was false unlike the spin the left has been trying since.

Finally, the real reason why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election has to do with her comments, James Comey last minute reopening of the investigation and the fact the woman has been in the news since early 1990's but all of a sudden fake news about twenty million Amish voting is what caused her to lose according to you and your kind, and you call me dishonest in the CDZ?

No, fact is Russia fake news did nothing but the Wikileaks dump which was not fake did hurt her but the one person that cost her the Electoral College vote was James Comey!

Also what does this have to do with Trump Impeachment?

Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for anything. If you would have read it instead of taking Barr's word for it, you would have seen 10 well documented examples of Trump's lawlessness.

Wow, moving the goal posts and putting words into what I never wrote, and again you call me dishonest?

Nowhere did I write that Mueller report exonerated Trump for his Obstruction of Justice but it did state for a fact that Russia fake news had little if any in changing the outcome of the vote!

Fact is you want Wikileaks dump to be discredited and treated as Fake Russian News but in the end the Wikileaks Dump was not false and you should be ashamed of your own political party!

Now be so kind to show in my response where I exonerated Trump Obstruction of Justice or mentioned Barr and let bet you spin again!?!

I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention the Amish. You asked where the Mueller report agreed with me. Those 10 examples are some of the places we whole heatedly agree.
No. Mueller's report didn't say there was little if any effect. It said they didn't evaluate how much difference it made. Two totally different things. Just admit that facts mean nothing to you. You support Trump, and the fox talking points no matter what reality might tell you.

 

[Obiwan]

So BJ Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle the case just for the hell of it???

No, his insurance companies paid her because it was cheaper than litigating all the appeals. Most companies settle these kinds of cases without admitting guilt because it is cheaper than litigating.

The key thing to the settlement was the lying cow stopped insisting on an apology.

Then the same can apply to Trump settling any lawsuits...

Thank you for pointing that out...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It had enough merit at the time to force a sitting President to testify...….and perjure himself.

And then the judge realized the testimony had no merit, and disallowed it.

Please cite the "it's a personal affair, so perjury is legal" exception to the law.

Every divorce case, pretty much. Everyone lies about sex.

I would argue that Clinton didn't even lie. A lot of men don't consider oral gratification to be sex. They only consider genital to genital contact to be sex.

And then the judge realized the testimony had no merit, and disallowed it.

Where did the judge rule that Clinton's perjury had no merit?

Every divorce case, pretty much. Everyone lies about sex. ​

Where does the law say perjury in a divorce case and perjury about sex is legal? ​

​

A lot of men don't consider oral gratification to be sex.​

Do a lot of men consider asking Monica to return his gifts to be hiding evidence?
​

 

[JoeB131]

Then the same can apply to Trump settling any lawsuits...

Thank you for pointing that out...

Not really, since Trump paid Stormy Daniels before she even said anything. Oh, and the State of New York prohibited him from running a charity ever again after he robbed one blind.

Where did the judge rule that Clinton's perjury had no merit?

When she disallowed any testimony about other affairs... then proceeded to dismiss Jones' lawsuit on the basis that she suffered no retaliation in her job. Case had no merit.

Do a lot of men consider asking Monica to return his gifts to be hiding evidence?

Do they? Since his relationship with Lewinsky was irrelevant to Jones' bullshit case, it didn't matter.

 

[Obiwan]

Then the same can apply to Trump settling any lawsuits...

Thank you for pointing that out...

Not really, since Trump paid Stormy Daniels before she even said anything. Oh, and the State of New York prohibited him from running a charity ever again after he robbed one blind.

Where did the judge rule that Clinton's perjury had no merit?

When she disallowed any testimony about other affairs... then proceeded to dismiss Jones' lawsuit on the basis that she suffered no retaliation in her job. Case had no merit.

Do a lot of men consider asking Monica to return his gifts to be hiding evidence?

Do they? Since his relationship with Lewinsky was irrelevant to Jones' bullshit case, it didn't matter.

Actually, you're overlooking one important point...

Ultimately, Stormy Daniels ended up forking money over to Trump's attorney over her bullshit case, making her the first hooker in history to actually PAY!!!

But Trump wouldn't have initially given her anything unless she threatened him in some way, and it was cheaper to just pay the nut to go away...

 

[Dragonlady]

I am really concerned about the precedent this impeachment is setting.

It is along strict party lines. Very weak charges. No high crimes or misdemeanors.

To me it is not a legitimate impeachment but a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation.

Is this going to be the precedent every time one party is in control of the House and another Party holds the Presidency?

Democrats should be just as concerned as Republicans because it could happen to them next. For instance, the Republican Congress could have impeached Obama over him abusing his power by using the IRS to disenfranchise his political rivals.

Is this really the way we want to run this country?

If we were discussing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, your post would have validity. Clinton was not impeached for any abuses of office, but for telling a lie in a civil trial. Nothing he did impacted the safety or security of the country.

But calling Trump’s impeachment “weak” I’d utterly false. This is the strongest impeachment in history and for the most serious charges ever. There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable. What Trump did is worse than Nixon, and the case against Trump is stronger.

 

[Dragonlady]

I am really concerned about the precedent this impeachment is setting. It is along strict party lines. Very weak charges. No high crimes or misdemeanors. To me it is not a legitimate impeachment but a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation. Is this going to be the precedent every time one party is in control of the House and another Party holds the Presidency? Democrats should be just as concerned as Republicans because it could happen to them next. For instance, the Republican Congress could have impeached Obama over him abusing his power by using the IRS to disenfranchise his political rivals. Is this really the way we want to run this country?

I'm much more concerned about presidential abuse of power, but lying about a blowjob is apparently much more serious to some. Why isn't the whole Whitewater fiasco seen in the same light? I think the Republicans are being very two-faced about this and THAT'S not "the way we want to run this country".

All parties are two face when it suits their agenda. The difference between the Slick Willy impeachment and the Trump impeachment is that the Willy impeachment had support of members of both parties. Unlike this Trump impeachment, which is along strict party lines. Not only will no Republicans vote for it in the House but we are liable to get significant Democrat votes against it.

The Democrats themselves have said that an impeachment along party lines is not the right to go.

I would really rather have the discussion be over the legitimacy of an impeachment along party lines rather than partisan defense.

The American people agree that Trump did wrong in his dealings with the Ukraine. Even people who voted for him. Democrats want him removed from office. Republicans do not. For now.

I think the greater danger for Republicans is that they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they remove him from office the base will destroy them. If they don’t, the Dems will.

Republicans tied their future to a corrupt, rogue politician they promised the people to keep in line. Trump should never have been allowed to run as a Republican. There was more than adequate information as to his corruption, criminality, and his unsuitability for office. And he’s destroyed the GOP utterly.

 

[Obiwan]

I am really concerned about the precedent this impeachment is setting.

It is along strict party lines. Very weak charges. No high crimes or misdemeanors.

To me it is not a legitimate impeachment but a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation.

Is this going to be the precedent every time one party is in control of the House and another Party holds the Presidency?

Democrats should be just as concerned as Republicans because it could happen to them next. For instance, the Republican Congress could have impeached Obama over him abusing his power by using the IRS to disenfranchise his political rivals.

Is this really the way we want to run this country?

If we were discussing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, your post would have validity. Clinton was not impeached for any abuses of office, but for telling a lie in a civil trial. Nothing he did impacted the safety or security of the country.

But calling Trump’s impeachment “weak” I’d utterly false. This is the strongest impeachment in history and for the most serious charges ever. There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable. What Trump did is worse than Nixon, and the case against Trump is stronger.

Actually, the case against Trump is nothing except "somebody told me something", as in "Shiff told me to repeat the bullshit he made up"...

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, you're overlooking one important point...

Ultimately, Stormy Daniels ended up forking money over to Trump's attorney over her bullshit case, making her the first hooker in history to actually PAY!!!

But Trump wouldn't have initially given her anything unless she threatened him in some way, and it was cheaper to just pay the nut to go away...

Yeah, if you really need to believe that, have at it.

No one is impeaching Trump for fucking the porn star.... we are impeaching him for real crimes.

 

[Obiwan]

Actually, you're overlooking one important point...

Ultimately, Stormy Daniels ended up forking money over to Trump's attorney over her bullshit case, making her the first hooker in history to actually PAY!!!

But Trump wouldn't have initially given her anything unless she threatened him in some way, and it was cheaper to just pay the nut to go away...

Yeah, if you really need to believe that, have at it.

No one is impeaching Trump for fucking the porn star.... we are impeaching him for real crimes.

For not cooperating with Congress???

If that's the case, the Kenyan Faggot should have been impeached as a weekly ritual, since he claimed executive privilege to keep himself and his underlings from testifying (or had them plead the fifth and refuse to answer questions) every time Congress looked into HIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES...

 

[Dragonlady]

I am really concerned about the precedent this impeachment is setting.

It is along strict party lines. Very weak charges. No high crimes or misdemeanors.

To me it is not a legitimate impeachment but a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation.

Is this going to be the precedent every time one party is in control of the House and another Party holds the Presidency?

Democrats should be just as concerned as Republicans because it could happen to them next. For instance, the Republican Congress could have impeached Obama over him abusing his power by using the IRS to disenfranchise his political rivals.

Is this really the way we want to run this country?

If we were discussing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, your post would have validity. Clinton was not impeached for any abuses of office, but for telling a lie in a civil trial. Nothing he did impacted the safety or security of the country.

But calling Trump’s impeachment “weak” I’d utterly false. This is the strongest impeachment in history and for the most serious charges ever. There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable. What Trump did is worse than Nixon, and the case against Trump is stronger.

Actually, the case against Trump is nothing except "somebody told me something", as in "Shiff told me to repeat the bullshit he made up"...

Bullshit and lies.

Vindman and Biden’s side were on the call And both reported it. Volker provided documents and phone records. Sondland confirmed the quid quo pro.

There was already enough evidence to impeach the President. And to convict him in a criminal trial.

Then there’s the transcript and Trump’s confession that he did it, as well as Mulvaney’s confession.

Please stop repeating Trump’s lies and starting thinking for yourself here.

 

[JoeB131]

For not cooperating with Congress???

If that's the case, the Kenyan Faggot should have been impeached as a weekly ritual, since he claimed executive privilege to keep himself and his underlings from testifying (or had them plead the fifth and refuse to answer questions) every time Congress looked into HIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES...

Right. You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then the same can apply to Trump settling any lawsuits...

Thank you for pointing that out...

Not really, since Trump paid Stormy Daniels before she even said anything. Oh, and the State of New York prohibited him from running a charity ever again after he robbed one blind.

Where did the judge rule that Clinton's perjury had no merit?

When she disallowed any testimony about other affairs... then proceeded to dismiss Jones' lawsuit on the basis that she suffered no retaliation in her job. Case had no merit.

Do a lot of men consider asking Monica to return his gifts to be hiding evidence?

Do they? Since his relationship with Lewinsky was irrelevant to Jones' bullshit case, it didn't matter.

When she disallowed any testimony about other affairs...

Your claim here isn't proof of your earlier claims.

Since his relationship with Lewinsky was irrelevant to Jones' bullshit case, it didn't matter.

Obviously defendants get to destroy evidence and suborn (and commit) perjury if they feel it's irrelevant.
DURR!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am really concerned about the precedent this impeachment is setting.

It is along strict party lines. Very weak charges. No high crimes or misdemeanors.

To me it is not a legitimate impeachment but a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation.

Is this going to be the precedent every time one party is in control of the House and another Party holds the Presidency?

Democrats should be just as concerned as Republicans because it could happen to them next. For instance, the Republican Congress could have impeached Obama over him abusing his power by using the IRS to disenfranchise his political rivals.

Is this really the way we want to run this country?

If we were discussing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, your post would have validity. Clinton was not impeached for any abuses of office, but for telling a lie in a civil trial. Nothing he did impacted the safety or security of the country.

But calling Trump’s impeachment “weak” I’d utterly false. This is the strongest impeachment in history and for the most serious charges ever. There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable. What Trump did is worse than Nixon, and the case against Trump is stronger.

There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable.

Can you explain your "harm to national security" claim?

 

[task0778]

I am really concerned about the precedent this impeachment is setting.

It is along strict party lines. Very weak charges. No high crimes or misdemeanors.

To me it is not a legitimate impeachment but a Democrat Dirty Tricks Operation.

Is this going to be the precedent every time one party is in control of the House and another Party holds the Presidency?

Democrats should be just as concerned as Republicans because it could happen to them next. For instance, the Republican Congress could have impeached Obama over him abusing his power by using the IRS to disenfranchise his political rivals.

Is this really the way we want to run this country?

If we were discussing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, your post would have validity. Clinton was not impeached for any abuses of office, but for telling a lie in a civil trial. Nothing he did impacted the safety or security of the country.

But calling Trump’s impeachment “weak” I’d utterly false. This is the strongest impeachment in history and for the most serious charges ever. There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable. What Trump did is worse than Nixon, and the case against Trump is stronger.

There is a ton of evidence and the harm to national security and your elections is measurable.

Can you explain your "harm to national security" claim?

Then explain the ton of evidence. No one has yet shown any proof of "intent", there could have been other legit reasons for withholding the aid to Ukraine.